WP:CFD/T

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page[edit]

Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes[edit]

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today[edit]

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_July_17

July 17[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Populated places disestablished in New Brunswick in 2023[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Populated places disestablished in New Brunswick in 2023 to Category:Populated places disestablished due to the 2023 New Brunswick local governance reform

Nominator's rationale: All of these relate to a single government reform in this year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit odd. The places haven't been disestablished but the local governments have. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was to merge to Category:2023 disestablishments in New Brunswick, and remove them from the "Populated places disestablished" hierarchy. Compare Category:1974 disestablishments in New Brunswick which includes a raft of former electoral districts. However, the similar cases that arose from the 2015 Manitoba municipal amalgamations are directly within Category:Populated places disestablished in 2015, and disincorporated French communes are in the 2016 sibling, etc, so we should either purge all such cases of disincorporation, or keep/rename the category in some way. Would "disincorporated" be more helpful than "disestablished"? Perhaps all of Category:Populated places by year of disestablishment should be split between places that have been destroyed and those that were merely disincorporated. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your first thought the most. Splitting seems unnecessarily complex. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would also entail merging to Category:Populated places disestablished in 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @LaundryPizza03: my original point was that the place hasn't been disestablished. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter to Category:Registers of the Order of the Garter
Nominator's rationale: In the Order of the Garter, there is no, and has seemingly never been an, office of 'Registrar'; it appears always to have been 'Register', and this is explained in the article with a citation link. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Ohio Conference football templates[edit]

Propose renaming Category:American Mideast Conference football templates to Category:Mid-Ohio Conference football templates
Propose renaming Category:American Mideast Conference football standings templates to Category:Mid-Ohio Conference football standings templates

Nominator's rationale: The American Mideast Conference last sponsored football in 1970 when the conference was known as the Mid-Ohio Conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford[edit]

Propose deleting Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: While ~~notable~~ interesting, I'd say this is trivial. Perhaps Listify. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not sure how anything can be admittedly notable and also trivial, but since I agree the topic is undoubtedly notable, it's a reasonable topic for both categories and articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chiswick Chap, I was going for the word "interesting" and have updated my rationale to reflect that. But we don't categorize by degrees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we categorize by occupation, not by admission to education. Besides "first" is quite subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply is very quick, and certainly wrong, which suggests it wasn't considered. "First" can mean "the first group of women admitted to degrees at Oxford", which is objectively definable. And since when was occupation the only possible category? It obviously isn't, there are heaps of other categories, like 1949 births and people from different countries, to name but two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - If kept, then rename to Category:Women admitted to degrees at Oxford in 1920 to avoid confusion about the word "first". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Might the use of the word "first" be clarified if the category were titled "Women first admitted to degrees at Oxford?" The significance of the event is not that these women received degrees in 1920, but that women had been denied degrees prior to that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Schonblom (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Eric Schonblom, that's true of every university then, is it not? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Categories are meant to help navigation. They are not just bundles of interesting things.Mason (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models from London by borough[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Models from London by borough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

merging categories

Propose merging Category:Models from the City of Westminster to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Wandsworth to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Waltham Forest to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Southwark to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Redbridge to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Newham to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Merton to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Lewisham to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Lambeth to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Islington to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Hounslow to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Hillingdon to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Havering to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Harrow to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Haringey to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Hackney to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the Royal Borough of Greenwich to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Enfield to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Ealing to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Croydon to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Camden to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Bromley to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Brent to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Bexley to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Barnet to Category:Models from London
Propose merging Category:Models from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to Category:Models from London

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete per WP:OCLOCATION Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be a dual merge to both parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I was planning to slowly phase out the "People by Royal/London Borough of Foo" categories. Its quite different from the New York City boroughs (not least that there are far more of those) and, as far as I can tell, most of the people categorized by London borough are, more of than not, from there.
In fact, I was going to suggest a purge of anyone who is not originally from London. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I wouldn't oppose that, but until there has been a discussion about it it should still be a dual merge. Suppose consensus is against the idea, then borough categories ought to remain properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle, Alright, I will add those targets then. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories with 5 or more members, i.e. Camden, Croydon, Hackney, H&F, K&C, TH, Wandsworth & Westminster. Merge the rest as too small to be useful for navigation. I looked at some marginal cases and was not able to populate them further. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, wouldn't you agree that this is WP:OCLOCATION? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia That guideline permits "diffusing a large category". As for "relevant bearing", IMHO it is relevant that some of these models come from disadvantaged areas of the capital. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, I would disagree - I don't think the category is particularly large in comparison to others to require diffusion - but I won't argue with you on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would cheerfully concede to the majority if more editors think they should all be merged. I will place a notice at WT:LONDON. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in China Redux[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Shang dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Shang dynasty‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Han dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Han dynasty‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Jin dynasty (266–420) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Jin dynasty (266–420)‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Tang dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Tang dynasty‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Song dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Song dynasty‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Jin dynasty (1115–1234)‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Yuan dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Yuan dynasty‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Ming dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Ming dynasty‎
Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Qing dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Qing dynasty‎

Nominator's rationale: The rationale given by Marcocapelle for the previous CFD back in May:

"in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense.

This is usually the case, but as regards China X dynasty is the most common and natural form in English for the name of the state itself. Per the standard for analogous categories, e.g. Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire, I think reassuming the previous pattern would be ideal. Remsense诉 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire is not an analogous category because Byzantine does not refer to a dynasty. A good analogous example is Category:People under the Almoravid dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The state is what is being referred to here, wholly in line with the language used in English-language literature about China. Remsense诉 04:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A dynasty is something else than a state. If anything, the state is China. With the other example, the Almoravid dynasty, there is no commonly used state name at all, and that is also fine. State names may be derived from the dynasty name, e.g. Sassanid Empire and Sassanid dynasty but that is not the case here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't mean to be rude, but I feel this is being overly deliberate about universal boundaries between interwoven concepts in a way that, I stress, ignores actual usage. In part, these lexical differences can be ascribed to the distinct paradigms of dynasties in China compared to elsewhere. Byzantium was not really dynastic at its core at all, with the legitimacy of the state always clearly surpassing that of lineages. China was not the opposite per se, it's just that there was a totally different, more consubstantial relationship between the Chinese state and its ruling dynasty.
  
  Putting an even finer point on the "actual usage" argument: in a fulltext search of my library of China-related books, "under the Han dynasty" appears verbatim at some point in 14 books, while "in the Han dynasty" appears in 91! This ratio is 1:27 for the Shang, 11:21 for the Jin (both represented), 8:67 for the Tang, 6:54 for the Song, 11:42 for the Yuan, 16:52 for the Ming, and 7:51 for the Qing. This must reflect some conventional usage of "dynasty" in the name of a state, right? Remsense诉 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle, not to hound, but do you have any thoughts about this? To be clear, there's no lexical weirdness about the dataset above: "X dynasty" is being used as the name of the state in all the results I manually checked. Remsense诉 06:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Remsense诉 23:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make much sense unless there is a consistent translation issue in these books. I can understand the misunderstanding if Chinese language uses the same word for "dynasty" and "empire" while in English we have two words for it with different meaning. I'm not saying this is the case but it is the only hypothesis I can come up with. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai television series debuts by decade[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Thai television series debuts by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an umbrella category for a whole slew of subcategories, which each have a slew of subcategories. However, each is sparsely populated. This is a logical area for a navigation template, something that there may be a bot already to populate. I am suggesting we discuss this template with a view to incorporating the whole hierarchy of content into a navigation template. If that discussion reaches that conclusion, then processes should be put in hand to populate the template and depopulate the sub and sub-sub categories, which may then be deleted as empty. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What? Why would we create a template for unrelated entries that users will likely not ever use? This category system is exactly how this should be handled and how it is handled for other countries - see Category:Television series debuts by country and decade. This is a very strange deletion nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The question should perhaps be what to do with the sparsely-populated early year subcats of Category:Thai television series debuts by year. A nomination to merge 1965, 1980, 1990, 1991 and 1999 to their decade parents would probably gain support. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, some of the currently-empty subcats were created by วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ and later emptied by the same editor, having been used temporarily for some series that started and finished within one year. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems they've created a tree that I don't think exists in other countries. Category:1990 Thai television dramas instead of Category:1990 Thai television series debuts and Category:1990s Thai drama television series (see Category:2010s American drama television series). Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baltic Germans[edit]

Propose merging Category:Baltic Germans to Category:Baltic-German culture

Nominator's rationale: Three related categories:

I am not sure which way to merge, but current situation makes a mess Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what I think should happen is it should be merged into "Category:Baltic-German people", than the page should be split into a new catigory called "Category:Lists of Baltic-German German people". the "Category:Baltic-German culture" should be made a subcategory of Baltic-German people. Zyxrq (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as parent category of Category:Baltic-German people and Category:Baltic-German culture which are clearly different subcategories. Presumably there is also room for a Category:Baltic-German history. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree. Zyxrq (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: in general, Baltic Germans (see this article) means "Baltic-German people". Umbrella concept should be something like "Baltic German world" (e.g. Wikidata bundle Wikidata:Q8459480) Estopedist1 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic categories are normally organized as a topic category on top and a "people" subcategory for biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 @Marcocapelle I think this is kind of on topic but you guys think it would be Appropriate to create a new Template such as, Template:Baltic-Germans similar to Template:Baltic states for organizational purposes? Zyxrq (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bengali cinema[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Cinema of West Bengal to Category:Bengali cinema, India

Nominator's rationale: The category should be changed since the main article's name was changed from Cinema of West Bengal to Bengali cinema, India. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is not a straightforward case of WP:C2D because nominator moved the article without RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bengali cinema in India" would be better, but I suggest reverting the undiscussed page move instead for now, as this is part of Category:Culture of West Bengal, even though "[language] cinema" is the dominant naming format in Category:Indian film industries. @Jayanthkumar123: please see WP:RM#CM for how to start a discussion on a contested page move. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums[edit]

Propose merging Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums to Category:Jazzland Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Not sure why two categories were created, but now releases in two categories belong to the same label. The only other label with a similar name also already has its own category: Category:Jazzland Recordings albums. Solidest (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article name is Riverside Records. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzland seems to be a sublabel of it. Riverside Records discography says it's subsidiary, Discogs says it's companion label. Solidest (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acquired citizenship[edit]

Propose merging Category:Acquired citizenship to Category:Change of nationality

Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussions on "Naturalized citizens". Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge is actually a better option, per below comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the precedents were Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#People with acquired citizenship or Naturalized citizens and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 9#Category:People with acquired citizenship. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manual reverse merge would be better, I think, because in some cases people become dual nationals without losing the first nationality – in which case they are acquiring rather than changing. Although "Change of nationality" is part of the name of the subcat Category:Change of nationality in sport, that name does not match its stated scope which is "Sportspeople who have represented more than one nation". – Fayenatic London 12:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. You don't have to change your original nationality to acquire a new one. Many people have more than one nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged Category:Change of nationality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th century in Mozambique[edit]

Propose merging Category:18th century in Mozambique to Category:18th century in Portuguese Mozambique

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and reverse merge instead. What a mess Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique is currently – half of the year subcats up to 1975 use "Portuguese" in the name, half don't. I prefer the solution at e.g. Category:20th century in Angola where everything is simply named "in Angola", but all years/decades/centuries up to 1975 are parented by Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to see that Marcocapelle removed some content from Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g. Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I think I understand how you distinguish between those parents now. But I am not persuaded by the India hierarchy as a model rather than Angola. India also has sub-hierarchies for French, Dutch and Portuguese India. There is no such ambiguity between colonial powers for Mozambique.
    - I saw that you put Category:1924 in Mozambique into Portuguese Mozambique parent categories, and nominated it at Speedy. If these two layers are the way to go then presumably we should do likewise for all the Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique not currently called "Portuguese". I suggest leaving redirects.
    - Ah. I've just found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#Category:20th_century_in_Mozambique and 19th century just below it, which ended with consensus NOT to use "Portuguese". In those discussions you didn't !vote but questioned whether the "Portuguese" disambiguator was needed. Why should we go against that previous consensus and use "Portuguese" now? – Fayenatic London 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique, Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it would be (barely) justifiable to retain Category:18th century in Mozambique to hold 18th-century Mozambican people (2 P), 18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Mozambique (1 P) and Old Cathedral of Quelimane. I would likewise keep 19th century in Mozambique.
        
        But the rest of your proposal sounds right, as the other C16–C19 hierarchy contents are Fort São Miguel de Chicova, Fort São Caetano, Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique, Diocese of Lebombo, and redirects Captaincy of Sofala, Captaincy of Mozambique and Sofala, Captaincy-General of Mozambique and Rivers of Sofala, Province of Mozambique. The only other potential contents I found are Portuguese expedition to Sofala (1505), Siege of Mozambique (1607), Siege of Mozambique (1608).
        
        Please can we start by undoing your recent parameterising of years in Mozambique into "Portuguese"? [2] – Fayenatic London 09:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        OK, I see that my request and this whole discussion becomes moot because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. I suggest that that CFD should be closed before this one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still pending
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province)[edit]

Propose deleting Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:4th century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:5th century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to ?? century in Roman Africa I populated these categories somewhat. However, in Diocletian's administrative reforms (sometime between 284–305 CE), Africa (Roman province) was split into Africa Zeugitana, Africa Byzacena, and Africa Tripolitania. In 314 CE, these provinces were grouped together along with almost all Roman provinces on the African continent in the Diocese of Africa. Thus there essentially was no Roman province named just "Africa" in the 3rd-5th centuries. With my rename proposal, I suggest the new category scope includes all Roman and Byzantine-controlled areas on the African continent. The people categories need to be renamed as well. Daask (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is still only 5 unique articles in 3 categories, then we'd better move the articles back and carry on with deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Daask; do not delete: Smallcat is best employed when there is no potential for expansion, but these categories have considerable potential for expansion, though they would be better renamed. While merging them is a possibility, that would risk reducing their utility as navigational aids. This may be an area of study that has been neglected on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of potential topics under these headings. As far as I know, Roman Africa flourished at least until the time of the Vandal invasion, which would be worthy of multiple topics itself; I believe Belisarius attempted to reclaim Africa from the Vandals, which would seem to merit a topic; and of course it was still inhabited at the time the Muslims swept across it on the way to Spain, and that is a topic or two as well. There may be some articles on Roman governors, petty kings, bishops and religious writers from the region. It makes little sense to delete these categories now only to recreate them under substantially identical names once more articles have been written or added, justifying splitting a bigger category again. P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SMALLCAT is deprecated and should not be referencecs as an argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National military histories by war[edit]

Propose renaming Category:National military histories by war to Category:Military history by war and country

Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, agree with current name being confusing. The proposed target does not exactly describe what the category contains either. What about Category:Military history by country during wars? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename because of the confusion, but unsure about the proposed targets. Perhaps Category:Military history by country by war? This would introduce two specific criteria, enabling inclusion of subcategories like Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II, and Category:Military history of Japan during World War II. But see additional comments below. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also this nomination. I think that ultimately we do not need this tree at all, at most we need a Category:Military history of the United States by war. But it will take a few iterations to achieve that. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with eventually getting rid of the category, so any rename is an improvement in the meantime. Mason (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: For clarity, are you supporting a rename to Category:Military history of the United States by war? House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No that is just the ultimate goal, but we can't do it all it once. I just mean that it does not matter too much how the category is being renamed when it is ultimately going to disappear. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Next steps: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:Korean_War_national_military_histories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:World_War_II_national_military_histories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've supported the proposed next steps and I agree the goal should be deletion of this category. Thanks for the ping, btw. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention[edit]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention to Category:WikiProject assessment categories with incorrect names

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Some categories were added manually, while others are tagged by Template:Category class — based on the template's source code, this happens if and only if the name is incorrect.

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}{{subst:!}}{{PAGENAME:{{{class}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{class{{subst:!}}}}}}}{{subst:!}}unassessed{{subst:!}}{{subst:!}}-Class}} {{{topic}}} articles}}{{subst:!}}
   {{subst:!}}[[Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention]]
  }}

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WP:AWBREQ to auto-tag all of the categories here that are manually added, almost all of which have only the category listing in their source code. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, Category:Template Category class with class parameter not matching title exists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can {{Category class}} handle pages like Category:Disambig-Class Bihar articles of Low-importance‎? It has both class and importance. Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there is an existing template that covers cateegory navigation for the quality–importance intersection. I'm also seeking to standardize category names fo this type with a recent WP:CFDS for the intersectional ones of WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you going to tag all 333 categories in Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: This nomination is only about the parent, not its subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "manually tagged" ones were added because while this has now faded somewhat, last year in particular there was an absolute epidemic of people making hasty, half-baked "standardization" edits to wikiproject templates that had the side-effect of spewing out new redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories (sometimes even for wikiprojects that don't even do importance-rating at all) at an absolutely alarming rate — meaning that as a person who works to clean up categorization errors at Special:WantedCategories, for several weeks I was getting slapped in the face with dozens of those at a time on every new generation of that report.
They can't just stay red, which means they have to be either created or removed before the next generation of the report 72 hours later — but removing a template-generated category is impossible without either editing the template in ways that surpass my understanding of template-coding infrastructure, and thus likely breaking stuff, or totally reverting the changes that caused the redlinked category to exist in the first place, and thus being disruptive, so my only option was to create all of those categories myself. But creating a class or importance rating category is a more complex process than creating a mainspace category, especially in the cases where I would have had to create the entire importance-rating infrastructure from scratch (which I don't even know how to do), so it would have taken me weeks to do all the work myself — so especially given the sheer amount of crap I was having to deal with, my only realistic option was "do the absolute bare minimum necessary to make the category blue instead of red, and leave it in a place where the experts in wikiproject-rating categorization can fix it": namely, create a virtually blank category that doesn't contain all of the category-making code that a wikiproject assessment category should really contain, and then leave it in a "wikiproject categories that need to be fixed by people who actually know what they're doing" queue.
There's absolutely nothing on this category that says it's only for naming errors, and there are other kinds of attention that a wikiproject assessment category can need besides naming problems alone — so it makes sense to create the proposed category as a subcategory of this if desired, but it doesn't make sense to move the existing category to this since there can be other legitimate reasons for its use besides naming problems alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be done by somebody who knows how to do that, wouldn't it? Said somebody would not be me, so while those should be automated I'm not the one who can do that. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with splitting the incorrect names subcategory with the template-categorized system through Template:Category class and Template:Category importance, and leaving this category here. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hijacked journals[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Hijacked journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, per WP:NONDEF

a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;

If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.

if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.

It doesn't fall into any of them.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources define them as "a hijacked journal"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Beall's list, Retraction Watch, ScholarlyOA (before it was itself hijacked), Walailak Journal, Nature, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are sources about the topic of hijacking. The question is about sources about the subjects in the category. Please read WP:NONDEF carefully. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Every one of those sources identify specific journals being hijacked, and how they were hijacked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're missing the gist of NONDEF, so I'll quote:
  A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
  
  It goes on to say:
  if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
  
  No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". They just happen to be a victim of a scam. Granted, it's nice to know, but it needs to be sourced; a list would be the best place to cite sources, which is not technically possible in a mere category membership. fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". No, but the lead could (and I would argue, should) end with "The journal was hijacked by <organization>, with a fake website at <fakeurldomain>, and the legitimate site hosted at <realurldomain>".[source]" This is absolutely critical information because otherwise someone looking for e.g. Wulfenia could well end up checking the scam version rather than the legit version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Headbomb's convincing arguments. If a journal is hijacked, that most certainly is a defining characteristic. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean rename. Is there a better name than this? Like predatory? Mason (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hijacked means something very specific and applies to the victim of the scam. Predatory is a larger class of dubious journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Fourth Aliyah[edit]

Propose dispersing ~~Category:Members of the Fourth Aliyah~~Category:Immigrants of the Fourth Aliyah to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine

Nominator's rationale: disperse, period of 1924-1929 is arbitrary and we have diffused these migrants already by country of origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Marco. That’s not going to happen. This is a category specific to the period of the Fourth Aliyah, which was 5 years. We do not want to merge it into a 20 year period of immigration. Dag21902190 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging ~~Category:Members of the First Aliyah~~Category:Immigrants of the First Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
Propose merging ~~Category:Members of the Second Aliyah~~Category:Immigrants of the Second Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
Propose dispersing ~~Category:Members of the Third Aliyah~~Category:Immigrants of the Third Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine
Propose dispersing ~~Category:Members of the Fifth Aliyah~~Category:Immigrants of the Fifth Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine

I have added the siblings too, they are based on equally arbitrary periods. If not merged, then at least rename "members" to "migrants" or something like that. It does not concern membership of an organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/disperse per Marco's second proposal. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not arbitrary periods, you are flexing your ignorance of Israeli history.

Furthermore, believe it or not, definition of a “member” is “one of the individuals of a group”. The group of individuals who migrated to the Land of Israel during each Aliyah was a “member” of that respective Aliyah. They have been referred to as members of their respective Aliyot since the founding of the state.

if you want to change the word “member” for “migrant”, you will have to figure out how to change that on each person’s page. But your statement that “member” only refers to the “member of an organization”, is not true. It is your perspective of the word, but not reality.

I will note that the time you have dedicated to coming after these unique categories, and attempting to disperse them into the ether, piques my interest. You have spent hours attacking Israeli categories and pages, wasting time that could have been used being productive.

We will not be doing anything to the categories, as that would be denying the reality of each unique Aliyah.
I’m starting to have serious questions about the moderators of this platform. Everything Israel-related gets attacked non-stop (in an organized fashion), by people like you, who don’t even know what the Aliyot were! Making claims that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time-period is a blatant lie, and your privileges should be investigated. This is bizarre. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I find it absolutely fascinating that you nominated the first five Aliyot for dispersal, but left out the Aliyah Bet category. Is it because Aliyah Bet was illegal immigration, and doesn’t make the Jews look good? So you wanted to disperse one through five, and keep just the illegal immigration?
This entire nomination should be ignored, and the bias you’ve shown by nominating it should come back and bite you. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1st. Category:Aliyah Bet does not contain immigrants, it is a topic category. So that is something completely different. 2nd. Every of these Aliyahs is not a single group, they concern a process of several years with many separate groups and individuals. Group membership is therefore completely inapplicable here. 3rd. Please stop with personal attacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what you don’t understand, and the reason you keep doubling down on a subject you know nothing about is beyond me. Each Aliyah had its own unique movement. The facilitators of those Aliyot knew that they were facilitating the first, second, third, fourth, fifth Aliyah, and then Aliyah Bet. These categories organize the early Zionist immigrants to the land of Israel by the specific Aliyah movements that facilitated their immigration. To deny the benefits of these categories, and continue to gaslight me, is just a disingenuous tactic. I frankly consider the mass nominations of my categories for” deletion” and “merging” as vandalism, and an overreach of your privileges. You are not a victim here, you are the attacker. Dag21902190 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only now I notice that you have created Category:Members of Aliyah Bet too. I will nominate this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose dispersing Category:Members of Aliyah Bet to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine

Comment Categories were prematurely emptied by the nominator. Dag21902190. This should have waited until this discussion concluded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: not by nominator, but by creator of these categories. They have manually moved the articles from "Members" to "Immigrants". That is a waste of effort because the move could have done by a bot if there was consensus for it. I have updated the proposal accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should be investigated by Wikipedia for overreach of your editing privileges. You are stalking my page, attempting to merge all of my work into broader categories that don’t differentiate between Aliyot, (which is the entire point of these categories). This is the 12th category of mine that you have vandalized with some sort of banner, and for no good reason other than it relates to Israel. You didn’t like the word “member”, so I changed it to ”immigrant”. Now you’re making a blatantly false claim that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time period. It doesn’t matter to you if you revise history, as long as you prevent a compartmentalized gold-mine of information, like these categories, from existing. You are working hard to prevent any sort of organization that makes it easy to research the early history of Israel. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing happened in 1924 that requires a category split for immigrants. It was simply a continuous inflow of immigrants. In addition, my proposal is not preventing anything because all articles will stay in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine. Finally these are no longer "your" categories, as soon as you create them they become Wikipedia's. See also WP:OWN. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Incorrect, please do more research. Case in point would be that nearly half of the 2nd Aliyah immigrants returned to their countries of origin, while the vast majority of immigrants of the 3rd Aliyah stayed in Israel. They were two separate waves, with totally different results Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can't see how that matters. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Marcocapelle, I saw the comment they inserted in your nomination and thought they were the nominator. What is going to happen with all of these "Member" categories that are now empty? Will they be turned into redirects if this proposal goes through? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I can imagine your confusion about what happened. If nothing else happens these categories will become eligible for deletion as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a convincing argument to disperse. Marco points out 5 year periods are arbitrary, but so are centuries. If, as Dag states, there exists a mode of reference that divides the immigrants into 5 periods, and someone may reasonably be taking advantage of that division to differentiate between 2 immigrants from different periods, I don't see any reason to disperse. If Dag just invented this division himself I would agree, but my impression is that this isn't the case. JoeJShmo^💌 23:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) not extended confirmed House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kaguya-hime[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Kaguya-hime to Category:Works based on The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter

Nominator's rationale: All articles in the category are adaptations. Also the category title should use the current title of the main article. Mika1h (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by era in Rivers State[edit]

Propose merging Category:People by era in Rivers State to Category:People from Rivers State

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a redundant category layer Mason (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The subcategory may be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User talk archives[edit]

Propose deleting Category:User talk archives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unknowing recreation, in 2016, of a category created in 2006 which was deleted at CfD in 2008. Same rationale applies now as in the nomination back then - it's not useful for navigation or collaboration to group disparate user talk archives. — Scott • talk 12:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy video games[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Comedy video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per Comedy in video games there is no proof that a "comedy video game" genre actually exists, and while there are categories for "parody" or "satire", that is more self-evident. Comedy comes in numerous forms, making the separation between comedic and non-comedic unclear (I could call Garry's Mod a "comedy" game even if it is all unintentional). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What about licensed video game adaptations of comedy movies and shows? Category:Parody video games and Category:Satirical video games have significant overlap with this category, I'd argue many of the games listed here could be categorized as comedy games, what makes these subcategories more legit than the parent category? AHI-3000 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parody and satire might actually merit a merge into each other, but they are indicative of a clear attempt to mock the original source material which is quickly evident. McPixel is obviously a parody of MacGuyver. Meanwhile, comedic video games are rarely classified as such. I don't see anyone calling Drakengard 3 a comedy game despite in my experience being heavily humorous, people classify it as an action game. Comedy and parody/satire are not the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous category deletion in 2017 after a similar discussion. No such genre is discussed in reliable, secondary sources as associated with these entries and makes for blurry inclusion criteria. The "subcategories" do not require this parent category. czar 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Orthodox Church, Baku diocese[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Russian Orthodox Church, Baku diocese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches under the Baku diocese[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Churches under the Baku diocese to Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Azerbaijan

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Category:Russian Orthodox churches by country. Note that the territory of the Diocese of Baku and Azerbaijan coincides with the country of Azerbaijan. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game franchises by narrative genre[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Video game franchises by narrative genre to Category:Video game franchises by theme

Nominator's rationale: QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is clearly a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre, why would you suggest an unrelated name? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both current names are not exactly stating what the categories contain. They are about video games by series, not about franchises. It should rather become something like "Video games by (narrative) genre and series". Alternatively, the narrative category may also be upmerged, it does not make too much sense to ghettoize the three genres that are in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the supercategory name should have "series" instead of "franchises" in it to reflect the naming pattern of the subcategories. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Video game series by narrative genre, per AHI-3000. I think many of the surrounding categories, such as Category:Video game franchises by genre, should be renamed similarly. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fajemirokun family[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Fajemirokun family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two people in this family, which could be interlinked if it was clear how they were related. Mason (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBC LX Home affiliates[edit]

Propose deleting Category:NBC LX Home affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer available OTA but still streaming; these stations have/will start airing a new diginet, NBC American Crimes (no article yet) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nintendo controversies[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Nintendo controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is terrible, for several reasons:

- Contains a bunch of loosely unrelated content, only defined by "being related to Nintendo", even some that Nintendo, the video game company, was not even in involved in, such as the Burger King one, as well as the other Pokémon ones, especially the ones about the anime.

- The category already overlaps with other Controversies categories.

- We could start a new category to divide the Pokémon controversies, but we cannot, we currently do not have any categories for controversies over a specific media franchise, and in turn never should.

If we delete this category, we will need undo some of Blakegripling_ph's edits for which he changed.

Also, if you insist on retaining this category by making a similar category like "Works taken down by Nintendo", we don't, because information on this topic should better be located in the article "Intellectual property protection by Nintendo". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and merge, after purging games and characters there are three articles and a subcategory left that are truly about a controversy. These may be manually merged to Category:Video game controversies and Category:Nintendo insofar the articles aren't already in these trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]