Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9

November 9

Early centuries in Somalia

Propose manually merging Category:13th century in Somalia to Category:13th century in Africa
Propose manually merging Category:14th century in Somalia to Category:14th century in Africa
Propose manually merging Category:15th century in Somalia to Category:15th century in Africa
Propose manually merging Category:16th century in Somalia to Category:16th century in Africa
Propose manually merging Category:17th century in Somalia to Category:17th century in Africa
Propose manually merging Category:18th century in Somalia to Category:18th century in Africa

Nominator's rationale: delete, poorly populated categories (apart from the subcategories) and Somalia did not even exist yet. The subcategories are already in Category:13th-century African people etc. The articles are already in Category:Somali empires but if the merge goes ahead they should also be added to Category:13th century in Africa etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1868 elections in the North German Confederation

Propose deleting Category:1868 elections in the North German Confederation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Isolated single-entry category with no clear potential for growth. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle, but merge to Category:1868 in the North German Confederation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1867 elections in the North German Confederation

Propose deleting Category:1867 elections in the North German Confederation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Isolated two-entry category with no clear potential for growth. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle, but merge to Category:1867 in the North German Confederation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Shizuoka

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in Shizuoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No actual users and points to a disambiguation page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, virtually empty category. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aplochitonidae

Propose renaming Category:Aplochitonidae to Category:Aplochitoninae

Nominator's rationale: Taxon renamed. See Talk:Aplochitoninae#Requested move 3 November 2024 YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support To match the name of the taxon. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical culture

Propose merging Category:Medical culture to Category:Medicine

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 16:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Roblox developers

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian Roblox developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function - WP:OC/U#narrow. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't contest if other editors find the categorization too niche, but I would like to argue that its meant to better organize editors who have a technical background with Roblox as a platform and engine, especially as there are multiple Roblox games listed in the Roblox category and the List of Roblox games page on Wikipedia. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very narrow indeed, but can probably be merged to parent Category:Wikipedian video game developers. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to Category:Wikipedian video game developers does indeed sound like the most suitable course of action. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Plum Springs, Kentucky

Propose merging Category:People from Plum Springs, Kentucky to Category:People from Warren County, Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serious games

Propose merging Category:Serious games to Category:Educational video games

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/overlapping ^SMason_Garrison 12:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is defining, as it has its own main article serious game. It's also not overlapping, and I am not sure that it should be a subcategory of educational game as it is now, but in Category:Video games by genre instead as its own genre as it can encompass things like training, activism, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows

Propose deleting Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupations ^SMason_Garrison 12:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category was nominated on 3 Nov 2024 with a consensus to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)

Wrong names of assessment categories for the Philippine music task force

I recently tried organizing the Philippine music task force of Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines by fixing the talk page banner, adding an article alert system, and assessment categories. After creating all the categories, there were no articles showing up in any of the quality assessment categories. And after reading the banner documentation, I figured that the

 |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Philippine music task force articles

parameter in the talk page banner may be at fault. I'd like to request for these quality assessment categories be moved to its respective names, accordingly, since the importance assessment categories with the similar naming structure as to the parameter works just fine. It's my first time having to do such, and unfortunately it went to no good. Thank you very much and I apologies for the hassle dealt. – Relayed (t • c) 11:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demon superheroes

Propose merging Category:Demon superheroes to Category:Fictional demons
Propose merging Category:Demon supervillains to Category:Fictional demons

Nominator's rationale: The combination of demon and superhero does not appear to be defining, at least without evidence that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as these seem to be useful divisions of Category:Superheroes by type / Category:Supervillains by type. – Fayenatic London 09:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not require "evidence" for category subdivisions. This is not a police investigation. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CATDEF states that reliable sources must "commonly and consistently refer to [the defining characteristic] in describing the topic", so it absolutely needs some sort of proof that RS single out demonic superheroes and villains as a class of their own. A pithy comment like calling it an investigation doesn't suddenly make it follow the Wikipedia policies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superheroes who are adopted

Propose merging Category:Superheroes who are adopted to Category:Fictional adoptees

Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic cross-categorization, while it might be a common trope it is still not defining that one is BOTH a superhero and adopted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tell that to an adopted superhero. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha I guess, but also, what? Is this the CfD equivalent of the Chewbacca defense? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how tropes are not defining. Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful as social role models representation for real-world adoptees and adopting parents – TNLNYC (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some tropes are simply trivial, like there would not be a category for "Cowboys who wear hats" because that is always an incidental aspect of their character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trivial intersection. It should be a manual merge though, I expect that many articles are already in one of the other subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge - why only superheroes? Why not also supervillains? Seems very trivial. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superhero schoolteachers

Propose merging Category:Superhero schoolteachers to Category:Fictional schoolteachers

Nominator's rationale: Not defining - made by blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. ^SMason_Garrison 12:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional males by franchise

Propose deleting Category:Fictional males by franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Fictional females by franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Few to none of the things in here qualify as a franchise, making this category misleading. Made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there may be a slight imprecision, but these categories work fine. – Fayenatic London 09:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a "slight" imprecision, as almost none are a franchise (besides maybe Bond girls). Most refer to a company instead or are unfitting to belong in the category. I will say that some, like the comics ones, might have to be merged into Category:Fictional females. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These seem to be subdivisions by publishing company instead of media franchise. Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional males and Category:Fictional females, some subcategories are by company, but it is a hodgepodge altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters from the Solar System

Propose merging Category:Fictional characters from the Solar System to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters

Nominator's rationale: The title of this category, as written, can encompass most fictional characters ever created. It clearly means "fictional extraterrestrials from within the Solar System", but I'm not sure it passes WP:NONDEF compared to often-used beings like Martians and Venusians, for which there are subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category clearly does not include people from Earth. Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth is part of the Solar System, how is that clear? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the category nicely fits under Category:Fiction about the Solar System. Possibly rename to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters from the Solar System. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: That makes sense, but are fictional aliens from random places in the solar system defining compared to aliens in general? I think Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters by Solar System planet would be the only thing that made sense, but that would be too small to work regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters from the Solar System- this makes it so that the category is better defined. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial robots

Propose merging Category:Fictional extraterrestrial robots to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters and Category:Fictional robots
Propose merging Category:Fictional extraterrestrial cyborgs to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters and Category:Fictional cyborgs

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF as, while they are a character type that appears from time to time, there does not seem to be something defining about the combination of extraterrestrial and robot in particular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the categories are well-populated, and it is worth distinguishing bots of alien origin from home-grown ones. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite - I will gladly withdraw this if you can show evidence of the defining nature of an extraterrestrial robot. Heck, if it really is notable, Extraterrestrial robots in fiction would seem like a cool article for me to write. I'm just not seeing it right now though, and that is just an assertion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how characters types are not defining. Dimadick (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: Being an alien as a character type is defining. Being a robot or cyborg is also defining. However, this is questioning whether being both at the same time is also defining, which is wholly different and not just "a single character type". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thulinverken vehicles

Propose merging Category:Thulinverken vehicles to Category:Thulinverken

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with Justapedia origins

Propose deleting Category:Articles with Justapedia origins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Apart from being a 99.99% WP mirror - for our purposes, Justapedia is merely another crowdsourced platform that should not be used as a source for anything, so there should be no "articles with Justapedia origins". Pointless category. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages written in Latin script

Propose deleting Category:Languages written in Latin script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category, as one that is a decade old, is not even implemented correctly; currently, it is more dependent on subcategories than pages in the category itself, but even then some languages like Indonesian or Filipino aren't even included there. However this trait should not be defining because Latin is the most common writing system. This category still does contain some languages that aren't written in the Latin script by standard, such as Hassaniya Arabic or Meitei, but I don't think trait is defining either. Other categories under Category:Languages by script may be kept, or maybe they'll be deleted as if writing systems as a whole are not defining. You decide. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem for including per-language subcategories as members rather than pages? In fact there should not even be any "page" (i.e. Galeries on Commons). Galeries are not relevant very for languages that have many aspects.

That category is relevant especially for languages that are commonly written with several scripts, and there's a need to subcategories per script (Latin being one of them), and then properly index the contents written in each script (so not all per-language categories need to be members, as most languages have a default script and there's still no need to distinguish them; but that's not even treu for English which is multiscript, even if Latin is its default).

This category should just be fed (very slowly) according to the IANA or CLDR databases and their related use in BCP 47 where categorizing per script is needed: if we categorize English written in Deseret, and list English as a member of "Language written in Deseret script", then we still need to list it also as member of "Languages written in Deseret script". As well we cannot assume a single script in many languages (not even Arabic! Which is also written in the Latin script in some wellknown Arabic variants, and for which case we have distinctive contents in Commons, that we do not want to mix with other Arabic-Arabic contents where we'll have difficulties to locales Arabic-Latin contents, jsut like we'll have difficutlies to locate English-Deserrt contents if they are all mixed deeply within English-Latin contents.)

Even if the Latin script is the most widely used one in the world, we don't want to place any image in that Category:Languages written in Latin script. All that is designed is to have subcategoeies members (and notably languages that are known to be written in mutliple scripts). We don't need per-language galeries as members (even if there are a few ones, these galeries should just be members of their own category to be listed as members). So that category should only contain subcategories, not galeries, not files for images/logos/symbols/audio/video that all should be placed in relevant subcategories of the per-language category (and possibly of the language-script combination category). Commons is not a videogame to play with for your convenience in Antarctica, it is for educational purpose.

Your statement also about "Hassaniya Arabic" is wrong: it is also written in the Latin script (as a standard in a wellknown country where it replaces the Arabic script in frequent cases). The same remark applies to Meitei (as written in Assam where the Latin script more common than the Meitei Mayek script for that language, even if it is not recognized officially, just because the language itself is still not recognized locally in order to promote the Bengali-Assamese script). It is a clear sign that you make this deleteion requrest based on false unchecked assumptions about how languages are written. And this is perfectly why such category by script is useful: it helps collecting facts that are countering such false assumptions, and make these facts more visible and easier to locate. This category will then grow very slowly but surely as needed as we get medias about them and categorize them properly to avoid them being lost in the mass where your assumption takes its root. Commons is especially useful when it collects medias that are otherwise difficult to find and study.

The fact that this categotry is "old" is not relevantat all as a criteria for deletion. The fact it has few members and thuis count progresses very slowly is aldo not relevant at all (this is per design), and this does not hurt at all but improves the indexing of Commons, to distinguish contents per language-script and locate them correctly (by helping finding language-script combinations when they are more rare and precious). verdy_p (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Can you please be more concise? This is a lot of text to ask volunteers to dig through. ^SMason_Garrison 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the category can better be re-purposed to Category:Languages sometimes written in Latin script or Category:Languages not originally written in Latin script as seems to be the intention of the category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Shorinji Kempo practitioners

Propose merging Category:Fictional Shorinji Kempo practitioners to Category:Fictional kenpō practitioners

Nominator's rationale: Too small to be necessary, made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Why do we need subcategories for types of kenpō? Dimadick (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional sambo practitioners

Propose merging Category:Fictional sambo practitioners to Category:Fictional hybrid martial artists

Nominator's rationale: Too small to be necessary. Made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melee weapons

Propose merging Category:Melee weapons to Category:Weapons

Nominator's rationale: Given melee weapon was deleted, this category in itself is facing a crisis. I suggest a merge for any applicable articles, as it is no longer a viable means to categorize things. This also includes any subcategories reading "melee weapons" to be merged into their respective nation subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if merged then manually merge because quite a few entries are already in some other subcategory of Category:Weapons. Also, it is probably appropriate to add Category:Indian melee weapons and other country subcategories to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seneca clans

Propose merging Category:Seneca clans to Category:Iroquois clans
Propose renaming Category:Beaver Clan of the Seneca to Category:Beaver Clan of the Iroquois
Propose renaming Category:Deer Clan of the Seneca to Category:Deer Clan of the Iroquois
Propose renaming Category:Snipe Clan of the Seneca to Category:Snipe Clan of the Iroquois
Propose renaming Category:Turtle Clan of the Seneca to Category:Turtle Clan of the Iroquois
Propose renaming Category:Wolf Clan of the Seneca to Category:Wolf Clan of the Iroquois

Nominator's rationale: Clans are shared between Iroquois nations (for example, a Mohawk Wolf Clan member, an Oneida Wolf Clan member, and a Seneca Wolf Clan member are all considered part of the same clan, see here and here), and these categories are currently very small with only one of them having more than 3 entries, so populating them with clan members from the other Iroquois nations would be beneficial. 69.159.15.16 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support; however, would Category:Beaver clan of the Haudenosaunee, etc., be preferable to use?. Yuchitown (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Peter Flass (talk)

Category:Fictional taijutsuka

Propose merging Category:Fictional taijutsuka to Category:Fictional practitioners of Japanese martial arts

Nominator's rationale: Pointlessly specific category that I'd be surprised isn't original research for all involved. Made by disruptive account. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the intended targed was moved to Category:Fictional practitioners of Japanese martial arts, as a result of another CfD. Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English Olympic medallists

Propose deleting Category:English Olympic medallists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Scottish Olympic medallists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Welsh Olympic medallists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per the recent deletion of Category:Californian Olympic medalists based on the fact that California and England and Scotland and Wales do not field Olympic teams, this category should be deleted. This came up in the discussion on California by editor @Marcocapelle:. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Scottish Olympic competitors etc. Those should probably be nominated too, but in the meantime it is a valid location for all the medalists. Crowsus (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A merge is not needed because the articles are already in Category:Olympic gold medallists for Great Britain etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, it should be merged, because Scottish Olympic competitors is not nested within Olympic gold medallists for Great Britain. For the record, I do not think that California and England are comparable subdivisions.^SMason_Garrison 16:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, and Scotland has a list on the topic, but to be fair the principle of a territory within an Olympic entity is the same. Crowsus (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be identical but they are comparable. They are not nations by any stretch and do not compete in the Olympics. I wouldn't be surprised if California has more medals than Great Britain.... certainly England. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"They are not nations by any stretch" - are you sure? They do not compete separately in the Olympics so it sets an unwanted precedent for categorisation which potentially opens doors for other such entities like US states, Australian states, Spanish autonomous communities with over-enthusiastic nationalist editors eager to create Catalan xyz and Basque abc for everything, that much we can agree on. Crowsus (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure. Different places use states, countries, etc, as interchangeable terms. They don't have passports either, just like California doesn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects

Propose deleting Category:Tiziano Ferro album redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Tiziano Ferro song redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are no album or song redirect schemes such as there is for television episodes (e.g. Category:Episode redirects to lists). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are tens of thousands of these redirects in Category:Redirects from songs that really should be further organized in some way, for maintenance purposes if nothing else. I have been working with the songs, albums and redirects of this artist and have found it helpful to organize the dozens of related redirects. I don't see the need for deletion, and actually I'm encouraged to create a scheme.— TAnthony^Talk 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But assuming this idea will horrify the music redirect community, I can accept a consolidation to Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects.— TAnthony^Talk 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find it helpful for what? What are you looking for by categorizing variations on the title of L'amore è una cosa semplice created as redirects? Any actual redirects (not misspellings, miscapitalizations, etc.) for albums or songs that are listed in the discography or track listing can be merged to the parent albums/songs category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is a maintenance process defined. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I admit I do not understand what Marcocapelle means by a "maintenance process" – what would you like to see in order to support keeping/merging the categories? If you support keeping/merging the category, is that something that can happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to relister: User:TAnthony argued that the category should be kept for "maintenance purposes". Then my question is: what sort of maintenance process is in place here? If there is no answer to this question the category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rutulian film people

Propose merging Category:Rutulian film people to Category:Rutulian people by occupation
Propose merging Category:Rutulian men by occupation to Category:Rutulian men
Propose merging Category:Rutulian people in sports to Category:Rutulian people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers ^SMason_Garrison 02:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge in principle; however, note that I've proposed merging virtually all of the subcategories under these (which all have just one person in each of them) for upmerging to Category:Rutul people on November 7, meaning that even the target categories here will effectively also be empty if that goes through — so the merger should probably just go directly to Category:Rutul people instead. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Bearcat's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merging to the highest level. ^SMason_Garrison 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two nominations are complementary and I support them both. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Hoboken, New Jersey

Propose merging Category:Restaurants in Hoboken, New Jersey to Category:Restaurants in New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has four entries.Djflem (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of which is a redirect.Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Five entries (one of which is a redirect) as of relisting. Is that enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrator recall

Propose renaming Category:Administrator recall to Category:Wikipedia administrator recall
Propose renaming Category:Recall petitions to Category:Wikipedia administrator recall petitions
Propose renaming Category:Open recall petitions to Category:Open Wikipedia administrator recall petitions
Propose renaming Category:Successful recall petitions to Category:Successful Wikipedia administrator recall petitions
Propose renaming Category:Unsuccessful recall petitions to Category:Unsuccessful Wikipedia administrator recall petitions

Nominator's rationale: The usual issue with ambiguously-named non-content categories. I would have sent it to speedy but wasn't sure if this was an uncontroversial "established naming convention" under criterion C2B. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Categories and we have consensus for these changes. We did not necessarily need a formal proposal for this. Anyone should be free to move them directly Soni (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the person who originally suggested the change. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Less confusion is better. BusterD (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I suppose, but really it should be reconfirmation rather than recall in all instances; We're asking the editor to just confirm that she is, indeed, reconfirmed as an admin and if so it is win-win and the system worked. We want to be as kind as possible. That is different conversation tho. (Also, would OK with renaming category to Category:Pre-1876 life peers or whatever the community wants.) Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1876 life peers

Propose renaming Category:Pre-1876 life peers to Category:Life peers created before 1876

Nominator's rationale: Opposed at speedy. This rename aligns with the subcategories and is generally more clear. Pinging people from CFDS: @Ravenpuff, Fayenatic london, and Stephan Leeds. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as original nominator: Stephan Leeds's argument (below) doesn't quite work because this category contains peers rather than peerages; thus the category tree name is already correct and changing it would make it inconsistent with other similar category. "Created" can only mean "elevated" in this context, not "born", as witnessed by e.g. Category:Life peers created by Elizabeth II. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of speedy discussion

Category:Pre-1876 life peers to Category:Life peers created before 1876 – C2C: with subcategories, and generally clearer — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not a list of peers created (i.e. born, or conceived) before 1876, but of peerages. “Category:Life peerages created before 1876” or “Category:Life peerages before 1876” would useful and not inaccurate, and “List of life peerages before 1876” (not category) already exists. Stephan Leeds (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan Leeds: true, but all the subcats use "Life peers created by…", so the nomination was valid under C2C. Do you want to nominate the cat and its sub-(sub-)cats for a full CFD? – Fayenatic London 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Leeds: This category contains biographical articles about peers (people), not articles about peerages (titles), so the category tree name is correct. As Fayenatic london stated, this is the same as all other subcategories, e.g. Category:Life peers created by Charles III. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]