Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10

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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Organizations based in the Americas by country to Category:Organizations based in the Americas
• Propose merging Category:German-language newspapers published in the Americas to Category:German-language newspapers by continent
• Propose merging Category:Telecommunications in the Americas to Category:Telecommunications by continent
• Propose merging Category:Women's rights in the Americas to Category:Women's rights by continent
• Propose merging Category:Adolescent sexuality in the Americas to Category:Adolescent sexuality by continent
• Propose merging Category:Youth rights in the Americas to Category:Youth rights by continent
• Propose merging Category:Social class in the Americas to Category:Social class by continent
• Propose merging Category:Regions of the Americas by country to Category:Regions of the Americas
• Propose merging Category:Corruption in the Americas to Category:Corruption by continent
• Propose merging Category:Squares in the Americas to Category:Squares and plazas by continent
• Propose merging Category:Pyramids in the Americas to Category:Pyramids by continent
• Propose merging Category:Bridges in the Americas to Category:Bridges by continent
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in the Americas to Category:Palaces by continent
• Propose merging Category:Parks in the Americas to Category:Parks by continent
• Propose merging Category:Shanty towns in the Americas to Category:Shanty towns by continent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Each of these categories only contain two categories: one for north america and one for south america without any other content Mason (talk) 23:30, 10 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) 06:17, 11 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.

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:Latin America. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Communications in Latin America to Category:Latin America

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 11 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.

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:Mountain bike manufacturers. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mountain bike manufacturing to Category:Mountain bike manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the single article fits the target well too. No conceptuele objection to the category, it may be reinstated when there are a number of topic articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 11 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.

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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mining communities in the Americas to Category:Mining communities by continent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is unhelpful for navigation with only two categories in it and no content Mason (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete (in this particular case merging and deletion are effectively the same) 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) 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, I agree that had there been any actual content, it would be worth keeping. Mason (talk) 23:18, 10 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.

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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:French toponymy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Italian toponymy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Norwegian toponymy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Swedish toponymy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Hungarian toponymy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already under e.g. Category:Names of places in France. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 23:28, 10 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.

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 No consensus on whether (or not) to listify, which means the creation of or addition to a list can be done through the standard editorial process. The former contents are available here, if anyone wants to take further action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Contestants on University Challenge to Category:Contestants on British game shows

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT. Should be selectively upmerged only if their appearance actually was WP:DEFINING for the individual in question. --woodensuperman 14:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, for the people who are in this category it is an entirely trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I see no distinction here from someone with, say, Category:Actors from Los Angeles instead of California/US, and then proposing merging it into California by saying "only add if their Californianess is defining". As for triviality, their appearance is mentioned in almost every one of their bio's, and it's the one show (with possibly Mastermind) that will be mentioned in mainstream media in their later career, whatever direction they move into. If it were almost any other show I'd agree with the proposal, but not this. Smb1001 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• JUst delete clearly a PERFCAT. With some game shows the PERF launches a career. Some may go on to have distinguished careers, but appearing in the show is a NN part of their student career. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has captained his university on UC, I would dispute that this is a NN part of their student career! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just Delete For people that are only famous for being on reality shows, it makes sense to keep a category since they're notable for little else. But these people are otherwise notable and it's clearly WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/Delete per WP:BEFORECAT - I think Category:Game show contestants and its subcats fall afoul of WP:OC#Performers by production or performance venue. And thinking about it, WP:OC#Award recipients too, as to even be on a show, a contestant often has to "win" a place in some way. Don't Merge, because then it becomes a grouping of people with no sense in how they are specifically related. - jc37 05:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not against listifying per se, but I note that we have a growing backlog of categories to be listified at WP:CFDWM#Listify and there is nobody to pick this up. An alternative is to copy the articles to the talk page of the most appropriate WikiProject for them to listify and then delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense. Actually creating a list article with sourcing that satisfies WP:NLIST can be difficult. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. People who have appeared on a highly significant show and are often well-known for having appeared on the show even if they are also well-known for other things. University Challenge is not a game show, so merging them into the wider category is not an option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That clearly isn't the case. These people are all notable for other reasons, the appearance on this TV series is NOT WP:DEFINING. --woodensuperman 09:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Gail Trimble, Alexander Guttenplan, Eric Monkman and Bobby Seagull arguably are most notable for their University Challenge appearances, but they are exceptions. Ham II (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then they alone should be merged to Category:Contestants on British game shows, this is still a WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As usual, this is a daft and nonsensical argument trotted out by rote. People are not notable for being born in Plymouth, going to Reading University or dying in 1975 either, but we still categorise them. If we followed the letter of WP:DEFINING we'd have no more than one or two categories for almost every person. The fact we don't shows it is almost always (and rightly) ignored. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference there is that categorising by birthplace, etc, is what community consensus has decided is defining, wheras we have a guideline which explicitly precludes specific performances. And let's not forget that the vast majority of the people in this category are known for much bigger things. Being on University Challenge isn't really what Julian Fellowes, Malcolm Rifkind or Kwasi Kwarteng are known for is it? --woodensuperman 16:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I'd classify appearing on UC (or any other serious quiz show) as a "performance". UC and Mastermind are the most highly regarded TV quizzes in the UK. They're not just some fluffy gameshow. For the rest, I refer you back to my previous comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An appearance on a television show is a performance. And you cannot be selective and make an exception for this specific TV show. In any case, with rare exceptions, these people are not notable for appearing on this show. In the majority of cases these are people who became notable, but then happened to have appeared on this show in the past. This is not an appropriate subject for a category. --woodensuperman 15:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify by adding entries to University Challenge § Notable contestants. Ham II (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, and RevelationDirect Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:53, 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.

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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia articles containing buzzwords to Category:Articles containing buzzwords

Nominator's rationale: This request is to remove the word "Wikipedia" from the name of this category and all subcategories. I'm not sure how or whether it would be helpful to tag all subcategories with this CfD, so I'm only tagging the parent category.

Some maintenance categories use "Articles...", some use "Pages..." and some use "Wikipedia articles...". This makes them harder to find, so I think we should remove the word "Wikipedia" from most or all of them to simplify things. But at the moment I'm only nominating this one. Kk.urban (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The "Wikipedia" seems there for a reason. Otherwise it could be construed as all news or encyclopedia articles on the Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While not all of the hidden categories start with "Wikipedia", it' still a pretty strong naming convention, as seen here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 15 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.

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 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from the Western Samoa Trust Territory to Category:Western Samoa Trust Territory people
• Propose renaming Category:Administrators of the Western Samoa Trust Territory to Category:Administrators of Western Samoa Trust Territory
• Propose renaming Category:Treaties extended to the Western Samoa Trust Territory to Category:Treaties extended to Western Samoa Trust Territory (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: Merge duplicate category created by user:Johnpacklambert. Rename others without "The" – not needed, and not used in the chronology sub-cats of Category:Western Samoa Trust Territory. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes: I acknowledge that "the" would be needed if the territory name had the form "trust territory of X" as used at Category:Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; but this territory does not have that naming format. I also acknowledge that "People from Western Samoa Trust Territory" would be an option, but the siblings in Category:People from former British colonies and protectorates in Oceania mostly use the naming format "X people", e.g. Territory of New Guinea people. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per nom. Mason (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnpacklambert, please check if a category exists before making it. Mason (talk) 02:47, 11 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.

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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Chairmen of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa to Category:Chairpersons of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
• Propose renaming Category:Chairmen of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community to Category:Chaipersons of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
• Propose renaming Category:Chairmen of the Navajo Tribe to Category:Chairpersons of the Navajo Tribe
• Propose renaming Category:Chairmen of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe to Category:Chairpersons of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
• Propose renaming Category:Chairmen of the Tohono O'odham to Category:Chairpersons of the Tohono O'odham

Nominator's rationale: Rename to be gender inclusive. Some of these people are women. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, more accurate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:29, 15 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.

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:19th-century sportspeople. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:19th-century referees and umpires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:19th-century baseball umpires to Category:Baseball umpires

Nominator's rationale: Only covers one century and has, in turn, only one subcategory. Merge subcat with its parent category. Delete the "19th-century referees and umpires". Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just delete the "Category:19th-century referees and umpires"; only has one category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge of Category:19th-century baseball umpires, the fact that there aren't 20th-century and 21st-century categories is not decisive. A 19th-century category is relevant for historical purposes, which would not apply to the 20th and 21st century. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, understood per you responses to another nomination. I'm fine with keeping Category:19th-century baseball umpires but I would still say delete Category:19th-century referees and umpires since "baseball umpires" is the only category in it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough with regards to Category:19th-century referees and umpires but then it should be a merge to Category:19th-century sportspeople rather than a deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, think the final decision was, per @Marcocapelle, merge Category:19th-century referees and umpires to Category:19th-century sportspeople. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:03, 11 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.

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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:19th-century martial artists to Category:Martial artists
• Propose merging Category:18th-century martial artists to Category:Martial artists
• Propose merging Category:17th-century martial artists to Category:Martial artists
• Propose merging Category:16th-century martial artists to Category:Martial artists

Nominator's rationale: Has very few articles; does not help in navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yinweiaiqing: as the creator of these categories, you may give it a try to populate these categories fully. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, they also created similarly underpopulated Category:19th-century wrestlers (and so on until the 16th-century). Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate, e.g. from https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=26709933 (I have selected some C16 births already to populate C16 or C17 martial artists). – Fayenatic London 15:25, 1 January 2024 (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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few of the categories have been populated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 10 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.

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 Category:Women American football officials; merge Category:Women National Football League officials to Category:Women American football officials and Category:National Football League officials. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Women American football officials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Women National Football League officials to Category:National Football League officials and Category:Women American football officials

Nominator's rationale: Delete/merge. Only one category layer. Updating rationale per precedent. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment one female category might be justified because (or if) the officials are generally male. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, what do you think? Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not the criterion of WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While there is a category for women referees and umpires by sport, I don't see one for leagues. I'd be fine with keeping Category:Women American football officials but doing away with Category:Women National Football League officials. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know enough about gender and referees to really have an opinion. Mason (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the presence of women referees in these particular leagues is widely discussed in the media, which, by definition, means it passes WP:EGRS. See NBA.comESPNBleacher Report New York Times. Similar articles are easily findable via Google for the NFL as well. Re-reading WP:BEFORE seems relevant with many of these EGRS-related nominations.--User:Namiba 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• We can still merge Category:Women American football officials to Category:Women referees and umpires, there is no EGRS rationale involved in that merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, per a previous Cfd (on "Jewish Major League Baseball players") I think Category:Women National Football League officials should be deleted while the Category:Women American football officials should be kept. The former is too specific, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a fair alternative. For sure we do not need two levels. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Merge Category:Women National Football League officials per UPDATED nomination based on previous Cfd and WP:EGRS. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, is my final proposal a good compromise? Asking for a final consensus. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like a sensible alternative.--User:Namiba 21:52, 11 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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Arms traders to Category:Arms dealers

Nominator's rationale: Based on opposition to renaming the subcategory Category:Fictional arms dealers to align with this category.

• Either rename the real-world category or rename the fictional category, at least make sure they are consistent with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "arms traffickers" instead? Category:Amrs traffickers, Category:Fictional arms traffickers, arms trafficker and arms traffickers and arms trafficer and arms trafficers as redirects to arms trafficking -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We need a NPOV category name. There are both traffickers or dealers who are on the fringes of legality, but the category probably includes those selling on behalf of legitimate manufacturers with the proper export licences. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 10 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.

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: manual merge. There is no opposition to getting rid of the category, and the categorization of any specific article can be discussed at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Berber Islamists to Category:Berber Muslims and Category:Islamists

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge: Non-defining Intersection between ethnicity and religious sect/political orientation Mason (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge, no need to merge some articles to Category:Islamists after I just added them Category:Islamist mass murderers. Also I wonder about Berber Muslims as a target: most articles are Belgian Muslims of Moroccan descent and Berber ethnicity seems not very defining for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 10 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.

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:Faridkot, India. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Faridkot, Punjab to Category:Faridkot, India

Nominator's rationale: Per the main article at Faridkot, India which I have moved from Faridkot, Punjab in line with WP:NCIND (no other place with the same name in India i.e. first-level administrative division is not needed in the title, moreover the title was ambiguous with different Faridkots in "Punjab, Pakistan"). Gotitbro (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So far there is apparently no objection to the article move. If that remains the case then the category name can follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While it wasn't a formal WP:RM, it's been a month since the article move and I don't see any pushback on the talk page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:35, 15 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.

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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by adaptations or parodies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with two very unrelated subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That its creator was a rather recent sockpuppet account says it all. Pointless and unnecessary, as is their modus operandi. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 10 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.

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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Philanthropists from the Dutch East Indies to Category:People from the Dutch East Indies and Category:Philanthropists

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge this underpopulated category. It's unhelpful for navigation to only have one person in a category Mason (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see why this article is in the Category:Philanthropists tree. Delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Equally fine with me. Mason (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just Delete Maybe Tjong A Fie was a philanthropist, but the article doesn't indicate such and there's nothing else in this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:36, 15 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.

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:Afghan tribal leaders. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Afghan chiefs to Category:Afghan tribal leaders

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category. Mason (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to whatever title is more common. But I would say "tribal leader" is more descriptive. - Altenmann >talk 23:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I created the Afghan chiefs category back in 2020, when I was focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Afghan history. At the time I was not aware of the Afghan tribal leaders category - if I were, I don't think I would've made it. Koopinator (talk) 14:42, 11 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.