< March 1
March 3 >

March 2

Category:People from Moura, Queensland

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lighthouses in Albania

Nominator's rationale: Contains just 1 list article. Merge in spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theatres by year of completion (16/17th centuries)

Nominator's rationale: Mostly isolated categories. 1-3 articles each. Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a category with early theatres is useful, but all these subcategories by decade and year are not; the items in them could be copied to the parent category before merging the subcategories with the more general buildings categories by year --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see above, there are 2 merge targets. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a good proposal. Thank you. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Torrijos family

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, Fabio Lozano Torrijos. Page said he had notable descendants, but I checked the alleged source and it said nothing of the sort. There is a "see also" to a notable grandson Juan Lozano Ramírez, but there is already the Category:Lozano family so this is somewhat of a duplicate, unless it is established that the Torrijos line was notable of itself. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I saw on Spanish Wikipedia a Torrijos family category with seven pages, but the very long page on Fabio Lozano Torrijos in Spanish doesn't link to a single relative with the Torrijos surname, so I don't know if all those seven people were relatives anyway. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Márquez family

Nominator's rationale: Page serves no purpose as it just has one page. I read the article on Francia Márquez and found no suggestion that she is part of a political dynasty. Her parents were humble workers and the only mention of her children is that they fled paramilitary threats with her in 2014. No mention of siblings. Her partner Yerney Pinillo has a page, but that only tells us that a couple exists, not that a political family exists. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mina family

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:BLPCAT by implying relation between people for having the same surname and skin colour - something I don't recommend trying in real life. Reading the articles, all I could find was that Yerry Mina and Juan José Mina are definitely brothers. Davinson Sánchez has Mina as his surname, but despite being another elite international player, playing right next to Yerry, there doesn't seem to be any sources saying he is related to Yerry - not on Wikipedia, and not on other sources I can see. [1] Francia Márquez has Mina as a second surname, and despite being the first black and second woman vice president of Colombia, nobody thought of writing some soft news saying how she's related to famous footballers? The Mauricio Mina page is poor, he's definitely not a brother of Yerry as they only have one surname in common, but no sources are saying they're related. All we definitely have is that two people are related, which is probably not warranting of a category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial buildings by country

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eintracht Frankfurt (women) players

Nominator's rationale: Same club, with a merger and rebrand. No need for two categories. My suggestion is for players of Eintracht (the current entity) to be moved to the older, larger 1. FFC category which would then be renamed, but the other way round would work too. Crowsus (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beni Alfons

Nominator's rationale: merge, duplicate categories, Beni Alfons was the Arab name of the Astur-Leonese dynasty. If this goes ahead then the subcategory can presumably be renamed speedily. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @Mike Selinker, Gryffindor, and DrKay: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentary film editors

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of characteristics. Editing a documentary film doesn't really draw on different skills, or use different tools, than editing a narrative fiction film does -- so the vast majority of film editors work on both fiction and documentary films over the course of their careers, rather than "specializing" exclusively in documentaries. Most of the people filed here have both documentary and fiction films on their résumés (see e.g. Eugenio Alabiso), and the much smaller number whose editing credits were exclusively on documentaries were also directors and/or producers of those documentaries, who were simply doing the editing on their own films in lieu of hiring an outside editor.
So there just isn't a cleanly categorizable distinction here, because editing documentary films isn't the crux of their notability: everybody here either worked on both documentary and non-documentary films over the course of their careers, or was a director and/or producer of documentary films, and none of them were "documentary film editing specialists" per se.
Note that everybody in the base category is already in an appropriate "Country film editors" category (I've already checked all of them to ensure that), so I've just tagged that as a delete since no upmerging is needed -- but I've tagged the Indian subcategory as a merge to Category:Indian film editors instead of a straight delete, so that those people don't get stranded out of the more important nationality category. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with GLAAD

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. The people categorized here were not all associated with GLAAD in the same way -- some were presidents, some were staffers, some were board members -- so they cannot simply be generically categorized as "associated with". Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:General Service Areas in Nova Scotia

Nominator's rationale: The term "General Service Area" is obsolite, and replaced with term "community". The category itself was technically replaced with "Category:Communities in Nova Scotia, but articles were not moved over. I believe it would be better to merge it with it, and maybe later let people move articles into appropriate subcategories. Also, the category already have addonation in its description that it "should no longer be used". Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note So, while making this discussion, I thouth there was a "Category:Communities in Nova Scotia". However, there is only "Category:Communities in Nova Scotia by county". Which I think is the reason why articles were not move over, since it would require lot's of manual work. But I think, it would still be better to create this category, and move there articles from Category:General Service Areas in Nova Scotia, to remove this obsolite category altogher for now. And maybe somebody will want to move all the articles manually to subcategories in the future.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any actual votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Yes, it's fine Artemis Andromeda (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economists from New York City

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between place of birth and later occupation. New York City is the only place we have done this for economists. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you drill down deep enough category wise, Economists would go in Scientists from New York City or Brooklyn because they are social scientists. Secondly, the category is well populated. Because these professionals have rarely been categorized at the town level, there is Economists from Shanghai, does that mean it shouldn't be done if there are enough to categorize that way?Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point about social scientists. Although it is an equally trivial intersection between place of birth and later occupation, these categories are not nominated now. I changed the merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banned organizations by the National Security Act (South Korea)

Nominator's rationale: Gramatically natural, and the choice of preposition is because the subject is a law, not an organization. Compare Category:People sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burn survivors

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Special:GoToComment/c-Jc37-20250221034400-HouseBlaster-20250221032900. Pinging @Jc37: to make a substantive nomination and @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: for their thoughts. This follows Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8#Category:Fictional burn survivors. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Being a burn survivor is defining under EGRS. I see the previous CFD as being indifferent between fiction about burn survivors and fictional burn survivors. I think it's a reasonable question to consider, but I think it falls under WP:EGRSD SMasonGarrison 04:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we set aside that all types of burn sources are different and probably should not be categorised together, there's also the question of: If it's "defining", at what point do we decide that it's defining. If you burn your finger on a candle flame, you are a "burn survivor". And I'm not intending to trivialise this at all. Where's the demarcation? Burns over 3/4s of the body? Did the burn cause the need for skin grafting or perhaps amputation? How about burns that are not life-threatening at all, but merely seen to be disfiguring? That could be anything from what some might call a beauty mark, all the way to needing plastic surgery to resolve. And we haven't even talked about things like sunburns or frostbite. In other words, I'm looking at WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and wondering: where do we draw the line? That's the issue with just saying burn. It covers a wide swath of things, and can differ greatly in source, size, intensity, severity, damage amount, and damage effect. So, as I noted above, if kept, this needs a rename for clarity. Because the current name is just simply too broad, to the point of essentially being all-inclusive of everyone on Earth. - jc37 22:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports venues completed in years of the 17th century

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. 1-2 articles per year. Not useful for navigation through at least the end of the 17th century. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. But also nominate the Events venues by year and decade in its entirety. There are never more than 3 subcategories in any of them (music venues, sports venues and theaters) and these subcategories are also directly listed under parent Buildings and structures in year/decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexamines

Nominator's rationale: "Mexamine" is an obscure old Russian name for 5-methoxytryptamine that isn't widely used. "5-Methoxytryptamine" is much more readily known and easily interpretable. Accordingly, "5-methoxytryptamine" has more than 20 times as many hits in Google Scholar as "mexamine". AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 00:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per parent compound article 5-Methoxytryptamine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_2
No tags for this post.