Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Category:Netflix original programming by language

User:Woodensuperman and User:Qwerfjkl, the discussion covered two category formats: Fooian-language Netflix original programming and Fooian-language Netflix original films. The latter should have been merged into Category:Netflix original films rather than Category:Netflix original programming. --Paul 012 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Paul 012, indeed it should have. Was it not? — Qwerfjkltalk 08:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Going by this bot edit, I think no. --Paul 012 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Paul 012, it looks like I listed it incorrectly. The easiest way to resolve this is probably to revert the bot and then get the bot to handle it with the correct targets, which will unfortunately create a bunch of red-linked categories briefly. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012, are these correct?

Original erroneous merge targets

* [[:Category:Arabic-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Arabic-language films]] * [[:Category:Dutch-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Dutch-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:English-language films]] * [[:Category:Filipino-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Filipino-language films]] * [[:Category:French-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:French-language films]] * [[:Category:Hebrew-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Hebrew-language films]] * [[:Category:Hindi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Hindi-language films]] * [[:Category:Indonesian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Indonesian-language films]] * [[:Category:Italian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Italian-language films]] * [[:Category:Japanese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Japanese-language films]] * [[:Category:Korean-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Korean-language films]] * [[:Category:Malayalam-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Malayalam-language films]] * [[:Category:Mandarin-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Mandarin-language films]] * [[:Category:Marathi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Marathi-language films]] * [[:Category:Norwegian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Norwegian-language films]] * [[:Category:Polish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Polish-language films]] * [[:Category:Portuguese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Portuguese-language films]] * [[:Category:Russian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Russian-language films]] * [[:Category:Spanish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Spanish-language films]] * [[:Category:Swedish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Swedish-language films]] * [[:Category:Tamil-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Tamil-language films]] * [[:Category:Telugu-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Telugu-language films]] * [[:Category:Thai-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Thai-language films]] * [[:Category:Turkish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original programming]] and [[:Category:Turkish-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original films]] to [[:Category:English-language films]], [[:Category:Amazon Prime Video original films]] and [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original programming]]

Corrected targets

* [[:Category:Arabic-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Arabic-language films]] * [[:Category:Dutch-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Dutch-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:English-language films]] * [[:Category:Filipino-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Filipino-language films]] * [[:Category:French-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:French-language films]] * [[:Category:Hebrew-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Hebrew-language films]] * [[:Category:Hindi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Hindi-language films]] * [[:Category:Indonesian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Indonesian-language films]] * [[:Category:Italian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Italian-language films]] * [[:Category:Japanese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Japanese-language films]] * [[:Category:Korean-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Korean-language films]] * [[:Category:Malayalam-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Malayalam-language films]] * [[:Category:Mandarin-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Mandarin-language films]] * [[:Category:Marathi-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Marathi-language films]] * [[:Category:Norwegian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Norwegian-language films]] * [[:Category:Polish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Polish-language films]] * [[:Category:Portuguese-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Portuguese-language films]] * [[:Category:Russian-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Russian-language films]] * [[:Category:Spanish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Spanish-language films]] * [[:Category:Swedish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Swedish-language films]] * [[:Category:Tamil-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Tamil-language films]] * [[:Category:Telugu-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Telugu-language films]] * [[:Category:Thai-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Thai-language films]] * [[:Category:Turkish-language Netflix original films]] to [[:Category:Netflix original films]] and [[:Category:Turkish-language films]] * [[:Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original films]] to [[:Category:English-language films]] and [[:Category:Amazon Prime Video original films]]

Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Yes, I believe these are now correct. (Though I'm not sure what to do with Category:English-language Amazon Prime Video original programming. Perhaps another CfD is needed, as it was missed in the original nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to follow-up on this, but it appears 2pou has manually done the repairs. Thanks and sorry for that. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please list a cat for deletion

I’m in mobile right now and can’t list this category: Category:XMAG (magazine), which is pointless and has article content in it, and only one page. BhamBoi (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

VfL Bochum

This CSD request is incorrect and should never have been approved; the main article is at VfL Bochum and so all categories should be at Category:VfL Bochum XXX.

Please can the moves be reverted and the old categories restored on articles? GiantSnowman 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I will submit the request for a reverse speedy move back for the categories. Geregen2 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Missing people found deceased

The bot just performed the merger of Category:Missing people found deceased to Category:Formerly missing people, following a CFDS nomination by Davidgoodheart, which also saw input from Suncheon Boy, Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison and Fayenatic london. However, the category should have been deleted, not merged, as consensus at the previous discussion was to delete the category as non-defining. Merging resulted in the pollution of the target category, which I understand was supposed to be about people who went missing but were later found alive. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The merge was done because of speedy, not because of DGH's nomination. Unfortunately, the nomination was not placed in the correct place Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 Janruary 28. I don't know what the procedure is for cleaning up a category after a merge. Mason (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said. "A CFDS nomination by Davidgoodheart". Here's the version of the CFDS page before the discussion was removed for processing, for your convenience. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I know that it was nominated for speedy, the same nom you're linking to. However, my point was that DGH's full nomination was posted before, but was not done correctly. Then I linked to the version of the nomination I was talking about: " Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 Janruary 28". Mason (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Presumably the speedy nomination was implemented by User:Ymblanter, pinging them just to sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I indeed processed the speedy yesterday. I overlooked the existence of the other nomination )or may be the template was not there). Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  The category had been populated by moving people from the parent, so it seemed correct to revert to status quo ante by merging. If there is consensus to exclude people who did not survive, Category:Formerly missing people should state this, with documentation on its talk page. – Fayenatic London 08:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  It was easy to overlook. I only saw the nom because I was looking at someone's edit history. The nomination placed on a typo "Janruary 28", and I suspect that the template wasn't there. I also agree with FL, that the merge as implemented seemed to restore the status quo. Furthermore, I would argue that you can be notably missing and eventually turn up deceased. (Many of the examples in the discussion focused on how some people who were murdered might be reported as missing. But that's not really the same as being notable for being missing) Mason (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's clearly a big difference between people who went missing then turned up alive and those who were found dead. They were presumably separately categorised at the time of the 2020 CfD, but following the deletion of Category:Formerly missing people found dead, editors then lumped them together in Category:Formerly missing people. This seems to go against the intent of that CfD and is quite clearly undesirable if you ask me; I can see why Minerva97 (whom I forgot to ping earlier) re-created and populated it as Category:Missing people found deceased, even if she was unaware of the previous discussion.

Anyway, however we got here, the more relevant question is how to move forward. We could start a new CfD to either (A) re-split Category:Formerly missing people into missing-then-alive and missing-then-dead people (overturning the previous CfD result), or (B) rename it to more clearly reflect what I assume is the original intended scope and purge the missing-then-dead to enforce the previous CfD outcome. However, maybe this discussion alone is enough indication that the situation and consensus has changed in the intervening three years, so "the reason for the deletion no longer applies", negating G4. In that case (C) the bot actions can simply be reverted, restoring Minerva97's split. That would avoid the need to manually purge or re-split the category again, which would be needed should we go the new CfD route. Or we could also (D) do nothing.

Pinging the still-active previous CfD participants Namiba, RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, and DexDor, and closer MER-C. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there was a unanimous decision to merge I think that we should leave it the way it is and as I stated being a formerly missing person can apply to someone being found either alive or dead and being found dead in NOT defining. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

While I could see the justification for a divide between the living and the dead, I don't see any need to make it at the moment:

• I think less than 5 percent of all missing persons cases we have articles about that have been resolved have been resolved with the MP turning up alive. That might justify such a category, but ... not right now, I think. There are more articles we could write about such cases, but for now we haven't written them.
• I also think it would be pretty clear by implication that a missing person was found dead if among the other categories are "People murdered in ..." "Deaths by ..." or Category:Unsolved deaths. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just read through this and there are several completely reasonable options here but I favor B. It appears to me that the naming of Category:Formerly missing people lends itself to including people found dead (whether through an automated merge or manually per article). I would leave this merge in place and leave it up to anyone who felt strongly to open a new CFD to rename the category to something like Category:Formerly missing people found alive and then we can purge if that passes. (This is a just suggestion though and I favor any path forward that has anything close to a consensus.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  My slight inclination is D (but B is fine if sometone is so motivated), as that requires less action, effectively leaving the merge in place, and I like your suggestion of being open to missing people found alive. (There is a category that captures something close that, effectively temporarily missing people). I don't feel strongly about it.) Mason (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator Daniel Case has stated The CFD is closed and I think that the unanimous decision should remain, since he is an administrator I think we should do what he says. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Deferring to an admin's opinion because they are an admin, isn't a compelling reason. (Sorry, @Daniel Case). I happen to agree with them. Hence lean D. But, their status as an admin wasn't part of my reasoning. Mason (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This whole conversation is frustratingly collegial; doesn't anyone feel adamant? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless you want to propose an actual rename to facilitate B. It seems that everyone is indifferent (either directly or indirectly) to make another change, except you. So, I think that we should just do D, which is nothing.Mason (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd also support (B). --Paul_012 (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested name? Mason (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, if we went by the name of the category that started this discussion, Category:Missing people found alive would be the logical counterpart, but I'm not sure there aren't better alternatives. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Irish Queen's Counsel

Following the British, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland cats, which have now all been moved from Queen's Counsel to King's Counsel, shouldn't the same be done for this category?

Thanks, --NSH001 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

NSH001, WP:CFDS? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, already done. That was just me being a lazy bastard (not having used the process for some time) and hoping someone would do it for me. Anyway, I've done it now. --NSH001 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Reconsider & Undelete

If a category was previously considered and deleted, can it be reconsidered and undeleted? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If it's been a long time (several years) since the CfD and the reasoning from the CfD clearly no longer holds, a category can usually be re-created without issue. But if it's more recent, or if the situation isn't clear, the safest route I think would be to open a WP:deletion review to discuss whether the previous consensus still holds. In any case, the category would have to be manually re-populated. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012 what should if the deletion review does not work in favor of undeleting? MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In most cases such an outcome probably indicates that consensus is against re-creating such a category, and that should be respected. There may be exceptions, such as a case being misunderstood, but the way forward will depend on the exact circumstances. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:2023 in horse racing

The category Category:2023 in horse racing is included into Category:2023 in equestrian which has been deleted and moved to Category:2023 in equestrian sports. (The same problem is for every year). I tried to find which template which sets the category but I can not see where it is. Could someone help me please? It probably requires just one edit for every year in some template. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor league coaches by team

I just want some feedback before I decide on whether to nominate these categories.

What do you think about upmerging all team categories in Category:Minor league baseball coaches? My argument is:
a) there are very few articles for minor league coaches in general; mostly, these are often retired major leaguers.
b) for some teams, especially older ones, there aren't records for coaches so there isn't really a way to verify if they actually coached that team or not.

Basically, I question whether making baseball coaching categories by team, especially for obscure and/or defunct teams is helpful for navigation. My own personal opinion is to merge the team coach categories with Category:Minor league baseball coaches and simplify navigation. But I want some feedback on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I see there are some categories with over 10 entries, and these are probably legit, and there are others with two or three, these can be upmerged. Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, the size isn't what I meant. I think these are trivial because most of these are former major league players so short minor league coaching stints - since minor leagues coaches are shifted around a lot in the farm system of a major league team - aren't defining to their career. Does that make sense? Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but still needs obviously to go through CFD. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, of course. I put two categories up before because the teams were defunct and had one article in each - and hence not likely to grow - so I'm just waiting for that to close. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Cfds not going through

I've noticed at a lot of recent Cfds which were nominated and have since been closed as 'merge', 'delete', or 'rename' (and so on) have been stalled for some reason have been stalled and haven't gone through. They are starting to pile up I feel and I think something should be done about it.

Pinging @Marcocapelle, @Ymblanter, @Smasongarrison, @HouseBlaster, @Qwerfjkl. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a backlog at WT:CFDW; it will be sorted eventually. WP:NODEADLINE is applicable. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I was concerned that it may have been a bot issue (Mason suggested it might be) or something else as, usually, these go through within a week or some and there are a lot that have been stalled for over a month (and some even earlier). Hence why I brought it up. But there isn't any issue then I understand. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed lack of admins who add closed nominations to the page for bot. It does not help much that I am leaving for holidays today, but we will eventually sort it out. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Enjoy your holiday! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this to me User:Pppery; I wasn't aware that there was a backlog. Apologies for pressing the issue! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

History of instruction changes of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

The top half of the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, i.e. everything above section "Current requests", contains the description of the procedure for speedy renaming and speedy merging of categories. This content is in the same page as the requests themselves.

The opposite approach is used on WP:RFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:BN, all of which have subpages for their "static", almost "unchanging" parts. E.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. In case of RFD, it can be very useful to see the history of the changes to the instructions/procedure separately from changes to the page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Aside from taking every text snippet to wikiblame, are there any other ways of looking at how instructions and procedure of WP:CFD/S changed over time? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The criteria used to be at WP:CFSD rather than WP:CFDS until 2016.[1] Since then, you can search the archives of this talk page for "speedy criteria" if that's what interests you, as changes are generally proposed here before implementation. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The content removed from WP:CFSD in Special:Diff/749906670 was added to WP:CFDS in Special:Diff/749906249. Prior to that it was a section transclusion. Since then quite a lot changed: Special:Diff/749906249/1221394590. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Malformed nomination at Category:Chemical Biology

Category:Chemical Biology has been tagged for CfD, but has no corresponding discussion ("this category's entry"). This seems to be a straight-forward duplicate of Category:Chemical biology, but I'm not familiar with CfD or categories in general. Should this be renominated or can this be merged/redirected with no discussion as uncontroversial? ― Synpath 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

From history of the page and Special:Contributions/ScienceChemBio, it looks like User:ScienceChemBio hasn't followed the instructions for the nomination to the end. A possible solution could be to replace content of page Category:Chemical Biology with {{category redirect|Category:Chemical biology}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have done this after skimming over some of the speedy merge criteria for CfD. It seems to qualify for WP:C2A and WP:C2D, but bots will clean up it up anyways per the info at the category redirect template. No fuss, thanks again. ― Synpath 03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw no reason to keep the redirect, so I have deleted it. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, my sensibilities probably skew too much to RfD where the alternate captilization could be considered helpful as 'chemical biology' appears often enough as a proper noun in university course titles and textbooks. ― Synpath 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass-renaming (probably) needed

I don't have the bandwidth for it right this moment, but I wanted to leave a note here in case another editor has the bandwidth, or at least so I wouldn't forget about it entirely...Category:Alien invasions in fiction and related categories should likely be renamed to Category:Fiction about alien invasions et al. in accordance with other renames that have been performed more recently. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, or just want to poke me to try to get the ball rolling on it when I have more bandwidth. :) DonIago (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I've opened the CfD on this. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Better integration between closing RMs and this page

There really needs to be better integration between closing RMs and notifying this page (or a new central cleanup page) of the close. I stumbled across Talk:Alborz province#Requested move 24 January 2022, which seems that had no follow up work done to articles, sub-articles and categories. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Suburbs of Kalgoorlie-Boulder

The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. It was some template doing funky stuff it shouldn't do (autogenerating categories). Rather than deal with the underling issue I just used AWB to update the template params. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Germany and German Confederation

I will not discuss the merits of the many deletions, upmerges, renames, ... of the categories related to these two names, as I fundamentally disagree with the years-long campaign to erase current and common names of places to restrict categories solely to the ultra-precise historical names exclusively, for no benefit to the readers at all (and good luck applying this to e.g. the Thirteen Colonies).

But if this kind of plan gets implemented, can you at least do it in an orderly fashion? On 4 Augustus, categories get changed from Germany to German Confederation[2]. But at the same time, on 3 Augustus, categories for the same periods get upmerged from Bavaria to Germany[3], resulting in the creation today of new such Germany categories([4]), and the nomination for speedy deletion as empty, also today, of the exact same category, but for the German Confederation[5] (which according to the collective wisdom here is the only correct one, while the new one is wrong). Fram (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a complete mess which resulted from several (independent?) CfDs, but at least I now deleted the 1846 category, and whatever was supposed to be there is in the 1846 German Confederation category. There might be other examples, I will take care of them when I check the backlinks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

I've never used WP:CFD before or really done anything with categories. I came across Category:Canadaian religion navigational boxes earlier, an obvious typo (Canadaian > Canadian) with only one page. Would it have been ok for me to just move Category:Canadaian religion navigational boxes to Category:Canadian religion navigational boxes and update the one page manually with the new name? Or is it a strict requirement to go through WP:CFD/S? All the messaging points to the latter, but that seems a bit bureaucratic to me. C F A 💬 02:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If Rangasyd consented then you could just move it summarily under WP:G7 or WP:IAR. But listing at CFDS can have the benefit of even better ideas, e.g. as this has only one member it should either be populated more or upmerged. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Done! Rangasyd (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Reopenings

Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries).

The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.

In theory, Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (a section under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).

Moreover, I didn't know that all editors could challenge a closure and request a reopening at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working, and that this was regular practice.

• Compare, for example, the standard statement after the closure of every CfD: ... Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)..... Doesn't say anything about the "Working" venue as an appropriate discussion page.
• Besides, another regular practice (that I have followed as well) is going to the closing admin's personal talk page to request a reopening if I think there has been a procedural mistake.
• Finally, afaik, deletion review is not used very often for categories, nor are category talk pages. Often, people may take a category with a issue to CFD, without necessarily knowing a solution yet - just to draw attention to the issue for CFD regulars to read; because they know it's unlikely that cat talk pages are on watchlists of many people.
• So, this standard message suggesting venues for "subsequent comments" (including requesting reopenings) seems to differ very much from actual practice, and isn't very helpful.

(There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)

So:

• Question 1: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? If not, should stipulation no. #3. be changed, or removed?

• Question 2: Should we have a clearer procedures written out for both editors and admins about when, how and where to challenge CFD closures, and to grant requests for reopenings? I'm willing to write a draft text for what that would look like.

Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle, perhaps I could ask for your opinion as a start? NLeeuw (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Nederlandse Leeuw: I do not have an issue with stipulation #3. The only thing that we should clearly avoid is that it leads to forumshopping. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  How could stipulation #3 lead to forumshopping, then? NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  • In this case it could (hypothetically) lead to requesting relisting at CfD (requests at different places) again and again without offering fundamentally new arguments. But I have not seen an example of this yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

    First, why should "new arguments" be a good reason to request reopening? In AfD, new arguments can only be offered for as long as the discussion is open. Once closed, it's over. It can only be reopened upon request if there has been a procedural mistake. Otherwise, closed discussions could be reopened and closed and reopened endlessly. I see no reason to treat CfD and AfD differently.

    Second, who is to decide what is a "fundamentally" new argument, and what is an "almost kinda new-ish but also a bit recycled from what we have already heard three times before" argument? I think this puts admins into a difficult position of having to decide what are and aren't compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me. NLeeuw (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Participation is often much thinner at CFD than at AFD. For several years, CFD was being closed rather slowly, so there was ample time to notice and participate if interested. Recently we have gained more active closers who are generally closing CFDs after 7 days, and I am therefore inclined to reopen given almost any request, so that a point of view may be aired fully in a traceable location. The request may be made on the closer's talk page or any other page. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london Thanks for your belated reply. Could you explain how participation relates to the 2 questions I posed above? NLeeuw (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the point of stipulation #3 above is that if a discussion appears to have been closed prematurely, it should be reopened on request. This is also behind my explanation about participation.

  I have seen examples over the last year where CFDs have been closed after 7 days even though there was recent ongoing discussion which had not petered out, so I would have left them open for longer. In other words, premature closure definitely happens.

  Another reason that I have been easy about reopening CFDs is that there is often a delay between closing and implementing them. If the request arrives before implementation, then it is easy to reopen them.

  As for your questions, then: Q1 – Yes, in the case of closures that have not yet been implemented. Stipulation #3 should be softened in the case of CFD as category nominations gain less attention and therefore less participation. Q2 then becomes unnecessary. Once the decision has been implemented, then it's up to the closer to decide whether to reopen it or point to WP:DRV/WP:MRV. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response! I do understand that low CFD participation can sometimes make the decision process practically different from AFDs, but I see several concerns as well. I'll re-read and consider everything carefully before I reply, as this is a bit of a complicated issue. Good night for now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Certes/Reports/Circular categories

Anyone interested in helping clearing this report? — Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also User:SDZeroBot/Category cycles in the same vein. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Television series by 20th Century Fox Television

Please undo the incorrect speedy and restore all pages to this category. Film and television categories do not get renamed to match current name as that is anachronistic and produces false information. We don't change history. I don't understand why this needs explaining each time. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The page says that categories get processed if there are no objections. You often show up a week later and express your frustration. May be instead you should raise your objections within 48h every time. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry my timetable isn't working for you. How about I don't need to repeat this same exact statements each time? This type of rename isn't speedy-able. Anyone interested in renaming should take it to a full discussion, advertised and open for at least 7 days. Gonnym (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:National artists of Thailand

@Ymblanter, @Hey man im josh, I did not see this or I would have opposed speedy. National Artist is a specific title, while national artist as a common noun doesn't mean anything. I would appreciate this being reverted and listed at full CfD, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I'm not opposed to the process being respected and reverted when something is contested this quickly afterwards, but I do have a question for clarification. My understand is the category is based on the page National Artist (Thailand) and the title of "National Artist". With titles we typically apply MOS:JOBTITLES, meaning, when "National Artist" becomes pluralized to "National Artists", it's no longer a title, but instead a common noun and should actually be downcased to national artists. Is "National Artists" an actual title used? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

À propos that, check out the inconsistent handling among Category:Poets laureate and its subcats and sub-subcats. Largoplazo (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In my understanding, JOBTITLES only applies when the title is actually a common noun. It shouldn't apply to specific titles such as Boden Professor of Sanskrit (where we have Category:Boden Professors of Sanskrit), because "Boden professor" is meaningless as a common noun. Proper nouns can take plural forms after all. That said, I'm not sure about the Thai National Artist title since it's an award, and in some ways directly using the award title for the category does feel a bit unnatural; to compare, we don't refer to Academy Award "Best Actors", but Best Actor winners). I'm not sure if this category shouldn't be reworded along the same lines. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do feel the current capitalization is correct, I have no problem with the change being reverted. After all, CFDS is for non-controversial changes. @Ymblanter: Is it normal to just place the category revert on WP:CFDS/Working? Or should it go through WP:CFDS again? Sorry for the delay @Paul 012, I don't typically edit on weekends. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case, we can just put it back, I occasionally do this if there are objections within a reasonable time frame. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Midlothian

Hello. I've noticed that there's a category requiring disambiguation, but I can't find any policy guidelines on the right way to do it.

Category:People from Midlothian is for people from the county in Scotland, and it's a subcategory of Category:Midlothian -> Category:People associated with Midlothian. There's also Category:People from Midlothian, Illinois, and Category:People from Midlothian, Virginia, which are for places in the US named after the place in Scotland. This would avoid bios for people from one of the five Midlothians in the US getting added to Category:People from Midlothian by mistake.

I could hatnote Category:People from Midlothian, since it seems to be the category equivalent of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or I could start a CFD discussion to move it to Category:People from Midlothian, Scotland with the redirect then containing Template:Category disambiguation, like Category:People from Limerick. But it seems likely that I just haven't found the policy guideline on this yet. Thanks for any advice. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not speedy-able but there is a general tendency in category naming to disambiguate. Would need a full CfD for it. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

New category for professional associations of economists?

I propose to create Category:Economics-related professional associations, perhaps under a simpler name. I'd welcome feedback here. Key background:

• There are about 10 articles about societies of economists in Category:Business and finance professional associations. That's not quite where they belong; some of these are overwhelmingly academic, and don't address business or finance topics. I'd put all 10 into this new category and take some out of the business and finance category.
• The new category would be in Category:Professional associations by profession, parallel to the business/finance one, and to natural peers in the fields of psychology, architecture, and geography.
• How to name it? I would like a concise name like "Societies of economists" but the longer name "economics-related professional associations" is sensible too -- it's accurate and would follow the naming system established by parallel groups. Any thoughts or suggestions? Is a shorter name okay?
• I've invited input at WikiProject Economics.
• Will watch for news here and eventually just do it.

Thanks for any advice. -- econterms (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a Category:Economics societies, would adding it to Category:Professional associations by profession solve the problem? TSventon (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

econterms, I have done as I suggested above, but I will not object if anyone has a better idea. TSventon (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Terrific. That does the trick. I'll put these 10 in that Category. Thank you, TSventon! -- econterms (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

CFD notification template Template talk:Cfd mass notice contains section links

I posted this at Template talk:Cfd mass notice, but I suspect that nobody will see my note there. The template contains a template transclusion in a section header when it is used in talk pages, contrary to MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95, looks like {{Section link}} isn't subst:able. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is, feel free to change the template yourself. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I made it subst'able and updated the notice. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Bot not processing speedy moves?

I think the speedy moves were not processed for two days. Anybody knows what is happening? Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@JJMC89: ? Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, we probably need to wait until all LGBTQ categories have been processed. Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that set of categories was keeping the bot busy. Making use of WP:CFD/W/L for such large batches would avoid this issue since that page gets processed independently. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

But this is precisely where they were, may be we just moved them too late. Thanks anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Need to rename three categories

Please help me to rename three categories:
From
Category:Artists of Dagestan, Category:Sculptors of Dagestan, Category:Ceramists of Dagestan
To
Category:Artists from Dagestan, Category:Sculptors from Dagestan, Category:Ceramists from Dagestan
Thank you.
Boxes12 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Boxes12, you can use my script User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD for group nominations. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Should occupation categories be added to location categories?

There's a bit of a dispute here about whether a category such as Category:Newspaper people by newspaper in New York City should be included in Category:Journalists from New York City and the same with alumni of universities and schools and so on. Only the categories, not the articles/people, mind you. My view is that this helps in navigation. Others differ and its even led to heated exchanges. I thought I should bring this here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to the discussion? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Here, here, and here are the main ones. My role is VERY recent, I would add. It only came to my attention a week or so ago by complete chance. I think it should be settled amicably rather than be brought up every few weeks in heated exchanges. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Like much of CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to get the ball rolling here: @Marcocapelle, @HouseBlaster, @Ymblanter, @Pppery, @Fayenatic london, @LaundryPizza03, and @Smasongarrison. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Omnis Scientia! I really really appreciate you taking the lead. My view is similar to Omnis, that I think we should include these categories in the People from Foo. It makes it easier to implement policy for pages. However, as you will have gathered from my conversations with @Alansohn and @Lost in Quebec, others disagree. I'd rather not add much to the conversation because I'd much rather defer to consensus. Mason (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've always been happy with the idea that alumni and sports team categories should be parented by a location category. This does not mean that every single alumnus/player is otherwise from the place, as WP:SUBCAT allows for some exceptions. At the extreme we have categories such as Manchester United F.C. players where perhaps only a minority were otherwise "from Manchester", but I would allow even that one in Footballers from Manchester because they regularly played at Old Trafford while that was their club. It's clear from the category names that the connection is only partial, but IMHO it's sufficient and useful to put that parenting in place consistently. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• @Omnis Scientia, Smasongarrison, and Fayenatic london: I also agree and would rather expand this to bishops. "Bishops of x" should be put under "people from x" too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Adding occupation categories by location only harms navigation. Whether you went to school, college or university in Foo, you worked at a job for a company located in Foo or are buried in Foo, you are not from Foo by any relevant definition. Blending connections based on education, occupation or inhumation into those based on habitation would mean the loss of a meaningful and defining distinction based on people being born or residing in that place. Alansohn (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  But how does parenting the category harm navigation? The "loss of a meaningful and defining distinction based on people being born or residing in that place" seems to be such a narrow definition. Should bishops of FOO be removed from the city they serve? That seems inconsistent with the core feature of defining. Mason (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • If Category:People from New Dorp, Staten Island (which includes people actually from New York City) and Category:Photographers from the Bronx (again, from New York City) are lumped together with Category:Columbia University School of General Studies alumni (can be from anywhere, and not necessarily from New York City), Category:Burials at Calvary Cemetery (Queens) (no reassume to assume a New York City connection), Category:The New York Times journalists (who can be from anywhere in the New York City area or beyond) and Category:New York Yankees players (who can be from around the world) are all mixed up into the parent Category:People from New York City, then we have lost a vital and defining distinction between those people who are genuinely from New York City, and those whose only connection is that they happened to have gone to school, had a job or were buried in New York City. I don't have an immediate position on bishops, but I'm not sure that even if there is a case for including bishops that that argument would apply to anyone with a connection to a place. If there are exceptions, they should be extremely limited and made by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

    Again, you are conflating categories with individual pages. The category: The New York Times journalists is clearly defined by being journalists for the New York Times. They don't need to be resides of the place. Can you please explain how the CATEGORY is harmed. Mason (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

    • It is harmed because there are persons in that category not from NYC.Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      Why is that harmful? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

      And how is that harm worse than the benefit to category navigation? I would think the benefit of adding the category to the tree makes it so that you can easily remove people who shouldn't be in the Journalists from FOO category. Mason (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• This one doesn't make sense, because some of these newspapers have remote offices outside of NYC. I don't see how this would be problematic in general, as long as it is accurate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have to agree with those who say the journalist situation does not work. One can be a journalist writing for the k Times and never set foot in New York (city or state) in your entire life. Hell, foreign correspondents might never even set foot in the United States. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that people shouldn't be added to the journalists from FOO category if they're never been affiliated. But does the category itself require it? Mason (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  You can work in one place and live somewhere totally different. In a tightly packed urban area, they do I'd bet large sums of money on. Ever heard of the LIRR? It takes people from NYC out to their Suffolk and Nassau County homes by the thousands every working day. BTW the NP criteria[6] says born, or lived in. Not worked, died, buried. Journalists for the NYT wouldn't qualify for a List of New York City people article just on the basis of where they work. Then why does a NYT journalists category page have 'People from New York City' on it. Doesn't that sound contradictory?Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Lost in Quebec Please stop reverting. You've never addressed the concerns raised here. Mason (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've replied here twice. You don't like the answers. Working somewhere or going to college doesn't automatically make the person from there. How many editors do you need to be told that by? Alan Sohn, Johnpacklambert, blueboar, LaundryPizza. Not to mention this[7] which you have been reminded of on multiple occasions.Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Pre-independence Mexico

In 2021, various Mexico chronology categories before 1821 were merged to New Spain, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_4#More_pre-indepdendence_"Mexico"_categories and the next one below it. However, others remain, including decade parents 1790s, 1800s and 1810s in Mexico. Mexico was only one of many territories within New Spain, so should the mergers be reversed rather than carried on? It seems a shame to leave gaps in Category:Decades in Mexico etc. Category:1800s in New Spain has other geographical subcats e.g. for East/West Indies. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

About the categories of American people of North Indian and South Indian descent.

Greetings, I noticed the speedy deletion tag placed on the categories Category:American people of South Indian descent and Category:American people of North Indian descent. I would like to strongly advocate for retaining these categories, as I believe they are important for accurately representing the diversity within the Indian-American community and for enriching the broader Wikipedia platform. 1. Acknowledging Regional Diversity in the Indian Diaspora India’s diversity is not just limited to language, religion, or cuisine but extends deeply into regional identities. South Indians (e.g., Tamils, Kannadigas, Telugus, and Malayalis) and North Indians (e.g., Punjabis, Gujaratis, and Marathis) have distinct histories, cultural practices, and contributions that persist even in the diaspora. By recognizing these distinctions, these categories allow Wikipedia to represent this diversity more accurately. For example, South Indian Americans have a particularly strong presence in fields like classical arts (e.g., Carnatic music and Bharatanatyam), software engineering, and medicine. In contrast, North Indian Americans are prominently involved in areas like Bollywood-inspired media, cuisine, and business. These distinct contributions enrich American society in unique ways, and deleting these categories risks flattening these nuanced identities. 2. Enhancing Research and Accessibility These categories are critical for researchers, students, and curious readers who are trying to better understand the contributions and experiences of regional Indian communities in the U.S. Currently, someone interested in exploring, say, Tamil Americans or Punjabi Americans, would find it easier to access relevant articles through these subcategories. Without them, such granular searches would become unnecessarily complicated. For instance, Wikipedia often creates subcategories for ethnic groups to improve accessibility, such as Category:American people of Basque descent or Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent. These help users navigate related articles more efficiently while acknowledging the intersection of identities. Applying this same logic to Indian-American subcategories is both fair and consistent with Wikipedia’s categorization practices. 3. Supporting Representation and Identity Many Indian Americans identify strongly with their regional heritage, even generations after immigration. For example, South Indians might celebrate festivals like Pongal or Onam and maintain linguistic ties to Tamil or Kannada, while North Indians might celebrate Lohri or Diwali and have linguistic ties to Hindi or Punjabi. By categorizing individuals based on these regional backgrounds, Wikipedia validates and reflects these identities, which are an integral part of the diasporic experience. 4. Highlighting Genetic and Anthropological Differences From an anthropological perspective, South Indians and North Indians also exhibit distinct genetic lineages due to historical migrations and geographical separation. Studies of Indian populations reveal that genetic differences exist, with South Indian populations often linked more closely to Dravidian ancestry, while North Indians show a greater influence from Indo-Aryan migrations and Central Asian lineages 5. Consistency with Wikipedia's Categorization Practices Wikipedia already recognizes and utilizes subcategories for various ethnic and regional identities. For example: Category:American people of Irish descent Category:American people of Scandinavian descent Category:American people of Flemish descent These categories highlight the contributions of specific subgroups within larger ethnic or racial identities. The categories for South Indian and North Indian Americans are no different; they are an acknowledgment of distinct cultural groups within the broader Indian-American community. Deleting these would set a precedent for erasing similar distinctions in other ethnic groups, which could diminish Wikipedia’s ability to represent diversity effectively. 6. Capturing the Complexity of Diasporic Identities The Indian-American community is not a monolithic entity. Its diversity is mirrored in the diaspora, where regional distinctions play a significant role in community organization, cultural events, and professional associations. For instance, South Indian Americans often organize cultural festivals around classical music and dance, while North Indian Americans may focus on Bollywood or Punjabi bhangra events. These categories help capture this complexity, offering a more detailed picture of the diaspora. 7. Avoiding Oversimplification Without these categories, Indian Americans may be unfairly grouped under broader labels, losing the rich regional specificity that defines their experiences. Simplifying such identities undermines the depth and richness of the Indian-American story, making Wikipedia less inclusive and less representative of the nuanced reality of this group. SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The categories are currently empty, and we can not retain them if they remain empty. If you or someone else would populate the categories, it would be a different story. Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would need your help on this SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I left a long message on this editor's User talk page and pointed out that we already have many existing categories that are part of Category:American people of Indian descent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Incest in Greek mythology

Earlier this year, Category:Incest in Greek mythology was deleted; [8] I disagreed with its deletion at the time, and think it would be useful to restore the category. Upon asking the discussion closer, they suggested [9] I bring the matter up here, and ping the editors involved in that discussion. I gave my reasoning in favour of keeping it in the CfD discussion (that it's defining for figures such as Menephron, Myrrha, Byblis, etc.), but would be happy to elaborate. Note that since that discussion, Category:Mythological people involved in incest has been created, which seems to include the figures from the deleted category, so, if we restore Category:Incest in Greek mythology, it should probably be a subcat of that category (though I think "Incest in Greek mythology" would probably still be the best title), as well as a subcat of Category:Greek mythology or Category:Characters in Greek mythology.
Pings: @Pppery:, @Omnis Scientia:, @Marcocapelle:, @Zxcvbnm:, @Aidan721:
– Michael Aurel (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Have nothing to say here - my nomination was largely procedural as the deletion of the parent which I executed called the merits of the subcat into doubt. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Have nothing to say more than in the previous discussion. If anything it is a defining characteristic of the storyline rather than of the character. A category with myths about incest would be fine (if it doesn't already exist). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: Apologies, I missed this response. I understand that there are plenty of instances in which incest occurs as part of a myth, and is of no real significance to the mythological figures involved; by the modern notion of incest (which isn't necessarily the same as was that of the ancient Greeks), just about every major deity was incestuous. However, there are a number of cases (eg. Menephron, Byblis, etc.) where every author who mentions the figure mentions them as part of a story where they engage in incest, and where incest is the central theme. In these cases, how could incest not be a defining characteristic of the figure (and not just the individual tales)? In theory a category for "myths about incest" would be fine, but our articles are almost always on mythological figures, not individual myths. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• I agree, but I think Incest in mythology would be more inclusive than Incest in Greek mythology. Deiadameian (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Theme problem in categories

Not that extensive. See my analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme, with some renaming suggestions. Please comment there, to keep the discussion centralized in one place. I'll propose some CfDs in a while once I confirm the consensus. Only a few categories are affected, fortunately. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Works/Fiction by setting (space)

Another problem I've identified concerns the tree Category:Fiction about outer space and Category:Works set in outer space (different from Category:Works about outer space); main clulprit asre some entries in Category:Fiction about the Solar System.

Two have been duplicated and obviously need merger:

Category:Fiction set on the Moon Category:Works set on the Moon

Category:Fiction set on Mars Category:Works set on Mars

Most others are in "Fiction set on..." (ex. Category:Fiction set on Venus, Category:Fiction set on Jupiter, so merge should go there.

For a broader issue, the question of whether these should be called 'works' or 'fiction' needs to be considered. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: I am leaning towards renaming Fiction set on Foo planet to Work set on Foo planet, since the best tree with 'set' is Category:Works set in outer space, child to Category:Works by region of setting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Further comment: I can see the difference between Category:Works set in outer space and Category:Works about outer space. Fiction is set in outer space, but not fiction is about outer space. The difference between Category:Fiction about outer space and Category:Works about outer space concerns the fact that fiction is narrower then works (which includes non-fiction). For a while I thought that in that case, Category:Fiction about outer space and Category:Works set in outer space would be conceptually the same, but I realized that a non-fiction book about astronauts would belong to Works set in and about outer space, but would not be fiction.

So after thinking it more, I think all these categories have the right to exist.

Few notes on current structure and relationship:

• Category:Fiction about outer space is a subcategory to Category:Works about outer space (which seems fine)
• Category:Works set in outer space is a subcategory to Category:Fiction about outer space, with an added category for Category:Works by region of setting, which in turn is a child of Category:Works by setting and Categories by regions.

The parent categories that seem relevant, for consideration:

• Category:Works about outer space is under: Category:Works about regions, which is under Category:Works by topic
• Category:Fiction about outer space is under: Category:Works about outer space (ok), as well as Category:Fiction about science (possibly wrong, outer space is a place, not a science - I have removed it), Category:Works by setting and Category:Fiction by topic (ok).

Ok, so the parent categories are ok. But then coming back to Fiction set on Fooland and Works set on Fooland, actually, both theoretically are valid (fiction being a subset of Works), but presumably vast majority of works in question here are 'fiction', not 'works', since no human has yet went beyond Moon. Nonetheless a work depicting life of real astronauts on the Moon would be in 'works' but not 'fiction' (and most works now and in the near future would be under fiction...).

Pinging creators (User:Fences and windows. User:Kanghuitari).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that, I've started CfDs for mergers of the Mars/Moon fiction/works, but already withdrawn the Moon one. I've also made Fiction set on Fooplanet a subcat to Works set on Fooplanet, as all Fiction is Works but not vice versa (works consists of fiction and non-fiction). If anyone can add examples of non-fiction to relevant categories (Works) it would be helpful in showing they can be saved (I am sure there is non-fiction about Moon astronauts, not sure what can be found about Mars - something about robotic exploration?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Last question. Given that I've established the conceptual difference between these categories, can we justify creation and keeping of Works on real Fooplanets, parent to Fiction on real Fooplanets, even if they'd be just empty (holding subcategories)? Ex. Category:Fiction set on Venus should be, logically, a subcat to Category:Works set on Venus, but obviously there will no non-fiction works set in Venus for some time (barring some freak book discussing exploration of Venus). Note that works about Venus, the planet, can happily exists under Category:Works about Venus (which does not exist, but should, under Category:Works about outer space and as example, parent to Category:Paintings of Venus (planet). If there are no objections, I'll create the missing works set on... and works about... in the near future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked recently into the specific cats you note above, but thought that I'd merely note that many many category trees were "fiction/fictional" before everyone settled on having prepending "Works". So there are likely more than a few legacy trees/categorizations that need to be re-aligned, which may not have been yet. - jc37 15:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. With few exceptions, most fiction isn't about the place it is set in. I'm honestly not a big fan of the "Fiction about" category tree when it involves place because these cats are in most cases confusing topic with setting. As a result, often works get sorted into these categories which don't belong there. Is a science fiction novel such as the Mars trilogy or The Martian Chronicles "about Mars"? No. They are set there, but they aren't principally about the planet. They are about the central characters in that story, and the narrative arc of the plot (none of which is centrally about Mars). More broadly, the authors are using the characters in that setting to explore themes about humanity/society, the nature of truth, and various moral and ethical issues as it relates to the consequences of science and technology. These novels are about that, not the planet. The authors could have theoretically set the same stories on Venus or Uranus or any other planet other than Earth and it wouldn't have made a difference to the overall tale and its themes and central message. In contrast a non-fiction book about the real planet of Mars is truly about Mars. I'd like to see all of the "Fiction about place" cats deprecated and switched over to Works by setting category system. Obviously non-place topics like "Fiction about friendship" or something like that is ok; although in general the "Fiction about foo" category tree is highly subjective and prone to fan-cruft over categorization. I've seen people do things like take a James Bond movie with a five minute skiing chase scene and sort that movie into a "Films about skiing" category for example, or a 3 hour long film with a five minute flash back scene to American Civil War, sort it into a Films about the American Civil War (even if it's not about that overall). I find the whole Fiction about category tree annoying for this reason. At least the Works by setting category tree is clearly definable.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with you, if only to say that - while it may be about other things as well - the Martian Chronicles is assuredly about Mars. - jc37 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TompaDompa...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

And this just illuminates the subjectivity of the topical category tree where some editors will perceive a place as a central topic and others won't. This is why I prefer the setting categories. They are less subjective.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4 I get your point, but setting can be ambiguous too - some works have multiple settings. How many pages or % of the text needs to take place in a given setting to warrant a category? I mean, it's all fuzzy. I just looked at one of my fav shows, Babylon 5, which has Category:Fiction set around Epsilon Eridani - technically correct, but the location is pretty inconsequential to the show (maybe ~3 or so eps out of ~120 concern that planet, and it could be any other random planet). I did remove 'fiction about wormholes' from it (this is not very relevant to the show, unlike DS9). Left 'Television series about extraterrestrial life' and 'Fictional space stations' because that's more central. Maybe we need a category for works set on fictional space stations... shrug. Anyway, going back to 'about Mars', we have to consider that A), non-fiction works about Mars certainly are 'about' and not 'set on' and B) A notable work of fiction that could be said to be "about Mars" but not "set on Mars" is "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells. While the novel deals extensively with Martians and their invasion of Earth, the events take place entirely on Earth, not on Mars. The story explores themes of extraterrestrial life, imperialism, and human survival, making it deeply tied to the concept of Mars as a symbol of the alien and the other, even though it does not use Mars as its setting. Similarly, Ray Bradbury’s "The Martian Chronicles" might also fit this description, as much of the book is about humanity’s perception of Mars, their colonization of the planet, and their projections of hopes, fears, and failures onto it. While some stories in the collection are set on Mars, others take place on Earth, exploring Mars as a concept rather than a physical location. (Disclaimer: B was written by ChatGPT, answering a question 'which work of fiction could be said to be 'about Mars' but would not be 'set on Mars'?' but I think the AI makes a valid point; for another example that makes sense it gave Stranger in a Strange Land - "The novel reflects on Mars through the lens of cultural and philosophical differences, rather than a literal exploration of the planet." which I find a fair argument as well). So I remain of the opinion that both 'about' and 'set on' trees can and should coexist, even if some boundaries will be blurry, and some overlap will occur. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It's true. Issues with setting cats can arise as well (particularly when a setting only occurs in a fleeting portion of a work). I will point out though that setting is never inconsequential in fiction as it is one of the seven defining features of all fiction (see https://prowritingaid.com/elements-of-fiction) as taught in literature courses in universities and public schools everywhere. I can agree with your analysis on those works on the Mars cats. It may be that the current category structure should mainly be left alone, but with some individual pages sorted more appropriately as needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4 I lean to that conclusion as well. At first I thought we have some pointless redundancy in need of merging, but now I think the system is fine, other then missing some connecting categories which can lead to some confusion (the initial reason I made this post and delved into this is that I am creating some similar cats on pl wiki and was confused that Category:Works set on Mars was on en wiki but Category:Works set on Venus wasn't, and when a colleague connected the latter to Category:Fiction set on Venus my initial thought was "seems identical, we need mergers/renames" (then I changed my mind after rethinking this, per explanation above). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense.4meter4 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't figure out why the CfD for Category:Works set on the Moon was withdrawn by someone other than the nominator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: The above remark was about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Category:Works_set_on_the_Moon. Everyone else: the one for Mars is immediately above it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• @LaundryPizza03: nom said in the last paragraph that they were withdrawing the proposal. But if they and/or other editors would like to pursue this CfD discussion I will of course happily reopen/relist the discussion. Just let me know if this is the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 See my explanation at CfD. TL;DR After rethinking this, I came to the conclusion that both works and fiction categories are fine, with works being a parent for fiction and non-fiction. It is just much more common to find fiction about some outer space location than non-fiction, so some of the works article will be just holding a fiction subcategory (note: this is for 'set on', not 'about'; as in, we can find plenty of works about Venus, and some fiction set on Venus, but unlikely to find notable works about non-fiction set on Venus - i.e. exploration of Venus; and more so about less famous locations like Jupiter or Neptune, some of which have been barely explored at all...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Persisting systemic issues in murder related categories or cats on murder pages

Not sure what the solution to this problem is, but the murder categories consistently have errors in the way articles are sorted. I started going through Category:1997 murders in the United States and fixing issues and stopped after multiple issues kept cropping up. In just spot checking other murder cats, these issues are systemic across the category tree. Some repeating issues:

• 1. Serial killer/murderer biography pages are placed in murder category pages meant for articles about the event of a murder. For example killer Marvin Gabrion has Category:1997 murders in the United States as a category. I don't think that is a correct way to use this cat which should contain only event pages. A person is not an event.

• 2. Murder victim biography pages are placed in cats targeted at events. Often this reflects a titling error of the page itself per policy at WP:VICTIM/ Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) where article titles should be focused on the event and not be named for the person. Obviously people known for something other than their murder wouldn't fall under that policy but the question is how to we categorize say Murder of Sheila Bellush (an event page) versus Louis A. McCall Sr. (a victim who was notable for something other than her murder). Do we treat bio pages the same as event pages when it comes to cats?

• 3.Murder cats often include pages that legally are not murders. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) has a clear flow chart. Our cats should probably mirror this but they don't. As a result, killings/homicides without convictions often get put in murder cats which is a no no under the flow chart. Technically its not a murder until a conviction in a court of law is made ruling it a murder. There are many murder cats full of unsolved homicides or untried killings erroneously labeled murders because they never went to court. This is a consistent problem, and I'm not really sure how to prevent/police this issue effectively.

These may not be the only issues in this area. But they are the ones I kept finding. In general wikipedia does a poor job at monitoring category and titling practices in this content area, and doesn't enforce WP:VICTIM and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) as consistently as it could. It would be helpful if we set up our category tree to help support/encourage those policies.4meter4 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4 I would recommend having this conversation at the relevant Wikiproject, which is OK amounts of active WP:CRIMEPROJ since you will get more voices chiming in. But while we're here,

Despite constant arguing about it, WP:DEATHS is not a guideline or policy, and all attempts to make it so have failed. It has no backbone and is loosely supported as a best practice sort of thing. So to make our categories reflect it would be not supported - it is also literally impossible, because murder, homicide, killing, all have different definitions in every jurisdiction. What kind of murder? We do not need this needless granularity, even our legal categories for the actual legal stage of the process has this issue where it is actually kind of inaccurate because it can't account for the differences in every single country's legal system. Any attempt to fix this would become wildly complicated to a degree that would violate one of our other category guidelines

With the event/person category thing, it is unavoidable to some degree. The events are clearly part of the biography, so I don't see any problem with including it in the categories. It would be far more confusing to not have them - as long as the events are clearly addressed in the article I see no problem with tagging it so. With the victims it is the same way, This has always been a problem, since the topics are so overlapping and we have a very onerous notability scheme on how to cover it. But as someone who has been editing in this field for a while I do not believe it to be a solvable solution and that any proposed one will likely make things worse. If there's a clear perp/victim/event category delineation I often move the relevant categories to the redirects that they apply to. I sympathize with your annoyance with the issue though.. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

For some of these issues, moving the categories to the relevant redirect solves the issue (like birthdays defining personal details that kind of thing, or criminal things). Otherwise it gets finicky. I would advise this be done instead of removing the categories wholesale as they are useful for navigation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Outside input is preferable in this case. I'm not impressed with the editors in that project, as they tend to systemically ignore policies as part of routine behavior and have a poor track record at consistently implementing article structures. It's created a horrible mess encyclopedia wide of inconsistent implementation of article categorization and article titling often not compliant with WP:VICTIM. I do think the regular CFD participants are scrupulous in enforcing category policy, and are better equipped to handle this. There's some basic consistent problems in Wikipedia:Defining in this area. And that is a CFD issue not a WikiProject issue.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, whenever I have tried to ask, I find I get no response, and when it comes to murder categories I have quite recently found the idea that "the regular CFD participants are scrupulous in enforcing category policy" to not be the case (or, well, they mostly just don't contribute). So best of luck in finding outside opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Problem with subcategories Category:Fiction by war

We have too many 'Foo war fiction' that are ambigious. Ex. Category:World War II fiction can mean fiction about WW2 (as intended) but also fiction created during WW2. This unfortunately affects numerous categories with many subcategories. Looking at the top Category:Fiction by war, there are a few instances of "Foowar in fiction", ex. Category:Cuban Revolution in fiction, but no "Fiction about foowar", despite the parent category tree being 'about' (Category:Fiction about conflicts). Should we try to rename everything to 'about'? Category:Cuban Revolution in fiction->Category:Fiction about Cuban Revolution, Category:World War II fiction->Category:Fiction about World War II? (I think we should, but checking here before starting a discussion). @HouseBlaster - would it be possible for you to create a mass nomination of affected subcategories? We are looking at few dozens if not 100+... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be possible; if you give me a list of categories to tag I can do that. You can also use massXFD to do it yourself, if you wish. (I am also happy to do it on your behalf :D) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Thanks. If you don't mind using the tool, I'll indeed list the entries here (and I'll try to use the tool first for some smaller noms). Is it enough for me to give you a list of subcategories, or would you like the new names as well? I.e.

• Algerian War fiction
• American Civil War fiction
• American Revolutionary War in fiction
• Angolan Civil War in fiction

or

• Algerian War fiction -> Fiction about the Algerian War
• American Civil War fiction -> Fiction the about American Civil War
• American Revolutionary War in fiction -> Fiction about the American Revolutionary War
• Angolan Civil War in fiction -> Fiction about the Angolan Civil War

If there is any other formatting you'd prefer, let me know. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The new names would be ideal, if possible. That format works fine, Piotrus :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Piotrus most of the examples need an additional "the", e.g. "Fiction about the Algerian War", "Fiction about World War II" is an exception. TSventon (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon Thanks for the tip, will do. No other exceptions? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Piotrus The only other exception I can see is "Fiction about World War I". "British Empire war fiction" and "People's Republic of China war fiction" are not about individual wars. TSventon (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)