Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 19

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< October 18
October 20 >

October 19

edit

Category:Jebel Hafeet

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge in the spirit of WP:C2F, ultimately there is just the eponymous article in here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

1990s Soviet and Russian military aircraft‎

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#1990s Soviet and Russian military aircraft‎

1920s Soviet and Russian military aircraft‎

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#1920s Soviet and Russian military aircraft‎

Category:Japan's scenic spots

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly named category. This was created as a completely uncategorized category, which categories are never allowed to be, but we do not have any "scenic spots" tree for this to be a part of -- and even if one were desirable, "Country's scenic spots" would absolutely not be its correct name. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paul Malliavin

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Malliavin calculus. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Although 3 mathematical articles are named after this mathematician (Malliavin calculus, Malliavin derivative, Malliavin's absolute continuity lemma), I don't think it is worth having a category for them. Potential for expansion is low. Place Clichy (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zainichi Korean male professional wrestlers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to both parents. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: idk why I made this; there's only men that I've seen so far toobigtokale (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Czech Marxist poets

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: procedural close, nomination has been incorporated in a broader nomination. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as it only has 1 category Mason (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Charter preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:Charter preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory

Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Albania

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge and split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-NPOV cross categorization: Russia is not the Soviet Union, and categorized subjects include emigrants from other Soviet and former Soviet countries.  —Michael Z. 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Split per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    delete. needs reasonable, and consistent with other recent category splits/deletes etc Mason (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Upmerge. These should be upmerged otherwise some of the relationships between the categories will be lost. For example: Category:Russian emigrants to the Netherlands had the relevant parent categories of Category:Dutch people of Russian descent Category:Immigrants to the Netherlands replaced by Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to the Netherlands [1] Mason (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to split, but not the way Mzajac is doing it. E.g. in this series of edit [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], valid parent categories were removed with no reason. Category:Russian emigrants to Canada should be left in Category:Immigrants to Canada (and maybe Category:Canadian people of Russian descent), not just Category:Russian emigrants. Also, some category descriptions may be amended to precise that Russian Foo... categories are not just for content relative post-1991 Russian Federation but all predecessor states such as e.g. the Russian Empire, maybe through child categories. Place Clichy (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I messed up. @Place Clichy, are you saying I didn’t check the parent category’s categories and add them to the removed category?
    I wonder if Russian X and Russian-Empire X should be separate category trees. Not only were there 7 decades of separation, but like for the Soviet Union, residency in the Russian empire represented many nationalities, birth in one of many countries, not just Russian.
    The top-level categories are Category:Emigrants by nationality and Category:Immigrants by destination country. These refer to nation and country, not citizenship. An empire is not a country, but rules over many countries, and the list of them changes over time.  —Michael Z. 21:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, when removing a category, its "gap" must be filled in the chain: if A => B => C and B is removed, then we must have A => C. The default behaviour when removing / deleting a category is to "up"-merge its content to all of its parent categories.
    I don't think that Russia and the Russian Empire should be in completely "separate trees". After all, the latter was generally called Russia and its inhabitants Russians, both by its contemporaries and today. Sure there are differences, in political regime, border, population etc. but there is an undeniable heritage of one to the other. They are not separate countries. I disagree with the tendency, in terms of categorization, to treat subsequent political regimes in the same country as entirely different countries. Place Clichy (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way you accept a very restricted meaning of “country,” and the vague way you use “heritage” as if that had some basis in our guidelines, denies the heritage of a number of other countries and thousands of article subjects from them.  —Michael Z. 02:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I am not sure of the direction is going. I don't think the heritage of any country is denied. I think that the very core of what we on Wikipedia should base itself upon is reliable sources, every time. There's plenty of content relative to e.g. Poland and Finland in the time of the Russian Empire and we, of course, should call such nations the way the sources call them. I believe that's already the case. And if by denies the heritage of a number of other countries you mean the 15 Republics that reached (or recovered) independence at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, you usual topic of focus, I believe that applying this expression retroactively to the Russian Empire denies a number of ethnic groups that have not reached post-Soviet independence such as the Cherkess or the Tatars. In a way, Russia was an empire then, and is also an empire now. Place Clichy (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The generalizations that everybody under the Russian empire is always called “Russian” today, and the implication that terminology about these nations hasn’t changed significantly since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are factually incorrect.
    For those unfamiliar with the subject, for example, there has been an academic movement to decolonize Ukraine and other former Russian colonies since the 1950s and especially recently.[8]
    Galleries have relabelled the artists they exhibit and many “Russian” imperials have been recategorized by their country of birth and/or their nation, or country of significant activity. For example, the Met now doesn’t call Repin and Kuindzhi “Little Russian,” “Ruthenian,” or “Russian,” but classifies them as “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire,”[9][10] and Aivazovsky “Armenian, born Russian Empire [now Ukraine],”[11] and the authoritative Getty Research ULAN has categorized many from the Russian empire (and Soviet Union) by their nationality,[12] where “"nationality" is shorthand for nationality/ethnicity/culture/religion/sexual orientation,”[13] and “to reflect changes in scholarship or usage of names and biographical information.”[14]
    I didn’t say anything about 15 states formerly ruled under the Soviet Union.
    I am saying we should follow current reliable sources sources and be aware of changes in recent centuries, decades, years, and months. I hope they respect the identification of people from Cherkess and Tatar nations too, and welcome your findings on their treatment in good sources.  —Michael Z. 15:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about the russian empire category, german empire category, as most articles don't describe people as being from the "russian empire" or "german empire". They tend to define them as Russian, German, or in the case of people within the empire, Ukrainian, who happens to be living in the empire, such as “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire" . If presented with “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire", I'd want to call them Ukrainian, as that seems to me to be the more defining nationality identity (even if it isn't a nationality with a distinct political entity). Mason (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of an issue if the person in question didn't even call themselves Ukrainian but happened to be born or lived in what is now Ukraine. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Self-identification was subject to colonial pressure. We should follow up-to-date, reliable sources on what to call people, especially colonized people, and not appeal to such arguments to keep presenting historical Ukrainians as Russians.  —Michael Z. 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine has been a country before the Russian empire existed, since at least about 1648 depending on how you look at it, and still a country later while large parts of it were colonized by Muscovy and then the Russian empire. It is common for reliable sources to refer to people there as Ukrainian or born in Ukraine, and not resort to hackneyed formulations that few sources use (my least favourite is “in what is now Ukraine,” as if it was invented from whole cloth in 1991).  —Michael Z. 15:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English navy officers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military personnel of the Kingdom of England

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 21:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: possibly trivial intersection Mason (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Places in the deuterocanonical books

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus With four different proposals being made and nobody agreeing with anybody else there is clearly no consensus here. Any purging can follow the standard bold-revert-discuss cycle. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I like the current name better than the proposed name, the proposed name fits other place-by-religious-book categories. We have Category:Old Testament places, Category:Hebrew Bible places, Category:New Testament places, Category:Torah places, Category:Quranic places, Category:Rigvedic rivers (no categories for general "places" in the Vedas), and Category:Book of Mormon places, but I can't find any other "Places in the book-name" categories. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Many of these places are already in the OT/Bible (the parent cats). per Overlapcat, etc. Listify, if wanted, to explain the appearances and how they may be the same or different from the appearances in the OT or the Bible, in general. - jc37 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Odd-toed ungulates

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with a rename for the other category to "artiodactyls," and the name is a misnomer since tapirs have four toes on their front legs. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the categories in both this and the below nomination. Courtesy ping to the creator of both of the , @Pcb21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Even-toed ungulates

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the Artiodactyls page itself since the rename, "even-toed ungulate" is a misnomer or non-taxonomic paraphyletic group. Artiodactyls works also as a compromise between "Artiodactyla" and "Cetartiodactyla." Same reasoning applies to categories like "Eocene even-toed ungulates." PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Galician toponymic surnames

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Galician-language surnames * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, only 1 entry and no other entries in Category:Galician surnames. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. I think either of the targets is a good solution. I'm inclined to merge both the surname target categories together. Mason (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of museums in insular areas of the United States

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:Lists of museums in insular areas of the United States

Category:Sports museums in insular areas of the United States

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 31#Category:Sports museums in insular areas of the United States

Expatriates in the Kingdom of Prussia, part 2

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: single merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was approved in principle at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_18#Category:Expatriates_in_the_Kingdom_of_Prussia, but the categories were not tagged. Should it be a double merge also to the other parent Category:British expatriates in Germany/Category:French expatriates in Germany? – Fayenatic London 12:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Double or single merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to a double merge to the broader category of Germany, as I don't think the nature of the regime is defining for expatriates. (Obviously there are exceptions like Nazis, Soviets etc). But I don't feel very strongly about it.Mason (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
single merge per Marco. Prussia is not a particular "regime" or government of Germany, it was an independent state. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Phantom islands of the Atlantic

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Option A * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just a better title. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Prefer rename to Category:Phantom Atlantic islands to match style of Category:Phantom Arctic islands over nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where to rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following up here, I think the original nomination is too long. Purportedly is implied by the definition of Phantom islands. In my opinion, there are two options:
  • Option A
Rationale: This renaming aligns with Category:Islands of the Atlantic Ocean and Category:Islands of the Arctic Ocean per WP:C2C.
  • Option B
Rationale: This renaming aligns with Category:Phantom Arctic islands.
With that said, I prefer renaming according to Option A here. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:Phantom Arctic islands.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option A seems most consistent with other category names. Goustien (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British scholars

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus Also note that the "academics" categories were never tagged, which would be necessary to process this as nominated. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is pretty small category. Honestly, I'm inclined to nominate the entire tree, because I really struggle to make a consistent distinction beyond that scholars don't need to have academic afflation/credentials (which more reflects the era or subject matter of the scholar). I envision that the final category would look like Category:Irish scholars and academics, whose category description notes "In Ireland, scholars refer both to pre-modern scholars and modern academics". See this discussion that I dug up from 2009. Mason (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - So, I'm looking at Category:Scholars and academics. Which I think makes a good container cat for all the different knowledge/study-related occupations. But I don't think we should merge the subcats to match this container. For one thing, Scientists are not necessarily a scholar or an academic. We're dealing with some subjectively applied terms here, and could very well be creeping towards WP:OR when applying these to a person. I mean, I could also probably argue that many of these could be merged to Category:Researchers, or how about to Category:Theorists? There's Overlapcat going on all over these trees, but due to WP:PRECISION, and really, to avoid miscategorising people (per WP:BLP), I don't think merging is the way to go. I think for acuracy, these all should stay separate. All that said, I would welcome ideas and discussion on this. - jc37 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Androgens and anabolic steroids

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:Androgens and anabolic steroids

Category:Fortifications in Senegal

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge both categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: down merge (or perhaps reverse and upmerge?) Overcategorization, as there's only one fort in the categories Mason (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World Heritage Tentative List for Senegal

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge per small cat. There's only one page in here. Mason (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Found another page! If someone can find a 3rd, I think that this category is populated enough to keep) Mason (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hutaib

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only has a file + redirect in it. Mason (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ridges of Jebel Hafeet

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. Both pages in this category are redirects, and the parent category, only has this category and Jebel Hafeet in it. Mason (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aconcagua

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one entry. cagliost (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedy merged (C2F: One eponymous page). Also if deleted, it would at present orphan the page. (I've now added back the relevant categories[16]) Mason (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bridgeport Bluefish guest managers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a frivolous category of no real significance. It only really serves to clog up the category section of it's host articles. The host article do not mention "Bridgeport Bluefish" as significant to their careers nor is their guest managing verified by sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People and person templates by country

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#People and person templates by country

Category:People from Van Nuys

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:People from Van Nuys

Categorization of singles by record label by decade

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Categorization of singles by record label by decade

Category:User nap-0

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding precedent * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Template sandboxes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split between Category:Template sandboxes (where the category currently is) and Category:Module sandboxes. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 01:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of this category is misleading as it also contains Lua modules, which are not templates. I am proposing to move the Module namespace pages into their own category. Eyesnore talk💬 00:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_19&oldid=1183194824"