< July 13
July 15 >

July 14

Category:Symplectic topology

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In mathematics, "symplectic geometry" and "symplectic topology" are often (though not universally) understood to be two terms meaning the same thing, usually depending on the author's preference and feelings about how "geometric" the subject is. For examples of this usage, see this SE answer and the fact that Symplectic topology is a redirect to Symplectic geometry. The category Category:Symplectic topology seems to be a duplicate of Category:Symplectic geometry. The latter page claims that there is a difference, as "Topological aspects are often categorized as Category:Symplectic topology". However, I don't think this is how most people use the word. Indeed, looking at the pages, it is hard to believe there is much, if any, adherence to this (very subjective) rule! For example, it seems hard to believe that Symplectic basis and Darboux's theorem are "geometric" but Gromov–Witten invariant and Symplectomorphism are "topological". And most things in both categories seem like they could just as well go into either one! The relevant policies are WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I propose merging these categories under the more common term "symplectic geometry" and having the category page for "symplectic topology" be a redirect. This is my first time using CfD, so please forgive any mistakes I make. I am not sure if I am supposed to add the subst:Cfm template to the category that is being merged to as well as the category being merged from. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The topological aspects are so important in this field that the main articles are the same. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If symplectomorphism would be better in Category:Symplectic geometry, which seems a reasonable remark, re-categorise it. Unless Category:Symplectic topology ends up empty, which I think shouldn't happen here, the case for a merge is weak. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have any intuition about whether symplectomorphism is "topological" or "geometric". I think it's arbitrary which one it goes into. One might think a page like Floer homology is "topological", because it is homology, but one might think that Floer homology captures geometric data. Whether this is true depends on whether you think symplectic manifolds and symplectomorphism are "geometric". In the end, I just think there's enough ambiguity there to make all of nearly all of these classifications subjective or overlapping. Can you tell us more of your reasoning? Are there a lot of pages that you think obviously belong under only one of the two categories? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Tito Omburo comment below, I think you haven't made the case for a merge. There clearly is a difference, and your intuition isn't the point at issue. The usage by people in the field is. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge because of the huge overlap described above. I doubt that we have enough editors interested in these topics to maintain the categories well. The work required detracts from the core work of the encyclopedia, which is adding content with citation. ("Weak" because this is always a problem when we try to categorize math topics. It's why I don't engage much with Wikipedia categories.) Mgnbar (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once I asked Ana Cannas de Silva what the difference was between symplectic topology and symplectic geometry, and she told me that it's really a misnomer, since symplectic geometry is often very topological (spaces under symplectomorphism), while symplectic topology is often very geometrical (Floer homology, Gromov-Witten invariants). Now we shouldn't try to right great wrongs, and I think once one understands this difference, the distinction becomes pretty clear. Tito Omburo (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LEAST: as the distinction appears to be unclear for specialists (I am not), it is certainly confusing for non-specialists for wich the category system is intended. Another possibility would be to make sympletic topology a subcategory of symplectic geometry, since, usually, topology may be considered as geometry without metric. In any case, the work of sorting the articles between the two categories would be a waste of time for competent editors; this is much more important of spending editor time to improve the articles. D.Lazard (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose, many articles in the category do prominently mention symplectic topology. I realize that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, therefore it's a weak keep, but if the articles are wrong in this respect then that should be solved in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:54, 15 July 2024 (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:Mid 19th Century Revival architecture in the United States

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems underpopulated and doesn't seem to be very defining by itself. If not merged, it should be renamed. Mason (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (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:American high school teachers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 22#Category:American high school teachers


Category:Poets of the Confederacy

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#Category:Pro-Confederate_clergy, There's no need to have an intersection between nationality, period, occupation, and opinion. Mason (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2024 (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.


Ancient infrastructure

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The date of completion is not known precisely in some cases. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:09, 22 July 2024 (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:Artists from New Spain

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 22#Category:Artists from New Spain

Category:Expatriates from the Spanish Empire

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is underpopulated and unhelpful. The only person in here is cuban, and there is no mention of the spanish empire on the page Mason (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2024 (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.

Involving countries

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: keep most and rename three as per Fayenatic London. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wars involving former countries and similarly-named categories of non-state actors (e.g. Category:Battles involving peoples, Category:Wars involving peoples; supranational organisations like Category:Peacekeeping missions and operations involving the United Nations; rebel groups like Category:Military operations involving the al-Nusra Front; alliances like Category:Wars involving NATO and Category:Military operations involving the Warsaw Pact, etc.), and to avoid confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". Follow-up to preliminary discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Involving former countries or by former country involved, where it was found best to let go of the "by country involved" formula as the de facto standard. NLeeuw (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: courtesy ping for follow-up discussion. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about reopening and notifications
  • Comment As nominator I would have appreciated it if I had been notified that this CfR had been reopened, and why, and that it would have been relisted. I only discovered this now: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#NAC requests 8–14 June 2024. I personally don't like this naming convention - Category:Wars involving countries seems ridiculous to me (doesn't every war involve a country). But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. This indeed seems far too late to make this point when consensus had already been achieved. The rationale I provided explains that lots of wars do not involve countries as the only belligerents, and sometimes none at all. These belligerents are known as non-state actors: rebel groups, peoples, alliances, etc. That one personally finds this ridiculous when the rationale has explicitly explained how this is possible is pretty much an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT argument (they even downright say I personally don't like this), and reopening a closed CfR for this reason alone, not notifying the nom and other participants and not relisting it, and two of the admins who were involved in the decision to reopen it participating in the CfR and then !voting against it (thus overturning the unanimous support that the proposal had enjoyed so far), is quite an odd turn of events. I wouldn't mind reopening a discussion for good reasons, but the !voting of admins involved in the decision to reopen it is rather suggestive of something happening out of process (I don't know the exact protocols for this, but I'll try to find it). I hope the situation can be clarified soon. NLeeuw (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not reopen this discussion, nor even ask the closer to reopen it. I just refused to use my own admin tools to implement a result I found ridiculous, expecting some other admin to just push the button. Fayenatic london asked the original closer to reopen, and they agreed. There's nothing wrong with that process. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not, but I do object to the two of you !voting in this discussion after convincing @HouseBlaster to reopen it.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, admins should either:
    1. participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges, especially if they have already cast a !vote, because once they do, they should maintain their role as a regular editor for the rest of the discussion; or
    2. be neutral in the discussion, including the !voting, and merely ensure that the process is being followed according to established procedure, making use of their admin privileges if necessary. This includes relisting, closing, and implementing the result if this requires special admin actions (deletion, renaming, merging, splitting). It may also include more regular actions that regular editors could also perform, such as asking the nominator or other participants for clarification of what they mean, or tagging/pinging relevant users for relevant notifications, or other comments for the understanding of participants (e.g. pointing to precedents, previous or simultaneous discussions, or pointing out that a certain user is a sock that had been blocked, and striking their !vote as invalid per WP:SOCKSTRIKE). As far as I am aware, requesting to reopen a discussion at NAC requests at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working is also an admin action that no regular editor can perform. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)). As soon as an admin takes an admin action, they should maintain that neutral role of ensuring that the discussion proceeds as it should, until it is closed and implemented.[reply]
    So if an admin requests a reopening, that means their role on the CfD is that of an admin, and they should maintain that role for the rest of the CfD. If an admin !votes, they should maintain the role of a regular editor for the rest of the CfD. If an admin does both things, they are mixing up the two roles they can take. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there, so this is not an "admin action", and roles are not mixed up in such a case. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)).[reply]
    Again, correct me if I'm wrong (Edit: I partially was . NLeeuw (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)), but this is how I have understood how admins are supposed to operate at CfD. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any policy, guideline, instruction or help page which formally explains how this should work (please link me to it if it does exist!), so my understanding is mostly based on my experiences here at CFD since February 2023. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: There may be some exceptions to what I have described above. For example, I've seen it happen that a CfD was relisted twice by a admin, but there was still very little participation (nobody else had !voted on the proposal yet). Then that admin cast a !vote, and another admin closed the discussion in which the !vote of the first admin proved to be decisive. Is that an issue? I don't think so. Relisting the discussion as an admin and then stepping down from that role and partipating as a regular editor by !voting does not seem to be a problem, as the relisting would not necessarily influence the direction of the discussion. If this change of role helps resolve an otherwise inactive, dormant discussion, that helps Wikipedia move forward.
    The other way around is more dubious. If an admin casts a !vote first, and then later relists the discussion, that might be an implicit "advertising" of their own !vote to other participants.
    Again, this is just what I've seen, and what makes sense to me. I don't know if this is officially approved and agreed procedure written down somewhere, or just convention based on custom / precedent, but never formally written down anywhere. Please correct me if I'm wrong; we could all benefit from clarification. NLeeuw (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLeeuw I apologise for not notifying you of the reopening. I will also ping the other participants Marcocapelle and LaundryPizza03 as a courtesy. Apart from that I don't think there has been any poor practice here. Any user can request a closer to reopen a discussion, e.g. to present fresh arguments. As it happens, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working can be edited by anybody; I accept that only admins and non-admin closers are likely to visit it, but it doesn't really matter where the request for reopening takes place; it would most often be done on the closer's user talk page, but could be e.g. on a parent category talk page or on a main article's talk page. As for the admin role, Pppery and I cannot close this now that I have participated with a !vote, but I see no conflict re the reopening. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, I think we have situation 1 here, admins who "participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges". Admin privileges are e.g. the possibility to delete pages and to block accounts, those are not applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you are right, also based on Fayenatic's explanation that the request to reopen may be submitted by any editor. So that did not happen out of process; the process just isn't clear (at least not to me), because it appears not to be written down anywhere for all to see (and find). I've posed some questions below to try and clarify some things to address similar issues in the future. NLeeuw (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic london Thanks for that explanation and apology, I accept it.
    I'd like to say and ask a few more things that are not intended to influence the result of this discussion, but only to help clarify CfD (including CfR, CfM, CfS etc.) procedures in general. Because I did not know that anyone could request reopening a discussion at that subsection of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. Honestly, I browsed through dozens of policy, guideline, convention, instruction, procedure and talk pages, but almost all content about reopening discussions is about deleted articles. E.g. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should generally apply to category discussions, but its contents don't really explicitly cover scenarios involving categories, let alone CfRs.
    Can reopenings be requested for just any reason? to present fresh arguments seems odd; if consensus has been established and the discussion has been closed, why should any individual person be able to challenge the result on the basis of "fresh arguments"? WP:CLOSECHALLENGE generally suggests that closures can only be overturned for procedural reasons, not in order to continue the discussion itself with on-topic arguments. At least, I see no such scenarios under Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, which seems to apply to all category discussions (but correct me if I'm wrong).
    The only possible way I see is (A).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. This is quite a vague stipulation to unpack, but here I go:
    • Was there an "early closure"? WP:CFDAI states Normally, only close discussions if they have been open to participation for more than a week. It was open for 12.5 days (without relisting) before HouseBlaster closed it. So no, this wasn't an "early closure", it was relatively late. Pppery acknowledges this, implying it may be "too late" to reopen: But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. (Not sure if relisting is required after 7 days without apparent consensus? But that's a minor side-issue).
    • Were there "multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion"? I guess Pppery and FL together are "multiple" editors, so yes, though only barely. Note that @Ymblanter said: It seems to be consensus though, I will wait a bit and process. So only one editor would not have been enough.
    • To make a technical grammatical argument, perhaps the two clauses of the sentence are independent of each other, and the "early closure" part does not apply to the second clause? In that case, the second clause can be read as if [...] a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion[, c]losures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review[.] In that case it doesn't matter how far too late Pppery was, just what a compelling new perspective he has brought forth. But who is to judge what is "compelling"? And what kind of "perspective"? I note that this appears to have nothing to do with procedural objections such as outlined elsewhere under "Challenge other closures", or under "Challenging a deletion", or under "Challenging a move", all of which are procedural. Apparently it can be a fresh on-topic argument, even long after a regular closure. Might this not lead to arbitrary decisions to reopen discussions based on a single editor's request, thus overturning an already-established consensus? (Ymblanter). Unless I'm wrong, perhaps this stipulation should be clarified or modified to rule out anyone coming along with a "compelling new perspective" that is accepted by an admin for non-procedural reasons?
    NLeeuw (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: TL;DR version: 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? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS: I'm gathering that "changing a closure" can include three actions: (A) rewording the closure, (B) reopening the discussion without review, or (C) reopening the discussion following a closure review. Does it also include the possibility or requirement to relist the discussion if reopened? Compare Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a move 2. ...the RM should be reopened and relisted. In this case, neither relisting nor tagging/pinging (initially) took place; it's not required, but perhaps we should make that a rule, just like relisting can be a requirement in an RM that is reopened under scenario (2)? That way, past participants, who may have seen that the discussion was closed (as I did), and were not aware it had been reopened afterwards (as I only found out 2 days later when I happened to check it), can be informed passively (by relisting) or actively (by tagging/pinging) of its reopening, as a matter of courtesy. (I appreciate the fact that Fayenatic london still pinged the other two participants today). NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the actual nomination at hand (as well as the alt)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion about procedures should be moved and held somewhere else than CfD, that's fine with me. What would be the best venue? NLeeuw (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic, can I ask you for some further explanation/rationale? You said: I find nothing wrong with the phrase "by former country involved". Ok, but that's not an argument in itself. Is there anything wrong with the proposal? If there is, what? If not, then one might as well not !vote, or !vote weak support, or !vote neutral. Moreover, why is there a need to add "involved" to catnames which currently do not have that word? You propose we should, but do not explain why. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NLeeuw I am persuaded by Pppery's argument agains the proposal. The proposed name is bad because it's meaningless in English, and omits "by" which indicates that it's a container category (with or without a template). I do not accept your rationale as I think it would be improbable to confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". "Involved" should be added consistently per the precedents linked above, to indicate participants rather than locations. I support the rationale I've recently initiated a push for adding the word "involved" to the latter type of catnames to avoid confusion with "battles *in* Fooland" (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Battles by country and WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN) by, er, NLeeuw. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does a containercat need the word by in the catname? Wikipedia:Container category doesn't say anything about that. If we take a look at a random sample of 500 categories which transclude Template:Container category, only 312 of them (62.4%) have the word by in the catname. Are you suggesting that the other 188 catnames (37.6%) are all bad because it's meaningless in English? Or maybe the word by is not necessary in containercat catnames after all? NLeeuw (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Naval battles involving pirates is a good comparison? It could work both ways.
  • I assume we agree there is nothing linguistically wrong with this catname. It's not necessary to rename this to Naval battles by pirates involved, because the catname is clear as it is. It's not a containercat, and perhaps it shouldn't be a containercat, because we might be hard-pressed to put all items currently in it into subcategories.
  • On the other hand, does this catname not demonstrate that there is nothing "linguistically" wrong with catnames such as Wars involving countries and Battles involving countries? I do understand that there is a risk of people placing articles directly into Category:Wars involving countries if we decide to rename as proposed, but every once in a while we will just diffuse that to the appropriate subcategory, as we do with all containercats containing articles. NLeeuw (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Battles involving pirates" or "Battles involving NATO" are fine. It's just "involving countries" that fails to convey that it is for subcats by country involved.
    • The May 22 discussion was explicitly only about former countries, and you argued that "involving former countries" was sufficiently clear. I would not strongly oppose that name for a container category, although I prefer to keep names consistent within a hierarchy. However, this nomination fails by trying to apply your preference in that nomination to categories by country, not just by former country.
    • As for using "by" on containers: Category:Battles is a top-level container, like e.g. Category:Dancers, so it doesn't use "by" in its name. However, most of its hierarchy is sorted by parameter using six intermediate container categories, all of which use "by" for clarity – except for one that is currently nominated. – Fayenatic London 12:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, I didn't know how those top-level containers worked and that "by" is not required for them. Is that the case for all those 188 catnames without "by"? Then perhaps my objection is mistaken. NLeeuw (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 14 July 2024 (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:Professional wrestlers who boxed amateurly and professionally

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why do we need people who are at the triple intersection of three sports? Mason (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2024 (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:Professional wrestlers who use Asian mist

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow in subject and non-defining. We don't have other categories were the subject as ever used a specific move. The category description indicates a huge inclusion criteria of using a specific move. "This category is for all professional wrestlers who, at some point, used Asian mist." Mason (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (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:WWE wrestlers

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need to categorize people by which wrestling organization they're signed Mason (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (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:Scottish noblewomen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 22#Category:Scottish noblewomen

Category:People from the Austrian Empire of Swiss descent

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) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow category. There's no need to have the intersection between era, nationality, and ethnicity Mason (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2024 (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:De-extinction genetic engineering

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only has one page in it and seem to be highly overlapping with Genetic engineering Mason (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (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:Human enhancement

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like too narrow of a category as well as fairly overlapping with existing categories related to Bioethics and Transhumanism Mason (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (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:Twin canopy aircraft

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining nebulous category, discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Twin canopy aircraft?. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-defining and ambiguous. Carguychris (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (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:South Korean anti-feminists

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:Men's rights activists. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category to mirror the sibling categories (Female critics of feminism‎ etc) in its parent Critics of feminism. Mason (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2024 (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:Articles with wanted PUA characters

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Expand abbreviation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:10, 14 July 2024 (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.

Museum collections

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Museum collections

Category:Bengali letters

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in each of these categories, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2024 (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:Historic cigar factories

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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
While Category:Cigar factories on the National Register of Historic Places has clear inclusion criteria, this category does not. In my subjective opinion, the El Laguito Cigar Factory is not historic but, in the subjective opinion of another editor, it is . The proposed rename would make the category objective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (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:Whirly-Girls

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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the name is not what these women are referred to but only the name of the organization. Note that these articles are already in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Hence only single merge. Alternative suggestion: keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think renaming to Women Helicopter pilots is suitable and appropriate. There is currently a lack of categories on Wikipedia to suitably identify/locate topics/persons related to women's aviation. The current categories make it difficult to find these aviation pioneers, which are few and worthy of inclusion in a category as it is a defining characteristic. This is why I developed the category in the first place. Thank you for the measured discussion here. Nayyn (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there are categories for female aviators, gyro and rotor pilots have different certifications compared to fixed wing pilots and thus it is a unique and defining category. There are comparatively few women who are helicopter pilots overall, and a category specifically for helicopters is particularly useful addition to Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:USEFUL [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument Nayyn (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality." I think the suggestion to "keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category" makes sense.
I'm not sure what the argument "not a defining characteristic" refers to above? Nayyn (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-defining is a keep tennet of Wikipedia:Categorization. @Nayyn, I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policies of categorization. Mason (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rename it as 'Members of Whirly-Girls'. But if an organisation, whose main function is to group its members together, is notable, then that's strong support for categorizing its members. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, mere membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Chairman or chairwomen may be a defining characteristic, dependent on circumstances. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (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.

Organisations based in Macau

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/merge as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcats use a mixture of -s- and -z- spelling; seven others currently use z. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The voluntary orgs cat is non-standard and an unnecessary layer, and the Scouting and Guiding cat holds only one article. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge all per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator explicitly mentioned there is a mix of s and z so there is no false premise. Since China consistently uses a z that is a good reason to use z in Macao too. Hong Kong presumably is a different case with a consistent use of s. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly you misunderstood my comment. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The claim that there is an international default is the clear false premise. There is none, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Hong Kong uses 's' because it was a British colony. Macau was a Portuguese colony and our Portuguese categories also use 's'. What the other Chinese categories use is irrelevant when relating to these two cities because of their very different origins. I do wish editors would stop claiming that the way Americans do things is some sort of international standard. It is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:RETAIN is a fairly compelling argument; is there a reason to ignore it / a reason it does not apply here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per MOS:COMMONALITY. One variety of British (and Commonwealth) English, Oxford English, prefers "z" spellings, so these should be encouraged (at least in subject areas like this which don't have strong ties to Britain or the Commonwealth) as an area of commonality between the main varieties of English. The United Nations uses Oxford English, hence the spelling of World Health Organization and so on. (I wasn't aware of this CfD nomination when I made the same argument at CfDS two days ago. I said then that it was a conversation for another day; that day came sooner than expected!) Ham II (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2024 (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:Sandžak

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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Regional name Sandžak is apparently hardly in use anymore. Even the articles in the history subcategory hardly mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering Sandžak is very small area of Serbia, there is really not that much to write but it deserves to have a separate category. I'm not sure if there are rules involved as in how many articles should category have in order to even be considered but I believe that the amount written so far is good enough to keep it. Боки ☎ ✎ 07:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is it defining?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - I usually agree with Marcocapelle, but I would keep this. It's an important region in Serbia regardless of size, where the largest national minority in Serbia live, second largest religious community, historically has very different path than Serbia, and culturally it is very divers, so it must be useful.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:05, 20 July 2024 (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:Fictional illeists

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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Category:Fictional illeists then undeleted out of process. Still seems non-defining. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't fit, as it was undeleted via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion rather than recreated. --HPfan4 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still support deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:58, 14 July 2024 (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:EBU stubs

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 both the template and the category. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category and template, newly created to hold just one article. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just one article of interest -- the minimum bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, and for that very reason stub categories should normally be proposed for creation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting rather than just getting created willy-nilly.
But the parent category Category:European Broadcasting Union has just 14 articles in it of which only two are short enough that tagging them as stubs would be justifiable -- so really the only possible source of any significant amount of content for this is the Category:Eurovision events subcategory, but Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs and {{Eurovision-stub}} both already exist to cover that off, and the one article that's been filed here already had that on it, thus making this entirely redundant to another stub template and category that we already have. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat and LaundryPizza03: what do you envision happening with the stub template {{EBU-stub}}? Deleted? Made to feed into Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs? Something else? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just deleting it would be fine with me, though I'm not averse to repurposing it if somebody's got actual ideas for how it could become useful... (I can attest only that it isn't needed on the one article it's actually on, since that's already tagged as a Eurovsion stub, but I can't swear on pain of death that there aren't other more valid places for it to be used.) Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag {{EBU-stub}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete {{EBU-stub}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:49, 14 July 2024 (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:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)

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: keep. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needless disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per associated article Wayne Kramer (filmmaker). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: avoids confusion with the musician Wayne Kramer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuietHere (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (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:Independent film stubs

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 both the category and the template. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub category and template that have likely outlived their usefulness. As always, the core purpose of stub categories is to facilitate expanding and improving the stubs enough that they can be pulled out of the stub categories -- so the most useful stub categories are ones that correspond to a community of editors with some expertise in the subject area, who can therefore collaborate on expanding the articles. But there isn't any particular community of independent film experts -- editors' areas of expertise are going to centre around countries and/or genres rather than indie status per se.
That is, there are editors who work on American films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who work on Japanese films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who specialize in science fiction films regardless of their major vs indie status, and on and so forth, but there aren't really any editors whose area of expertise is "independent films irrespective of country or genre".
This was certainly a good faith creation at the time, when we had far fewer articles about films and far fewer stub categories to group them in -- but the stub category tree is now so much more deeply granularized that this just doesn't represent a particularly useful characteristic to group stubs on anymore, because we have many more stub categories for much more specific and collaborative country and genre and time period groupings than we had in 2006.
I've already gone through the category to ensure that each article also has genre and/or nationality film stub templates on it as well, so nothing will be stranded if it goes, but it's just not at all clear that indie status is nearly as useful a basis for collaboration as the country and genre tags are. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag {{Indie-film-stub}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (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:People from the Savoyard state

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Category:People from the Savoyard state

Category:Dobrujan Tatar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Category:Dobrujan Tatar

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2024_July_14
No tags for this post.