Wikipedia:CFDALL

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Shortcuts

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: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 06:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 442 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).

Opposed requests

  • Category:Tatar music to Category:Music of Tatarstan – C2D: Music of Tatarstan. NLeeuw (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    This one contains a lot of entries unrelated to Tatarstan. Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps we should split it in two?
    We don't need to move to full in order to do that; I could withdraw this nom and create the first one myself out of the second. NLeeuw (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

  • Category:Neo-Latin writers to Category:Writers in Neo-Latin – C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period. NLeeuw (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose This is not very natural language. It is inconsistent with the same level categories "Classical Latin-language writers‎", "Latin-language writers of late antiquity‎", "Medieval Latin-language writers‎", "Old Latin-language writers‎", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers‎".
    This is because "Neo-Latin" etc are actually styles, that are associated with a period. Jim Killock (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity to Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin – C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period. NLeeuw (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose Very clumsy sounding Jim Killock (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Category:Classical Latin-language writers to Category:Writers in Classical Latin – C2C: Parent Category:Writers in Latin by period. NLeeuw (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose Very clumsy sounding Jim Killock (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Category:Old Latin-language writers to Category:Writers in Old Latin – C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period. NLeeuw (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose Sounds clumsy. Same Jim Killock (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Category:Renaissance Latin-language writers to Category:Renaissance writers in Latin – C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period. NLeeuw (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose Sounds weird per others Jim Killock (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Category:Medieval Latin-language writers to Category:Medieval writers in Latin – C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose Same Jim Killock (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose Same. These sound weird. Jim Killock (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    @JimKillock The parent Category:Writers in Latin by period and grandparent Category:Writers in Latin and other related categories were all renamed by consensus last year: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 7#Category:Latin-language writers. These are just logical follow-ups to that result. The reason we went for this formula is explained at length in that nom. NLeeuw (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    But these are not "by period"; they are "by style". This especially true for Neo-Latin. The periods and styles often coincide, but not precisely. Better would be to follow the styles defined in the articles, so:
    • Old Latin writers
    • Classical Latin writers
    • Medieval Latin writers
    • Renaissance Latin writers
    • Neo-Latin Latin writers
    I've explained elsewhere that the periods and styles are not precise. For instance, a writer in the Renaissance may have employed Medieval Latin, or Renaissance Latin; and some may define their Renaissance Latin as Neo-Latin. These are stylistic boundaries which roughly match period, but it is the style, not the period, that determines their classifications. Jim Killock (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    @JimKillock I know. Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers were a thing; it's good that you created that category. But I don't see how it would create a problem if we renamed it Category:14th-century writers in Neo-Latin. If anything, it is even clearer that "14th-century" refers to "writers" and not to "Neo-Latin", so that we shouldn't assume that the kind of Latin they wrote was Medieval Latin. This is all the more reason in favour of renaming, so that our readers understand the difference between style and period. NLeeuw (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
    The issue is that the whole category structure is used to amalgamate and conflate these two ideas. I don't have an easy solution to it, that doesn't involve some work. It's reasonable to say that a C12th Medieval Latin writer used Medieval Latin, or a C20th writer uses Neo-Latin. Boundary centuries seem debateable. However, the structure makes an absolute assumption, that century and style are the same, except where I started to break it up. This has come up in two recent discussions, the other being when someone wanted to remove my boundary category. But it's clear that the intention was that Category:Classical Latin-language writers should contain Classical Latin writers, ie be a style category, not a time category. Likewise, Late Latin and Neo-Latin. There can be doubt about medieval Latin because of it seems to refer to a period rather than a style; however as it is a set of style categories we should assume it is about style, likewise for Renaissance Latin. The fact that the categories group information from centuries is a laziness, nothing more. In short it is a mess but it is only made worse by changing the names to appear to refer to time periods, some of which don't really exist (Classical Latin isn't a time, nor is Latin Latin, nor is Neo-Latin).
    Category:Writers in Classical Latin; Category:Writers in Neo-Latin - these all refer to a style; they are acceptable from that perspective, but they sounds strange / clumsy to my ear; the natural way to say is Category:Classical Latin writers, Category:Neo-Latin writers, or as close to that as WP allows.
    Taking one example to show why the suggested formulation can sound wrong. Category:Writers in Old Latin; Old Latin is recognised as a phase of Latin, rather than a "style" of Latin, so a bit different, but it functions the same. It is like Old English, not quite the same as Modern English. So, "writers in Old Latin" doesn't work because You [verb] in [language]; you don't [person] in [language]. It is either People writing in Old Latin or Old Latin writers. So Category:Old Latin writers sounds better, another option would be Category:Writers using Old Latin.
    Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin - refer to a time period and remove the style names. These would need to be Category:Writers in Renaissance Latin; Category:Writers in Medieval Latin. This is not great English, most natural would be Category:Medieval Latin writers, Category: Renaissance Latin writers
    So there seems to be some inconsistency of approach in the current suggestion, as well as a somewhat clumsy use of "in" that isn't needed.
    It has taken me some time to pinpoint the issue with "in"; but I think it is because language can be either a noun or an adjective. When it is a style, describing how someone writes, "Classical Latin" etc, is an adjective. If "Classical Latin" is an adjective, then "in" shouldn't be used. If "Classical Latin" is a noun, as with "Classical Latin" the topic then "in" is possible, eg "Grammar in Classical Latin", or "They write in Classical Latin". As an adjective, it works as "Classical Latin writers". --Jim Killock (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    I suppose this will have to be moved to full then... NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    Moved to full: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Category:Neo-Latin writers. NLeeuw (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

++

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

Current discussions

Shortcut

April 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Nazi Germany ministers

Nominator's rationale: Fix the rather ungrammatical title of this category and rename it to be consistent the main article, Hitler cabinet (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment (no oppose): I think that Category:Ministers of Nazi Germany sounds better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Provincial Women's Hockey League teams

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

Category:American people of Zimbabwean descent by occupation

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by occupation, when there is only one occupation in it Mason (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside Hungary

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

Category:Asian American billionaires

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

Category:Assassinated Iranian Kurdish dissidents

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

April 23

Category:Drum Corps Associates corps

Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Why? I Ask: wouldn't it make more sense to categorize by what they are and always have been, namely Category:All-age drum corps? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    They should be in both. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Category:Slavic-American history

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

Category:Archaeological organizations based in the Republic of Ireland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename as WP:C2E. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 20:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Wires got crossed while doing large-scale category organiz(s)ation; move needed to comply with naming conventions for this country's categories – TCMemoire 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tigers in Meitei culture

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

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

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

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

Category:Mohave tribe

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

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

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

Category:Dutch cookies

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

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

Category:Film controversies in Spain

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

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

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

Category:Food gods

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

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

  • Even if we keep Category:Food gods then most entries should still be moved from there to Category:Agricultural gods. An alternative is to merge and rename to Category:Agriculture and food gods. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Food and agricultural/ Harvest are two different characteristics. There is many agricultural/harvest deities, who are also related to Grain, thus food. There are other overlaps also. Many agricultural deities are also fertility deities as they make humans and the land fertile. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Category:USA for Africa songs

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

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

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

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

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

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

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

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

Category:Songs against capitalism

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

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

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

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

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

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

No opposition to deletion or, alternatively, renaming for the family patriarch and Angolan president José Eduardo dos Santos category:José Eduardo dos Santos. Do you have a preference Marcocapelle?--User:Namiba 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It would be clearest to have this as Category:Family of José Eduardo dos Santos. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-Nizil (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Burials in Quito

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

Category:Atari 8-bit family games

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

Category:Screwball pitchers

Nominator's rationale: In baseball, unlike knuckleball pitchers who are utterly unique and stand apart from all other pitchers, its actually hard to tell screwball pitchers apart from someone throwing a circle changeup so people who never threw one are in here. And while throwing a real screwball is uncommon, they aren't so rare as to warrant a category of their own - certainly not as rare as knuckleball pitchers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unlike knuckleball pitchers, throwing a screwball is not a defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:MIT Engineers seasons

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

Category:Feminist historians

Nominator's rationale: merge to clarify that this is about women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism? Mason (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I would be perfectly ok with creating a subCategory:Historians of feminism. Just renaming the nominated category to Category:Historians of feminism is currently not possible however because not all entries of this category would belong there. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep. NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Flemish sinologists

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

Category:Algerian Berber feminists

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

Category:Czech-Polish translators

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

Category:Russian meat dishes

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Upmerge Russian chicken dishes to Russian cuisine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

April 22

Category:Canadian women translators

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and gender. I don't see translation having a gendered component. This is a related follow-up to Mason (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:People with major depressive disorder

Nominator's rationale: Although "People with major depressive disorder" was deleted before disability was added to WP:EGRS, I'm nominating because the old discussion still applies. I don't think that this category is defining for any of the three people in the category. If not deleted, it should be merged to Category:People with mood disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:People_diagnosed_with_clinical_depression Mason (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bridges completed in 1179

Nominator's rationale: Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 6#Category:Bridges completed in 1192, but not tagged. Merge with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Congenital amputees

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability. Mason (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category. Mason (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake. Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
    However, I still don't think that "reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from Wikipedia:EGRS/D
    >"People with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions, should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category."
    Mason (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Child amputees

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between kind of disability and age. Mason (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
My response here is roughly the same as my response to congenital--
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that child amputee status (this is a person who has an amputation that occurs AFTER they are born but before they are an adult) is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.oandplibrary.org/alp/chap31-01.asp, https://www.waramps.ca/ways-we-help/child-amputees/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0030589820321490, https://www.independentliving.org/donet/51_international_child_amputee_network.doc
This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with child (as compared to adult amputation or congenital amputation) is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/12nfcrl/adults_who_had_their_amputations_as_very_young/, https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/15j1kp2/looking_for_support_child_lost_a_finger/).
There is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly child amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., coming up in the introduction) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that child meets the required threshold of defining.
Another criteria for defining category is that it is in the lead to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Defining). This is the case with many entries in this category, reflecting the fact that many members of this category are on Wikipedia because of their advocacy or involvement in activities related to their childhood amputation. Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaela_Lulea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_O%27Riordan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Mullins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisako_Nakamura
Etc.
I want to emphasize here the importance of not collapsing child and congenital into one category because of, again, the relevant community's differentiation in these two groups' experiences, as well as how medical research has coalesced on these differences (you will notice that child amputees are not included in the congenital amputee page, for instance). Note this follows Wikipedia's criteria of categorization in so far as categories should be as specific as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don%27ts Calculatedfire (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I understand that you have experiences with this community, however, we don't typically have categories that distinguish people by what stage of development they were disabled. I am extremely sympathetic, but the examples you give are people who are defined by the intersection of their activism while having a disability, not that they were amputees during their childhood. Please review other categories for children. Mason (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Manually merge, trivial intersection between type and starting age of disablement. People will need to get used to missing a limb irrespective of their age. Most articles are already in a Category:Amputees by nationality subcat so a plain merge will lead to a lot of duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

Nominator's rationale: split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    Well if you take a look at Category:People by political orientation, Category:Feminists and Category:Pacifists are listed as subcategories. Anyways it's still not necessary to split up these categories in any way, they're not even too large. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    • It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
      Well that's just what you think. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Split per nom. Mason (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Canadian criminal lawyers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers. Mason (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete there is no parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers.--User:Namiba 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Non-binary lesbians

Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay. Mason (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep the non-binary lesbians category name/title is very objective, right? It's in common use in the non-binary community. The Category:Non-binary gay people was named Category:Non-binary gay men (its naming was discussed at WT:GAY#Non-binary gay category). All biographies in these category were already in the Category:Lesbians and Category:People with non-binary gender identities, with help of WP:PetScan I populated these categories. --MikutoH talk! 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.)Mason (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger. Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Our sexual orientation categories covering same-sex attraction are fully diffused by gender (Category:Gay men, Category:Lesbians, and Category:Non-binary gay people). Getting rid of Category:Non-binary gay people would make it impossible for a nb person who does not identify as either a gay man or a lesbian be categorized as gay (in the broad, gender-neutral sense).--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral. Mason (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Latin writers

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.
More information Copy of speedy discussion ...
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
      So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.
      We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".
      The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
      Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. "late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.
      I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
      it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
      I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
      I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
      What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?
      I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
      Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
      Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
      Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Electronic rock musicians

Nominator's rationale: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete with no objection to recreation should there be content to populate it with. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:794 short stories

Nominator's rationale: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613, over 800 years later than this.
Accordingly, this doesn't need to exist for just one story, but it's never going to contain more, so Category:794 works is more than sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories (Chuanqi) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that one thing exists to file in it, and would require at least five things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Turkish Cypriot people

Nominator's rationale: This mixes up Cypriots who are (Cypriot-)Turkish by ethnicity (but do not necessarily live in Northern Cyprus or have an NC passport), and people who are born in or residing in the territory of limited-recognised Northern Cyprus. We might even have to split it in three ways, for people who have a Northern Cyprus "nationality" / passport. Whatever we decide, the current category (tree) is mixing up ethnicity, residence and nationality; we should unweave them somehow. NLeeuw (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Split, people living in Northern Cyprus aren't necessarily Turkish Cypriots and vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire

More information more categories nominated ...
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll note Category:1754 establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1748 establishments in the Mughal Empire are untagged, and I don't have time to tag them right now. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:First Nations drawing artists

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation? Mason (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Studies of right-wing politics

Nominator's rationale: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
    Here are some examples:
    Bluetik (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists. Bluetik (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Hmmm would it be appropriate to Rename this to Category:Researchers of right-wing politics? Because that makes more sense than "studies". NLeeuw (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  • If not deleted, it should certainly be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    totally fine with @NLeeuw’s suggestion of renaming to Category:Researchers of right-wing politics
    Should I follow the WP:C2E process?
    ~new here, I can check the process tmo if it’s something else Bluetik (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Bluetik: C2E doesn't apply once we have started a discussion on whether the category should exist.
Within Category:Political scientists by field of study there is already Category:Academics and writers on far-right extremism. Does the new category have a wider scope than that, i.e. not only about far-right? – Fayenatic London 15:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fayenatic london
so the category I created is broader in two senses:
it includes people who are neither academics nor writers, eg: Know Your Enemy is a podcast, and Ernie Lazar is an important researcher, but wasn’t known for his writing.
then also, yes, correct it’s additionally broader in that it would include right-wing and far-right (eg MMFA which spends time watching Fox News, Rick Perlstein writes a lot about the National Review).
I’d love to learn how to merge (guessing under WP:Overlap), but still new here, so happy to leave it to a more experienced editor, or wait for consensus from more repliers Bluetik (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, thank you for identifying that! Bluetik (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Scholars of Greek language

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Uncles/aunts in Category:Linguists by language of study are all named Linguists of Fooian.
More information Copy of speedy discussion ...
NLeeuw (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A? NLeeuw (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    "Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other. P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian". P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Update Sibling Category:Grammarians of Arabic has just been Renamed Category:Linguists of Arabic, and sibling Category:Grammarians of Persian has just been Merged into Category:Linguists of Persian. Worth taking into account. NLeeuw (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too, Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @Fayenatic london or @Marcocapelle could explain further? NLeeuw (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @P Aculeius and Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Humanities academics has subcategories Category:Linguists and Category:Literary scholars. I suppose we can make the same distinction here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush (Castilleja). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See request to reopen and relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  • support unnecessary disambiguation. - Altenmann >talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for Indian Paintbrush. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
      Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Intersex lesbians

Nominator's rationale: Since its siblings (Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex gay men) were nominated for discussion, I bring it here for consensus. Merge or keep? --MikutoH talk! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Third-person view

Nominator's rationale: I've created this one few minutes ago, but maybe the name should be analogous to Category:First-person video games? Consider the existence of Category:First-person shooters and Category:Third-person shooters, with only the first having a parent category outside shooter games (until my creation). Both have main articles. However, third-person view has a redirect to an article section, while first-person view goes to a disambig, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Chilean people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:People with non-binary gender identities

Nominator's rationale: To be more objective. The current title became unnecessary since every non-binary biography is diffused into subcategories. I can understand that not every person with a non-binary gender identity self-identifies as non-binary personally, and that the list uses this phrase in the title, but we name Category:Non-binary writers, not Category:Writers with non-binary gender identities. And the names would be too big. --MikutoH talk! 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as nominated. Raladic (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Funcrunch (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    Comment: Has anyone notified the relevant wikiprojects? Mason (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Egypt–Gaza border

Nominators rational: More specific and similar. See Category:Israel–Gaza Strip border and Category:Egypt–Gaza Strip border crossings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactinites (talk • contribs)

April 21

Category:Combined authority mayoralties

Nominator's rationale: The Category:Combined authorities was renamed Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities, to reflect the renaming of the article page to Combined authorities and combined county authorities. This proposal seeks to mirror this in relation to CA and CCA mayoralties. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Remote viewing

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

Category:Rajputana Agency

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category (and purge the main article which still can be kept in the header). Reparent the first one under Category:Princely states of Rajasthan. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Languages with Linglist code

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g. Abipón language has linglist=axb.doc, which apparently automatically links it to https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.doc. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field. NLeeuw (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label

Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a variation of WP:OC/U#not-based. Note that this nomination does not imply to object to any of the userboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't a OC/U#not-based; it's a category that doesn't slot into binary or otherwise pigeonholing labeling. Deleting this would also strongly suggest deleting any other u-boxes that don't equate to "gay" or "straight" (like bi, pansexual, etc.) So, what next? Are we going to erase non-binary and intergender editors as "not-based" for not agreeing to be labeled male or female? Don't people have more pressing things to attend to than trying to police other people's u-boxes, for no encyclopedically-constructive or editor-relations-and-understanding-building rationale? The actual reason we do not want truly not-based u-boxes or categories that are simply the opposites of affirmative ones is that they are seen as redundant: simply leaving the affirmative one off is taken to imply its opposite. While this is actually very poor reasoning, because it obviously fails to take into account that there is a difference between "I am the opposite of this category", "I didn't even know about this/these category/categories", and "I don't care enough about this/these category/categories to bother with them", even this faulty rationale does not apply here, because not identifying particularly as gay or straight isn't the opposite of being gay or straight, it's simply different adjacent category within the same spectrum/area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Again, this nomination is not about the userboxes but about the category. The category does not consist of users collaborating on a specific topic area, so the userboxes are sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
      Ah. That wasn't entirely clear to me. See below about Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I question the collaborative value of the entire Category:Wikipedians by sexuality/Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians tree, given WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by sexuality or gender identification, but I agree the "not-based" rationale doesn't apply and this is no different than its kindred so weak keep * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Maybe, then, the categories should merge there and the templates be adjusted to use it and its subcats?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • That would not necessarily be what users try communicating with their userbox. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pppery, this is another branch of LGBT+. I also agree with the others that LGBT+ is being treated as a special label when other demographics do not get such treatment. The established reason for this is that LGBT+ people have profound social connectivity that many other demographics, like straight people in general, lack. Some evidence of this is many other category talks including those listed at Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, an article for the demographic at LGBT and Wikipedia, and an organization for the demographic at meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Public evidence of this demographic getting Wikipedia related harassment is at Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia#No_sexual_assault_in_2023_Wikimania_toilet. Categories like this one are part of the process for finding ways to surface and report the private evidence and harassment stories against such editors. Bashing LGBT+ people is part of the politics in most countries, so this is a necessary category for peer-to-peer advocacy. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there a reason this category refers to sexual preference instead of sexual orientation? --Trystan (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    I can't think of a good one. It's probably just an artifact of the wording preferences of someone a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll note that the related discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Wikipedians by sexuality closed as merge. Participants may also be interested in that discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  • If not deleted, I agree that "preference" should be changed to "orientation" for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename to substitute "orientation" for "preference". This category does not relate to a binary or non-binary gender, but rather someone's sexual orientation. An editor may be confused about their sexual orientation and it is not for Wikipedia to decide their sexual orientation for them. The merge discussion cited above would also be of no purpose because the category really would be in relation to someone unable to make their mind up whether they are a certain sexual orientation or not. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Muppet performers

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

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

Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Purge and rename. E.g. Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). – Fayenatic London 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • At least purge, possibly rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Politicians of the Korean Empire

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

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

Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic

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

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

Native American artists by gender

Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.) Katya (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Native American artists, per WP:OCEGRS unless there is indication that male or female Native American artists are a notable topic in themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep and make non-diffusing. There seems to be solid academic interest in the intersection of gender and Native American artists, including exhibitions , academic books , and academic courses . I looked for women artists. Also if not kept, the category should also be merged to American male artists and American women artists. Mason (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, then I modify to: Merge Category:Native American male artists to Category:Native American artists, per WP:OCEGRS unless there is indication that male Native American artists are a notable topic in themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    So, it looks like there's been discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.) Katya (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Category:Crafts deities

Nominator's rationale: Just plain better English. PepperBeast (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I think what is meant here is wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
    I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities. PepperBeast (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories? NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft? NebY (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Pepperbeast Ah! But you do have sales managers, liberal arts professors, arms dealers... ;) But alright, I'll drop my Weak oppose. It's probably okay. NLeeuw (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh. NebY (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts". NebY (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
    And does choosing handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as woodworking / carpentry such as shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything. NebY (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
    • Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
    • Coyotlinahual a god of featherwork
    • Athena a goddess of handicraft
    • Brigid a goddess of smithing
    • Maliya a goddess associated with gardens and with artisanship, specifically with leatherworking and carpentry.
    • Mama Ocllo a goddess of weaving, sewing, and household duties.
    • Hedjhotep a god of fabrics and clothes and, to a lesser extent, of weaving and the deceased
    • Nunura a god of pottery
    • Ptah patron deity of craftsmen and architects
    • Vishvakarma deity of craftsmen, architects, crafters of chariots and weapons, city-builder.
    • Quetzalcoatl related to wind, Venus, Sun, merchants, arts, crafts, knowledge, and learning.
    • Uttu a goddess of weaving
    • Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
    • Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
    I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East). NebY (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term. NLeeuw (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from translations

Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the rcat template - {{R from alternative translation}} - and the parent category - Category:Redirects from alternative names. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rātana politicians

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century Latgalian ceramists

Nominator's rationale: Dual Upmerge. There's no need to diffuse 20th-century Latvian ceramists by region. There are only nine Latgalian ceramists in the entire tree. Mason (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rātanas

Nominator's rationale: This category is more about the Rātana faith overall than adherents to the faith. As such, it should be singular rather than plural. In any case, as a Māori word, the plural would simply be Rātana. Because of this, I was also tempted to add the category Category:New Zealand Rātanas for renaming to something like Category:New Zealand Rātana adherents, but given that all other religious adherents categories simply use an -s suffixed plural, I've left that as is. Grutness...wha? 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Te Haahi Ratana should be merged in Rātana, following talk page discussion, and thereafter we do not need this category any longer. Rātana is already referred to in the header of the remaining Category:New Zealand Rātanas. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    • @Marcocapelle: That would be true if they were the only articles in the category. That's no longer the case. There are several articles which were not in the category simply because of its confusing name. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I see, then a rename would improve it. Rātana movement would probably even be clearer (and the category name following that). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
        • That would make sense, too, although the main article is at Rātana. Mind you, if there's an article merge in the offing, then a name change at the same time might be possible too. Grutness...wha? 13:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to Rātana, or second choice Rātana movement, and keep Category:New Zealand Rātanas but rename to Category:Rātana adherents or Category:Rātana people per WP:SEPARATE. — HTGS (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Punjabi people by occupation

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

Category:Pro-Russian Traitors

Nominator's rationale: Violates NPOV by calling people listed in category "traitors." Peter Hitchens was listed by category creator as a member but I reverted it as a BLP violation. Thebirdlover (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:WAMPAS Baby Stars

Nominator's rationale: The article about this category states this was a promotional campaign, not an award. As such, it seems non-defining. User:Namiba 13:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"(Artworks/Art) depicting (subject)"

Paintings
More information More nominations, including for sculptures, prints, drawings, art in general, and stamps ...
Nominator's rationale: Categories for artworks by subject currently use a mixture of the style "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] of [a subject]" and "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] depicting [a subject]", and the style with "of" is the predominant one. Looking at categories for paintings and sculptures, which comprise the bulk of these, there are currently 187 instances of "Paintings of [a subject]" to the 84 of "Paintings depicting...", and 425 of "Sculptures of [a subject]" to the 14 of "Sculptures depicting...". For some other types of artwork we use the style with "of" almost exclusively: "Portraits of...", "Statues of..." and "Murals of...". The word "depicting" is an unfortunate choice for three-dimensional works because the etymology refers to the act of painting.

In the case of Category:Art depicting people and its subcategories which begin "Art depicting...", the categories using "depicting" are inconsistent with most of their sibling categories, which instead use "...in art". Similarly, the subcategories of Category:Topical postage stamps which use the word "depicting" are inconsistent with the majority, which use "...on stamps". Ham II (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Soft oppose This is an interesting question. I think some might think of "of" as meaning "by", but we've got the Category:Works by artist tree for that, so I suppose that is not a big problem. "depicting" is less ambiguous in my view, but for consistency's sake, I'm willing to go with the majority formula if there are no other considerations. The only strong objection I really have is that the vast majority of the nominees are about mythological, legendary or religious figures whose existence has not been proven (and often cannot be proven), and/or about whose identities considerable controversies have arisen. "Painting of Foo" suggests more directly that Foo was posing while the painter was painting their portrait (like "Photographs of Foo"; if you were there while Foo was there, you could have captured a similar image yourself), while "depicting" suggests more distance, more creative imagination about what Foo might (have) look(ed) like, while nobody alive in the artist's time has ever observed Foo. Obviously this doesn't apply to Queen Victoria or Elizabeth II, but because stamps often depict mythological or legendary figures as well, I understand that the category tree has been kept consistent with "depicting". I also understand the etymological argument that depicting comes from pingere "to paint", which wouldn't fit other types of art like sculpture, but the meaning of words can change. "picture" is nowadays usually synonymous with "photograph", which has nothing to do with painting either. So I understand the nom, but I can't fully support it for these considerations. NLeeuw (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    "Paintings of Foo" doesn't imply that they were done from life; that's only true of "Photographs of Foo", and you've drawn too close an analogy because of the linguistic similarity. It wouldn't be more accurate to call Leonardo's Last Supper a "painting depicting the Last Supper" than a "painting of the Last Supper"; the meaning of both phrases is identical.
    "Of" instead of "depicting" would also be preferable in order to avoid unnecessary wordiness further down the category tree: "Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli" is less of a mouthful than "Category:Paintings depicting the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli". Ham II (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Additionally, although I know usage has gone beyond this, & it may no make much sense etymologically, part of me dislikes using "depict" when no paint is involved. Can we also change "themes" for the correct "subjects" in Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes to Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes & the New Testament one. In art, "death" and "love" are themes, the Lamentation of Christ is a subject (which has themes as well). Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support one format across the tree, either "of" or "depicting". I do not really have a preference between them so I am happy to go with the current "of" majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral. In other instances—film, for example, I might have opposed this, because films frequently depict persons or things other than their subjects. But in the case of paintings, it seems less likely that we'd need to distinguish between the subject of the painting and something depicted in it. A painting that shows Mars or Helen or the Trojan Horse or the Apostle Paul in the background would probably still be reasonably described as a painting of that person or thing, even though the main subject might be something else. "The Last Supper" is still a painting of each of the Apostles, simply because they appear in it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the "depiction" language, though, and it makes sense to distinguish depictions from subjects in other media, so consistency is not a good argument, IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Western European culture

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:Western European music and other precedents. The child categories are just duplicates of Category:Culture of Europe by country or Category:Culture of Europe by dependent territory, based on home-made WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT definitions of "Western, Northern, Southern, Central", and "Eastern Europe". The few articles in the categories are either also Culture of Fooland articles that have already been diffused (see Category:Southern European culture; these can be purged right away), or are so broadly European that they cannot be limited to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. Some examples:
More information Some examples of articles to be selectively upmerged ...
There's enough room in Category:Culture of Europe for these articles that can hardly be limited by arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Apart from the subcategories the articles are quite a hodgepodge so plain deletion could also be a satisfactory outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oh I do think all the articles fit in Category:Culture of Europe. I just don't think we could limit them to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Letopis

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, selective duplicate of existing Category:Serbian chronicles and Category:Old East Slavic chronicles. Created last month by User:ArchVKL who has done only 2 edits ever. "Letopis" is just the transcription of the Russian word летопис which is commonly translated as "chronicle". Talk:Letopis (genre) was merged and redirected to Rus' chronicle last year. NLeeuw (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per nom, but shouldn't it be merged to Category:Chronicles? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    No, because both child cats are already in that tree, and all 5 pages are already in both child cats except the Cetinje chronicle, which is a manuscript containing several chronicles rather than a chronicle in itself. Merging would lead to duplication. NLeeuw (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Indian independence activists from Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: rename, Pakistan did not exist yet when they were independence activists. Purge Mufti Mehmood who was not from Sindh. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't you mean Sindh, with an h? Otherwise I agree. NLeeuw (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Nigerian-American Art

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. If not merged, it should be renamed to Nigerian-American art Mason (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

April 20

Category:9th-century Indian biographers

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. These two categories aren't helpful for navigation with only one person in each, and isolated from other Indian biographers centuries by a thousand years Mason (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Roman theatres

Nominator's rationale: Borderline C2C: Child categories are all Ancient Roman theaters in FOO, while parent is Ancient Roman buildings and structures by type Mason (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. There are probably more "Roman" categories still around. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:"Radium" springs

Nominator's rationale: Either WP:SHAREDNAME or if there's some more specific connection it's not explained by the articles. Needs a rename if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, these springs have minimal or no radium. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
    Correct! Radium springs were a non-scientific marketing hook during the early 20th century radium fad. Some springs do show measurable levels of radium (e.g. Stinky Springs) but the reason for the scare quotes here is to indicate that the "radium" claims were mostly bunkum but left a toponymic legacy long after the radium health craze was over, and/or just that as part of that radium-is-healthy! trend they were marketed as radium springs at some point in spring's history, such as was the case with White Point Hot Springs. This doesn't need to be a category bc who cares but just wanted to explain the rationale for creating the category in the first place. jengod (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Zionism by former country

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

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

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

Category:Indian independence activists from Punjab, India

Nominator's rationale: merge, Punjab, India, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are anachronistic, the activists were active when all three were still part of Punjab Province (British India). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:10th-century Chinese adoptees

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

Category:Kids' Lit Quiz winners

Nominator's rationale: Although interesting, this category for a student team competition isn't defining for the pages (which are schools) in here. Mason (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:History books about Eastern Europe

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Indirect follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Category:Eastern Europe in fiction and other precedents. There is no universally agreed definition of "Eastern Europe" (or "Western/Northern/Southern/Central/Southeastern etc. Europe"), and as such, it is usually better avoided in categorisation. There is no Category:History books about Southern Europe or Category:History books about Central Europe etc. either. The subcategories are not about "Eastern Europe" as such or specifically. The 6 articles in it are arguably about "Eastern Europe" (again depending on definition), but not just "Eastern Europe"; most of them include Poland, Hungary, Romana, Western Ukraine etc. which are sometimes also considered "Central Europe" or "Southeastern Europe". Even the last book, The Walls Came Tumbling Down: The Collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, which has "Eastern Europe" in the title, is using a Cold War era definition that almost nobody uses anymore. Meanwhile, the target Category:History books about Europe also includes books such as Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, so I think upmerging is the proper thing to do. NLeeuw (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. The Cold War is a nice example of definitions being far from stable. Back then we just had east and west, so that Yugoslavia belonged to east and Greece to west. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
    Hah, well, until you take the Tito-Stalin split and Finlandisation into account... NLeeuw (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Japanese Nintedo Games

Nominator's rationale: Nintendo is a Japanese company. There is no non-Japanese Nintendo games (except those from its western developer Retro Studios which created only a handful of titles). There is significant overlapping for both Category:Video games developed in Japan and Category:Nintendo games. OceanHok (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Support per nom. It's also not defining for the pages involved. Mason (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Caribbean people of Arab descent

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

Category:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits

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

Category:Sikh warriors

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

Category:Sex industry in South Korea

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer: 1 C, 0 P. Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Indonesian pornography

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge for now without prejudice. Because it's not eponymous, it can't be speedied like the rest. NLeeuw (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in fiction

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Albanian pornography

Nominator's rationale: Speedy upmerge per WP:C2F. NLeeuw (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Will Haven

Nominator's rationale: This eponymous category used to have a couple articles for its band members which have been redirected. With only an albums subcategory now, this parent is no longer necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

April 19

Category:Sikh military

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

Category:People's peers

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

Category:Biota of Tierra del Fuego

Nominator's rationale: Just delete for now without prejudice. It's a redundant layer and its only child is already in all the trees of this cat's parents. NLeeuw (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Southern Cone countries

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There is no universal definition of Southern Cone; Paraguay is sometimes included, sometimes excluded, and only some Federative units of Brazil are sometimes included, sometimes excluded, but never is Brazil as a whole included. Even if we take the strict definition of just Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, that's only three countries, and this category has no other navigational value. Its parent Category:Countries in South America by region only has this child, so that was a redundant layer anyway, and should be deleted as well. NLeeuw (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are only 12 countries in South America so that does not require diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Southern cone music

Nominator's rationale: Main article was deleted as WP:OR: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern cone music. The remainder may be upmerged to Category:Music of South America. NLeeuw (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Haitian people of Mulatto descent

Nominator's rationale: rename per article Mulatto Haitians. It probably is a case of WP:C2D speedy renaming, but maybe there are objections. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. No objections from me. NLeeuw (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated year categories. No need to merge, the articles are still in Category:1782 in India and Category:1792 in India, and already in Category:Treaties of the Maratha Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Jewish history by region

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century Andorran people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have a by occupation category when there's only one occupation Mason (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 18

Category:Chicago television shows

Nominator's rationale: Current name is way too close to Category:Television shows set in Chicago and much too vague given its actual, very specific meaning, and needs to be changed. This suggestion is based on Category:Local television programming in the United States, and it's probably the best I can come up with, though alternate suggestions are very welcome. Similar issue exists for all of Television in Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and the San Francisco Bay Area, so this nomination could be expanded. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Support. I think I created this, it's hard to tell after a few name changes. The intent was to list shows made by local channels. The existing categories and subcategory support this. Fuddle (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Flip-flop: I like this idea better. It's longer, but more precise. Fuddle (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to this, even if it's a bit of a mouthful. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Habitats Directive Species

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

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

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

Category:Shabbat observant businesses

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 21:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:Shabbat observant businesses to Category:Shabbat-observant businesses
Nominator's rationale: I think "Shabbat observant" is a compound adjective that should have a hyphen. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Marco Mason (talk) 13:41, 19 April 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:Religious extremism

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Religious fanaticism. This could perhaps be speedied, but let's see if there are objections after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Music of Extremadura

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Already in other parent. Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bulgarian encyclopedias

Nominator's rationale: It is not useful to lump together works from or about Bulgaria with works in the Bulgarian language that could be about different topics. Some entries might remain in the original category if they are about encyclopedias from Bulgaria. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment That an encyclopedia was published in Bulgaria does not mean that the topic is Bulgaria. Encyclopedias tend to cover a wide variety of topics. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • In practice it is very unlikely that an encyclopedia published in Bulgaria wouldn't be Bulgarian-language encyclopedia, so they would fall in the second split target. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    That's not what Dimadick said; he pointed out that country of publication and topic do not need to match, rather than that country of publication and language do not need to match.
    Incidentally, specialised English-language encyclopedias are published all over the world all the time. Within a few seconds I just found the Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (2005), published in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Last I checked, English still isn't the dominant native language over here, but that doesn't stop anyone from publishing encyclopaedias in English on "Dutch" soil. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Dutch encyclopedias

  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • (both options):
Nominator's rationale for Option 1: Per the actual scope of the main article, List of Dutch encyclopedias, which I have just renamed List of encyclopedias in Dutch, because the scope as indicated by the definition in the opening sentence is 'Encyclopedias in the Dutch language', and includes several encyclopedias published in Belgium rather than the Netherlands. The connected Commonscat was already named c:Category:Encyclopedias in Dutch. The interwiki to frwiki was already fr:Liste d'encyclopédies en néerlandais, a redirect to fr:Liste d'encyclopédies par langue#Néerlandais, and to nlwiki already to nl:Encyclopedie#Nederlandstalige encyclopedieën. This also means we should Purge parents Category:Encyclopedias by country and Category:European encyclopedias, because the Dutch language is not necessarily limited by geography to Europe either (e.g. there is an nl:Encyclopedie van Suriname, published in 1977 in Suriname, two years after it became indepedent). Because I recently renamed the main article myself, speedy criterion C2D does not count, but as you can see, it has always been the main article's and category's scope. NLeeuw (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Update 6 April 2024 and rationale for Option 2: Belarusian, Albanian, Bengali and Tamil language encyclopedias have been added to the nomination following their speedy renaming nomination by LaundryPizza03, and Marcocapelle's suggestion to go full, and my suggestion to centralise discussion over here. The rationale for Option 2 is that it conforms with most older naming conventions to name things Fooian-language things. By contrast, emerging new conventions (Option 1) favour Things in Fooian. We all agree the current categories should be renamed, but the question is which Option is preferable. For both options, it is proposed to Purge them out of the by country and by continent trees, because these encyclopedias are by language. NLeeuw (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, language is generally much more a defining characteristic of a book than the country where it is published. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. Country of publication could be defining, and it's okay that we've got a Category:Encyclopedias by country tree. But if we need to choose, I think language takes priority over country of publication. We could do both, but then we risk situations like Category:Latvian encyclopedias and Category:Latvian-language encyclopedias, which are technically distinct, but both contain the two same items in practice. Only for larger languages and countries like France versus the French language, it is evident to have separate category trees, especially if the latter has a subcategory like "Belgian encyclopedias in French" or something, showing that France and French don't always coincidence. NLeeuw (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle:, you might want to clarify or change your !vote based on the amended nomination and rationale. Thanks. NLeeuw (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I do not have a strong preference between option 1 and 2, both are an improvement versus current. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Support option 2. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Support option 2. Matches with Category:Mass media by language tree. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Estonian numismatists

Nominator's rationale: 1-member. Little potential to grow Estopedist1 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Upmerge for now per nom. I've added the rest of the single person categories. @Nederlandse Leeuw and Estopedist1:Mason (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
    If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Estopedist1 @Smasongarrison @Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
    • Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
    • Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
    • Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
    There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today Lajmmoore (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment As stated, Category:New Zealand numismatists is empty. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way. NLeeuw (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories Lajmmoore (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
    On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. - Yupik (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
  • Leave - Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian Lajmmoore (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Leave... what? Leave out? Leave in? NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Category:18th-century American slave owners

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by century of ownership? I don't think that the category is helpful. I think diffusion by state would be more helpful. Mason (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It looks like the categories have been depopulated. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    FWIW: @MarcocapelleWhen I nominated the categories, there were zero pages in them, just the slave-trader categories. Mason (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to Category:American slave owners. Redundant layers. NLeeuw (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Opose Whyever delete it? It is always usefull to sort people by century, and the category American slave owners is too big, and need sub categories. Nothing prevents having both a category by state and a category by century; other categories of people do. Slaves have century categories, and nothing prevents having century categories for slave owners as well. They are always helpful when a reader need to find people by century, and do not prevent the creation of other categories, such as state categories.--Aciram (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    As the category creator,Aciram, are you planning on populating them? Mason (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    If it's just 2 centuries, I strongly recommend against subdividing by centuries. There will be a lot of duplication without navigational advantage. Splitting by state seems doable and defining, however. NLeeuw (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm adding the newly-created parent categories, that are also not populated with pages, in a moment. @Aciram@Marcocapelle@Nederlandse Leeuw Mason (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think it's very helpful to start creating new empty categories with little navigational value in the middle of a CfD. That said, I'll emphasise that I favour upmerging for now without prejudice. If a newly created category can be properly filled with items and has demonstrable navigational value, there's nothing wrong with it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. It is not helpful to sort by century.--User:Namiba 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Diffusion by century is always useful in large categories. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    Not always. For example, we very intentionally don't have activists diffused by century or athletes by sport. Dimadick, are you planning on doing the diffusion? Because right now these categories are *very empty*. Mason (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete/upmerge: Diffusing by country/state makes a lot more sense and would save from the overlap issue that NLeeuw mentioned. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims

Nominator's rationale: This category feels WP:COATRACKy. There is no Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians, even though those are far more prevalent. Moreover, many of the incidents here were not even defined by the participation of Muslims so inclusion into the Islam and anti-Semitism article would not always be appropriate. User:Namiba 18:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I originally created that category, feeling that pogroms by Muslims were notable precisely because they were much less common than pogroms by (especially Russian or other Eastern European) Christians. --GCarty (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Understandable. But the effect might be that unnecessary emphasis is placed on Muslims as perpetrators in a way that is currently not done for Christians (or others) as perpetrators. NLeeuw (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps rename to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and North Africa, or something similar? --GCarty (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Splitting to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in North Africa could be an option indeed. (Note that we do not have a Category:Middle East and North Africa tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    "Middle East" is a very modern term, coined in the 20th century. "Middle East and North Africa" is even more recent. I don't think it's a good idea. If we are going to rescope by geography rather than perpetrator's religion (which is an improvement), let's stick to continents:
    • Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in Asia; and
    • Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in Africa.
    That would work for me. NLeeuw (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Middle East is the modern successor term of Near East which has existed for a long time. Jews have been very prevalent specifically in the Middle East (since ancient times) and in North Africa (since many centuries) so splitting to Middle East and North Africa fits very well with Jewish history. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Soft support for upmerging. The fact that there is no equivalent Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians tree is striking; either it will have to be created, or the Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims needs to be upmerged. Given that, as far as I can see, there are no article titles identifying the religion of the perpetrators, only identifying the location and or year of the pogrom(s), nom is probably correct. NLeeuw (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: for your consideration. NLeeuw (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm fine with upmerging, for the same reasons as NLeeuw gives Mason (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with consistency and do not oppose the nomination. Alternatively we may create and populate Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile GCarty proposed another alternative which (if slightly modified) I would not oppose either. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge. If not, delete. "By Muslims" is simply unacceptable in a category name. Even when the majority of the perpetrators were Muslims, the name implies that their religion was a key factor in the process (rather than politics, economics, etc.). Usually this is either false or unknown. Would we name a cat about things done by Israel with "by Jews"? Zerotalk 04:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned above, I now think the this category (which I created originally) should be replaced with Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and/or Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in North Africa. --GCarty (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
As the nominator, I suggest we merge with no objection to splitting off articles by continent for consistency's sake.--User:Namiba 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge per nom and per discussion above. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete per Zero (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim field personnel

Nominator's rationale: Merge categories per previous discussion here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Eureka Lott and @Natg 19 from the previous discussion on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:The Book of Boba Fett episodes

Nominator's rationale: All episodes were redirected so no content here. The child category will automatically be placed in the parent category if this is deleted. Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan

Nominator's rationale: Dual speedy upmerge for now. These categories were deleted due to only having one person it in (and is still the case), which wasn't helpful for navigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_11#More_emigrants Mason (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, as contains only one entry. GCarty (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of a large and established category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It is not a tree in which every possible combination has its own category. For example there are no less than 33 articles directly in Category:Swedish emigrants and only 30 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Tourism in Brazil by city

Nominator's rationale: These only contain subcats for tourist attractions, which are already categorised in Category:Tourist attractions in Brazil by city. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom (or delete, as I am not sure if tourist attractions really belong in economy). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

History of Ipê

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 article on a museum. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talian dialect

Nominator's rationale: These categories only contain one article, That article is about Talian dialect, which I don't think we would generally categorise as geography anyway. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Tourism in Rio Grande do Sul

Nominator's rationale: Merge for now, only one or two pages in these sub-categories, and mostly it's the same regional article. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

April 17

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how this category is defining. These just seem to be long-lasting historical events Mason (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, the average reader would associate the term "History of Austria-Hungary" with events that happened during Austria-Hungary. "Legacy of Austria-Hungary" would be things that are not just placed coterminously, but exist after it, and many of them to this day. As for being defining, they're all pretty clearly associated with Austria-Hungary in the article and in their sources, did you notice any particular ommissions to this? --Joy (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is a hogdepodge of articles that have very little in common with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle yes, the thing they have in common with each other is that they're legacy of Austria-Hungary. Similar to many other categorizations. Why do you think this could not be useful to the average English reader researching this historical topic? --Joy (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I am very sorry but I can't see why someone interested in the Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg would also be interested in the Landesbank für Bosnien und Herzegowina. It is too far a stretch to bring this together in one category. There is also no article Legacy of Austria-Hungary nor reliable sources about a Legacy of Austria-Hungary that would suggest the abovementioned topics belong together under this umbrella. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. What is and is not "legacy" is often arbitrary, and claims of legacy often fall in the realm of pseudohistory. Categories are not the best place to assess the validity of those claims. The Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg is a great example: you can always claim it is the "legacy" of something; not just Austria-Hungary, but the entire Holy Roman Empire, and by extension the Roman Empire, and by extension Ancient Greece, and so on. (Sounds very WP:ASSOCIATEDWITHy to me). Categories would be a mess if we went that way. Strictly speaking, it happened in 2011, is therefore not part the History, which ended in 1918, so it should be Purged. NLeeuw (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Arctic music

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Mostly irrelevant intersection of geography and music by country/ethnicity category trees. The overwhelming majority of the population in each of these countries lives outside the Arctic (that is, below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N. Iceland entirely lies below the Article Circle, except for the northernmost tip of the islet of Grímsey, which due to plate tectonics will also be completely south of the Circle within a few years. All inhabitants of Iceland live below it. Classifying all Category:Icelandic music as "Arctic music", because a stonethrow of diminishing beach is above an arbitrary circle, is ridiculous. Similar arguments can be made for all the rest of this category. No musician in Toronto is thinking: 'Oh, my music is sooo Arctic!' Anyway, you get the idea. NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment: For the last part, is it like an equivalent of the “Do you live in igloos?” question? I do know there are Arctic tribes that had their own music and the Inuit are a good example of this. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but Inuit people can and do live south of the Arctic Circle as well, and that doesn't seem to affect their music in any way. People are mobile, they can live and migrate all around the world. Even within Nunavut and Greenland, where most Inuit live (see Inuit#Demographics), the majority of them live below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N, see List of communities in Nunavut. Last I checked, there is no Category:Temperate zone music either. That line on the map has no significance for music whatsoever. NLeeuw (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Songs from animated series

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Category:Songs from television series, rename and purge. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Disney animation songs

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one redirect (Der Fuehrer's Face (song)). Upmerge for now; unhelpful for navigation. I have purposefully left out the other two parent categories as merge targets: Der Fuehrer's Face (a cartoon that I would highly recommend you watch!) is not really a series (and thus the song does not belong in Category:Songs from animated series) and the song itself has no animation. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. Unhelpful at this time. Not sure it will never be helpful in the future, as the majority of Disney films are animated, and how a song is visualised may not be WP:DEFINING, but who knows. NLeeuw (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Maharajas of Punjab, India

Nominator's rationale: rename and remove header: anachronistic category name, since Punjab, India did not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:French people in New Caledonia

Nominator's rationale: New Caledonia is part of France, so I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this category (which contains only two pages). It does not seem helpful to navigation and is listed as part of the French expatriates category tree which seems inaccurate. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The term "expatriate" does not apply when residing within the borders of the country of one's nationality. NLeeuw (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Inbred animals

Nominator's rationale: Description is erroneous and most dog breeds are arguably inbred, this is a very subjective/specific list that ultimately has more to do with the perception of whoever added the category. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sydney New Year's Eve

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be WP:NONDEFINING as it appears to just be a collection of locations in Sydney where fireworks are set off on New Year's Day. BaduFerreira (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Crackers (food)

Nominator's rationale: Should Category:Crackers (food) be disambiguated if nothing exists at Category:Crackers? Not sure, so I'm nominating this for discussion. BaduFerreira (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Democratic Labor Party (historical) members of the Parliament of Victoria

Nominator's rationale: There's multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be considered historical. Although the disambiguation-less version is available and not occupied by any other categories, it seems appropriate to still include the Australian 1955? As to differentiate it from other Democratic Labor Parties in some fashion. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Democratic Labor Party (historical) politicians

Nominator's rationale: The associated page with this category was recently moved, as there are multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be described as "historical". This category and associated titles should be moved to a more fitting name, but I'm not sure whether there's a more preferable / succinct way of renaming to focus on this being the Australian, 1955 Democratic Labor Party. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Older discussions

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

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:CFDALL, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.