Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1
January 3 >

January 2[edit]

Category:Du Barry family[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 16:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Not helpful for navigation. There are only two people in here, who are already linked Mason (talk) 21:27, 2 January 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:United States Space Force personnel stubs[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. Nothing left in here. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This should probably be up-merged to Category:United States Space Force stubs (or Template:US-mil-bio-stub) since it only has one member article. I'm not against having this stub template one day, but it doesn't have nearly enough articles to justify inclusion yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 2 January 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 British characters by descent[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. There's a mishmash of options here, most of which don't have the categories tagged. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one immediate subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Mason (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suspect some categories need to be tagged and added somehwere, but I'm not sure which ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, when we keep a descent tree for the Americans it still does not make sense to remove the British from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 2 January 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:Newspaper chain founders[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: manually merge / rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between size of newspaper founded and nationality.Mason (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two articles I am looking at do not concern founders of anything. They are businesspeople who grew existing newspapers to a chain. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless my previous comment is properly addressed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Manual merge to businesspeople and newspaper founders depending on the the specific case? Mason (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely the articles are already in the businesspeople tree. So before deletion of the categories we might manually check the articles if there is any newspaper founder among them. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 2 January 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:Ibero-American awards[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. 3 different users, 3 different proposals. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear what the intended distinction is between "Latin American" and "Ibero-American" in this context. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (nominally) Ibero-American awards encompass a wider scope including Spain and Portugal (unlike Latin-American ones, which leave those countries out).--Asqueladd (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 2 January 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:Berber Islamists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Berber Islamists

Category:Arms traders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Arms traders

Category:Deaths in British India[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: redirect/merge/delete (respectively). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_17#Category:Deaths_in_the_German_Empire this intersection between time period, nation, and death is not helpful as there are more specific death categories in the parent category. Mason (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At minimum Category:Deaths in British India should be containerized, but the nomination is ok too. The last category, if not kept, should be plainly deleted instead of merged because all articles are already in Category:Deaths from pneumonia in India. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did go through and restore as many of the removed indian categories as I could find. JPL removed people from more specific cause of death categories a lot when he moved them to the much vaguer british india category. Mason (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 2 January 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:Women referees and umpires[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Women referees and umpires

Category:19th-century players of American football[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 19:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Covers only one century and doesn't help in navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, as the nominator, I have no issue if you close this as keep. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:48, 2 January 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:Martial artists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Martial artists

Category:19th-century referees and umpires[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:19th-century referees and umpires

Chairman to Chairperson[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Chairman to Chairperson

Category:Santali-speaking people by occupation[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 16:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here Mason (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:22, 2 January 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:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony[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: rename. No consensus to overturn previous closure. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The names in Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony should be "People from *colony name*". I have also added the parent category for renaming. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it shoud be from *colony name* but that would imply that the categories are renamed, for example, to Category:People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom Mason (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, you are right.
    Side note: I did suggest that format - e.g. "People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay" etc. - but someone else said that "People from colonial *name*" would be more fitting and less confusing. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: unsure about removing the disambiguator for Georgia, as the other Georgia was colonized too (by Persia, the Ottoman Empire and Russia). Maybe Category:People from Georgia (British colony). Place Clichy (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I don't think that the alternative fits into the format. I'd be more ok with People from the colonial Georgia (British colony), even though it's redundant, so it's clear it belongs in the same set as the other 13 colonies Mason (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Place Clichy, I assume you do agree with the name change. Just for clarification. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The present Category:People of Georgia (British colony) avoids the 'colonial colony' redundancy, and there seems to be no issue of fitting into the format. The British also colonized South Georgia, BTW. My personal inclination for the target name would be, by order of preference, 1° Category:People from Georgia (British colony) > 2° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British America) > 3° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British colony) > 4° Category:People from colonial Georgia. The second option also avoids both redundancy and ambiguity, and it fits into the format. But I would not let that stand in the way of the renaming from of... to from... @Omnis Scientia, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: ping for opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I was initially in favor of using the names of the colonies i.e. "People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay" and "People from the Colony of Virginia" and so on since it leaves out any ambiguity. The category Category:People of the Province of New York is an example. That said, I worried it might make navigation harder. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the disambiguator entirely as in option 4 would be my least preferred choice as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 2 or 3 would work in fitting the set without losing any information. Also to be clear, it isn't the end of the world if georgia doesn't fit nicely into the set. I think in an ideal world it would, but there are much more important aspects to a category name than matchiness. Mason (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, I would go with number 2 or number 3 as well. Number 2 is more preferrable though. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the Georgia category to Category:People from the Province of Georgia to match Category:Province of Georgia and Province of Georgia. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed target for Georgia wouldn't make sense while simultaneously renaming Category:People of the Province of New York to Category:People from colonial New York as proposed above, without any objection so far. Category:People from colonial Georgia (British America) seems to be the target with the largest support. Place Clichy (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: | initially closed this as rename. I've reopened it per User talk:Qwerfjkl#CFD closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, I don't understand the reasoning there. Pinging, @Marcocapelle, for their view on the objection on your talk page since they have more experience on this matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia, @SnowFire wanted the case reopened. I assume that they will make their case that "of" is the correct level of specificity, whereas "from" is too specific (and somehow implies that people originated from that place). I don't have a problem with them sharing their concerns here. Personally, I prefer "from" because it helps demarcate country of work and nationality, whereas "of" does not. Mason (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We always use denonyms or "from" for cases like this. "Of" can be used for certain occupations, e.g. "president of". In this case "from" is probably desirable over a denonym. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem either of course! I just disagree with the rationale is all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was the one who asked this CFD be re-opened per above. See User_talk:Qwerfjkl#CFD_closure for the chat - basically, I disagree that "from" is preferable to "of", and that is especially true of colonial-era items. As a reminder, categories are maintained by all editors, not just ones who frequent CFD. "From" strongly implies "born there" to my ears, while "of" correctly gets across the implication that a strong association is what is being looked for instead. A glance at how "from" categories are used often shows that is how they're done (e.g. John McCain is in Category:Aviators from the Panama Canal Zone). In the case of these colonial era entities, a huge proportion of people in them were not born there, but rather emigrated from elsewhere. I don't believe the name-change helps with clarity here - if the goal is not to do a scope change but rather to just rename for clarity, why not use "of" which clearly does not imply birth? SnowFire (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Of" does not distinguish between country of work and nationality. Mason (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely disagree that we should limit "from" to place of birth. It is merely an alternative for a denonym when a denonym would result in awkward grammar. When someone emigrates to the United States, becomes an actor there, then they should be part of American actors i.e. actors from the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: I don't follow your argument. Are you saying the category should differentiate?
    • @Marcocapelle: As stated before, I don't have any problem with having categories that aren't limited by place of birth. If that's the goal, though, we should use "of" rather than "from". This is an objective question - ask 100 editors what they assume the category means with "from" vs. "of". I feel confident that a substantial proportion of editors would assume that "from" is somewhat restricted to birthplace (or at least place-where-they-grew-up). It's no use to say that they're wrong; at some point, it's easier just to work around it and name the category unambiguously. We have a clearly named category that doesn't imply birth already with "of"; I still do not understand the benefit of moving away from it. Even if hypothetically only 25% of editors use the "birth" interpretation, that's quite a lot of them, actually, and will cause category drift. (And I'd guess it'd be more like 50%+). SnowFire (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are distinct categories for people from places, versus people who work in places (see Category:Bishops by country of work compared to Category:Bishops by nationality). Honestly, until you brought it up, it never occurred to me that some people might consider "from" to mean birthplace. I highly doubt that its 50% or even 25%; otherwise this issue would have been raised by someone before now. I think that "of" is vague and describes multiple relationships, whereas from is more precise. Mason (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of was used initially, until it appeared to cause problems with multiple occupations. I remember (perhaps not the best example) "painters of Austria-Hungary" who could be painting things of Austria-Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A better example is "historians of" where "of" may refer to their specialty rather than to their nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I definitely support a distinction between Category:French historians and Category:Historians of France. If there's no risk of confusion, though, using "of" seems better. Again, we don't get to set how certain people use the English language - even if the goal is completely not to limit "from" to place of birth or origin, I'm just saying that many people do use it to mean that, and there's no way to force them to use English differently. SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This debate is not specific to Thirteen Colonies categories, for which there previously seemed to be consensus for e.g. Province of New York to colonial New York. The only thing that matters here is to stress that people should only be placed in a category about a place if they have a defining link to that place, although not limited to birth. From... seems to stress this better than of... and we have seen in the past people being added to such categories with only a very tenuous link. Place Clichy (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, choose your poison, right? Using "from" will cause articles not to be added to a category that clearly qualify. I completely agree that there are some editors who indiscriminately add non-defining categories, but I still think that "from" will imply a narrowing scope change to well-meaning editors that isn't intended. SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 5 January 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:International Organisation of Good Templars people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:International Organisation of Good Templars people

Category:People by organization and type[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: rename to Category:People by type of organization. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is ambiguous: type of what? Type of person? No, what's meant is type of organization. —swpbT • beyond • mutual 14:51, 2 January 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:RADA[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. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is there any reason this is abbreviated? I believe it should match the article name "Royal Academy of Dramatic Art" per WP:C2D. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an odd case, the article has been moved to RADA after an RM discussion about a different name. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, that is odd. Because I don't believe RADA does not apply to WP:COMMONAME. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left a notice at the article's talk page. Let's see if that leads to clearer consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I will withdraw this until the article name is dealt with. RADA is quite ambiguous, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, the category should match the article title, I don't see a reason to deviate here. And for a concrete rationale, it is far more commonly known as RADA than by its full name, as indeed the article RM discussion determined. This matches Category:FIFA, Category:NASA and other similar cases. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article move was supported by two people only. Outside the U.K., it isn't called as such. Comparing it to FIFA or BBC or NATO, also international organizations, is somewhat of a false equivalence. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:58, 2 January 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:Triglav Trophy[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 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category containing only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and delete the subcategory too. I will tag the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 2 January 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:Resort destinations in Canada[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: rename to Category:Resort towns in Canada. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alternative A to align with subcategories, alternative B to align with parent category and with main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom with weak preference to option B. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 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:People of pre-statehood U.S. states by state[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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per previous Cfd on Category:People from the Thirteen Colonies by colony; changing "of" to "from". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wasn't sure this could be speedied without being opposed because someone raised an objection to the previous change of "of" to "from". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:45, 2 January 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:Coupe Internationale de Nice[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 both. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category containing only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, including the subcategory. I will tag the subcategory too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:39, 2 January 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:People executed by torture[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 to Category:Torture victims. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Execution by torture" is not a generally accepted category. As cited in the article torture#punishment, it is controversial whether deliberate executions meet the definition of torture. Most of the articles in this category are of such executions (not all the articles explicitly mention torture). Others are of people who died while being tortured. Usually torturers do not want their victims to die until they are done with them, so such deaths cannot be classified as an execution. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People killed by torture or something like that. AHI-3000 (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Torture victims. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with this if it was a manual merge that purged capital punishment for the reasons discussed above. (t · c) buidhe 15:09, 2 January 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:People of former regions and territories of the United States[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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Names of these categories are not uniform. Per previous precedence "from" should be in place of "of" and majority had "the" before the name of the territory. Rename per suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: edited per suggestions below (to match article name). I've removed some categories which were already formatted as "People from *name* Territory". Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 5 January 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:Wikipedia articles containing buzzwords[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Wikipedia articles containing buzzwords

Category:Cannibalism in the Americas[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 16:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not helpful for navigation. I've already readded the two categories to the parent Cannibalism by continent. Mason (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This sort of category would only be helpful if there would be a substantial number of articles covering North and South America together, but that is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Yuchitown (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[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:Metropolitan areas of Serbia[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 17:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one metro in here, which isn't helpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the article is and belongs in a populated places category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question before a decision: Is there anything that explains as to what fits in this category ? The reason why I am asking is because there are cities in Serbia such as Novi Sad and Niš that are big enough so I was just wondering what is the definition (if any) for cities to be put in the category of Metropolitan areas. Боки Write to me! 07:34, 4 January 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:Military personnel of the Crusades[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 17:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There really aren't military personnel to diffuse for the crusades Mason (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, many crusaders were warriors, obviously, but it would be rather odd to call them military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 2 January 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:Public image by individuals[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Public image by individuals

Category:Paralympic Sport Awards — Best Female winners[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Paralympic Sport Awards — Best Female winners

Category:1992 Summer Olympics bids[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 17:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge, as there's only one page in each category (or a page and a redirect). It's unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then better merge all. After merging, e.g. Category:Summer Olympics bids will only contain some 50 articles, and they can be sorted by year if desired. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge under WP:C2F. The siblings could also be speedily renamed to "Bids for the 20YY Summer Olympics" under C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 5 January 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:Longest beaches[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: listfiy. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:50, 2 January 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_January_2&oldid=1194802790"