Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:CFDALL)
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

edit

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

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

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

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

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 00:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 240 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

edit

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

Comment - Are you saying that you oppose the speedy renaming, or the renaming as a whole? Would love your clarification if you can, and if need be, I'd love to have a bigger discussion on the renaming of the categories. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Team Cali players to Category:Toros del Valle players – C2D. HanTsî (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HanTsî: Toros del Valle says that a new team was founded under the name Toros del Valle, and replaced Team Cali in the league. Does that mean all Team Cali players are retroactively Toros del Valle players? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

edit

On hold pending other discussion

edit
  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

edit

Current discussions

edit
Shortcut

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 26


November 25

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Category:Mammal attacks

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection. There is no obvious special thing about attacks by mammals compared to non-mammals. Alternatively rename to "Animal attacks by type of animal" and contain all such subcategories. As for the others, they are an unnecessary parent category without enough subcategories to merit such things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AEW aircraft

edit
Nominator's rationale: These are a subset of Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, mostly early (but not all), and there is siginifcant overlap. The WP:COMMONNAME for this type of aircraft is 'AWACS'. The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The basic claim here is untrue. AWACS aircraft are a subset of AEW aircraft, not the other way around. Only the latest generations (from the '60s onwards, maybe the Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star as the first) and the largest aircraft also had an AWACS capability. The earlier ones, and still the smaller ones, or the tactical theatre aircraft were limited to AEW only.
We could merge all to AEW. That would be valid and correct. However I would oppose the merge in either direction, as the two types are distinct, defining and more useful when kept separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NCAA Division I men's lacrosse tournament venues

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. User:Namiba 22:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've populated it to seven articles, and I'm pretty sure most of them meet WP:CATDEF. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2026 anime television series debuts

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:TOOSOON category for one television series on a future characteristic that has been predicted but not yet confirmed. As always, just because a television series is planned to premiere on a future date doesn't always mean that date is written in stone -- any number of things can happen to mess with the predicted premiere date, so that this could be finished faster than planned and thus actually premiere in 2025, slower than planned and thus not actually premiere until 2027 or 2028, or collapse entirely and thus never make it to air at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the late fall of 2025, when we have locked-in 2026 premieres to file in it, but it isn't already needed in 2024 for just one series that's still in the pipeline as of right now, especially when it's already in the appropriate Category:Upcoming anime television series as it is. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by paranormal abilities

edit
Nominator's rationale: The current title of this category suggests the abilities are real. Given that these abilities have never been scientifically proven, it should specify they are alleged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Bushranger's point?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The people claiming paranormal abilities have the burden to prove they possess them in a scientific lab setting. If they cannot, then I don't believe saying "purported" or "claimed" is POV. If there was even a smidgen of scientific confirmation, then perhaps it would be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diplomatic missions in Oman

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a list article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for now – since none of the listed missions have their own articles, this category is unnecessary. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Assamese-language films with Assamese connection

edit
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Japan in non-Japanese culture. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Currencies of the Commonwealth of Nations

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. The Commonwealth has no trade or economic policy role and its member states often have very little in common economically. Grouping together 95 currencies on the basis of current or former membership of the Commonwealth makes no sense. No equivalent category exists for other international organisations, including those with significant economic and trade roles. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roc (mythology)

edit
Nominator's rationale: This is a category that is, essentially, "performers by peformance" - it's "works that have featured a Roc" and "things named after the Roc", with a smattering of other roc-like mythological birds and one extinct bird that *might* have been the source of the Roc legend. Regardless, this is a pretty tenuously connected group of articles that is, I believe, WP:OC. The main article is already categorised in this category's parent cats. The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional males by franchise

edit
Nominator's rationale: Few to none of the things in here qualify as a franchise, making this category misleading. Made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not kept, merge? Dimadick seems to imply a rename? Still no consensus to change anything... thoughts and further comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Travelers

edit
Nominator's rationale: It is tough to understand how this could possibly be defining. Most everyone is a traveler at some point, so it's simply too vague to function as a category. Furthermore, many of the categories herein make no sense. Migrants and stowaways are not necessarily travelers by nature, but are taking a potentially one-time journey. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crypt of the NecroDancer

edit
Nominator's rationale: same kind of situation with the Coffee Talk category. Just one main game and the spin off based on The Legend of Zelda. This category also contains 3 non-free files related to both games, but they're just files and don't think that qualifies as enough to keep the category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viking Age slave trade

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename to something more general, it was a trade chain from eastern Europe to among others Al-Andalus, the Vikings had something to do with it, but did not dominate the whole chain. The issue is not that Vikings were around in this period, the issue is that most Slavs weren't Christianized yet and hence were accepted as subjects of slave trade. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There seem to be a misunderstanding here. This category is meant to be used for the slave trade which was managed by the vikings specifically, not just slave trade taking place in Europe during the middle ages. That would be too wide an issue: there is also for example the Prague slave trade, the Venetian slave trade, etc.
The vikings did not dominate the trade in slaves from Western Europe to al-Andalus. They did participate in it, certainly, but they did not dominate it.
They did, however, certainly dominate the trade in slaves from Europe to the Middle East via Eastern Europe/"Russia". The slave trade played a major part for viking economy, and the vikings played a major part as a supplyer for the trade in European slaves to the Abbasid Caliphate via Russia.
The category is meant to be used only for the slave trade of the vikings. It could be a subcategory of a future middle ages slave trade of course. --Aciram (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not just the element of supply, there is also a further chain and a demand side. Via Prague the slaves went to al-Andalus and via Bukhara there were various other sources of slave supply than Vikings too. Attributing everything to the Vikings skews the facts. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian-century Fooian male/women classical pianists

edit
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse at the 5-way intersection of nationality, gender, century, instrument, and genre, especially since there isn't a FOOian-century male classical pianists or FOOian-century women classical pianists parent. SMasonGarrison 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison and Marcocapelle: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I get FL's point about size, but I'd still suggest considering non-classical parent category, such as Category:20th-century French male pianists, which only has 25 people in it, so not much information is really lost in that direction. SMasonGarrison 23:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Dimadick's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evil child films

edit
Nominator's rationale: As per precedent set on multiple occasions, rename category to make it more clear that this category is intended only for films in which evil children are a primary aspect, not an incidental one. DonIago (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Donlago's comment? (Regarding "about" vs. "with".)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demon superheroes

edit
Nominator's rationale: The combination of demon and superhero does not appear to be defining, at least without evidence that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Zxcvbnm's latest comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 24

edit

Category:Single seat helicopters

edit
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize aircraft by their number of seats. Arguably non-defining; if you take out additional seats for various reasons (adding equipment, long-range fuel tanks, etc.) does the helicopter count as a single-seater? The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is some truth to that for sure, even if most aircraft do get rated for a certain number of passengers. For FAA Ultra-light helicopters they are only allowed to carry one passenger, so we just follow the sources we don't have to make a determination or expand this to other light aircraft that have more flexibility. A75 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Helicopters are categorized this way, the FAA standard for ultra-light helicopters have to be one seat. If you see this list List of ultralight helicopters. I did not choose describe them as FAA Ultralight helicopters, because single seat helicopters have existed before this FAA regulation though they are popular now. In addition, the recent development evtols such as the Jetson One are also categorized this way, and are still baiscally helicopters even if they take a different technical approach. A75 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here, don't take my word for it. If you see Ultralight aircraft (United States), you can see that having a single-seat is important part of this standard. Thank you A75 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For comparison, it is common for fighter aircraft, to be categorized as single seat or two seat fighter aircraft, just to round out this discussion. A75 (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helicopters and aircraft are categorized this way by the FAA, yes. Wikipedia's categorization scheme does not categorize aircraft by number of seats, nor should we, as it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the aircrat, especially to an outside observer. Also an "ultralight helicopter" may well be required to be a single-seat helicopter, but "single-seat helicopter" =/= "ultralight helicopter" as ultralight aircraft is a very specific classification by the FAA. Category:Ultralight helicopters would be a valid categorization alongside Category:Ultralight aircraft. Category:Single seat helicopters is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having one seat is definitely a defining trait, and many single seat helicopters are noted as such. This is similar to fighter aircraft, and of course passenger airliners often mention passenger capacity. I don't have an opinion on starting another category for ultra-light helicopters right now, though we can agree that not all single-seat helicopters may be ultra-lights. A75 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious organizations by year

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories, other year categories only start after 1500. Note with respect to the 2nd merge target that it is merely coincidental that all articles are about organizations in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I've removed Kleinlützel Priory and Salem Abbey from the category, since their bodies didn't support placing them in the year 1136 specifically. I then populated it from Category:Religious organizations established in the 1130s, for the sake of completeness, but it still only has six articles. I don't think that's enough of a reason to have an unusually deep category intersection, especially since it seems that many religious organizations established in this time are only known to a year range, not the specific year. I did a Special:PrefixIndex search, and the only other year categories before 1500 are Religious organizations established in 1200 and Religious organizations established in 1375 (with one and two members respectively). Also, since I added articles to the category, I should mention that it's still true that all articles are about organizations in Europe – i.e., the second merge target is still valid. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I've added Religious organizations established in 1200 and Religious organizations established in 1375 to this nomination. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

edit
Nominator's rationale: Was split into First presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Second presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva Lazesusdasiru (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels about adultery

edit
Nominator's rationale: This would mirror Category:Films about infidelity, and allows for the inclusion of novels on the theme that are about infidelity outside of marriage. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious organizations by decade

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated 1-article categories. The articles are already in an establishments by year category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates in the 1941 New Zealand general election

edit
Nominator's rationale: There was no New Zealand general election in 1941 due to World War II. After 1938, the next election was in 1943. It seems unnecessary to categorise candidates for an election that did not occur. 1857a (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cape Town City F.C. (NFL) players

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per Cape Town City F.C. (1960). C2D does not apply because it was moved without discussion. The new name has WP:CONSISTENT disambiguation with Cape Town City F.C. (2016), so I think it was a good move. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FK Rabotnički players

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per FK Rabotnichki. C2D does not apply because was recently moved without discussion (for what appears to be a valid reason). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional works

edit
Nominator's rationale: Like Category:Creative works, this needs specification that it involves in-universe creative works rather than just containing works of fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tesla, Inc. vehicles

edit

Category:Tesla, Inc. vehicles needs discussion. Is the ", Inc." necessary to disambiguate? All Tesla vehicles, it would seem from looking through Wikipedia articles, are vehicles from "Tesla, Inc.", yet those vehicle article names do not include the "Inc." bit in any of there names. Seems that Category:Tesla vehicles should be sufficient. I would propose that simplification. N2e (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag your nomination.SMasonGarrison 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Tesla, Inc. vehicles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UKS SMS Łódź players

edit
Nominator's rationale: UKS SMS Łódź is a multi-sport club with football, volleyball and other sections. Propose renaming from "players" to "footballers" to avoid ambiguity and potential confusion. - Darwinek (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on GiantSnowman's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coffee Talk

edit
Nominator's rationale: "Coffee Talk" series currently only has two games, that is not enough for a category under our standards. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category has long been used for both extinction-threatened species and extinct species. Separating out extinct species is impractical for reasons detailed on the cat page, and would result in a lot of duplication. Extinct species aren't really threatened in the present tense and "endangered species" is also a counterintuitive way to describe them. Alternate name suggestions welcome. HLHJ (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete all corresponding subcategories similarly created by HLHJ. This category grouping appears to force one or more clear reasons why a species is endangered when it is usually a combination of numerous factors. For example, climate change global warming endangers a huge amount of species simply by existing and causing changes to the biosphere, but according to this categorization scheme, it only endangers a small portion of them. The amount of misinformation being given to the reader makes this tree of categories untenable, even if it was intended in good faith. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If species were restricted to being in one subcategory, then this would be indeed be misleading. But if species can be placed in multiple subcategories this need not be the case, and if, as suggested below, data is taken from IUCN listings, incompleteness need not be a serious issue. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with subcategories, Zxcvbnm makes an excellent point. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I noticed only one main idea was stated, one by zxcvbnm. I have relisted this to see if there are any additional comments that propose/support this idea as I only saw one other supporter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deleting as incomplete. Most of our categories are incomplete. Donald Trump is in Category:Illeists, and Xenophon isn't. Xenophon made really extensive and notable use of illeism, and assuming the contrary, just because he's not in that category, is clearly wrong. The lack of categorization at "Xenophon" is not misinformation.
    The categories are not exclusive; multiple categories can be added, and anyone may cat any species endangered by climate change (according to reliable sources) but not categorized as such. Exhaustive categorization is impossible. New threats to a species can occur at any time, and minor threats may be unclear, and even major threats may be completely unknown to humans. The presence of a category says that we know X threatens this species; the absence does not say that we know X is no threat to this species. If you wanted that, you'd need a "Species endangered, but not by climate change" cat, or similar.
    Without wishing to trivialize climate change, it is unfortunately only one of the major causes of the biodiversity crisis. There are also many species which are under threat from other causes, such as Category:Species endangered by invasive species. Habitat loss to agriculture and expanding human population is also an issue, as are other forms of pollution. And some reasons really ought to be listed in an encyclopedia that makes knowledge widely available, because they are caused by ignorance, like Category:Species endangered by the pet trade. Which reasons are most important varies (for instance, climate change and trawling are major threats to corals, and agriculture is a major threat to grassland birds, reported to threaten about three times as many grassland bird species as climate change).[1][2]
    I don't know of any attempt to rate threats by the number of species they affect globally. It is quite possible that most endangered species are unknown to science (certain, if we include microorganisms). But it is very obvious that if we could wave a magic wand and make climate change never have happened, we'd still have a biodiversity crisis from all the other anthropocene messes. Researchers identifying threats to species often don't list climate change, and sometimes explicitly state that is doesn't seem to be a significant threat to an individual species. So many species will not be categorized as threatened by climate change if we accurately reflect the reliable sources.
    I think that systematically listing the threats facing species is a good idea, and so as I recall did the person at the IUCN I corresponded with when first creating these categories years ago (starting in 2015, though the overarching cat was apparently 2017). There are about 70 subcategories containing at least hundreds of pages. Such a list is necessarily incomplete, but incomplete information is still useful. HLHJ (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be in order for me (or anyone) to notify some relevant forums of this discussion, as for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants? I've made a bunch of assertions about conservation biology, and I think input from editors interested in this subject area would be valuable. HLHJ (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ: If WikiProject members are watching their Alerts pages, they will see this nomination anyway, but yes, please go ahead and add notification links to this CFD on project talk pages. Notifying projects is not WP:Canvassing. You could use {{Cfd notice}}. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging and adding subcats to nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Cheers for bringing this to the attention of WP:PLANTS - I work on a lot of threatened species articles, so this is definitely relevant to my interests. For clarification, why is Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened proposed for renaming while the subcategories are proposed for deletion? If the renaming is successful, what subcategories would populate Category:Species by reasons for endangerment? I support renaming in principle, but I'm a little confused with regard to the subcategories and want to make sure I fully understand what's being proposed before I vote. I will say that I completely disagree with the deletion rationale provided thus far: incompleteness is not a reason for deletion, and I see no reason that species facing multiple threats makes these categories untenable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you , Ethmostigmus, that does need clarification. I proposed a rename; ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ converted it into a proposal to delete the category and all of its subcategories, with Faynatic later adding a "Propose deleting" list of their names. It's a bit confusing, because it's over my sig, but I didn't actually nominate anything for deletion. HLHJ (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see... There has to be a better way of listing these proposals to make it clear that they are separate but I have no idea how. Thank you for the explanation :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is problematic. The proposal to delete all the categories seems to be from HLHJ when it is not. When a delete proposal comes from the author, I tend to start from a position favouring the request (and need good reasons not to support deletion), whereas when someone else proposes the deletion I start from the sceptical position (and need strong reasons for the deletion, far better than category incomplete). I think this discussion should be restricted to the name change and the deletion issue handled in a separate discussion.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was okay with the listing most of the subcategories proposed for deletion, because it made the scope more obvious at first glance: the proposed change would recursively affect many categories, not just one. It did not occur to me that it might be confusing, but then of course I'm not confused about what I had and hadn't proposed! Perhaps we could edit the "Proposed" listing to make it clear that there are two competing alternatives.
    If we delete the cats we will not bother to rename them, and if we decide to rename them we have implicitly resolved not to delete them. So I'm happy with having both discussions at once, or with having the deletion discussion first. HLHJ (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming, strongly oppose deletion of subcategories. Completely agree with the nominator that the current name is not fit for purpose and should be changed (happy with the nominator's suggestion, but will also throw out Category:Threatened species by reason they are threatened and Category:Species by IUCN Red List threats - I think avoiding the term "endanger(ed)" helps avoid confusion with the specific status of endangered). I find Zxcvbnm's deletion argument entirely unpersuasive: firstly, there is no reason we cannot apply multiple threat categories to an article, and secondly, per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE, why delete something incomplete instead of just expanding it? As someone who uses the IUCN Red List regularly, I see value in these categories, and Red List assessments have a set classification scheme for threats that makes articles quite easy to categorise along these lines. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that factors influence other factors; there is no clear and obvious single or even several culprits, though there may be main ones. It's too nebulous to attempt to categorize things by "reason for endangerment", all that can simply be said is that they *are* endangered and there are many ways to begin to protect them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not at all nebulous. The main global authority that lists threatened species is the IUCN Red List, and assessments for the Red List include lists of specific threat factors based on the IUCN's threat classification scheme. eg. the assessment for Frullania polysticta lists it as being threatened by: residential & commercial development
    (housing & urban areas/tourism & recreation areas), natural system modifications (increase in fire frequency/intensity), climate change & severe weather (habitat shifting & alteration/droughts/temperature extremes/storms & flooding). There is a preexisting system for categorising these threats developed by the preeminent global organisation dedicated to conservation and extinction research, and these categories follow that system while still leaving room for regional assessments (eg. NatureServe or EPBC). There is absolutely more to say than just that they *are* endangered - the whole point of these assessments is to identify specific threats for conservationists to counter. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I used "endangered" on grounds that it was a more distinct common term, and endangered species is less organization-specific than threatened species. I don't feel strongly about this.
    I have had some use cases that would make Category:Species by IUCN Red List threats problematic. For instance, Lygodactylus williamsi was probably critically endangered when the first (recent, it was described about a century ago) study of it in its habitat was published, due to the pet trade, and I think it did not get listed by the IUCN for some years (until they next did an update). So I wrote this in the category description, I think in 2017:

    Non−IUCN Red Listed species may also be categorized, when 'officially' on other international conservation organization &/or government agency lists. As such lists are often updated slowly, newly-discovered species and threats reliably reported in the academic literature may also be acceptable (these should be discussed and cited in the article).

    I've also had several people criticize the lack of clarity that the cats include extinct species; see Talk:Aurochs#Reasons-for-endangerment categories for the most extensive example. Proposals for renamings that would clarify this would be welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I tend to think of "threatened species" as the more general term encompassing all of the various conservation statuses below LC/G5 (and DD/NE) and associate "endangered species" with a specific threat level. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong!) that these categories still apply to LC/G5 species with identified threats (eg. Pavona clavus is listed as LC, but naturally as a coral it is still threatened by a whole host of factors), which makes me lean towards something like Category:Species by threats, but that feels very general. On the other hand, Category:Species by reasons for endangerment implies (at least to me) that the species is actively considered endangered, but maybe I'm an outlier in that respect :P Interested to get input from more people on this.
    Semi-related: I would also propose that flora (plant) and fauna (animal) be removed from the category description and replaced with simply "organisms", given that there are organisms outside of those categories are sometimes assessed. Apologies for getting us bogged down in the semantics! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree on the flora and fauna -- in fact, I think there are already some other species in there -- so I've boldly removed it from the cat description. Applying threat cats to LC/G5 species with identified threats makes sense; it's not what the cat page says, quite, but we could fix that. Category:Species by threats actually sounds good to me, short and simple; since it is a metacat not actually being used to tag pages, it will only be seen in the context of a list of its subcats. Obviously we don't want a name that would imply that a species is actively endangered if it is dead or recovered, and your perceptions are useful.
    The terminology is a bit of a mess. Various governments and NGOs have very specific definitions, often inconsistent with one another; common usage, for instance in popular media, uses many of the same terms completely different senses. Asking people with no specialist knowledge at all would probably get rather muddled definitions, and I'm not sure how consistent they'd be. I'm happy with any reasonable set of terms, because I don't think there's a stand-out best set. HLHJ (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "threatened species" is better for the category as endangered is just one of the IUCN threatened categories. The IUCN red list will be the main source of the nature of the threat, so using their terminology will lessen confusion. Possibly Category:Threatened species by nature of threat.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about IUCN terminology; it is the main source. Are there any copyright concerns here? HLHJ (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a neutral term "of conservation concern" in publications. Perhaps Category:Species of conservation concern by reason of concern or something similar. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that too. A bit long, but precise terms often are; a useful possibility. It would be nice to have the cat and subcat names form an obvious set. HLHJ (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Category:Species of conservation concern by reason? Dropping the last "of concern"? If the subcategories were renamed, they could be
I don't (yet) have a strong opinion on delete vs. keep vs. rename. If keep, though, I am in favor of a more precise terminology, and this is an alternative naming I thought of. I got here by way of the post on WT:PLANTS (thank you). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I should thank Faynatic for the instructions. Would Category:Species by reasons for conservation concern be shorter while still being clear? Will we confuse folk if we call, say, a wooly mammoth a species of conservation concern, or say it had reasons for conservation concern? Does "conservation concern by agriculture" make it clear to everyone that agriculture is the cause of the concern? HLHJ (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, but support renaming. I think that it would be more technically accurate to call the parent category "Threatened species by reason they are threatened", or the shorter "Threatened species by reason of threat" because the IUCN Redlist uses the threat terminology, whereas endangered is just one of the three threatened categories. In turn, the subcats could be renamed to "Species threatened by..." As to the subcategorization, that is absolutely something that RS can do. I have written about the reason that species are threatened and could easily categorize a species by reason of threat. Why wouldn't we categorize something that is extensively discussed by RS for many threatened species? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the same objection to these as to the current name (which, to be fair, I myself picked); extinct species are not naturally termed "Threatened species". Category:Species by threat makes it clearer that that it might be a former threat. HLHJ (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, on rereading that last comment sounds a bit short, which was unintentional. I'm not sure if this name would fit Ethmostigmus's proposed scope or not. On the one hand, species with threats are logically "threatened species"; on the other hand, the IUCN formal definition of "Threatened species" would not fit all of the species currently included; for instance "Near threatened" species, which the IUCN considered to have threats, and extinct species. Sorry, this nomenclature is a mess. HLHJ (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming unfortunately the many and varied terms used for this are often tied up in regional legislations and other protective measures along with the usages and definitions of NGO's. However the IUCN Categories in the RedList are at least fairly well known and acknowledged across the board. As an aside I do not see a copywrite issue using those. I would add though that this should all be defined somewhere and possibly include in this as much information as is reasonably obtainable and presentable as to the terminiolgy in different places and what each means. For example what does Schedule 12 mean under Australian law. Whatever you use as the ames should be both clearly understandable and clearly defined with as much information on similar terminologies as possible. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realize that this is the third time that this will be relisted, but I have very good reason per WP:RELIST. Unless I am missing something, no two people agree on a rename scheme. However, there is broad consensus that a) the categories should not be deleted and b) a rename of some sort needs to happen. I am going to ping all participants to decide on a naming scheme.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I can see why this is important I have no issue with relisting and getting it right. If I can suggest Threatened Species by Causal Agent or something similar. By this I mean Threatened, Endangered, Critically Endangered and Extinct categorised by the Primary identified cause of the situation. By Extinct I mean the IUCN definition of Extinct which is anything since the year 1600. Prior to that too long ago, but the more recent ones can have some bearing on other taxa in the region. If you prefer to start at Vulnerable replace it with that. This would also apply to CITES I and II species, and any similar category under various Government and NGO's around the world. I suggest explaining that in some category documentation somewhere. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm interested in why things went extinct before 1600s, too; for instance, the extinction of the Pleistocene Megafauna. I take your point that more recent extinctions might be more edifying, but I think we have things to learn from older extinctions. A lot of ancient species went extinct at least partly due to climate change; details of their fates, even if it happened tens of millions of years ago, are very relevant to our present and near future.
    Deciding whether these species are extinct is pretty easy (their ~dates of extinction are already listed), and there are reliable sources identifying reasons why some of them went extinct. We could have separate parallel cats for these, but it would add complexity and an arbitrary cut-off. HLHJ (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a paleontologist and I study extinction, so yes of course I see the value in the extinct species. However, I was aiming at a category or set of them that listed extinctions with the same causal agent as species that are endangered now. These species could have more informative causes relevant to the efforts to prevent further extinctions. Many of these issues will be anthropogenic causes tying them all together. I chose 1600 because of the IUCN definition. In general I think modern extinctions caused by humans extend back many thousands of years before that and I have published papers on that. So I do not mind if you include more, ie go further back. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current scope, defined on the top-level category page, is all species that are or have been threatened by some threat specified in reliable sources, IUCN, local government listings, or similar. This includes:
  • extinct species (even if they aren't "threatened" or "endangered" anymore)
  • species that have recovered, and now have robust pouplations
  • obsolete threats to still-threatened species (for example, if a species was formerly threatened by logging and invasive species, and the forest is now spreading and logging is no longer a problem, but the invasive species are still a threat, both threats would still be listed)
    • Ethmostigmus suggested slightly extending the scope, pointing out that reliable sources sometimes identify threats to species that still have robust populations and therefore have never been officially listed as threatened or endangered. I have, for instance, seen this done when a species is healthy, but an invasive species or disease is spreading towards its range and is likely to catastrophically affect it in the near future. I think if a reliable expert source, like the IUCN, makes the determination that it's worth identifying a threat to a species, that is reliable information, and we can cite and categorize accordingly. I therefore support Ethmostigmus's proposal.
In summary: the species does not need to be currently threatened, the threat just has to have threatened the species at some point.
This has understandably been repeatedly misunderstood by editors. Mostly, people remove the cats from extinct species in good faith. I proposed this rename from "Endangered species by reason they are threatened" because we can't naturally say that extinct species are "endangered" or that they "are threatened".
I suggest the following terms:
  • Category:Species by threat
    • Category:Species that are or were threatened by logging
    • and so on...
This sidesteps choosing whether to call the species "threatened species", "endangered species", "species of conservation concern", etc.. The reliable sources here have different definitions of these terms, and common use is very vague. Avoiding unclear terms is an advantage. "Are or were" is a bit clumsy, but makes it very clear that these cats can be applied to extinct species. HLHJ (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very clear and makes a whole lot of sense. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this (and not just because it follows my proposal!). I do think we can probably drop the "are or were" bit from the subcats and just go with "Species threatened by [insert threat]", given that "threatened" does not necessarily imply past, current, or future threats exclusively, with a short explanation in the category descriptions. That said, not at all opposed to keeping the "are or were" if everyone else supports it, just throwing my thoughts out there. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I   Agree. Can easily be applied- if we rename the category and delete the subpages, the category is pretty pointless as it is sorted by reason for endangerment. Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:B-class corvettes

edit
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories; B-class corvette was moved to Burak-class corvette in September 2013. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft catnav/category navigation

edit
Nominator's rationale: Expand name for clarity ("catnav" -> "category navigation"). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Monmouthshire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Monmouthshire

Category:Education in Monmouthshire Category containing a single article, better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human viruses by year of formal description

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge entire "Human viruses" branch into "Viruses". "Human viruses" cats contain 1-2 pages each and they are all duplicates of "Viruses".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 23

edit

Category:Dimitrie Cantemir

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 23:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Merthyr Tydfil

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Merthyr Tydfil

Category:Education in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Category containing only a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abdolhossein Zarrinkoob

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. This category only contains the writer himself, and two works which are already in the subcat Category:Works by Abdolhossein Zarrinkoob. 1857a (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sri Lankan people murdered abroad

edit
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCEGRS, WP:OCNARROW, and potentially WP: OCLOCATION. A Sri lankan ethnicity is not defining enough to warrant a seperate category, the two categories in this intersection (Sri Lankans and people murdered abroad) are unrelated and there are no reliable sources (about potential increased murder rates, protests, etc.) covering this intersection specifically, as opposed to just one singular event. Autranaut (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is is consistent with an entire category tree about people murdered abroad. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals and humans

edit
Nominator's rationale: Make the title less vague and more defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Predators

edit
Nominator's rationale: Rename due to potential confusion with other types of predators. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional predators

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not all of these animals in fiction are specifically "predators". Due to the nature of fiction, some may not be. Others may only have aggressive behavior and not be a "predator" by species. I can already see some that are miscategorized simply because they are hostile and hunt the protagonist. Furthermore, the name is confusing as it may potentially refer to humans who are predators. Overall, it is too vague and potentially misleading to work as a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this category mainly contains subcategories as if it concerns taxonomy. But being a predator is a matter of behaviour, not of taxonomy, and most fictional animals do not behave as predators as part of the storyline. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional carnivorans

edit
Nominator's rationale: No need for such specific scientific terms to describe fictional creatures. It is not commonly used language outside of real-life biology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional giraffes

edit
Nominator's rationale: There are three entries in this category. Two of them are redirects and one is a children's toy. None of them are articles about fictional giraffes. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological Greek epic poets

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Skipping parent Category:Fictional oral poets as a merge target because this has been nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional jugglers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category only has redirects. No longer needed at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional contortionists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Too small a category to be merited, with only a couple characters as members. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajasthan MLAs 2024-2028

edit
Nominator's rationale: It is the same term even though they started late. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional oral poets

edit
Nominator's rationale: Fairly tiny category that seems like unnecessary overcategorization. The subcategory shouldn't even be in this category anyway, leaving only one article that isn't a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional female robbers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Forgot to nominate this previously, but it should be merged for the same reasons as Category:Fictional robbers was previously. It is a total overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian organizations established in the 1st century

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, the content of this category is very POV-ish. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both claim to be the true church established in the 1st century, and other ancient churches will as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational organizations

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with mostly only one subcategory, occasionally two or three. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People acquitted of corruption

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, this has a high risk of WP:BLPCRIMINAL issues. This is related to this earlier discussion which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them), Reconrabbit, and RevelationDirect: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Associated states of New Zealand

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category with two topics, with a subcategory and a page for each. There are only the two topics in the real world too. Category:Associated states currently has 3 subcategories and 9 pages, so will hardly be swamped. The "of New Zealand" aspect is catered for as the two topics are already in Category:Realm of New Zealand. Nurg (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California pioneers

edit
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge, the real pioneers are already in Category:People of the Californias and Category:People of Alta California and it is an arbitrary choice to expand the pioneer period to the 1870s. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there are a lot of American pioneer categories. What about converting this into a container category to facilitate navigation? SMasonGarrison 23:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bandits

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category didn't exist until recently, it's rather duplicative with the merge target and can easily be construed as the exact same thing. Per WP:OVERLAPCAT, they should be merged back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Negro league baseball venues still standing

edit
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this category should be deleted and turned into a list or renamed but I don't think it should stay as is. User:Namiba 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has not been tagged for a week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plantations in the Danish West Indies

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:CATNAME
This is just a truth in advertising nomination since all 43 articles in this category are specifically sugar planations. The Danish version of the Triangular trade focused on this single crop. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the USVI category and notified the creator as of this timestamp to allow for the merge proposed above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has not been tagged for a full week; if there are no further comments we are ready to implement the alt proposal :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People sentenced to death

edit
Nominator's rationale: This would appear to fail WP:NONDEF, as being sentenced to death is potentially temporary and can be rescinded or rendered moot. It is not a "defining trait" like having been executed is. This deletion would also include all subcategories of "People sentenced to death" besides Category:Executed people, Category:Fictional executed characters and Category:Execution survivors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Containerize?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish Arctic explorers

edit
Nominator's rationale: C2C was opposed by @Armbrust: who didn't respond to the followup. Now only this category follows the convention FOOian arctic explorer. Siblings are Category:American explorers of the Arctic; Category:British explorers of the Arctic. And sibling Category:Irish explorers of Antarctica SMasonGarrison 02:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sourcebooks

edit
Nominator's rationale: Book publisher category containing only the publishing company itself and one affiliate. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 22

edit

Category:People associated with Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie

edit
Nominator's rationale: Vague and unnecessary. WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH concerns. For most entires, won't be WP:CATDEF meamemg (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with songs by the Sherman Brothers

edit
Nominator's rationale: It makes sense to categorize Category:Songs written by the Sherman Brothers, but is it necessary to categorize the films in which they wrote songs for in this manner. Should this expand to include Category:Films with songs by Kenny Loggins and the like? Film articles tend to already get overcategorized as it is by genre, location, awards, producer, director, etc.. If kept, I'd recommend changing to "Films with songs written by the Sherman Brothers". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pasek and Paul

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent for a single "works by" subcategory, which should be sufficient for navigational purposes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ascaridida

edit
Nominator's rationale: The World Register of Marine Species (the authority on all marine taxa) accepts this taxa as infraorder Ascaridomorpha, with Ascaridida as an unaccepted synonym. C2D opposed as the rename was recent and boldly made (by me, in the course of correcting old articles where taxonomy has been updated). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums with commentary tracks

edit
Nominator's rationale: I do not believe this is a defining quality. The commentary tracks aren't significant to the albums and are usually a part of a re-release, special edition, store or digital exclusive, only mentioned in the track listing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goodall Focus

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete', redundant category, the two articles already refer to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny

edit
Nominator's rationale: User:Dimadick has tried his best, but has failed miserably. I am nominating multiple categories named after Looney Tunes Characters (Except for ones like the Road Runner one, which I actually think can stay, but may need to purged too). For instance, the Bugs Bunny one contains a bunch of media and even non-media things; such as Tyson Looney Tunes Meals, which should honestly be moved to main Looney Tunes category instead. Bugs Bunny is already the most popular Looney Tunes character, almost all Looney Tunes media featured him. Furthermore, just because Bugs was named after compilation of movies such as The Essential Bugs Bunny or a concert called Bugs Bunny on Broadway does not instantly mean it is directed related to the character. Finally, if you still don't agree, prhaps we can still make separate categories with names like "Works featuring Bugs Bunny"? But maybe not anyway QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tried his best for what? Anyway, these characters all have sizeable sub-franchises, including numerous films centered around them, therefore they should be kept. Regardless of what's in the base category, the film subcategories make it clear that a category should exist and shouldn't just be ignored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did except you to oppose honestly, but I believe I worded several things incorrectly. By the way, Bugs Bunny and several are others in Looney Tunes are already major characters. I know they appear a lot of works, but we could at least purge these categories or create new categories (but that is honestly not necessarily recommended, but there is a separate article for Development of Bugs Bunny) with titles such as Works featuring Bugs Bunny? I think that would be more useful in my honest opinion. Also Tyson Looney Tunes Meals should at least be moved to the main Looney Tunes category, sure they like Tyson Foods products with Looney Tunes character on the label. This article is in the article Porky Pig, Daffy Duck, and Bug Bunny but I read the article and the package foods are practically based on almost every single LOONY TUNES character, NOT JUST THOSE THREE. Does that make sense to you? Haven't you heard enough already?*:QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I take that most of what I said back now that I think about it. But I believe it would be useful to only include the things primarily related to a single character in these categories still though, especially if there name is in the title like with the category for Porky Pig. This may especially be because the other categories for Looney Tunes video games featuring a specific character (Bugs bunny and daffy duck) have been nominated and purged a few months back.
      QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These characters have notable franchises of their own. Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. By all means move an article up to the Category:Looney Tunes parent if it relates equally to many different characters, but keep the character categories for articles that focus on just one or two characters. jnestorius(talk) 15:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Xinjiang

edit
Nominator's rationale: These are all artificial, and thus not true caves. This is a more accurate description. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should actually be renamed to Category:Buddhist grottoes in Xinjiang Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target? There are three possibilities floating around.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hope Flying Dutchmen

edit
Nominator's rationale: See all other categories in Category:College sports teams in the United States by team, even in cases where the men's and women's teams have different names, the Wikipedia convention is to group them into one category (gender-specific groupings can then be made at the sport level). --Habst (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, Category:Hope Flying Dutchmen athletes should be renamed to Category:Hope Flying Dutchmen and Flying Dutch athletes. --Habst (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of Coleg Cambria

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing no articles. Category:Alumni of Yale College, Wrexham has been made a sub-category despite the fact that Yale College Wrexham is now defunct and the two alumni in the category graduated from it when it was not part of Coleg Cambria. This extra layer of categorisation is inaccurate and makes absolutely no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after theorems

edit
Nominator's rationale: A "maintenance" category, but when asked, category creator could not indicate what maintenance might be needed for these specifically. Fram (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after numbers

edit
Nominator's rationale: A "maintenance" category, but when asked, category creator could not indicate what maintenance might be needed for these specifically. Fram (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scripps News affiliates

edit
Nominator's rationale: Scripps News ceased distribution to broadcast stations on November 15, 2024, and became streaming-only ([3]). The remaining articles need updating to indicate the subchannel that has replaced it. As such, this category should be empty. This also follows precedent that diginets that fold or cease broadcast distribution do not maintain affiliate categories, e.g. Circle (TV network), Twist (TV network). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IShowSpeed tours

edit
Nominator's rationale: High likelihood that all three IShowSpeed tour articles get deleted, so therefore this category should be removed also. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Telemundo-stub

edit
Nominator's rationale: Stub template of unclear utility. It's being used on ten Telemundo-affiliated television stations and one Telemundo television series, but it files its entries into the general Category:United States television station stubs instead of a dedicated "Telemundo stubs" category that couldn't exist without at least 50 more uses than this template has -- but since every one of those articles also has another stub template ("[State]-tv-station stub" and/or "US-drama-tv-prog-stub") on it, that means that every article is already in a more specific subcategory of the Category:United States television station stubs parent (or doesn't belong under that tree at all in the case of the series), and thus this template is adding absolutely nothing but unnecessary duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:627 BC establishments

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More useful and logical to upmerge to Category:620s BC establishments. jnestorius(talk) 11:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBTQ by continent and country

edit
Further nominations
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container. Also, analogous categories are not by country by continent. Web-julio (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League Most Valuable Player Award winners

edit
Nominator's rationale: Matching its parent article; WP:CONCISE ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League Offensive Player of the Year Award winners

edit
Nominator's rationale: Matching its parent article; WP:CONCISE ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League Defensive Player of the Year Award winners

edit
Nominator's rationale: Matching its parent article; WP:CONCISE ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League Defensive Rookie of the Year Award winners

edit
Nominator's rationale: Matching its parent article; WP:CONCISE ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League Offensive Rookie of the Year Award winners

edit
Nominator's rationale: Matching its parent article; WP:CONCISE ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. No other category with "indian paintbrush" currently exists and even if they did, "films" exists as a natural disambiguator. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Pembrokeshire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Pembrokeshire and Category:Education in Pembrokeshire.

Category containing only a single article, better categorised within the parents AusLondonder (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Denbighshire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Education in Denbighshire. Category containing only a single article, better categorised within the parents AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:8th-century BC establishments in Europe

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated category and both subcats are already in Category:8th-century BC establishments by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who locations

edit
Nominator's rationale: No subjects except for an audio series that takes place in the titular location. Every other location with an article has been redirected, making this category relatively moot. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestling shows in British Columbia

edit
Nominator's rationale: A request to speedily rename this category to match the contents of the category was opposed. There are no articles on this topic except for those which took place in Vancouver so this is an unnecessary layer of categorization. User:Namiba 15:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Milwaukee Brewers (AA) players

edit
Nominator's rationale: The description says this category is only for people who played on the 1886–92 version of the Milwaukee Brewers in the original version of the American Association (AA) in 1891, when that league was considered a major league. However, a later team called the Milwaukee Brewers played in a second incarnation of the "American Association" (AA) for fifty years. Thus, on its face, "Category:Milwaukee Brewers (AA) players" could refer to players from either team. As a result, more than three times as many members of the "Category:Milwaukee Brewers (AA) players" are miscategorized members of the 1902–52 minor league team than correctly categorized members of the 1891 major league team. In short, "(AA)" does not disambiguate this category from Category:Milwaukee Brewers (minor league) players. "(1891)" would Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century BC establishments by country

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer for this very early period, every of these categories contains very few subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century BC establishments in India

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated category with only two articles, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:15th-century BC establishments in the Maya civilization

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, semi-isolated single- or dual-article categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:15th-century BC establishments in Vietnam

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:719 BC

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Belgian people

edit
Nominator's rationale: The current name gives the impression that these are characters with an in-universe nationality or citizenship. Most of them have no defined nationality though and are (often deliberately) created as somewhat "universal" or vaguely Western European. A rename of the category may make this clearer (better suggestions for the new name are welcome!) Fram (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this should be discussed together with the sibling categories. Just renaming Belgium does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without comment on what the categories should be for, the current category tree does contain some articles (e.g. Doctor Evil, Hercule Poirot) where the character is specifically Belgian but the creator is not, some where both character and creator are Belgian (e.g. Tintin (character)), and some where the creator is Belgian but the character is not specifically, or if they are no mention is made of it in the relevant article (e.g. Gil Jourdan lives in Paris; if he is canonically Belgian our article does not mention it). There are also several articles included which are about the work of fiction rather than the character (La Patrouille des Castors, L'Élève Ducobu). Whatever happens to the category it could do with cleaning up. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tintin is never officially or canonically stated to be Belgian, although much points to it. But perhaps the category needs splitting instead of deleting then, any suggestions what the best name might be for the ones created by a Belgian? Fram (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big 12 Championship Game venues

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT/WP:OCVENUE User:Namiba 19:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Channel 4 presenters

edit
Nominator's rationale: It's just people who present or have once presented random Channel 4 programmes. We shouldn't be dividing by network, which amounts to nothing more than WP:PERFCAT. The national level is sufficient. --woodensuperman 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FM-Class articles

edit
Nominator's rationale: Quite simply, these are not articles, but are pages in the File namespaces. I suspect the category was named because it was easier to populate via template, but now we are using lua it will be easy to change this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private hospitals in Greece

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Savvyjack23, Perhaps you can find them to support your strongly oppose position. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haitian company founders

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose, under-population is not a valid reason for deletion. It should be tagged appropriately under [[Category:Underpopulated categories]]. Furthermore, just because there is only one entry, does not mean there are not other biographies elsewhere to include. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mehreen Jabbar's directions

edit
Nominator's rationale: category does not follow established naming conventions, and currently contains both films and TV shows by this director. 1857a (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vanuatuan people by occupation and century

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 00:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beat 'em up characters

edit
Nominator's rationale: contains only one subcategory, at the moment. Perhaps you could populate it somehow, or maybe not. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 21

edit

Category:People from Obama Domain

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one or two articles in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. The articles of the third category are already in the tree of Category:People from Fukui Prefecture so a merge is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People executed by the United States federal government by lethal injection

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category that duplicates Category:21st-century executions by the United States federal government. All 16 entries are in that category and vice versa. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People charged with corruption

edit
Nominator's rationale: containerize, follow-up on this earlier discussion, we shouldn't have articles directly in a "charged with" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of categories that begin with "Category:People charged with" — how would a decision to remove this category (specific to corruption) impact categories about murder and terrorism, especially when those charges touch on a subject's notability? JFHJr (㊟) 19:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them), Reconrabbit, and RevelationDirect: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientists from Plano, Texas

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category with two entries. Also upmerge entries to Scientists from Texas, Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Bristol

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is two enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer companies of Haiti

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only has 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Technology companies of Haiti.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling debut categories

edit
Nominator's rationale: I don't see a scheme for debuts for pro wrestlers or really any other profession, just things like Category:Debut albums and Category:Directorial debut films. The year of a wrestler's debut is not a defining characteristic to the individual. These are available as lists in 1987 in professional wrestling#Debuts and 1988 in professional wrestling#Debuts, respectively. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The year wrestlers debut is noteworthy. Pretty much all Japanese wrestlers have rivals based off of the year they debuted like Chono/Mutoh/Hashimoto. Sometimes teams are formed based on years people debuted. There's often rookie cups and titles. I would look at it more like Category:1990 films. Unlike other sports or even movies, there's no organized amateur pro wrestling scene. You are a pro wrestler when you have your first match. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the category then be more along the lines of "Professional wrestlers who debuted in 1987"? Anyway, the equivalent in other sports would be a player's rookie season, and no one is categorizing Michael Jordan by playing his first professional basketball game in 1984. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rookies in other sports have already played organized ball for many years at various levels by the time they make the major leagues. Michael Jordan's first pro game was in 1984. When a wrestler debuts, they are a wrestler from that day forward. It doesn't matter whether it's in WWE or something like Ice Ribbon, it's counted the same because there are no organized amateur leagues. How long you've been around and when you've debuted tells you a lot about variou wrestlers.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gravity Rush (franchise)

edit
Nominator's rationale: There are only 3 real pages that belong here, GR1, GR2 and Kat. I don't think this passes the bar for a franchise category, much as I wish it did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(category creator) For what it's worth, it also contains a navigation template and four files. I think PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale also fits in the category pretty solidly considering all its other franchise categories, and the two real-world people are relevant enough to categorize too, in my opinion. I'll say keep, but I'm fine if it's deleted (admittedly, all I know about Gravity Rush is from Scott the Woz). — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, All-Stars Battle Royale shouldn't be in any franchise categories. Per WP:CATDEF, it has to be defining for the game (i.e. being a literal part of that franchise, not having a cameo character from it). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeing consensus to at least purge, but no consensus on whether this should continue to exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haitian billionaires

edit
Nominator's rationale: I would have said merge to Category:Haitian people but that category shouldn't have entries. Unlikely to be more Haitian billionaires out there. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign residents of Mexican California

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary distinction, especially at provincial level, and for the larger part we do not know if people were naturalized or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quibbles with the proposed move: 1) Mexican California was not called Alta California from 1836 to 1847, but rather the Department of The Californias#Department_of_Mexico. 2) Therefore, "People of Alta California" would exclude people from the "Department" era. 3) I'm pretty sure that, for anyone notable enough to be in Wikipedia, we know whether they were naturalized or not. And willingness to pursue naturalization (or not) tells us a lot about those individuals. WCCasey (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on WCCasey's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swarthmore Garnet

edit
Nominator's rationale: All the college's sports teams should be under one category. It seems like the football team is referred to as the Garnet Tide while all other teams are referred to as just Garnet -- this also means that Category:Swarthmore Garnet Tide should be renamed to Category:Swarthmore Garnet after the merger, and the following should all be renamed/merged:

--Habst (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Conwy County Borough

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Conwy County Borough and Category:Education in Conwy County Borough

Category containing only a single article, better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux tram stops

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, duplicate categorization, these tram stops are already in Category:Bordeaux tramway stops. It is not meaningful to have categories of tram stops by neighbouring communes of Bordeaux, even more because most of these villages (in fact suburbs) do not even have a root category on their own. On top of that, many of these categories are very small.@Liz and Chris j wood: pinging contributors to this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist cave temples

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename follow-up on this previous discussion and aligning with parent category name. @Kingsmasher678 and Johnbod: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, but oppose this target. Something to clarify that these are manmade would be nice, because these features are almost exclusively rock-cut architecture not caves. In fact, I think I only saw one natural cave in the whole bunch when I was sorting them by state. That was the original idea I had when I named to cats, though it missed the mark!
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Best solution so far. You can't always tell whether a large excavation began as a natural cave or not. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to go through the cave categories right now and these are practically the only group of human structures called caves in the entire tree. It's also kind of irrelevant if it started natural, because it sure isn't now, and would therefore be rock-cut.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see you find it annoying that the standard term is caves, but it just is. The forms found in India typically fall into two main types, often both represented at large sites like the Ajanta Caves, viharas, the most numerous, which can't be called temples, and chaityas, which generally can. So "caves" is used as a group term. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not arguing for the current names, I’m arguing that they should be clarified to be rock cut or at least indicated that they aren’t natural, because in the caves tree, nearly everything is natural. It’s an important distinction. I mean, we literally have an article about the correct term. I’m not trying to call them temples, as I have been told that isn’t right. Sorry if there was some confusion.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, both of those article you linked called the structures temple, just so you know.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ministers of the Victoria state government

edit
Nominator's rationale: Most (if not all) of the capitalisations are inconstant with WP:JOBTITLE. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per norm Ultraodan (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female soldier and warrior characters in video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Pointlessly specific and poorly defined, many of the character included are just 'warriors' which can apply to almost every fictional character depending on the amount of original research. Proposing merging into the target, then going through and cleaning up. Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A key problem there is the Warrior concept is so broadly defined, in any fiction almost any character could be justified as a warrior. It's better to let stuff like the martial arts or weapon user categories handle those kind of definitions.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English High School of Boston alumni

edit
Nominator's rationale: The corresponding article for this category is titled The English High School. That article also says that it is "[c]ommonly referred to as Boston English." "English High School of Boston" should not be an option for the name of this category. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming to Category:The English High School alumni. Whatever the title of the article, it is likely that some users would be confused by that, thinking that it refers to high schools in England, or to some other school known as "The English High School", such as the one in Lynn, Massachusetts, or the one in Providence, Rhode Island, or the one in Nişantaşı, Turkey (now renamed). A far better idea is to rename the article on the school to make its identity clear, to something such as "The English High School, Boston". I don't like the idea of renaming it to "Boston English"; certainly that would not be desirable unless it can be shown that that is by a significant margin the commonest name used for the school, and even then I wouldn't support it, because to most people that would mean the variety of the English language spoken in Boston. JBW (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century Cypriot bishops

edit
Nominator's rationale: Isolated cateogy. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 02:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 20

edit

Category:Further education colleges in Carmarthenshire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Carmarthenshire

Category:Education in Carmarthenshire Category containing only a single article, better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juvenile prisons in England

edit
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Young Offender Institutions. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Shouldn't this be merged and redirected? SMasonGarrison 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trump administration personnel

edit
Nominator's rationale:I think we should differentiate between the first and second go-around for Trump. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What do the Cleveland administration categories look like?SMasonGarrison 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitnash

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and a biography, both are already appropriately categorised. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Crouch, Swale's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biography does not belong here, per WP:COPSEP, it is appropriately in Category:Clergy from Warwickshire. The football club (article and subcategory) is likely to move away from Whitnash soon, it is barely a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: perhaps we need more guidance on the number of pages a topic category or other categories should contain/could contain given SMALLCAT was deprecated. Whitnash parish had a population of 10,489 in 2021 but Stanhope had only 4,436 but Category:Stanhope, County Durham has 56 pages and a sub category. I'm not of the mind that we should keep all categories except those like Category:Churches in Kenton, Devon for example that would probably only even contain 1 page as most villages only have 1 or 2 churches but most villages/parishes like Kenton would probably be able to have a list of listed buildings and several would probably be clearly notable even if we assumed not every listed building was notable per WP:GEOFEAT and there would probably be one or 2 other things in the parish or something else associated with the village so add to a category. Consider Category:Grassington which until recently had only 2 articles other than the main article but now has a total of 10 articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to Crouch, Swale's latest comment? A subcategory and three articles as of relisting (one of which is a biography).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the American Antiquarian Society

edit
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Times that 1100 Wikipedians supported something

edit
Nominator's rationale: We don't really need such fine-grained divisions. The amount of times 1000 Wikipedians or more supported something is already very low, and subdividing to the nearest hundred will leave most categories empty, or with one item at most. Having them all in Category:Times that 1000 Wikipedians supported something makes for better navigation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree once we reach 1000 we should make it exponential if needed or by 500s •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^^*Yes. Agree with Liz. - Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ngawi

edit
Nominator's rationale: Recently created and seemingly duplicates the longstanding Category:People from Ngawi Regency, which was emptied out of process to populate it (I have reverted those actions). Ngawi is ambiguous, so this category should not be titled without a disambiguator. It seems that subcategorization is not merited, but I don't have strong feelings about a merge outcome if the community decides renaming would be best. ✗plicit 12:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
small problem I have a strong feeling that all Indonesian categories should be consistent across all Regencies or Provinces, whatever the topic - I havent looked or checked, but individual stand alone categories against the rest of Indonesian categories should be strongly discouraged. JarrahTree 12:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction fandom

edit
Nominator's rationale: After removing some subcategories, I realize this category is kinda unnecessary, most things related to fandoms are associated with the fans of creative work(s) of fiction. A merge is highly recommended for how small this category has become is and why I believe it is unnecessary. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film and video fandom

edit
Nominator's rationale: Why is it titled film AND video fandom? Shouldn't it be simply titled "Film fandom"? We already have "category:television fandom" which doesn't have a messy name like this one. I'm also removing several things unrelated to film from this category in accordance to the proposed rename. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical doctors from Rajahmundry

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical doctors from Jharkhand

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 19

edit

Category:Gardening books

edit
Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming to use 'about', per parent Category:Works about gardening. This variant is more clear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there's no opposition this should be fine but let's give it one more pass first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of the Rhine

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, from 1806 to 1813 Germany was called Confederation of the Rhine but it did not include Austria and Prussia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Large nomination; allowing extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to gather more participation and resolve concerns about precision being unnecessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming, although we do also have categories like Category:1806 in Italy including events in all of modern-day Italy, even though the "Kingdom of Italy" was a much smaller construct by then. For Germany, we already have a separate "in Prussia" category, so it does make sense to restrict it to the Confederation of the Rhine, but I don't see it being a general rule either. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Was opposed at speedy by @Altenmann: by the creator a similarly named user, in spite of the fact that there is no other category in Category:20th-century Russian people by occupation that uses the Russian Empire naming convention SMasonGarrison 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rico Adjutant Generals

edit
Nominator's rationale: Correct plural per Category:Adjutants general of the National Guard of the United States StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic football venues

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. Content is already better shared at List of Olympic venues in football. User:Namiba 15:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ministers for the Arts (Victoria)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Starting a new discussion addressing the broader issue of a number of subcategories within Category:Ministers of the Victoria (state) state government (non-admin closure) GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ministries are the same portfolio just a different name. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Postmasters general of Australia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalisation per Postmaster-General's Department article. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: consistent with the corresponding article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the category's page history there seems to be a lot of going back and forth with the capitalision. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Category:Postmasters general includes offices from many countries, some of which use a hyphen, and some don't. (Of course, that category was moved twice speedily, without any discussion.) StAnselm (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hyphen is important too. The rationale for moving the parent cat was "None of the 11 sub categories use a hyphen", but as far as I can tell that simply wasn't true - the hyphen for this category was removed three days later. Would you be OK with Category:Postmasters-general of Australia? StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birth control law and case law

edit
Nominator's rationale: I think we should split this becayuse typically case law is nested under law SMasonGarrison 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films acted by Puneeth Rajkumar

edit
Nominator's rationale: We don't create categories for actors unless they wrote, directed or produced. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

edit

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1255390992"