Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24

December 24

Category:Reputed virgins

Propose deleting Category:Reputed virgins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a veritable can of worms. It might include e.g. presumably the majority of Popes and other RC clergy, and a lot of people who died as children. Should it include people like Arthur, Prince of Wales and Edward Heath? PatGallacher (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial characteristic (maybe with few exceptions). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. This category is for people who are famous as (alleged) virgins, so obviously not children and most popes (not you, Pope Alexander VI). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should have been notified of this Cfd. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see virginity as a notable biographical element. Who cares if they could not find any suitable lover? Dimadick (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one of the first twenty things I think of when I think of Isaac Newton. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Verification alone is problematic, along with any number of issues. Intothat darkness 13:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by the nom, this just looks like an WP:OR magnet. Also, techincally, this is pretty much an all-inclusive category. Because at some point in their lives, presumably all people are. - jc37 21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hello Girls

Propose deleting Category:Hello Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and recategorize; this is supposed to be a category for what is known as "Hello Girls" who were switchboard operators but also has women who seemingly had nothing to do with it - not sure how it helps with navigation. Biographical articles should be diverted to Category:Switchboard operators and Category:Telegraphists where appropriate. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hello Girls of World War I, to remove ambiguity. - jc37 22:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval synagogues by year

Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1200 (1 P) to Category:12th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1200
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1205 (1 P) to Category:13th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1205
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1315 (1 P) to Category:14th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1315
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1344 (1 P) to Category:14th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1344
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1357 (1 P) to Category:14th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1357
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1420 (1 P) to Category:15th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1420
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1492 (1 P) to Category:15th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1492

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories. Medieval mosques and churches are also not categorized by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Many dates in the Middle Ages are uncertain, including at least one of the items in this category (Synagogue of Santa María la Blanca, c. 1205). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regencies of Bangka Belitung Islands

Propose merging Category:Regencies of Bangka Belitung Islands to Category:Regencies of the Bangka Belitung Islands

Nominator's rationale: Check out "The#Geographic usage" and "wikt:the#Usage notes", along with the naming of subcategories of Category:Bangka Belitung Islands. Wikihistorian (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename C2B. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American social media influencers

Propose merging Category:American social media influencers to Category:American Internet celebrities

Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category that's distinct from American Internet celebrities? ^SMason_Garrison 04:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, if applicable the articles are already in Category:American bloggers, Category:American YouTubers, Category:American TikTokers etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. ^SMason_Garrison 16:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, and oppose deletion for that matter. Having the subcategory makes for more consistency with our articles, Internet celebrity and influencer, and the existence of the category—and the heaps of secondary source coverage about 'social media influencers' and all manner of web platform based persons like YouTubers and TikTokers—go to show that these are sufficiently defining categories. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTubers and TikTokers were exactly my point. We already have categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may have written unclearly. My point was that YouTuber and social media influencer are separately notable. Michael Sugrue was a YouTuber, but to call him an "influencer" would to me seem to be misunderstanding the genre of his content (education in the history of philosophy). It's possible to be an Internet celebrity, or a noteworthy/notable person on the Internet, without being a social media influencer, making it useful to have influencers as a subcategory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:01, 13 December 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) 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think nowadays social influencers is a broad term, well covering all YouTubers and TikTokers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; "influencer" carries a connotation of trendsetting, especially in the realm of purchasing decisions, e. g., vloggers plugging their Stanley drinking tumblers, Instagrammers recommending articles of clothing, etc. That's not a connotation that readily connotes a documentarian YouTuber like Kevin Perjurer of Defunctland, or an education TikToker like historian J. Draper. (as well as aforementioned historian YouTuber Michael Sugrue; I don't really see "influencer" as the point of overlap between that guy and Mr. Beast.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Hydrangeans's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the discussion above: Category:TikTokers has been a stable subcategory of Category:Social media influencers since December 2019 shortly after the category was created. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing Category:TikTokers from Category:Social media influencers. Category:TikTokers already appears in Category:Internet celebrities, after all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I notice the problem is larger, there is also Category:Internet celebrities and Category:Social media influencers. So you might consider withdrawing this nomination and restart at a higher level. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Language has evolved so that all notable Youtubers, Tiktokers, etc. are "infuencers". This is therefore redundant categorization. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated parent Category:Social media influencers too, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_25#Category:Social_media_influencers. It may make sense to close the two discussions simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, and oppose deletion. Not all influencers are celebrities, e.g. LinkedIn influencers. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all influencers are celebrities, ok, but what is relevant here is that all notable influencers are celebrities. We are discussing categorization of articles about notable people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

Propose deleting Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This cat was tagged for speedy deletion as G4. There was indeed a CfD back in 2021 where this was deleted by consensus. I declined the speedy because this was a lot of material to remove without a discussion, and IMHO I felt this call was just outside of the trust of the community for any one single trusted user. I have no interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize, death by cardiovascular disease in general is too common to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on the previous: if the category is not kept then at least the subcategories should be moved to Category:Deaths by type of illness. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments in previous discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think containerize is the solution here, so that the subcategories are at least moderately closely linked. ^SMason_Garrison 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize per above. If it is known, then it is defining. Respublik (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria what are your thoughts on containerization? ^SMason_Garrison 17:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would allow related caused of death to be easily navigated between. ^SMason_Garrison 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both defining, and relatively easy to locate available sources on it. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still appears to be consensus for a change, but no consensus on what the change should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

Propose merging Category:People from the Crown of Castile to Category:Castilians

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If merged, this category should be left as a redirect. If not merged, I think we need an extremely clear definition of how these categories are distinct. ^SMason_Garrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse among the 12th- to 15th-century subcategories of Category:Castilians. Admittedly the latter is rather vague: without the description on the category page it might also refer to modern Castilians. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact a reverse merge would solve the latter problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the difference in page history, I'd rather rename Category:Castilians to Category:People from the Crown of Castile, and leave a redirect for some categories behind the scences ^SMason_Garrison 05:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge as discussed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Castilians. If there are no further comments we should be all set for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

Propose merging Category:People from the Crown of Aragon to Category:People from the Kingdom of Aragon

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. ^SMason_Garrison 16:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Technically Valencia, the Balearic Islands and Sicily belonged to the Crown of Aragon but not to the Kingdom of Aragon. The articles directly in this category are about people from the Kingdom of Valencia or the Kingdom of Majorca. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in history

Propose manually merging Category:2000s in history to Category:2000s
Propose manually merging Category:2010s in history to Category:2010s
Propose manually merging Category:2020s in history to Category:2020s
Propose manually merging Category:2030s in history to Category:2030s

Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus their parent category. The decades as a whole are, or will become, part of history. The merge needs to happen manually because many articles are already in, e.g., Category:2000s decade overviews. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I oppose this proposal, because Category: 2020s decade overviews, et al, includes 2020s in sports, 2020s in fashion, 2020s in music, 2020s in film, etc etc,

the category Category: 2020s in history has a few highly useful and highly specific roles ; a) it is for articles describing history in a broad narrative style , namely, 2020s in history, 2020s in military history, 2020s in Asian history, etc etc. and b) it is also for sub-categories pertaining to that decade's history, such as Category: 2020s in military history, Category:2020s in women's history, etc; so clearly those are not limited only to articles that are decade overviews.

And Category:2020s is clearly a broad umbrella category, with hugely wide scope, so it is not interchangeable with this category. Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The concept of history is inseparable from time periods. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is not the time period, it is the content. and you are incorrect. the current decade overview articles include things like 2020s in film, 2020s in fashion, 2020s in sports. so those are NOT history topics. they are topics pertaining to entertainment, or arts and culture, or recreation. not like history at all. can i please suggest that you read the articles referenced above, to comment on this? Sm8900 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza's argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these articles are about history. Namely history of film, history of sports and history of fashion respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per nom and the above. The parent Category:History by decade, should probably go too. The problem for these is that any year-based cat contains articles about "history" of "something". That's what they hold. This being somewhat different than geological eras, or other time scales, of course. But even those contain "history", of a sort. - jc37 22:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. And I've BLARed the similarly-redundant articles in Category:History by decade. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-governmental organizations

Propose purging Category:Non-governmental organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Note that I'm proposing purging rather than deletion; however, there may be a case to be made that deletion might be preferable due to the scope of the problem.
The term does have a technical definition, but is routinely overused to the point of meaninglessness in the real world, encompassing nearly any organization that exists at all regardless of whether it fits the technical definition of an "NGO" or not — so previous discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5#Category:Non-governmental organizations by country) have established a consensus that trying to categorize for the distinction between organizations that are "non-governmental" and organizations that are not "non-governmental" was not a productive use of wikipedians' time and energy. Accordingly, the category explicitly has a usage note on it saying "This is not a category for articles about individual organizations", as well as a {{Diffuse}} template on it, but unsurprisingly is quite populated by articles about individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, needs to be purged from the category? All the articles? Only articles that don't fit the proper definition? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category; thoughts on LaundryPizza's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, purge all individual organizations (all articles except the two on top). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As commonly used, it is synonymous with civil society. Though, this may require deletion of its subcategories as well. Also, there are other top-level general items such as Non-governmental organisations in Georgia (country). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

Propose deleting Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining category ^SMason_Garrison 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this preposterous. How is this vague? Should it be "People who have knowingly sacrificed their lives to save others"? "People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others"? Blockhaj (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles in a category that does not fit anywhere, we better add a direct link in the See also section of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of people throughout history which can be added to this category. Blockhaj (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not all get a Wikipedia though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but there surely must be tons of articles out there which fits this category no? The current two articles were just the ones i could think of in the moment of creation. Blockhaj (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If you don't add any other articles yourself it'll be very unlikely this category gets further populated. Other editors will not be aware that the category exists because it doesn't naturally belong in any category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I do not see why that is a reason to delete it? Blockhaj (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I have now added more articles and placed it under the category of altruism. Blockhaj (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That does not help. Editors expect to find topic articles in this tree, not biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The purpose of categories is to help navigation. This category doesn't do that, and even if it did the question of whether this meets the criteria of a defining feature. ^SMason_Garrison 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Shouldn't categories help with gathering articles with the same or similar nature? I never find that categories help with navigation, at least on English Wikipedia. Anyhow, which "tree" should this be put under? Blockhaj (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  They don't help with gathering, they help with reading articles about a similar topic after the gathering has been done. And your last question is exactly my earlier point, it does not fit in any tree so it'll never be populated by anyone else. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be well defined and useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator. If kept, it should be renamed as something like People who died after attempting to save others/People who died after saving others, because the intention to sacrifice their life is hardly determinative baring exceptional circumstances. Even then it is somewhat clunky and opaque.Respublik (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The construction "sacrificing one's life" (etc) is cherry picked as it is the most common poetic phrase for this (next to "giving one's life" which is more ambiguous). A more strict and direct name will make the category harder to find i think. Instead, the category itself has a specifying note written on it: People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others.. This can further be expanded on if needed. Blockhaj (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.' I think a good title might be people who died due to efforts to save lives. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is vague imo and not what the category is about. Its about people who knowingly died to save others. Blockhaj (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that in many cases, the person did not know whether they would die when attempting to save someone else. They acted despite the risk to themselves, but they could be certain of the exact outcome beforehand — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, perhaps rename to people who knowingly died due to efforts to save lives. Sm8900 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea for the category is to list people who knew they would most likely die as a result of attempting to save others lives. Ie, they would sacrifice their life (not in the sense of using one's whole life span to invent or create something to save others). Take Vince Coleman (train dispatcher) as an example. Blockhaj (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is indeed vague and impossible to define.--User:Namiba 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but suggest creating list. Certainly there are notable people who did this but it doesn't fit as an encyclopedic category per se, because there's too many vagaries here. However, I propose people who support this category consider creating a list (see all the lists on Lists of unusual deaths) because I think there are probably enough sources that support this as a notable topic. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 18:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against a list if someone is willing to create it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, once upon a time, Kbdank71 had a script to automate listify closes. That said, I don't know how it worked, or even if it still exists. Maybe it's worth asking about something new at Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Bot requests, or even Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). - jc37 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Jharkhand to Category:Scientists from Jharkhand

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 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) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jhaverilal K. Dholakia is not a scientist based on available context, and is in other subcategories of Category:Indian engineers and Category:People from Jharkhand. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Propose renaming Category:Alvarado wrestling family to Category:Alvarado professional wrestling family

Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. The article is at Alvarado wrestling family but this is a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling families, so I thought the rename made sense. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it makes more sense to have Category:Professional wrestling families renamed to Category:Wrestling families. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a good idea, though it's a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling. So, if so, it should move to be a subcategory of Category:Wrestling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Professional wrestling families. Further discussion on which category should be renamed is needed :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moving to "category:wrestling families". Professional wrestling is not the same thing as wrestling. They share similar moves, but it's similar to the difference between a Ballerina and a Gymnast.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if that can't go ahead then I support the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Propose renaming Category:Arab supporters of Israel to Category:Arab Zionists
Propose renaming Category:Muslim supporters of Israel to Category:Muslim Zionists

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed to be consistent with the child categories of Algerian Zionists etc, or the subcategories should be purged or renamed. Being a Zionist doesn't mean that you support the state of Israel. Zionism advocates for a Jewish homeland; not all Zionists support the state of Israel. And people who support Israel don't need to do so because of Zionism. @AHI-3000: for making me aware of the category naming discrepancy ^SMason_Garrison 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support and also rename Category:Muslim supporters of Israel to Category:Muslim Zionists, in order to match it with Category:Arab Zionists and Category:Christian Zionists. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination. But you need to tag it. ^SMason_Garrison 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I already placed the CFD template on Category:Muslim supporters of Israel. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Should we combine #Category:Muslim supporters of Israel into this discussion? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination" ^SMason_Garrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Supporters of Israel are explicitly Zionists. Dimadick (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. @Smasongarrison doesn't agree though, even though almost everyone agrees that "Zionist" is usually used to mean "supporter of Israel". These meanings are far from being mutually exclusive. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of tagging me? I literally made the nomination. I don't disagree that the common understanding is that these are often used as synonyms. ^SMason_Garrison 03:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree or not that Category:Muslim supporters of Israel is an appropriate subcategory of Category:Zionists? AHI-3000 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate until it is renamed. ^SMason_Garrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Zionism and Christian Zionism are specific ideologies. See nomination above. There is no Arab Zionism ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It's eminently possible to support Israel without being a Zionist. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're opposing the rename, but what are your thoughts on the rest of the proposal. "This category should either be renamed to be consistent with the child categories of Algerian Zionists etc, or the subcategories should be purged or renamed." ^SMason_Garrison 23:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. It looks like this is the odd one out of a big tree. Perhaps it should be renamed after all, and then the entire tree be brought up for discussion at relevant WikiProjects... Grutness...wha? 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of renaming all siblings (e.g. to "Zionist activists") and purging, but that does not take away the fact that Category:Arab supporters of Israel is an accurate name for the category that is nominated here. It can simply be removed from the Zionists tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Muslim supporters of Israel, but I still do not see consensus for any particular action. Further discussion would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_15#Category:Muslim_supporters_of_Israel has just been closed as "keep", so I don't think it should be tagged again. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that tagging just allows it to be discussed, I will leave it tagged. Of course, tagging does not mean that anything will happen to the category. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: What do you mean? I only asked for the other discussion to be closed, because I thought we only needed one discussion to propose both of these two categories for renaming. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I have tagged the category so that it is now part of this CFD, which is what you asked for (unless, that is, I am missing something). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: So both categories will be part of the same proposal discussion to be renamed (or not renamed)? AHI-3000 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, AHI-3000. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh to Category:Scientists from Himachal Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 13 December 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) 04:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substituted amphetamines

Propose renaming Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines

Nominator's rationale: Per opposed WP:CFDS request:

Extended content

Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines – C2C: Non-standard chemical class category name. See here (i.e., only a single use of "Substituted" in a chemical category name on all of Wiki) and compare other closely related category names like Category:Phenethylamines, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, Category:Cathinones, Category:Tryptamines, and so forth. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article of the category is Substituted amphetamine. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see reasoning above and compare Category:Phenethylamines and Substituted phenethylamine, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines and Substituted β-hydroxyamphetamine, Category:Cathinones and Substituted cathinone, Category:Tryptamines and Substituted tryptamine, and so forth. Category:Substituted amphetamines is an outlier and goes against standards, including within its own category tree (it's a subcategory of Category:Phenethylamines and it contains the Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, and Category:Cathinones categories). There is no reason for this inconsistency and it makes using these categories (i.e., knowing/remembering whether the category has the prefix "Substituted" in its name) more tedious than it needs to be. There are dozens of other examples as well (e.g., see here for just some of them); Category:Substituted amphetamines is the only exception having "Substituted" in the category name on the English Wikipedia. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a month and there hasn't been any discussion, so I'm requesting feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. It looks like there's also some prior discussion above at Category talk:Substituted amphetamines#Rename; the page was previously moved from Category:Amphetamines to Category:Substituted amphetamines. I disagree with the reasoning there and think the category name would still be better as Category:Amphetamines, so continuing with the move efforts. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support move per nominator — the argument re: consistency (WP:C2C) makes sense to me. After the move, we should make sure that both Amphetamine and Substituted amphetamine are main articles for Category:Amphetamines, analogous to Category:Phenethylamines.

NB. To ensure Category:Cathinones and Category:Methamphetamines are managed accordingly, I've just made Substituted cathinone a main article for the cathinones category, as well as adding Methamphetamine to the methamphetamines category, making it a main article. This seems like the right approach to me, but I have much more experience editing chemistry articles than I do managing categories, so please let me know if you disagree. Preimage (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neapolitan families

Propose renaming Category:Neapolitan families to Category:Families from the Kingdom of Naples

Nominator's rationale: A request to rename to Category:Families from Naples was opposed on Speedy, in favor of this better name. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Kingdom of Naples" was a very specific time period of Neapolitan history and I don't see why this category would be limited to this and not cover other time periods/kingdoms in Neapolitan history. Note there are only two articles in this parent category, one of which is Rothschild banking family of Naples, which was not from the time period of the Kingdom of Naples, but when Naples was part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (which succeeded the Kingdom of Naples). Also there is a subcategory Category:Neapolitan noble families, which is a subcategory of Category:Neapolitan nobility, which for stated reasons spans multiple kingdoms. Likewise the Gagliano family was prominent for about 200 years, in the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, and the Kingdom of Italy. Neapolitan is a perfectly cromulent word that covers all of the history of Naples (in all its historic forms) and there's no reason to limit families (that span centuries) when they are notable by their geographic location, which is Naples. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 00:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Kaliforniyka's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To complicate matters further, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies is often referred to colloquially as the Kingdom of Naples. PatGallacher (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge to both parents, is, I think, the simplest answer in this case, since there seems to be problematic ambiguity here. - jc37 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor

Propose merging Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor to Category:Lists of buildings and structures in East Timor and Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in Southeast Asia

Nominator's rationale: And other parents. Part of a mass cleanup after the recent rename of East Timor's article to Timor-Leste. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominated and nominee categories are likely to be speedy-renamed now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only a single article in the category, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also identified another valid merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

Propose merging Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey to Category:Turkish politicians

Nominator's rationale: ^SMason_Garrison 02:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per reasoning below. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if not kept the category should be deleted instead of merged. The articles are already deeper in the tree of Category:Turkish politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

Propose merging Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives to Category:Maldivian politicians

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being arrested for a crime and occupation. ^SMason_Garrison 02:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. We don't classify people by having been arrested. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if not kept the category should be deleted instead of merged. The articles are already deeper in the tree of Category:Maldivian politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aim for the Top! images

Propose renaming Category:Aim for the Top! images to Category:Gunbuster images

Nominator's rationale: The official English name of "Aim for the Top!" (トップをねらえ!) is Gunbuster. Although Diebuster has its own name, in releases in English-speaking markets, it often has Gunbuster 2 (or "GunBuster 2") as another name used in conjunction with Diebuster. Furthermore, Gaina is working on Gunbuster 3. In addition, I created a category on Wikimedia Commons, commons:Category:Gunbuster, for that reason. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I wanted to add that a similar example of having the original name is the Neon Genesis Evangelion category, encompassing Neon Genesis Evangelion, Rebuild of Evangelion, and spin-offs. I figured that by following Evangelion's example, Gunbuster, as the franchise is known by its original name, could be more easily identified and more streamlined across the English-language Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename per C2D - main article is Gunbuster, and has had that name since creation in 2014. - jc37 22:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]