Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 6
February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Category:19th-century Vietnamese diplomats[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: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories doesn't have enough people in it to support diffusion by century. Mason (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:23, 7 February 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:Varuna Boat Club football seasons[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: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject only has one category. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only one article in the category, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the member page will still be categorised within college football sessions. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 8 February 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:Years in the Bahamas[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: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily thin tree for 18th/19th century Bahamas. Merge/delete per WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 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.

19th-century Cape Colony people[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: merge/rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename, and redirect all from C19 South African to (undated) Cape Colony. C19 South African people was just renamed to C19 Cape Colony people per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 24#Category:18th-century South African people. However, Cape Colony (1806–1910) is a close match to C19, so there is no need to have both. – Fayenatic London 18:41, 7 February 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:Works involved in plagiarism controversies[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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am not sure that "being involved in a plagiarism controversy" is a defining aspect of any work of media, making this category and its subcategories WP:NONDEF. Especially looking at the articles within the category, which are a complete mishmash of anything that anyone ever said copied something else. While the subcategories were not nominated here, this would also delete the subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: To make it defining it would need to be renamed "Plagiarized works", but that can involve a heavy degree of subjectivity and encourage people to add improper articles, so in my view it should be deleted outright. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is often an only minor characteristic in an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged the subcategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Many works involved in plagiarism controversies are also taken to court, like Nosferatu. And it is a defining characteristic of such works. But I disagree with Zxcvbnm's proposal to rename this to "Plagiarized works" as many works are often vindicated of plagiarism charges. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (Keep). I agree with Kailash29792. I suppose that "often minor characteristic" implies "sometimes major", for example. And also, indeed, renaming "plagiarized works" would be taking sides when things are sometimes (if not most of the time, or always) precisely controversial. If they weren't that would be sampling/quoting/remaking and not plagiarism. If the controversy is unsourced/absent, removing the category from the article, is, as often, the best solution in my view. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (Keep). This can be a very defining feature for an academic work. In academic circles, the question of whether something is plagiarism is often more defining than whether something is plagiarized. (If the work is purely plagiarized, then there's no added valued to the written piece. However, the questions regarding plagiarism can be highly contentious, and as current events have shown with Claudine Gay, the content of the work didn't really matter so much as the context/politics/controversy surrounding her scholarship. Mason (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Kailash29792 that is a defining trait of the works. Dimadick (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Kailash29792 Greyhound 84 (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:37, 7 February 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:1951 establishments in the Free Territory of Trieste[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: Merge/Delete Timrollpickering (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another tree unnecessarily diffused by year. Merge/delete per WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 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:Crave (TV network) original programming[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on an arbitrary and not useful distinction. Crave the TV channel and Crave the streamer are not two distinct entities -- they're just the TV and VOD aspects of the same entity, so the question of whether any given show is "original" to the channel or the streamer is splitting hairs at best, and an entirely moot point at worst.
For example, every show that's been moved to the new streamer category has also aired on the linear channel even if they did technically drop on the streamer first, and absolutely none of them were ever streamer-only exclusives -- and every single thing in the "network" category is technically original to both platforms, because the service drops all new episodes of the "network" programs on both the channel and the streamer simultaneously. So the only real distinction between a "network" series and a "streaming service" series here is the question of whether the episodes got added to the streamer all-at-once or one-a-week, which isn't really defining in its own right, and isn't always even fully verifiable at all since Crave doesn't brand its "streamer first" and its "network first" shows any differently from each other.
So the question of whether any given show was technically "linear first, streamer second" or vice versa isn't a useful or defining point of distinction here: just because the same programming service operates on two platforms doesn't mean a series is usefully defined by a streamer-vs.-linear distinction that isn't even applicable to most of them at all. We only need one category for the service as a whole here, not two distinct categories for its linear channel and its VOD streamer. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Crave (streaming service) and Crave (TV network) are not the same entity and the only thing similar about them is their name. Claiming that a show that aired on the streaming serivce (such as I Have Nothing (TV series)), aired on the network, is just false. We have Category:HBO original programming and Category:HBO Max original programming for a reason.
Calling correctly categorizing shows Overcategorization is laughble. Claiming that categorizing based on the actual channel, network or streaming service it aired is arbitrary and not useful distinction is absured. Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally checked this week's upcoming TV listings before even initiating this discussion, and literally saw an entry for I Have Nothing airing on the linear channel later this week, so try again. (And Shoresy next Sunday, too, so try again again if that was going to be your next go-to.)
Canada's Drag Race literally airs on the linear channel and drops on the streamer at the very same time, Pillow Talk literally airs on the linear channel and drops on the streamer at the very same time, Bria Mack literally airs on the linear channel and drops on the streamer at the very same time, Way Over Me literally aired on the linear channel and dropped on the streamer at the very same time, and on and so forth. They're not two distinct services that merely share the same name, they are linear and VOD aspects of the same thing — the difference between this and HBO-vs.-HBO Max is that HBO Max has aired things (e.g. Legendary) that were exclusive to that service and never aired on linear HBO at all, while Crave has not aired anything streamer-only without also running it on the linear channel.
I very much know what I'm talking about when it comes to Canadian media, and there is absolutely nothing about Canadian media that you know better than I do. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like Bearcat has the better arguments so far. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A one man local consensus does not change a project wide one. If they wish to change it, they should start a RFC and invite the TV project. This should not be done by a very low watched CfD. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, I left a notice at the WikiProject's talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's so weird to see two of this project's heavyweights at loggerheads. Gonnym is an expert on categorization and template management, while Bearcat's knowledge of Canadian media has long been best-in-class. The question here is simple. Aside from content that originated in the earlier years of TMN/MC, which I support merging with the Crave linear category, did Crave the streamer air anything that Crave linear did not? If the answer is no, as Bearcat asserts, these categories should be merged and I support this nomination. If this were HBO/HBO Max, the answer would be yes, and I would not support this nomination. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:43, 8 February 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:Crave original programming[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Crave is a disambiguation page, however even using the network page Crave (TV network) won't be correct here as the network isn't the parent of the streaming service, Bell Media is. Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or just upmerge to Category:Bell Media where Category:Vrak original programming is. Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, since this nomination exists only to try to short-circuit other discussions involving this category further down this same page. A rename can potentially be considered after those discussions close if it's still relevant, but the intent here is clearly to try to undermine the other discussions by wiping out their proposed merge target before the other discussions can be resolved. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you handle your other admin duties better than you do here as you completely ignore WP:AGF. I've been dealing with category renames, including fixing incorrectly named ones such as these for years. Now, please comment on the actual issue instead of ignoring it. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if renaming here is warranted, it has to wait until other, already existing discussions involving the same category conclude, because we can't have two parallel proposals operating at cross-purposes with each other at the same time. And even if renaming here is warranted, the new name you've proposed wouldn't be the correct one anyway — we categorize programming by the network or channel that airs said programming, not by the parent corporation that owns the network or channel. So no, this isn't me handling anything badly. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 7 February 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:Scholars of American education[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: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the scope of the two categories is largely overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Mason on the scope difference czar 16:05, 9 February 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:Fictional transport buildings and structures[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: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. I don't think I'd characterize space stations as "transport buildings" either, leaving precious few articles that would fit. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 7 February 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.

Cultural depictions of monarchs[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: Merge all Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the concept of queens regnant is that as a monarch they are equivalent to their male colleagues, it is rather odd that in this tree we are separating them after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on Russian emperors/empresses?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. I don't think diffusion by gender is a good idea. There are other ways we can diffuse. Mason (talk) 01:04, 8 February 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:British expatriates in Ireland[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For greater precision. Furthermore, I suggest reparenting it under category:Expatriates in the Republic of Ireland. Additionally, it is pertinent to note that one of the subcategories is category:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland, further underscoring the relevance of a distinctly defined name. Yorkporter (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Expatriate is an explicit reference to the notion of a separate country. Republic of Ireland should only be used when there is ambiguity between the country and the island, both called Ireland. It is not the case here, as nobody would call a Briton in Northern Ireland an expatriate. Note that the current name also allows the inclusion of expatriates in the Irish Free State (1922-1937), which was not a republic, but should probably not be used for people in present-day Ireland before independence. Place Clichy (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, I believe that the current categories for expatriates to and from Northern Ireland should probably be upmerged to their British equivalent. These are mostly populated by sportspeople, for which the detail of which part of the UK they played in is rather irrelevant to the notion of being an expatriate. Place Clichy (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and remove the many people from periods before Irish independence. We should not be categorizing people by movements within a single state, nor calling them "expatriates". The proposed name would do, but imo should include the Irish Free State (1922-1937) also. A note can explain this. Northern Irish sportspeople are all entitled to play for Irish (ROI) national teams, and it should not be assumed that this requires any relocation - often it won't. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked a number of articles and haven't encountered any about people from periods before Irish independence that should be purged. If there are some who do not belong here, they can be purged at editorial discretion. We do not need CfD for that per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 8 February 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:Communism-based civil wars[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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF WP:TRIVIAL. Communism is but one factor in all of the civil wars. They could just as easily be categorized by one side's adherence to liberalism, fascism, or other ideologies. User:Namiba 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the category is well-populated, and I don't see why communism would be "trivial" here, when so many 20th-century civil wars had at least one faction that was openly communist and attempting a socialist revolution. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say they are "Communism-based" is to pick one facet and categorize a conflict by it. That's why it is trivial. It takes at least two sides to fight a war.--User:Namiba
Yes, but alot of civil wars had the communist/anti-communist conflict as a central component of the war- Russia and China for instance. I agree that in the case of, say, Spain there were other factors, like Fascism and clericalism, but the communist/anti-communist rivalry was still an important facet of the war. Maybe "based" isn't the best term.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 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:The Movie Network original programming[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: no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New recreations of three categories previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#Category:Movie Central original programming. We have a longstanding consensus that just because a television channel changes its name doesn't mean we automatically require separate original programming categories for the old-name and new-name iterations of the same service -- we don't have or need two separate categories for pre-rebranding "MuchMusic" programming and post-rebranding "Much" programming; we don't have or need two separate categories for pre-rebranding "The Comedy Network" programming and post-rebranding "CTV Comedy Channel" programming; the US doesn't have or need two separate categories for pre-rebranding "Telefutura" programming and post-rebranding "UniMás" programming; and on and so forth. If the same service continues as an entity and merely changes its name, then we keep all of its past and present programming together in one category at its current name.
I won't repeat all of the other background on why a TMN/Movie Central distinction and a TMN/HBO distinction were always fundamentally meaningless and hair-splitting trivia, but you can read the prior discussion if you need it -- but since all of this is just old brandings of a service that still exists as Crave, only one category is necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Actually we have a long standing consensus that we never change a television (or film) category's name just because the channel switched names or merged. What you are proposing is called anachronistic and is just not how television (and film) categories are handled. The previous discussion by two (2) editors that closed in support of a category name that isn't even correct (Crave is a disambiguation page) is a very poor close that ignored many previous discussions. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, support in delete Category:Crave original programming as that again, isn't a correct category. Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who's correct here about what the consensus is, and zero previous discussions got ignored at all. We quite simply do not retain separate categories for pre-name-change and post-name-change iterations of the same programming service. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can claim whatever you want, it won't make it correct. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that I'm correct is what makes me correct. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Gonnym (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow what? Simple perusal of Category:Original programming by American television network or channel and Category:Original programming by Canadian television network or channel demonstrates that I'm correct — in every single case I know of where a channel changed its name but continued operations with roughly or exactly the same programming focus, there's just one category for that channel rather than separate categories for its old and new names. There are a couple which are still at the channel's old name and haven't been moved, while most have been moved to the channel's current name, but I can't find a single solitary case where old and new names of the same channel both have their own distinct programming categories. There's either only an old-name category or only a new-name category, and not a single example I can find of an old-name category and a new-name category both existing alongside each other. You're perfectly free to believe we should do it differently than we currently do — but I was correct about what we actually currently do, as it can be easily observed that channels that have changed their names don't have separate parallel categories for their old and new names. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this nomination makes even less sense for Movie Central and HBO (Canadian TV channel) as those were never renamed to "Crave" but are (HBO still exists) separate channels. We don't merge channels of the same parent together. See Category:FX Networks original programming‎ and Category:FXX original programming; Category:Disney Channel original programming‎ and Category:Disney Junior original programming‎ and many others. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Movie Central was subsumed into TMN, and even before that happened all of their programming was always original to both services simultaneously, since they always invested in programming jointly and never aired even one program that was ever "original" to only one of them and not the other. So two separate "TMN" and "MC" categories were never necessary in the first place — the most we ever needed was a joint TMN/MC category since every show was always original to both of them at the same time, and then MC just got merged into TMN, and then after that TMN became Crave.
HBO Canada is not a standalone channel; it's just the on-air name of one channel within the TMN/MC/Crave multiplex. No programming was ever branded as "HBO original" — even if the "HBO" channel was the one that the program was airing on, the show itself was always still branded and marketed as a TMN/MC and/or Crave original, and "HBO original" was simply never a thing at all. Saying that it needs its own separate category on that basis is like saying that Super Channel needs separate categories for whether the show first dropped on Fuse, House & Home, Vault or Ginx — it's all one package, and the fact that each channel within the package has a distinct name doesn't change that. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually gone over each and every page in those categories so I can say that one of the following isn't correct. Either the articles don't support what you are saying as some of them listed only HBO, TMN or MC as the original network, or that your information isn't correct and maybe some or even most of the shows aired on more than one channel, but not all.
No programming was ever branded as "HBO original" - we don't care about branding. MOS:TVCATS (TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network. (and for that matter Template:Infobox television: he original network(s) on which the show first appeared) have only always cared about the original network it aired on.
even if the "HBO" channel was the one that the program was airing on, the show itself was always still branded and marketed as a TMN/MC and/or Crave original - again, we don't care about branding but this sentence is just even more reason to correctly categorize the show. If we go by the branding here, we're basically adding false information into the articles (and completely fail at WP:CATV). Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Movie Central got merged into The Movie Network. So you're not actually assessing what you're seeing correctly: everything that was produced before the services merged into one is a dual TMN/MC production, nothing is "MC-only", and only shows that premiered after the services merged are TMN-only. So the fact that the articles say what they say doesn't mean I'm wrong — you simply failed to take the date of the merger, and its temporal relationship to the premiere dates of the series, into account.
HBO Canada isn't its own standalone "network" at all. An "HBO Canada" show was always produced for TMN/MC/Crave, and the fact that some of the programs were run on TMN/MC/Crave's HBO-branded channel is about as defining as a Crave 1 vs. Crave 2 vs. Crave 3 distinction. TMN/MC/Crave was and is the network, HBO Canada was just the name of one of that network's channels. And even some of the "HBO" stuff is also catted as TMN and/or MC alongside the HBO category — HBO Canada simply isn't its own standalone thing at all, and is just a piece of TMN/MC/Crave. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order, support, support, oppose. The merger and architecture of these premium TV services, even before considering the streaming-era issues (a separate CfD), makes it quite difficult. There might be a point in keeping these categories if there were a major change in the focus, thematic genre, or availability of the channel accompanying a name change. For instance, we have Category:Paramount Network original programming and its subcategory Category:Spike (TV network) original programming and its subcategory Category:The Nashville Network original programming. Each of these three services, while occupying the same channel slot, over the years had visibly different programming target audiences.
    In the case of the categories in the instant discussion, this is not the case. TMN and MC shared all of their original programs and therefore would have correctly had a joint category (an unusual case but one justified by the way they operated), which would correctly be at the same place as post-rename Crave linear original programming. The HBO (Canadian TV channel) category is an odd one, since it is indeed so tightly related to these, but I believe our readers are better served by retaining it as a separate subcategory of whatever Crave category is put into place. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:36, 8 February 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.

People from Dorchester, Boston[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#People from Dorchester, Boston

Category:Expulsions of Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe[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: Move the two articles to Category:Expulsions of Jews and then delete * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misleading category, Slovakia in 1938 was not "Nazi controlled" and it's even doubtful that Hungary in 1944 could be described this way. The latter was technically occupied by Germany but the deportations were carried out largely by Hungary (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: OK I will move this to "Nazi and Axis countries". The point is to group the expulsions that fall under that umbrella, rather than mixing them in with dozens of others from very different historical periods. Keizers (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, I have added the new category to the nomination after User:Keizers emptied the original category out of process. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprisingly there are only two articles about expulsions in this category, namely 1938 deportation of Jews from Slovakia and 1938 expulsion of Polish Jews from Germany. If there aren't really any other articles about expulsion (yet) then merge per nom, by lack of sufficient content. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support deletion since very few of the articles are about expulsion specifically. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first category in this nomination has been emptied and the second category has not been tagged as being part of this discussion yet. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's been tagged, thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friends, please consider keeping Category:Expulsions of Jews in Nazi and Axis Europe - there are four articles (correction: now 11 in this category) that deal with this, and I have also created categories for the Medieval European expulsions. This is useful for people who wish to know more about expulsions in the different historic and geographic timeframes. Please don't just kill the Nazi and Axis category because I originally made the mistake of calling it "Nazi-controlled". I did always mean Germany and the allied fascist countries carrying out similar policies of expulsion. Also, there is an article that wikilinks to this category, as there is a reference to the overall expulsion of Jews in Europe during WW2.Keizers (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of the 11 articles in the category, all are about persecution of Jews, but still only 2 specifically are about expulsion. So now move these two articles to Category:Expulsions of Jews, then delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 7 February 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:Basement Jaxx EPs[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: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category full of redirects all pointing to Basement Jaxx discography in which only minor details of the subject of the redirects are provided. One of the redirects isn't even an EP but a former article that listed all the band's EPs. With only three of their 17 EPs even having redirects, deletion of the category is preferred but a merge to Category:Basement Jaxx albums could be acceptable. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the problem was that there's too few pages in the category, then that no longer applies because I've just added the category to their other EP redirects. Ss112 01:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category only contains redirects, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:20, 7 February 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:Russian sub-ethnic groups[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: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the purpose of the category. I had to read this three times before getting it. Alternatively (more drastically) just upmerge to Category:Ethnic groups in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Now, there is not problem. The terms ethnic and subethnic group are generally accepted in ethnology. How are the Russians different from Italians, Jews or Chinese? And it is even more impossible to merge into category "Ethnic groups in Russia": in Russia, in addition to Russians, there are Tatars, Russian Germans and other non-Russian groups. DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dayak AHI-3000 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 7 February 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:Mythological creatures[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: no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There would seem to be no real difference between categories here, making this a WP:OVERLAPCAT. A reverse merge is also possible, but this category came afterwards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think there's a distinction between "creatures" and "monster". AHI-3000 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that there is a clearly delineated distinction? Every Internet search I do seems to combine "creatures and monsters" which leads me to believe they roughly mean the same thing. Saying "but monsters are scary" then leads to a subjective determination of what counts as "scary" or "hideous". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather reverse merge, creatures appears to be broader than monsters (the creatures category includes "normal" animals) and "monsters" is subjective as noted by nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think a reverse merger would make more sense, there's also another similar related issue going on; we have Category:Monsters and Category:Mythological monsters, both of which are basically about monstrous creatures from myths, legends and folktales. I think there's a bigger redundancy with that. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have an alternative proposal: we can keep Category:Mythological creatures for now, while instead we merge Category:Mythological monsters into Category:Monsters. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 7 February 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:Natural history of Baja California[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: procedural close. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, this is a subcategory of Category:History of Baja California but the content is not about history at all. If anything, it is about the "environment" of Baja California. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. I am open to alternative suggestions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: natural history is not a subfield of history, it is a completely different field that has a similar name. This could be renamed to environment of Baja California, if that's standard for similar articles, but in either case, it should be removed from the parent category "history of Baja California". Kk.urban (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle I looked again and there is a "natural history" category for many or all states of Mexico. These should all have matching names, so it would be better to renominate all of them together if you want to change their names. They should all also be removed from the history categories. Kk.urban (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, let's close this for now and I may have a look at the whole tree later. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 10 February 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:Baby farming[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: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, apparently baby farmers are only notable if they killed some or all of the children they were supposed to take care of. It does not make sense to gettoize child murderers if they were baby farmers before. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised you did this. There should be a historic and criminalogical distinction for baby farming, you're just wiping a category and even making it harder for other to find the articles you won't merge! Because i know youll only merge a select amount of the pages! ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a personal attack and should be disregarded by the closer. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. There's no need to isolate this specific kind of infanticide, which only happened during a specific era and bucket of nationalities. Mason (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it’s not an attack. I don’t see why you wouldn’t think I’d say it to you since you’re finding the categories I made and nominating them for deletion. I’m not taking it personally, I just don’t see constructive responses here! Second of all, baby farming is more than infanticide, it just happens to have infanticide as a recurrence in history. It’s better to argue there should be an expanded article on it with more links, or that the category should be moved to some other category tree. Deleting it does nothing more than make it harder to keep track of the related information between articles! ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we’re suggesting a list for volunteer execution’s page, shall we do the same for baby farming? Expand upon the history, list names? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 16:45, 14 February 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:Establishments in Danish India by year[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: Merge/Delete Timrollpickering (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more categories that will be emptied: –Aidan721 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily thin tree for Danish India. This tree should not be diffused by year per WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 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:Universities and colleges by type[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#Category:Universities and colleges by type

Category:Clan Ostoja[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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same content, just a different name format Marcelus (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, there is only a talk page in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 7 February 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:Fictional spies by nationality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#Category:Fictional spies by nationality

Category:People by intelligence agency[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#Category:People by intelligence agency

Category:Women spies[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: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Women spies to Category:Female spies
Nominator's rationale: "Female spies" just sounds grammatically better than "Women spies", because "female" is an adjective, while "women" is actually a plural noun. Plus both of the subcategories within "Category:Women spies" follow "female spies" as a naming pattern, so make the parent category more consistent too. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the proposed rename conflicts with most siblings in Category:Women by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Is that your only argument? There's other subcategories of "Women by occupation" which begin with "Female" instead of "Women". Besides, it sounds much more weird that a plural noun like "women" is being erroneously used as if it were an adjective. I'd argue that other "Women by occupation" categories should be renamed accordingly² AHI-3000 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have strong feelings about it but most subcategories have been moved from female to women a few years ago by discussants who did have stronger feelings. And "women" certainly does not harm, as there are no minors involved. There is also women's sports. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle: The issue I have though isn't the word "women" by itself, it's the strange way it's being used like an adjective. For this particular category, it would make more sense to call it "Female spies" or "Women in espionage". AHI-3000 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that it is not bad grammar, but admittedly I am not an expert in English language. Native English speakers should weigh in here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Marcocapelle: Well, I am a lifelong native English speaker, so this is just how I perceive it. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, the tag on the category page is wrong, it does not link to here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lean oppose. Native speaker here. I think it sounds fine as is. What is the benefit beyond perhaps sounding better. That seems like a lot of work for bots and people that doesn't have any real advantage. There have been MANY CFD about this issue, and if this nomination were to proceed, those discussions need to be included/linked. Mason (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison: "That seems like a lot of work for bots"? Well isn't that what bots are for, to speed up tasks that are too tedious for humans? I don't see how that's a problem. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The full quote with added emphasis: "That seems like a lot of work for bots and people that doesn't have any real advantage. " I am saying that I don't see any tangible benefits, and I think that the costs outweigh the benefits. These costs include resources such as computational time (bots) and people. Mason (talk) 20:21, 8 February 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:Female military personnel[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: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging/renaming all of these subcategories within Category:Female military personnel (but not "Category:Female military personnel" itself):
Nominator's rationale: I think that all of these new names would be grammatically better, because "female" is an adjective, while "women" is actually a plural noun. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the proposed rename conflicts with most siblings in Category:Women by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Is that your only argument? There's other subcategories of "Women by occupation" which begin with "Female" instead of "Women". Besides, it sounds much more weird that a plural noun like "women" is being erroneously used as if it were an adjective. I'd argue that other "Women by occupation" categories should be renamed accordingly. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, none of the category pages have been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lean oppose. Same comment as before. Native speaker here. I think it sounds fine as is. What is the benefit beyond perhaps sounding better. That seems like a lot of work for bots and people that doesn't have any real advantage. There have been MANY CFD about this issue, and if this nomination were to proceed, those discussions need to be included/linked.Mason (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison: "That seems like a lot of work for bots"? Well isn't that what bots are for, to speed up tasks that are too tedious for humans? I don't see how that's a problem. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See discussion above Mason (talk) 20:22, 8 February 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:Fictional female businesspeople[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 16#Category:Fictional female businesspeople

Category:Fictional fairies and sprites[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#Category:Fairies and sprites in popular culture

Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture

Category:United States military war crimes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#Category:United States military war crimes

Category:Fictional Inter-Services Intelligence personnel[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: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 21:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to have only one page in here. Mason (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate split between Category:Fictional Pakistani people and Category:Fictional female spies instead, because the sole page in this category is about a female character. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_7&oldid=1208522714"