Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19
January 21 >

January 20[edit]

Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao[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:Roman Catholic churches in Curaçao and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Caribbean, weak consensus for that as the preferred target. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection of just one article. Merge for now. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Place Clichy: I do not agree that we should have a category tree for Dutch Caribbean as if it were a country. It is in fact a set of three plus three islands with a completely incompatible political status. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: I'm going to agree with Marcocapelle here. The Dutch Caribbean tree is not very useful (in this context) and is technically misclassified as it would belong in a "Kingdom of the Netherlands" category but not in the current Netherlands category. This image is helpful for seeing this structure. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (after relisting) The Dutch Caribbean tree is useful in regards to the Category:Dependent territories tree at least. Gathering the several overseas territories of a country, regardless of status, seems like a good practice to keep. There are often several statuses, and they evolve in time, as for Overseas France or British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Also, these places, despite their difference in status, all have a defining relationship with their parent country the Netherlands. I don't believe there is a suggestion to split the entire tree for the Netherlands in a tree for Netherlands proper (including the BES islands) and Netherlands plus ABC. Place Clichy (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:49, 20 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 parasites and parasitoids[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:Fictional parasites and parasitoids

Category:Impractical sorting algorithms[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 19:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Less subjective. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "impractical" is less subjective, as humor is typically very subjective.
I got the idea for the category, when I watched this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktgxMtWMflU
The video uses the word "impractical" multiple times, and also in the description: "In this video, I explored the realm of impractical sorting algorithms. Say goodbye to the usual and practical methods..."
Though, if the community prefers renaming, I don't mind. Marjeta42 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the second article mentions humor prominently. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 4 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, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:46, 20 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:Sportswriters[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: withdrawing. Will be creating new nominations because this one is causing confusion. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:EGRS. The first one is the only sportswriter category sorted by male. For the sport and country specific, these are the only ones like it (only chess in split by country, not the rest). The Gaelic games category has a commentator/broadcaster category already (Category:Gaelic games commentators) so the name is redundant. And for the last one: the golf category is large with a mix of writers and commentators that makes navigation hard. The combination is only done when there are not enough of either to warrant seperate categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. However, I think that all of the intersection categories need to be merged as well.
Mason (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, American male sportswriters are already in subcats of Category:American male writers which is why I didn't add that. Same is the case with Martial artists (I spent a lot of time in the American sportswriters category so I'm sure). Australian one I'm not about though so I will add the second one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I suspected you'd already checked :) Mason (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I think you agreed with the nomination as is, correct? Asking just to clarify our above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, they seem fine and descriptiveSupport upon below comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn, over categorization, especially the Category:American male sportswriters since men make up majority of sportswriters. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't see how mashing broadcasters and writers into one category makes navigation easier since they do completely different jobs. Broadcastsers should be in the "sports annoucners" category. And renames are to make categories consistant with names of others as well. For example "Cricket historians and writers" in the category are just writers like "Baseball writers" and "Tennis writers" are. And Gailic games broadcasters have a seperate category so there's no need to have one for "broadcasters and writers" combination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close/Keep all. These are not obviously related categories and they should have never been bundled together in this manner. They are so far down the sportswriter category tree talking about them together is confusing and nonsensical. This is not an appropriate way to go about building a WP:CONSENSUS on these cats. No prejudice against speedy renomination on a cat by cat basis. On a side note I oppose many of these re-names but for different reasons. (ie. not every person in these lists are writers, some are tv journalists/broadcasters who talk for a living; sorting out writers by nationality is useful in a sports context for navigation as commentators often cover sports at the national level only) It would not be good to tackle all of these different issues in this one conversation. 4meter4 (talk)
@4meter4, why are you opposed to seperating broadcasters from Category:Sportswriters? That is essentially what this nomination is about. Sports broadcasters should be in Category:Sports commentators. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the two nationality/sports categories are WP:NARROWCAT. Besides chess, no other sports' writers are divided by country except for "American martial arts writers" and "Australian cricket writers". Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, should I start anew with these categories as 4meter4 has suggested? (Please ping me whenever you respond). Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this conversation needs to happen in new nominations for procedural reasons. That said... "Commentator" is a specific term in broadcast media that doesn't necessarily encompass every individual working in sport media on television or other media platforms such as radio or the internet. Commentators give personal opinions without necessarily doing any research versus broadcast journalists who actually do research and conduct interviews or investigative journalism based on that research. Some of the people here are "commentators" but others might be better described as "broadcast journalists" in the field of sports. Some do both. On the second issue, I would imagine most people navigating sportswriter cats would be looking to find writers on a particular sport in a particular country. This is exactly the type of cat that would be most useful as a navigational aid within this topic area. Rather than point to the limited intersections elsewhere as a sign of irrelevance or a violation of NARROWCAT, I would suggest this points to an area of weakness that needs targeted category expansion. Sportswriters/journalists often do focus on a limited number of sports within a national scope; so I don't think this is a trivial cross-categorization.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, in these cases, they are just people who commentate the game regardless of whether they are play-by-play or color commentators or on-the-field broadcasters. But the point is that broadcasters and writers have different jobs. They aren't the same. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:43, 26 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.

Secularists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Secularists

Category:Plays about religion and science[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: split. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 06:19, 21 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.

Template:Draft-stub[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) QueenofHearts 04:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This page appears to have been created in error, or as an experiment. I see no evidence of its creation being approved through the process described at WP:NEWSTUB. I may have missed a discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is in the nature of a draft that it is likely to be very unfinished, and there does not seem to be any good reason for having a template to label them as such. Also, as far as I am aware, all the existing information about stubs refers only to articles, and extending the concept to other namespaces requires more than just a single editor deciding to do so without consultation: a discussion to determine consensus would be more appropriate. JBW (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. This was created by a newbie who got himself blocked in short order. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:13, 24 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 counterterrorism organizations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:Fictional counterterrorism organizations

Category:Fictional vampire types[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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is basically just a glorified DAB page in category form, and should probably be upmerged to this, and the relevant subcategories of Category:Vampires in popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt merge to Category:Fictional vampires instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. The alt merge would mix up characters and species, hence not a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category does exactly what is says it's supposed to do and there is nothing wrong with it's purpose.★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 12 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) 22:02, 20 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:Bermudian civil engineers[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: renamr as unopposed. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Broaden the scope as right now there isn't a main engineer category, and it will be some time before Bermuda can support diffusing engineers by specialization Mason (talk) 21:52, 20 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:Businesspeople in retailing by company[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) QueenofHearts 04:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpfulf for navigation Mason (talk) 21:39, 20 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:Turkish taxi drivers[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) QueenofHearts 04:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's less than 3 people in here Mason (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without objection to recreate any of these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge but agree to recreate when more articles are avalible for each. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If they can be recreated later, I see no reason why they can't be removed for now. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I've never understood why some categories which contain one or two entries are broken up into states or cities or whatever. This just hides the entries in outlying cubbyholes to the main search term. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 21 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 alien hunters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:Fictional alien hunters

Category:Fictional zombie hunters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:Fictional zombie hunters

Category:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall[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) QueenofHearts 04:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If the category is not going to be deleted, the naming should at least be standardized with everything else in Category:Metafiction. This is my best guess as to what the name should be, but if anyone else has a better suggestion, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is directly relevant to this current discussion, but apparently "Category:Metafictional characters" was deleted in the past. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is relevant, the category should be deleted per WP:G4 unless strong counter arguments come up now. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename, "btfw" variations seems to be used way more commonly per news search results (up to ~39k results, around 31k on average, depending on the chosen term variation) then any variations on metafiction (~6 thousand) and even in those it rarely refers to the characters. Respublik (talk) 15:46, 16 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) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is, the name describes the category well, the proposed name would make little sense to most readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – these are 2 different things – there is overlap but they're not the same. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not all fictional characters who break the fourth wall are metafictional, and not all metafictional characters break the fourth wall.4meter4 (talk) 04:45, 26 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:Taekwondo practitioners of insular areas 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: keep. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. For each of these categories, there's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Please add more than one category when you make occupation categories for insular areas of the United States. I only think that we should have categories like this if there are more than two territories in them (aka 3 or more). Mason (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Please try to be constructive. @Mercy11: Spamming the same comment under each merge is extremely unhelpful. Mason (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Please assume good faith. I responded as I did because I do not know if each category is decided upon independent, so I made no assumption. The accusation of "spamming" is jumping to conclusion without having the facts and demonstrates an assumption of intentional spamming was made which is categorically wrong from any angle. Mercy11 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I should have considered my words more carefully. I bundled the nominations because I had expected the debate to be centered around the size of the categories, which shouldn't differ by the content. Mason (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insular territories belong to the United States, in the same fashion than the Michigan Territory or the Alaska Territory did before they reached statehood. There is a DEFINING link between these categories and their American parent, in which they should be whatever the outcome, either directly or indirectly. Place Clichy (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to say that "insular territories belong to the United States 'in the same fashion that' the Michigan Territory or the Alaska Territory did..." There is no support anywhere in the literature for that claim. That's because the early Territories were already incorporated into the US prior to their becoming states. Not so with the Insular Areas which are UNincorporated territories, and without a defined path to statehood. By definition an incorporated territory is one that is part of the US whereas an unincorporated territory is one that isn't a part of the US. Because the acquisition of Insular Areas set a precedent in American political history, the SCOTUS decided the polemic that arouse in the Insular Cases, clarifying that the Insular Areas are unincorporated territories that belong to the US but are not part of of the US. That said, their peoples are not Americans, but their political relationship with the US would still warrant them categorized under US but not directly, as the Americans from the 50 states and DC are, but indirectly via the existing category root Category:People by insular area of the United States. Mercy11 (talk) 00:42, 25 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:Plays about the military[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) QueenofHearts 04:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here. I tried to find a few more, but I clearly am not looking in the right places. Mason (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for looking into this. The nomination is clearly moot now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 22 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:Centers for the study of antisemitism[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) QueenofHearts 04:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1. WP:CONCISE. 2 WP:COMMONNAME: most of the articles in the category aren't "centers" 3. Match parent "Category:Political research institutes". Longhornsg (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:57, 23 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:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland by decade[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 as unopposed. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the 1970s category is sufficiently populated, the 1960s and 1980s categories only have 1 article each. This category scheme is more useful at the Ireland as a whole level. The articles are already located elsewhere in the Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:40, 20 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:Abkhaz 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. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I do not see a reason to split this two categories. Yorkporter (talk) 17:02, 20 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:1st century in Southeast Asia[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) QueenofHearts 04:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation (there isn't even a 3rd century BC in Asia category) Mason (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Also merge the following per the same rationale: –Aidan721 (talk) 02:27, 21 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:16th-century Chinese novelists[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) QueenofHearts 04:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough novelists to support a nationality by century intersection Mason (talk) 16:18, 20 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:Times of Malta[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains the main page and a non-free image used on that page. Mason (talk) 16:05, 20 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:Purported ancient yoga texts[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:Works about yoga and Category:Hoaxes in India. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 04:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: subjective Mason (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's not subjective, as the Yoga Korunta is reliably documented as fraudulent.[1] Indeed, it wasn't even a forgery, as Krishnamacharya never produced any document, just talked about its (constantly-changing) contents and made up excuses ("eaten by ants") for its non-appearance. All the members of Category:Works about yoga, in contrast, certainly existed, and are relied upon by scholars and historians. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this single page need a category by itself? Mason (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have a reliably-cited article about a major and very public fraudulent claim by one of the founders, arguably the founder, of yoga as exercise; and as it happens, nobody has to date written a Wikipedia article about any other fraudulent "ancient yoga text". I'm sure lovers of tidiness would prefer richly-populated categories; but it does happen that significant things in the world sometimes come in small numbers. If Wikipedia had been around in 1776, there would only have been one member of Presidents of the United States, for instance, but the category would have been unmistakably valid for all that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems like you don't understand the purpose of categories. They are there to help navigation. Are there other cases of Purported ancient yoga texts. Although it is not relevant to this argument, just like your example, there would not have been a category in 1776 for presidents of the united states. The first president wasn't elected until 1789. Mason (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singleton, Mark (February 10, 2010). Yoga Body: the origins of modern posture practice. Oxford University Press. pp. 8, 184–186. ISBN 978-0195395341.
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:Plays about gambling[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) QueenofHearts 04:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. theres only on category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Musicals are a type of play. This is an appropriate category to maintain for the category tree. Further, there are many plays about gambling. The answer is to populate the cat which I have started. 4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. There are now nine articles in the cat. There are probably more out there with articles already, but I think this demonstrates this is a category with potential for expansion and the concerns raised by Smasongarrison have been addressed. Marcocapelle please consider changing your vote in light of these changes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is obviously moot now, but why did you not populate the category when you created the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle At the time I was trying to expand subcats for Category:Musicals by topic category tree. Musicals are a specific type of play, and any musical sorted by topic is a sub-cat of a play by that same topic. It was essentially a necessity to maintain the category tree. I assumed that others would eventually get around to sorting plays into the topic cats. I generally edit in areas related to musical theatre and opera. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 20 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:1st-century economic history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:1st-century economic history

Category:Actors from London by locality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:Actors from London by locality

Category:Economics 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: rename to Category:Economic history by year. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename aligning with parent Category:Economic history and siblings Category:Economic history by century and decade. If this is approved, the subcategories can probably be speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:08, 20 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:Sportspeople from London by locality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:Sportspeople from London by locality

Category:Early Germanic economy[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:Viking Age economy. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, all three articles are about the Viking Age. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:09, 20 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.

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: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's nothing in each category but a north american and south american category. Is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Organizations based in the Americas by country Mason (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As arbitrary as is the conventional division of the world in 7 continents, multiple conflicting overlapping schemes are worse. These categories are not helpful. Note that, for a select few topics, it is pertinent to look at the Americas as a whole, especially sports federations and international organizations that are organized along this scope. For all other topics, this is a conflicting overlap. Place Clichy (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as creator of a couple of categories in this hierarchy). Category:Latin America exists for the Romance-language connection. – Fayenatic London 11:51, 23 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:Discrimination in Trinidad and Tobago[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:Human rights in Trinidad and Tobago. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only a redirect in this category, upmerge for now Mason (talk) 05:25, 20 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:Marriage in early Germanic culture[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: dual merge to Category:Marriage in Europe and Category:Early Germanic culture. Given there is only one article in the category, further discussion on its categorization can take place at Talk:Friedelehe (rather than relisting to discuss single/dual merge at CfD). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category that doesn't need to be isolated from the larger category Mason (talk) 04:37, 20 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:Children by culture[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:History of childhood. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category that doesn't really cover culture. It covers childhood in older societies Mason (talk) 04:36, 20 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:Economies by culture[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:Ancient economies. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based on the content of the articles/categories. This isn't about culture, but are ancient countries Mason (talk) 04:26, 20 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:Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands to England[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:Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Broaden the parent category, there's no Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands category, and there are only three folks in here. This nom is in the same spirit as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7#Emigrants_from_former_countries Mason (talk) 04:15, 20 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:Adolescence 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: merge to Category:Adolescence by continent. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is unhelpful for navigation. It only has north and south america in it Mason (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 22:49, 21 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 Scientific Revolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Category:People of the Scientific Revolution

Category:Modern Greek dramatists and playwrights[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 27#Category:Modern Greek dramatists and playwrights

Category:FOO women executed for witchcraft[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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as I'm not sure that we should be distinguishing at the intersection of gender, nationality and type of crime. This does not seem in the keeping of WP:EGRS. If kept, this category should be non-diffusing Mason (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator Neutral. My rationale for making the categories in the first place (as with all of the other "Foo women executed for witchcraft") is that European witch trials historically have had important gendered implications (see Witch trials in the early modern period & how it discusses gender), and that, from my perspective, the creation of a few new subcategories by gender could be helpful for readers. WP:EGRS/G does state that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." In my opinion, these categories fall in line with EGRS/G due to the historical context of the early modern witch trials and are useful for navigation. However, if consensus emerges in favor of deletion, I'll adjust my understanding of the guideline.
Addendum: After thinking about it for a little bit, & re-reading the guidelines, I can certainly understand the nom's rationale. I think, personally, they are useful categories (with perhaps the exception of "Women executed in the SWT", I'm now not convinced that's really necessary), especially as subcategories of Cat:Foo executed women. However, I'm not very experienced in this area of categorization discourse; I'll defer to the regulars here, & I'm taking this as a learning experience regardless of outcome. Thanks for bearing with my EGRS newbie mistakes & late-night WP:BOLD editing sprees. sawyer * he/they * talk 23:00, 12 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) 01:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I had always thought that only women were victims of witchcraft executions but that appears to be not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 20 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_20&oldid=1200552731"