This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

March 1

Category:Wu (region)

[]

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing a “Wu region”, not in the Chinese language, nor in the Chinese cultural conception of regions. What this article and category is referring to is probably the Jiangnan region of eastern China. SigillumVert (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by populated place in Germany by state

[]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers. 1-3 subcategories each. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palnadu district geography stubs

[]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one transclusion in this stub category. Should it (and/or the template) be deleted? OpalYosutebito (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by populated place in Wales by county

[]

Nominator's rationale: 1-2 subcategories each. Redundant category layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses by populated place in Scotland by council area

[]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 subcategory each. Redundant category layer. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by populated place in Northern Ireland by county

[]

Nominator's rationale: 1-2 subcategories each. Redundant category layer. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses by populated place in England by county

[]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. Only 1-3 subcategories. WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality actresses by populated place

[]

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-3 subcategories. Redundant category layer. WP:NARROW. For the Mexican category, the subcategories are already categorized under Category:Mexican actresses by state so an additional target is not needed –Aidan721 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International sports competitions by populated place

[]

Nominator's rationale: The defining part of the internationality of its sibling, Category:International sports competitions by country, that there is one host country for the event is not met in this group of categories. They also attract competitions that not match the definition of the parent, to be "for competitions between national teams or representatives, not competitions simply involving individuals from different countries."
It would need some manual overlook as not all Category:International sports competitions in Belgrade fits in Category:International sports competitions hosted by Serbia et cetera. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö venues

[]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCVENUE. All Category:Concerts at Malmö Arena are tours. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Fort Liberty, North Carolina

[]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME, and because the vast majority of these entries are incorrect. First, the relevant facts: The overwhelmingly common historical name for the location is Fort Bragg, as it currently is named and was known for 101 years, from 1922 to 2023. For a brief period from 2023-2025, it was controversially renamed to Fort Liberty by the Biden Administration. Last week, on 14 February 2025, it was formally renamed back to Fort Bragg (though technically, referring to a different namesake). So the current category is pointing to neither the common name nor the official name, but an significantly lesser-used, no-longer-accurate alternative name that was only applicable for less than 5% of the installation's history. Notably, this also means that the vast majority of these entries are not actually "People from Fort Liberty, North Carolina" -- unless they're two years old (spoiler: they're not), they were "People from Fort Bragg, North Carolina" at the relevant time in every case that I spotchecked. I previously had moved the category as this was not expected to be a controversial move; and was partway through manually moving the entries to verify there were no legitimate entrants from someone "from" Fort Liberty during the relevant two year period; however this was reverted by @Timrollpickering: before I completed it, and thus here we are. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 09:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an effective duplicate category. We do not have a separate category under Category:Sri Lankan people for after its 1948 independence but before the country was renamed from Ceylon in 1972. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:56, 27 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 16:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timrollpickering: given that we're only here because you reverted my initial move, and the given the lack of input after a couple of weeks, would you have any objection to me simply re-instating the move? It's clearly not controversial if nobody seems to care at this point and it should be quite obvious that the existing category is incorrectly named. Otherwise I fear this may just get relisted over and over again without attention. (Note: that would have the same effect as a Rename or Merge outcome here). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Stardust Promotion artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for former artists by label. Traditionally, music acts are categorized as an artist for whatever label they've been associated without concern of it being in the past or not. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not generally helpful to be current. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:35, 27 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 16:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apartment buildings in Poland by populated place

[]

Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed because there's no parent category, and there's no need to have a redudant category layer SMasonGarrison 16:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1392 establishments in Korea

[]

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two articles in it, for a country which does not otherwise have any categories at the year level prior to 1855. This itself was not previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 26#Years and decades in Korea up to 1800 as it didn't exist at that time (it's a new creation within the past two days) -- but the use of the preformatted {{EstcatCountry}} autogenerated a redlinked Category:1390s establishments in Korea parent that did get deleted in that discussion, and thus cannot legitimately be recreated.
Technically this is also an anachronism, as the country was not called "Korea" yet in 1392, but that's also applicable to the target -- but that would have to be handled with a separate renaming discussion, since the same problem also applies to several other sibling categories. But at the very least, it doesn't aid navigation at all to have a year-specific category here for just two things, if the same country's century-level category isn't nearly large enough to diffuse by individual year in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#Category:Former commanderies of China in Korea.
To my understanding, "Korea" is being used as the name for the region/culture and not the name of a country; this goes for basically all the Korea-related categories I think. Think of things like Category:1st century in Korea; there were numerous independent states and statelets in Korea at the time, with very liquid and porous borders, yet we use the single term "Korea" as a region that encompasses them. seefooddiet (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reason I made a category for specifically 1392 is because that's the year that Joseon was founded, and we know for sure that numerous important things in Korea were founded during that year. I just only added two because it's only been a day that the category's been up; I was planning on adding more later. If you'd like, I can add more things to the category. But I'll hold back for now; if there are other reasons that this category shouldn't exist maybe it's not worth keeping. seefooddiet (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic sports players by year

[]

Nominator's rationale: There are currently 964 categories under Category:Summer Olympics competitors by sport and year. The first level of this category contains 49 sub categories, all of which follow the naming scheme of "Olympic (adjective for player) by year". Every single sub category of these 49 sub categories, of which there are 915, follows the naming scheme of "(Adjust for player) at the (year) Summer Olympics", though the sailors category specifically has 177 sub categories that split it up by event but still follow this naming scheme (such as Sailors at the 1964 Summer Olympics – Flying Dutchman).
There are currently 293 categories under Category:Winter Olympics competitors by sport and year. The first level of this category contains 17 sub categories, all of which follow the naming scheme of "Olympic (what you call a person who participates in the sport) by year". Every single sub category of these 49 sub categories, of which there are 276, follows the naming scheme of "(what you call a person who participates in the sport) at the (year) Winter Olympics".
The only exceptions are figure skating and ice hockey, which were briefly / originally featured at the Summer Games. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 30 January 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 15:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bereshit (parashah)

[]

Nominator's rationale: rename such that it is also understandable to Christian and other readers what the category is about (WP:NPOV). Note that the far amount of the content of the category is about the content of the Book of Genesis, not about Jewish liturgy. Please keep a redirect though. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP because these categories are about the way the Weekly Torah portion is called in Judaism, the way they are understood from within the framework in Judaism, and not in Christianity or by any other religion. It in fact helps other religions understand Judaism and its Torah. Christianity, nor any other religion, does not have a "weekly" Torah portion. Thus, this category, like it says at the top of the categories page's, the main article/s for this/these categories is Bereshit (parashah), Noach, Lech-Lecha etc, etc. In addition this category's name has withstood the test of time since 2014, so not sure why now all of a sudden there is this urge to water down and make meaningless these very accurate Weekly Torah portions' names? What next, to change the reality of Judaism's Weekly Torah portions so that Christians and Muslims can "understand" them by making them generic? No one is suggesting that Christian and Islamic divisions of their scriptures be renamed so that Jews and members of other religions can relate to them, so why pick on Judaism's way of categorization? The nominator is requested to drop this nomination that seemingly is being done out of a lack of knowledge as to how the Torah is named and sub-divided by Judaism for thousands of years. IZAK (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? Your nomination will change information about important facts about Judaism and will deprive readers and users of understanding how Judaism names and clasifies the Weekly Torah portions. You make no sense. It is like suggesting that "flat Earth" theories determine the way that astronomy views the solar system. This is also not about "liturgy" which is about prayers, rather the Weekly Torah portions are about the naming system that is assigned to the organized weekly Torah (Bible) readings that is practiced by Jews according to Judaism and not according to atheism or Christianity or any other belief system. Your suggestion in effect destroys something about Judaism. IZAK (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it would only destroy something if I would propose to delete the article, which obviously I am not going to do. Bible content is not unique to Judaism, it is available to all mankind. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We use "local" names for various subcats within e.g. Category:Religious leaders by religion, and as Izak says it is educational for other readers to become acquainted with these words. We harmonised the spellings from "parsha" to match the article "parashah" a few years ago, but that's the only renaming that was appropriate.
I suggest that the categories might instead usefully be enhanced with information cut down from that at Category:Bereshit (parashah), including scripture references that may be more familiar to outsiders. Perhaps a category header template might be made, with 5 sub-templates based on Weekly_Torah_portion#Table_of_weekly_readings. – Fayenatic London 17:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organ builders of the United Kingdom

[]

Nominator's rationale: We also have Category:British pipe organ builders. At present the former is mostly used for companies, and the latter is mostly used for people. However, there is some overlap. The one for companies should be renamed to make this clear (it is a subcategory of Category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom), and miscategorised members should be recategorised. cagliost (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hayward, California, by occupation

[]

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just one entry.

Also nominating-

All subcategories with 4 or less entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6th-century BC deaths by year

[]

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly 1- or 2-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. This is a discussion parallel to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_22#Births_by_year_600_BC_-_500, @Aidan721 and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to that discussion. If this goes ahead then I will also nominate the 6th-century BC year categories, so that we will have a consistent beginning at 500 BC of years and deaths and, dependent on the outcome of the other discussion, of births. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass shootings involving body armor

[]

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category without a clear and/or useful purpose. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7kk (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

Category:Hercule Poirot (film series)

[]

Nominator's rationale: Scope duplictates existing category: Films based on Hercule Poirot books Northernhenge (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)

Category:Music videographies

[]

Nominator's rationale: The term videography is being misused in this case as the term is specific to work done by a videographer, and does not mean a list of videos or films (that use is a neologism original to wikipedia which should be edited out as unverifiable). Further, many of the individuals have entertainment credits in work other than video (such as computer games, discographies, acting credits for entertainers who do that as well as music, etc.) on these pages so the cat should reflect that by expanding the scope to all media to reflect the content across the lists. 4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I created this category it was for articles like Michael Jackson videography, which are still named that. I don't think "performances by entertainer in media" is a very helpful, clear, or easy to use term. "Media" is way too broad a term and confusing. At least use something like "on screen" or similar. "Videography" is at least easy for a reader to understand what it is.★Trekker (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Such an undertaking would have been well served being discussed first before wholesale name changes to articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the term "videography" does not mean a list of videos. Its use in that way is unique to wikipedia and is an unverifiable neologism not supported in sources outside of the encyclopedia. Per WP:NEO, the MJ article needs to be renamed, and the term videography needs to be removed when being used to refer to a video list in all articles across the encyclopedia as that is WP:OR. We can't just make up new definitions to words because it is convenient to do so. Additionally, most of these articles have media credits in a variety of media all on one page (TV, Film, music videos, streaming platforms, radio, computer games, etc.) and in multiple areas of creative contribution in over half of the cases (music performance credits, acting credits, dancing/choreography credits, directing credits, writing credits, producing credits, etc.) 4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this feels like a subject that maybe needs a broader discussion with several Wikipedia projects and input from many editors.★Trekker (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This impacts a lot of articles. I think a decision here to change the wording will need to result in a much bigger RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, aligning with the article names, but "lists" instead of "list", and maybe drop "by entertainer". If this isn't clear as a category name then the article titles are equally unclear, so better change those to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a much wider discussion as it also involves articles as well as categories. I'm fine with renaming, but what do we rename it to? Does such a categorization/classification (list of videos) even exist outside of Wikipedia? Perhaps the articles could be renamed to "list of videos by X", but what do we call the category? Video list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a requested move linked lower down at this page for Madonna videography and similar articles. Also, you didn't sign this comment, like the other one you made in the same edit. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Australian artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Up-merge for now. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not small. It contains six items which is enough. The same about other nominated categories. Eurohunter (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Canadian artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Up-merge for now. 4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of American artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category of Category:American filmographies.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not against a rename but oppose the proposed merger. The content of the category have articles recently renamed from "Foo videography" to "List of performances by Foo in media". Then there's the whole scheme Category:Videographies by artist nationality, with each subcat being nominated individually. A consolidated request to rename along the lines of "Lists of performances by American artists in media" might be in order. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I'm not sure how to technically go about doing bundled nominations.4meter4 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename which categories, to what? A list would be helpful for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of YouTubers

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged; although I don't think these are technically videographies. 4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with a merge as long as we do not leave a redirect and the category is deleted.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marcocapelle's recommendation to merge. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:09, 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) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Greek artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged. 4meter4 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Japanese artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be upmerged. 4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Lebanese artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged for now, 4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Swedish artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged for now. 4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The small-cat nominations in this group should have been bundled.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Puerto Rican artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat; should be up-merged to Category:Videographies for now 4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Filipino artists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged for now. 4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies

[]

Nominator's rationale: Videography is a technical term for the work done by a videographer. The cats here are not being used in this way; but are trying to turn "videography" into a word that means a list of videos as an original twist on the terms filmography/discography. This is a made up neologism that is far as I can tell is unique to who ever created these cats on wikipedia (there are also a bunch of articles titled with the term, and they should all be renamed). I've never seen "videography" used in this way anywhere else. Note I don't know how to bundle nom the sub cats, but all of these should be deleted. Likewise there are a bunch of article titles using this word that need renaming.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting alongside some of the other discussions which attracted little participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the Category:Music videographies, a point was raised that the issue needs discussion input from relevant WikiProjects, which I will do. Likely all of the nominations should have been bundled as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following WikiProjects have been notified: Film, Television, YouTube, Albums, and Songs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additionally, an RM has been opened at Talk:Madonna_videography#Requested_move_28_February_2025 about the page moves. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

[]

Nominator's rationale: split (or if the split already exists then delete, or if there is no content for either British Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies then rename), these are two entirely unrelated topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I Can See Your Voice contestants

[]

Nominator's rationale: These people are already well known. This is nothing more than a WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 13:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "I can see your voice: Kandidat Marius Bear stürmt die Charts". RTL (in German). Mediengruppe RTL Deutschland. 24 August 2020. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  2. ^ Lee Adams, William (8 March 2022). "Boys do cry! Marius Bear will sing for Switzerland at Eurovision 2022". Wiwibloggs. After returning home to Switzerland in 2020, Bear attracted a great deal of attention when he appeared on the TV show I Can See Your Voice.
Saisønisse (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery of Native Americans

[]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Category:Ceylon Medical Corps officers

[]

Nominator's rationale: Same military branch under an older name, ppresumably before the country was renamed in 1972. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game control methods

[]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category is almost decades old; and to me, it honestly looks like a total mess of different things after looking at it after a while. First of all this category's title is "Video game control methods" however most all of these articles are not necessarily "methods" such as free look; that is a game design element and therefore should be moved into the terminology category. Tank controls or 6DOF is not a "method" either.
Also, this category contains a bunch of random things related computer mice and keyboards; generic devices used to play almost every PC game in existence. It also contains a bunch of random things relate to some computer-brain interaction that's not relevant. With everything moved into approriate categories when (such as the terms one) RedOctane X-Plorer Controller, SpaceOrb 360 should be moved to Category:Game controllers. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video arcades

[]

Nominator's rationale: The Amusement arcade article says that video arcades is just another name from them; not a distinct type of arcade? Also the main article amusement arcade was previously moved from video arcade. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Historical events categories

[]

more nominations
Nominator's rationale: All events are historical by nature. Non-defining intersection here. Merge up to the Events tree. There is no Category:Historical events. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point of view is slightly different here but I suppose we can get to some sort of consensus anyway. An "event" can either be anything that happened in a certain period (as in the nominated categories above) or it can mean an organized event, e.g. a cultural event or a sports event. Those are very different things. I would rather argue that we should not categorize anything that happened as an event at all, as being too vague and too different from the other meaning of event, and that we should use events categories only for organized events. And that in turn would imply largely deleting the nominated categories, except that the Disasters, Disablishments and Establishments subcategories should be moved back to History. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. As I stated in the months-by-event in CfD, the label has no added meaning because every point in spacetime is an event — the only restriction here is the exclusion of current and future events. We may also need to rename the target categories to reflect the proposal to restrict its scope to organized events, such as Category:Diplomatic conferences in Albania (which isn't in the merge target). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with Marcocapelle in that the events tree is unhelpfully vague and needs reorganisation from the top. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Marcocapelle's proposal - sounds like WP:TNT to me... - jc37 02:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom, "historical" is probably not that useful a category word in general. CMD (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American animation debuts by century

[]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer since animation is very recent. Category:American animation debuts by decade and year are sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television news anchors from insular areas of the United States

[]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Mercy11, and Bearcat: any further thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 07:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's not what the record shows. Let me explain.
Any categorization in this subtree has, at least since 2006, always revolved around place of work, not nationality. "Category:American television anchors by populated place", makes this clear when it states in its introduction "The following is a list of television news anchors organized by the city in which they worked". Again, place of work (aka, news market) and not nationality is the basis of the categorization. So, merging the specific and more precise Category:Television news anchors from insular areas of the United States into the more global and generic Category:American television news anchors would go against this years' old practice. BTW, the practice isn't new: this 2006 version of the same Category:American television anchors by populated place, already stated in its introduction, "The following is a list of television news anchors organized by the city in which they worked". That, once more, demonstrates that editors have been using the news market (American, British, Korean, etc.), as opposed to nationality of TV station owner, location of headquarters of the news broadcaster, nationality of anchor, source of the news, etc., as the criteria for the category. Mixing news anchors from the Insular Areas news market with the American news market anchors would break that location/news market practice since they are a different market on multiple levels: cultural and language being two examples. There are tons of American people categories where people from the Insular Areas are listed as a subcategory under American people category ("FOO people from Insular Areas of the United States" under "American FOO people"). Some examples of this by-place-not-by-nationality practice are Category:Politicians by insular area of the United States, Category:People in sports from insular areas of the United States, Category:Educators from insular areas of the United States, Category:Models from insular areas of the United States, and Category:Lawyers from insular areas of the United States. You can do your own search to find the hundreds if not thousands more. In general, people from the insular areas have been handled differently in WP categories from those from the American mainland; some places -like PR and NMI- are handled as their own country (population and square area, for example, aren't included in the mainland US Census or US square area tallies). The CIA WFB, for instance, lists PR and NMI as countries [1] [2]. Regrettably, to add to their own confusion, some editors confuse being an American citizen with being an American. So, there are tons of reasons to keep the people from the Insular areas as a subcategory of the corresponding American parent but not in the same Category as the non-Insular Areas Americans, aka, mainland Americans. For these, and perhaps many other, reasons the proposed merge should not occur. Mercy11 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

Category:Solange Knowles

[]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Can be dealt with by "works by" category tree --woodensuperman 15:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Creative projects related to the Knowles–Carter family should probably be deleted too. It seems superfluous --woodensuperman 08:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's deleted then merge to Category:Knowles–Carter family. I see no justification for removing Works by Solange Knowles from that (grand)parent. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CBS Sports Radio stations

[]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure why it took this long for anyone to propose this… CBS Sports Radio was renamed the Infinity Sports Network on April 15, 2024. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. it's lio! | talk | work 07:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Cook

[]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP we shouldn't have biographical and non-biographical articles in the same category. However the people category may fall foul of WP:OCASSOC, in which case happy to purge of biographical articles. --woodensuperman 14:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on whether we should have a category for people who participated in James Cook's voyages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relations of colonizer and former colony

[]

Nominator's rationale: This seems like an extremely problematic category, and rather inherently so. Defining "colonizer" is impossible; the way articles are currently listed, it seems that any country that once controlled any land belonging to another modern country is treated as a "colonizer" (one could argue that 40+ of the international relations of Italy deserve to be here, since there's no telling just how far back this goes). Given the impossibility of defining meaningful criteria for inclusion, just delete this. — Anonymous 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it's impossible to define; we rely on consensus to establish such definitions, per MOS:LABEL. If there are contentious additions they should be individually discussed imo. seefooddiet (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet, presumably, that would entail establishing consensus for each individual entry. In my opinion, this category is far too broad. How do we define colonialism? Sure, we can all agree that the United Kingdom colonized India. But what about historical subjugations that have only more recently gained recognition as instances of colonization, like the UK and Ireland? Nazi Germany certainly intended to colonize parts of the Soviet Union, but few would readily put such an instance of open warfare between two major powers on the same level as, for instance, France colonizing West Africa. And, more practically speaking, is this category useful? Even unambiguous cases of colonialism have not consistently affected modern-day relations between countries. The relationship between India and the UK is vastly different from the latter's relationship with places its population permanently settled in large numbers, such as the United States or Australia. What about cases where national identities as we know them today did not exist until well after colonization, like Spain and Panama? I could go on all day, but I think you get my point. — Anonymous 00:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have been thinking about this; I think the category is definitely broad and there are definitely problematic entries. But I think the category as a whole meets all the criteria of Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing articles. The inclusion of modern countries that had a colonizer relationship hundreds of years ago is still somewhat defining and interesting; for example it's interesting and meaningful to understand the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom from a lens of post colonialism.
I'm not really sure what to do, but I'm not sure if a complete deletion is the answer either. I'll hold back from voting. seefooddiet (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure there are very problematic entries in here, e.g. Belgium–France relations, Belgium–Netherlands relations and Belgium–Spain relations. No historian will say that France, Spain or the Netherlands "colonized" Belgium. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest maybe to consider if another name might work? but either way this seems like a good category. for example, relations of spain to all former colonies, as well as britain, and france, seems highly useful. Sm8900 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    how about "relations of former colony with original ruling country"? just offering that as one possible option. Sm8900 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what this proposed renaming would accomplish; both titles seem synonymous (I personally have no particular preference for either). I understand your point, but I still feel that this category's nature invites more controversy than it's worth. How many historians have to agree that something is colonialism for it to be listed here? I suppose the "purest" scope of this category would focus on European powers and their 18th–19th century colonial endeavors, but anything outside of that frame is stepping into much more controversial territory. I also wonder what should be done for cases where the modern country was not colonized in its entirety: this category currently includes India's relations with both France and Denmark, neither of which ever controlled much of its territory. — Anonymous 02:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to support the nomination, there are too many problems in this sort of categorization. Besides, if one is interested in colonialism, they can have a look at the bilateral relations of France and the United Kingdom for a start. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps to make things neater/unambiguous, subcategories could first be created for each individual former colonizer and its former colonies, and then those could be listed under this category. For example, there could be subcategories like "France/Portugal/Spain/[etc.]–former colonies relations". There could be further categorization based on continental or geopolitical groupings (i.e. "European colonizers", "North American colonizers", etc.), and perhaps also based on historical period (because it's possible one country ruled another in one time period, but then later was conquered in return. The Persian Empire versus the Arabs might be one example of this.) GreekApple123 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion of territory at the cost of neighboring countries, like Arabs conquering the Middle East, should be ruled out anyway. That is a completely different concept than colonialism. That is why France-Belgium does not belong here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

More family categories needing "family"

[]

Nominator's rationale: We've renamed nearly all of the subcategories of Category:Families to make sure they had "family" after the name. These are among the only ones left without that word. Most have articles like Nelipić family but a few (like Lamoignon) don't. I think we should standardize the categories nonetheless. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

Category:Wikipedia categories named after countries

[]

Nominator's rationale: The eponymous categories for countries are all placed in this "Wikipedia" category, but this cat is a direct member of Category:countries anyway, so it's not as if this method removes the eponymous cats from the main category tree or so. In which case there is no need to place a navel-gazing category in the middle of a regular category tree.

No need to merge though, every country category is already a member of the Category:Countries via the Category:Countries by continent branch as well. So deletion will suffice here. Fram (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia categories named after associated states (6 C)
Wikipedia categories named after colonies (190 C)
Wikipedia categories named after dependent territories (65 C)
Wikipedia categories named after dynasties (711 C)
Wikipedia categories named after empires (106 C)
Wikipedia categories named after former countries (706 C)
Wikipedia categories named after states with limited recognition (10 C)
– Fayenatic London 09:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is an internal maintenance hidden category, it is not a content category. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep hidden internal maintenance categories serve different purposes from content categories. We have a lot of these hidden "named after" maintenance categories Special:Search/category:named_after. They should be looked for in the "Category:Wikipedia ..." maintenance tree, and not the regular category tree. Per Fayenatic -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet television streaming services

[]

Nominator's rationale: Both have the same target topic of streaming content over the internet. Greatder (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat agree with the proposal of subcategorizing as appropriate. There is too much overlap in the current situation. Greatder (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beginnings by decade 1-1499

[]

more categories nominated
example of a partial manual merge
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, and manually move articles, at least up to the year 1500 this is a redundant category layer, with very few exceptions there are only two subcategories (births and establishments). This is follow-up on this earlier discussion.
Note to closer: the previous discussion also contains instructions on how to implement the merge properly.
@Aidan721, LaundryPizza03, Fayenatic london, and Liz: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump

[]

Nominator's rationale: I think that this category needs to be renamed to match the parent United States presidential visits, and possibly purged. SMasonGarrison 03:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports plays

[]

Nominator's rationale: This category does not contain Plays (theatrical dramas) but notable incidents in games of sport, and seems to be a North American usage. The subcats Category:Historic baseball plays and National Football League plays may be appropriate as local WP:ENGVAR, but this parent should use a name that will be understood more widely. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deputy governors of Nigeria

[]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of the target category. This should be merged such that it redirects to the target as well, I guess that is the status-quo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment about "of" vs. "in"? Thoughts on the direction of the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Fictional characters by work

[]

Ok, so we have three trees all doing effectively the same thing:

And in looking at these: "by medium", is really "by medium of work", which we tend to categorise as "by work". And "by franchise", is really just "by related works".

These just create unnecessary intermediary layers between parent and child cats; and also broad segmentation of topics, which is a bane to navigation for our readers.

This is severe WP:OVERLAPCAT.

These trees all need cleanup. Elements of fiction (and related cats) are scattered everywhere. And the first step, I think, is that we need to unify under a single naming standard. Once we do that, we should be able to more easily clean up a lot of the mess.

So this is a test nom to see what we can decide about the "by work", "by medium", "by franchise", and "by franchise and medium", trees. I think they all need to be merged to a single tree of a unified name. What do you all think? - jc37 18:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options are on the table; rename? Keep? Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Franchise/medium
Continent/country
  • I think the best course of action is then to delete Category:Fictional characters by franchise and medium and use Category:Fictional characters by franchise to hold Category:Film characters by franchise. I am not sure about anything else. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for drawing the chart : )
    It illustrates how the "by franchise" and "by medium" layer are duplicative, and could both be replaced with "by works" (as you note above).
    So, in this chart, both FC by medium and FC by franchise would be merged to FC by work. And FC by franchise and medium deleted/upmerged to FC by work
    Sci Fi chars by franchise (also part of the genre tree) renamed to SFC by work.
    Film chars by franchise renamed/merged to Film chars by work
    And the trees become a bit more straight-forward, and easier for the reader's to navigate. And it also (re-)unites various articles that should be part of the trees, which aren't, as Marcocapelle noted above.
    Once this is done, cleanup will be MUCH easier : ) - jc37 23:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this also mean eliminating the "by continent" category levels, since there are only seven of them? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not proposing anything about "by continent" as far as I know. I'm merely looking at the fiction elements trees and see a spiderweb over varying choices of "how" to categorise them over the years, and was looking to unify them a bit, to the single term (works) that we seem to have settled on for films, literature, video games, etc. Due to how they are currently separated, "like" isn't being categorised with "like". They are being strewn across various similar trees. The godfather one is just an obvious example. And having a parent to hold cats that have "franchise" in the name", just segments things even more.
    But if you mean it as an analogy, I think this is different than "continent". A continent is a geographical region. Countries are created boundaries upon this geographical region. (Though I suppose it could be argued that Eurasia is arbitrarily divided). So I don't know if they are a similar situation. Especially, since we don't seem to have genres of continents : )
    Kidding aside, I'm not sure how you're intending the comparison. There are just a lot of ways in which these character cats are being subdivided, I think removing these two layers, aids navigation. We will still have subcats of FC in film, but they just will be categorised a tier (or 2) up. This will be helpful as we look at how these cats intesect with other trees as well. Which should also make it less confusing for editors who are trying to add things into the tree(s). - jc37 07:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to merging the trees — I think that point sums up nicely why we have continent categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni lists

[]

Nominator's rationale: Use pre-existing category Gjs238 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to me, I was not aware of this category and I didn't saw it on any page that I added to my alumni category. I don't know how to merge categories though. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gjs238 Wait, I do actually disagree because not all articles are educational institutions. Examples include List of Clarion Writers Workshop alumni and List of Bell Labs alumni. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on PhotographyEdits's most recent comment about articles like List of Clarion Writers Workshop alumni and List of Bell Labs alumni?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in prison

[]

Nominator's rationale: Forms a category loop with Category:Fiction set in prison, and contains no articles. All the other subcategories are already in the other category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverse merge as suggested by jc37?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law of Middle East and North Africa

[]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure how this newly created, uncategorized category fits in with Category:Law by continent, Category:Law in Africa, Category:Law in Asia Gjs238 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Middle Eastern law is a coherent regional category, subject of a literature, etc, more than (say) African or Asian law. In this sense it is similar to the existing Category:Law_in_East_Asia. It's a practical category for discovery. Also, my students are using it in a WikiEdu project this semester: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Florida_State_University/Legal_History_of_the_Modern_Middle_East_(Spring_2025). I created the category to help them find pages to improve. Will Hanley (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the aforementioned students I support this. Acknowledging and ignoring my bias, in addition to the point concerning Category:Law_in_East_Asia, given that the Middle East as a region tends to be more prevalent in popular media than say, Oceania (an actual continent), it stands to reason that Middle Eastern law deserves its own category page, rather than grouping it on the Category:Law_in_Africa or Category:Law_in_Asia pages. This would have the added benefit of providing ease of access to users trying to get info about this region, which is often the subject of debates. @GarronMar GarronMar (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia categories is discovery, not taxonomy. Law in Middle East and North Africa (like law in East Asia) forms a coherent subject because it involves common genealogies and family resemblances amongst the laws practiced in the successor states to Islamic empires, which spanned several continents. These two categories are only secondarily geographical categories. They are more like Category:Civil law (legal system) and Category:Common law. Will Hanley (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: This sounds like Islamic law. Would you apply this to Israel as well?
Gjs238 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islamic law is one of the components in the regional legal system, which certainly includes Israel. For example, there are plenty of Ottoman property law inheritances in Israeli law. Also, the sectarian personal status regime in Israel resembles those of other MENA states more than states outside the region.
Will Hanley (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I currently see rough consensus that something needs to change. Should the category be split, deleted, or "other"? (Of course, consensus can change and consensus could be found to keep the category!) If split, what should the split targets be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relisting rationale is based on logical fallacies rather than an actual need for further discussion. Wikipedia's consensus model does not mean that every objection must be treated as equally valid—consensus is determined based on policy, precedent, and factual accuracy.
Logical Fallacies in the Relisting Rationale
  • False Equivalence Fallacy
    • The relisting suggests that since some users disagree, there is "rough consensus that something must change." However, *disagreement is not evidence of consensus for change*.
    • In reality, all substantive, evidence-based arguments favor keeping the category. The objections rely on misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy rather than factual claims.
  • Burden of Proof Fallacy
    • Wikipedia policy follows the principle that categories should be removed only if they demonstrably fail WP:CATDEF.
    • The burden of proof is on those arguing for deletion to show that the category violates Wikipedia policy, yet no one has done so. Instead, they rely on subjective preferences rather than actual policy-based reasons for removal.
  • Straw Man Argument
    • The relisting suggests that the only options are deletion, splitting, or “other,” ignoring the fact that multiple users have provided extensive policy-backed justifications for keeping the category as is.
    • This misrepresentation shifts the debate away from the actual issue, which is whether this category serves Wikipedia’s purpose of aiding discovery and navigation.
Wikipedia Policy Clearly Supports Keeping This Category
Per Wikipedia’s own guidelines:
  • “Categories should exist when they provide useful navigation or reflect common usage in literature and academia.” (WP:CATDEF)
  • “Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we do not require rigid classification systems that force all subjects into arbitrary geographic boundaries.” (WP:NOTBURO)
This category aligns with both of these principles. No one has demonstrated that it fails WP:CATDEF, nor has anyone refuted the overwhelming academic support for treating MENA law as a unified field.
The Real Consensus
Rather than an actual need for change, this relisting is being used as a delaying tactic to avoid admitting that the category is fully justified. There is no *policy-based rationale* for deletion or splitting—only personal opinions unsupported by evidence.
The real consensus, based on policy, precedent, and scholarly sources, is that the category Law of the Middle East and North Africa should remain unchanged. Further relisting is unnecessary and disrupts Wikipedia’s core function of organizing knowledge efficiently. AnonymousPurpose (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a consensus that something needs to change, just a set of questions, each of which I've answered. Categories are for practical discovery, not Platonic idealist taxonomy. Sure, geographic continents exist, but legal systems do not conform to those geographic continents. Legal systems conform to historically produced cultural systems, and that's the way people looking for information about law will search for information. I created the category to help my students find articles to improve, as part of a WikiEdu project covering exactly this category of material. To do this work, they are using secondary sources which employ this category, such as:
    • Dupret, Baudouin, ed. Standing Trial: Law and the Person in the Modern Middle East. The Islamic Mediterranean. London: I.B. Tauris, 2004.
    • Elsaman, Radwa S. “Middle East and North Africa.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law, edited by Mathias Siems and Po Jen Yap, 1st ed., 331–42. Cambridge University Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914741.019.
    • Kuran, Timur. The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
    • Liebesny, Herbert J. The Law of the Near & Middle East: Readings, Cases, & Materials. Albany: SUNY Press, 1975.
    • Mallat, Chibli. Introduction to Middle Eastern Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Renaming per Ham II to something more idiomatic is fine; there's no consensus on usage of articles and prepositions with the region's name. MENA is used without an article for instance in Category:Economic country classifications, and with an article in Demographics of the Middle East and North Africa, Climate change in the Middle East and North Africa, Democracy in the Middle East and North Africa, etc., all of which show that the regional category is in current use. Will Hanley (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Contrary: None of the examples given "show that the regional category is in current use." They can not, as there is no such category tree. The examples given are categorized to branches of Category:North Africa and/or Category:Middle East. Gjs238 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Wikipedia’s own principles on categorization, the category Law of the Middle East and North Africa is entirely justified both as a matter of established Wikipedia practice and academic precedent. The arguments for deletion or splitting are based on an overly rigid interpretation of Wikipedia’s categorization policies, which contradicts how legal systems are actually studied and understood.
    Wikipedia Policy Supports This Category
    Wikipedia’s categorization guidelines state that:
    • “The central goal of categorization is to help readers find information by browsing sets of related pages.” (WP:CAT)
    • “Categories are not intended to be a perfect, comprehensive classification system or an attempt at classifying everything on Wikipedia in a strict hierarchy.”
    • “Wikipedia categories often reflect common usage, including historically and culturally significant groupings, even when they do not strictly align with geographic, political, or other rigid frameworks.”
    This category exists precisely to aid discovery, as Will Hanley has explained. Legal scholars, comparative law textbooks, and academic research treat *Middle Eastern and North African law* as a coherent field. The argument that legal categories must be split strictly by continent is not supported by Wikipedia policy and is contradicted by existing regional law categories, such as:
    MENA legal traditions are shaped by Ottoman law, colonial legal systems, Islamic jurisprudence, and modern legal reforms, forming a well-established historical and academic grouping that makes this category fully legitimate.
    Rebutting Opposing Arguments
    • “The category does not fit within existing law categories” → False.
      • This category is analogous to *Law in East Asia*, which is already accepted as a Wikipedia category despite spanning multiple countries with different legal systems.
    • “Legal systems should be categorized by continent” → Incorrect and misleading.
      • Wikipedia itself states: “Legal systems conform to historically produced cultural systems, not just geography.” (WP:CATDEF)
      • Law is not arbitrarily tied to geography. Legal influences in MENA—such as Ottoman legal structures, Islamic law, and colonial legacies—persist across multiple continents but form a single academic field of study.
    • “This is just about Islamic law” → Completely wrong.
      • This category explicitly includes the region’s secular legal systems, colonial legal influences, and non-Islamic legal traditions, such as:
        • Ottoman legal legacies in Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey.
        • French and British colonial legal structures in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco.
        • Hybrid legal systems incorporating civil, common, and religious law.
    • “There is no evidence that MENA law is studied as a unified subject” → Provably false.
      • The field of Middle Eastern and North African legal studies is extensively documented in major legal textbooks and research, including:
        • Dupret, Baudouin (2004). Standing Trial: Law and the Person in the Modern Middle East. London: I.B. Tauris.
        • Elsaman, Radwa S. (2024). “Middle East and North Africa.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law. Cambridge University Press.
        • Mallat, Chibli (2007). Introduction to Middle Eastern Law. Oxford University Press.
    • “The category should be split into Middle East and Africa” → Ignores reality.
      • MENA legal traditions are interconnected and studied as a unit, not as two separate legal spheres.
      • Splitting would erase legal continuity, making it harder to find relevant articles and undermining Wikipedia’s core purpose of discovery and accessibility.
    Conclusion
    The category *Law of the Middle East and North Africa* is exactly the kind of regional category Wikipedia is designed to have. The arguments for deletion or splitting are not only unsupported by Wikipedia policy but also factually incorrect and contradicted by established legal scholarship. Keeping this category serves Wikipedia’s mission of organizing knowledge in ways that reflect reality rather than imposing arbitrary, artificial divisions. AnonymousPurpose (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Law in the Middle East (which would be a subcat of Category:Law in Asia by region) and Category:Law in Africa as per LaundryPizza03 above.Gjs238 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deletion isn't an option then split is the next best option. As it is unrelated to Islamic law, it does not make sense to lump countries from different continents together. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the Contrary: You say splitting is 'the next best option,' but you haven’t provided any rationale for why that’s necessary. The legal traditions of the Middle East and North Africa are historically interlinked through Ottoman law, colonial legal structures, and modern legal reforms—this is well-documented in comparative law literature. Wikipedia categories exist to facilitate discovery, not impose rigid taxonomies based on continents, which is why similar regional legal categories (like category:Law in East Asia) already exist.
Could you please engage with the arguments Will Hanley has laid out, rather than simply restating your perspective that you prefer deletion or splitting? The justification for this category has been clearly outlined, and if you disagree, it would be more productive to address the reasoning directly than to move forward with deletion or splitting without engaging with others. Jacob Rampino (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no category tree "Middle East and North Africa." Are you perhaps suggesting that such a tree be created? Gjs238 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not responded to the relevant discussion. The question isn’t whether a category tree for 'Middle East and North Africa' exists, but whether this category reflects a meaningful and recognized grouping for legal studies.
    Category trees on Wikipedia are organizational tools, not rigid constraints. A category does not have to fit into an existing tree to be valid. As already outlined, law in MENA is a well-documented academic and practical field, with strong historical and comparative legal connections. Wikipedia categories exist to facilitate discovery, not to enforce strict classification by pre-existing trees.
    If you’re suggesting that a broader MENA category tree should be created, that’s a separate discussion, but it does not undermine the legitimacy of this category. Jacob Rampino (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting that the tree be created--MENA is already part of Category:Regions, as a subregion of Asia and of Africa. Will Hanley (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be books about how Islamic law and law of Ottoman Empire influenced law of a large number of these countries, but that is history. These categories are about geography, not about history. It also ignores the fact that Israel and Iran have a completely different history. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "There may be books about how Islamic law and law of Ottoman Empire influenced law of a large number of these countries, but that is history." This is a new variant of WP:MUSTBESOURCES: you seem to be suggesting that although the secondary sources exist, we can ignore what they say. In reality, law is a historically produced discourse--no secondary sources suggest otherwise.
    "These categories are about geography, not about history." What is your source for this assertion? I see in your talk pages that you have a reflex to remove categories of historical geography, in support of which you offer discussions such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_21#Places_by_former_East_German_administrative_division. This is a different case. As I suggested above, this case concerns a legal system that is signified or labelled by geographic region (i.e., in practice) but that is not primarily geographic in nature. It makes sense in this case to follow widespread convention rather than to cleave to narrow continental taxonomy of limited relevance to the topic itself.
    "Israel and Iran have a completely different history": if you read the secondary sources I cite above, you will understand that this assertion is not correct. Will Hanley (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Israel and Iran have a completely different history, well, that's a pretty uncontroversial fact. I don't have access to the books you mentioned (and that presumably applies to most of us on Wikipedia) so in order to make an argument based on these books you need to cite from them in order to make clear that the law of Israel and of Iran have a lot in common with the law of e.g. Turkey and Morocco. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's how Elsaman (cited above) justifies a trans-continental subregion of analysis: "in the context of comparative law, limiting the scope of the following chapter to the member states of the Arab League has a stronger analytical bite than any other plausible alternative relying on other regional/geographical markers"(332). She does not include Turkey, Israel, and Iran, but that's beside the point of this discussion: she is using a geographical category that cannot acceptably be split between Category:Law in Asia and Category:Law in Africa. Will Hanley (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the very point of this discussion. Turkey, Israel and Iran are also in "Middle East and North Africa". When you are introducing an alternative way of geographic categorization (deviating from the standard categorization by continent) there should be a good reason for it and it should be accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Arbitrary category out of step with the way we typically group places. These walls of text above are frankly unconvincing. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain in what way the "walls of text" are unconvincing? This debate is happening in the context of a WikiEdu project, and new editors are participating and observing you. People have put time into formulating arguments. Dismissing them summarily and without explanation does not show good faith. If it's too much trouble for you to bother reading what they've written, and you're merely voting reflexively ("out of step with the way we typically..."), maybe don't? Will Hanley (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Golly gee, what a mess. I have already warned AnonymousPurpose about their use of AI-generated arguments on their talk page. Anyway, here are all the proposed solutions:
    • Delete per Gjs238 (nom), Marcocapelle (per nom), Pppery
    • Split to Category:Law in the Middle East and Category:Law in Africa per LaundryPizza03, Gjs238 (second-choice), Marcocapelle (second-choice), opposed by Jacob Rampino
    • Keep per Will Hanley, GarronMar, AnonymousPurpose (AI-generated arguments)
      • Rename per Ham II
@Will Hanley, GarronMar, and AnonymousPurpose: for the sake of clarity, do you guys support Ham II's proposal to rename for grammatical purposes? it's lio! | talk | work 13:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes
Will Hanley (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Two-year college sports in the United States

[]

Nominator's rationale: In the context of intercollegiate sports, "junior college" (or its acronym, "JUCO") is far more common than "two-year college". Jweiss11 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NJCAA athletics

[]

Nominator's rationale: "Athletics" is redundant and meaningless here. This category actually contains schools that are members of the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA); new name parallels the categories found at Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by athletic conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

Category:National encyclopedias

[]

Nominator's rationale: Okay this might be difficult to explain, but here I go. I think 'national encyclopedia' is supposed to mean: an encyclopedia with contents primarily about one particular country. As such, it belongs in the Category:Works about countries tree (printed versions arguably in the Category:Books about countries subtree), and I propose to add that as a parent. I'm not sure what else it is supposed to mean, other than an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. For one thing, just calling an encyclopedia 'national' does not mean it is the *only* encyclopedia about that country, and has some sort of privileged and exclusive status. Even though one article might say The Canadian Encyclopedia is the national encyclopedia of Canada. (emphasis by me), another might say The Latvian National Encyclopedia is a universal encyclopedia in Latvian. (emphasis by me). In the end, though, both are just attempts to summarise encyclopedic knowledge of one country into one book, i.e. they are encyclopedias about countries. The latter describes this clearly: It is thematically focused on Latvian topics. The current contents of the category make clear that the encyclopedia in question does not have to have the word 'national' in the title, nor have to be published inside the country it is about, nor have to be published in the predominant or official language of that country (e.g. Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia was published in English in Toronto, Canada, not in Ukrainian in Ukraine). So I think it makes sense, especially as long as there is no main article explaining that 'national encyclopedias' are anything other than 'encyclopedias about countries', the latter is a more precise and unambiguous catname, and fitting in the Category:Works about countries tree (as well as the Category:Specialized encyclopedias tree which it is already in).
It logically follows that its child Category:National Soviet encyclopedias should be renamed to Category:Encyclopedias about republics of the Soviet Union per its other parent Category:Categories by republic of the Soviet Union (this is a simple WP:C2C). It was always questionable whether such encyclopedias could even be considered 'national' or rather 'subnational'; the word 'republic' resolves that issue quite well in the rest of that category tree. NLeeuw (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It seems that the word Great is supposed to signify that something is a general encyclopedia rather than a specialised one. It's not just a fancy word, or referring to the length of the text. The word following Great usually refers to the language in which this general encyclopedia was written (and not to the country it was published, although they typically coincide).
  • General encyclopedias (Purge, or Move to Category:General encyclopedias):
    • Croatian Encyclopedia: It is named "Croatian" encyclopedia (colloquially Croatica) in the tradition of general-knowledge encyclopedias as Britannica.
    • Encyclopaedia Cambrensis: While the number of articles relating to the Bible and theology is significantly higher than expected in such a reference work today, it also includes a large number of biographical articles, articles on Welsh history and literature, science, geography and other Celtic nations. It evidently did not limit itself to Welsh topics, so I'll consider it general.
    • Estonian Encyclopedia: according to etwiki: an Estonian-language general encyclopedia (...) designed as an updated and expanded new edition of the "Estonian Soviet Encyclopedia"., which was also a general encyclopedia.
    • Great Norwegian Encyclopedia: not sure, but it appears to be general, because the 'Norwegian' part refers to language, not to the country Norway. There is no indication of any kind of specialisation; all topics seem to be included.
    • Great Soviet Encyclopedia: The GSE claimed to be "the first Marxist–Leninist general-purpose encyclopedia".
    • Great Ukrainian Encyclopedia: ukwiki goes into some detail that the GUE is meant to be a universal encyclopedia: a systematized collection of modern reliable scientific information from all branches of human knowledge in a user-friendly format. Although it has a lot of Ukraine/Ukrainian-related contents, the other encyclopedias of Ukraine (see below) already cover that extensively, and they sought to avoid duplication.
    • Mu'jam al-Buldan: Yaqut al-Hamawi#Works: "Dictionary of Countries"; Classified a "literary geography", composed between 1224 and 1228, and completed a year before the author's death. An alphabetical index of place names from the literary corpus of the Arabs, vocalizations, their Arabic or foreign derivation and location. Yaqut supplements geographic descriptions with historical, ethnographic, and associated narrative material with historical sketches and accounts of Muslim conquests, names of governors, monuments, local celebrities etc., and preserves much valuable early literary, historical, biographic and geographic material of prose and poetry. Although it is called the "Dictionary of Countries", is about much more than that, including the natural sciences if you read the fawiki article. I think of it as a general encyclopedia, but I'm open to arguments.
    • National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan: a general-knowledge encyclopedia written in Uzbek. The majority of the articles in the National Encyclopedia were directly taken from the Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia.
    • Nationalencyklopedin: a comprehensive contemporary Swedish-language encyclopedia. It's not about Sweden; it's about everything, expressed in Swedish.
    • Norsk konversasjonsleksikon Kringla Heimsins: not sure but I think it's general, and that 'Norsk' just represents the language it is written in. Bokmålwiki states: The name comes from the work Heimskringla which in ancient times was called "Kringla heimsins" which means "the round earth", i.e. the circumference of the world. I take that to mean it seeks to encompass all world knowledge, but that's just my interpretation.
    • Proleksis Encyclopedia: the first Croatian general and national online encyclopedia.
    • Encyclopedic Dictionary of Vietnam: seems general-purpose, especially judging by the viwiki article.
  • Encyclopedias about countries (Keep):
    • Banglapedia: Banglapedia was not designed as a general encyclopedia but as a specialized encyclopedia on Bangladesh-related topics.
    • Burmese Encyclopedia (according to the mywiki article): The Burmese Translation Society decided to compile the Myanmar Encyclopedia in February 1949. This encyclopedia aims to include topics related to Burma with special importance and in full.
    • The Canadian Encyclopedia: The physical copy and website includes "articles on Canadian biographies and places, history, the Arts, as well as First Nations, science and Canadian innovation."
    • Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: a basic English-language encyclopaedia for Ethiopian and Eritrean studies.
    • Encyclopedia Bulgaria: The encyclopedia contains articles on historical, geographical and cultural themes, biographical articles about important Bulgarian statesmen and revolutionaries, political, social, scientific, cultural, economic and sports figures as well as articles on current and historical settlements and administrative divisions of Bulgaria.
    • Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine: an illustrated encyclopedia on history of Ukraine.
    • Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine: The EMU provides an integral image of modern Ukraine describing events, institutions, organizations, activities, notions and people from the early 20th century to the present. It embraces all spheres of life in Ukraine, and reflects current views on historical events and personalities.
    • Encyclopedia of Ukraine: a fundamental work of Ukrainian Studies.
    • Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia: translation of the above; about Ukrainian subjects, translated into English.
    • Historical Dictionary of Switzerland: an encyclopedia on the history of Switzerland.
    • Historical Lexicon of the Principality of Liechtenstein: an encyclopedia on the history of Liechtenstein.
    • Indonesian Heritage Series: according to nhbs.com, Focuses on Indonesia's natural and cultural heritage and covers the entire Indonesian Archipelago from Sumatra to Irian Jaya.
    • Macedonian Encyclopedia: according to mkwiki, it is the first scientific encyclopedia about Macedonia.
    • Encyclopedia of Malaysia: a multi-volume encyclopedia about Malaysia.
    • Medical Encyclopedia of Islam and Iran: Its content will include a history of medicine in Iran and other Islamic countries. It's also in Category:Encyclopedias of medicine and Category:Encyclopedias of Islam, so "Encyclopedias about countries" seems a good addition.
    • Enciclopedia de México: The encyclopedia has a vast array of articles including geology and landforms, fauna and flora, human migration, pre-Conquest ethnicity, anthropology and archeology, and biographical coverage, and it is the most comprehensive encyclopedia on Mexico to date. The first half of that sentence may seem like it is a general encyclopedia, but taken together, they most probably mean geology in Mexico, landforms in Mexico, fauna and flora in Mexico, etc., otherwise the phrase pre-Conquest ethnicity makes no sense. That refers to the Spanish conquest of Mexico, no doubt.
    • An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand: an official encyclopaedia about New Zealand
    • Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand: the section Structure makes clear it is about New Zealand.
    • The Cyclopedia of New Zealand: on the people, places and organisations of provinces of New Zealand (...) with each volume concerned with a specific region of New Zealand.
    • Norsk Allkunnebok: although the title means "Norwegian General Knowledge Book", Allkunneboka focused on conditions in Norway. (...) Themes outside Norway are hardly dealt with.
    • Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland: although mention is made in the History section of a need for a general purpose Scottish encyclopaedia, the book is neither written in the Scots language (but in English), nor is it about general knowledge, but about the society of Scotland specifically, judging by the Articles and Second Edition sections.
    • Singapore: The Encyclopedia: is a 640-page encyclopedia about Singapore, covering its history, geography, arts and politics.
    • Encyclopedia of Slovenia: a Slovene-language encyclopedia that contains topics related to Slovenia.
    • Encyclopaedia of Wales: a single-volume-publication encyclopaedia about Wales.
    • Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia: comprehensive reference work about Yugoslavia and related topics.
  • Both?
    • Latvian National Encyclopedia: a universal encyclopedia in Latvian (...). The [2018] paper edition of the encyclopedia (...) is thematically focused on Latvian topics. (...) The online version does not have a thematical focus and covers a wide variety of subjects on world culture, science, economics etc.
    • Lithuanian encyclopedias: are encyclopedias published in the Lithuanian language or encyclopedias about Lithuania and Lithuania-related topics. This is certainly mixing up two different concepts into a single article based on the ambiguity of the adjective "Lithuanian". My preference would be to split this article in two, but for now, I recommend putting it in both categories.
    • Treccani is a publisher of encyclopedias in Italian; some are general-purpose, others are specialised about Italy, so I recommend both.
That's about it. I recommend this division. NLeeuw (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle What do you think? Shall we split the category this way, and make Category:General encyclopedias a stand-alone category into which we shall place the first group? NLeeuw (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: "general" sounds a bit too much WP:OCMISC to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle It would be if we made it up ourselves, but "general encyclopedias" is the established term in English-language literature. (Alternatives are "generalist encyclopedias" or "universal encyclopedias", but those are much rarer). Funnily enough, the first search result I get is from WUR:
    There are two types of encyclopedias -- general and subject. General encyclopedias provide concise overviews on a wide variety of topics. Subject encyclopedias contain in-depth entries focusing on one field of study.

    Examples:

    • Encyclopaedia Britannica (general encyclopedia)
    • Regulatory Fish Encyclopedia (subject encyclopedia)
And then it spends the rest of the web page on the pros and cons of Wikipedia. Incidentally, "subject encyclopedias" is another term for what we call Category:Specialized encyclopedias. NLeeuw (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support Marcocapelle's alt proposal, and I support using Category:General encyclopedias. I don't think this is OCMISC – it is about encyclopedias which lack any topic, rather than encyclopedias of varied but specific topics. And, as NL points out, it is a distinction made by RSes. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. This has been a bit complicated to work out, but I think we're all getting to the same page. NLeeuw (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

Category:Tang dynasty short stories

[]

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, largely overlapping categories. I have tagged them both. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That raises a broader question: should all literature articles be both in a period by writing category and a period of setting category, also if these periods are the same? It seems overcategorization to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that overcategorization? Is literature set in the United States and literature written by Americans overcategorization? Just lump both in as "Literature involving America"? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually its setting is more precise, in a place or a county, so then it is different. I agree that "set in the United States" as such is redundant if it is written by an American writer. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been pondering whether all fiction might usefully be divided between contemporary (the default), historical or futuristic. E.g. 1984 (novel) was futuristic even though its date of setting is now in our past. If this structure was adopted then the Tang dynasty literature articles (presumably with a contemporary setting) would not need to be also categorised as set in the Tang dynasty, and we would only need a separate category for historical fiction set in the Tang dynasty. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not presume that they are all set in the Tang Empire, instead of fantastical locations (the Court of Heaven, the Underworld, Paradise Island Penglai, etc), or the Han Dynasty, or Huaxia (the pre-dynastic semi-mythological past); or set in neighbouring regions outside of the Tang, such as former Han territories not within the Tang. There are several pieces of lit known to be set in Penghu, which at that time was outside China (later dynasties would incorporate it) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many Americans do not write stories set in the U.S. Which is why it should not be overcategorization. And as such, many writers of any place write (to them) historically placed literature. And of smaller countries, write about their bigger neighbors. Or write about the metaphysical. So I can't see why this would ever be overcategorization; especially when considering writers from time periods before the 19th century. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americanized surnames

[]

Nominator's rationale: The main article for this page is anglicisation of names. "American" isn't a language and many of these surnames are used in other countries than the US, including Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. ★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Someone should check the articles too. Bell (surname) and Byers (surname) seem to be plain English-language surnames. And it is not clear if Blomquist really deviates from an original Swedish form. But better have it checked by a native English speaker. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - For the reasons illustrated above. This just looks like WP:OR (editors making a subjective determination for inclusion). This just cries out for explanations and references. Neither of which can be done with categories, per WP:BEFORECAT/WP:CLN. - jc37 17:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As an aside, these fall under what I call "before and after" categories. (This was that, but now, it's this.) The clearest example of which is: renaming of people, companies, countries, etc. An article is one entry in a category. And can't show an individual relationship with another article (unless we started making innumerable 2-article categories). We should just establish that such categories are disallowed and are better as lists. Well... We do in WP:CLN#Disadvantages of a category, numbers 2 and 7 point to this, for example. But apparently we need to mke this clearer, I guess. - jc37 18:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also noting that Category:Anglicized surnames exists and is not a redirect back to Category:Americanized surnames, so a traditional rename is not possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think it should be subsumed into Category:Anglicized surnames, because, as stated above, any “Americanization” would inherently be Anglicization. I’m not sure whether that’s considered a merge, or if another process is typically used. AnandaBliss (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers

[]

Nominator's rationale: From Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_19#Virtual_reality_->_Extended_reality:

Please renominate "Virtual reality pioneers" separately. The term is generally only used in retrospect and I don't think it's controversial to say VR is still developing in a way that it's hard for us to say who is and isn't a pioneer from the present vantage point.
— User:Axem Titanium 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (keep). All the nominated categories can be kept without any deletions or renamings instead. 67.209.130.111 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Pichpich's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Palestine

[]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates the scope of Category:Palestinian people. For people from the entire geographical region of Palestine, Category:People from Palestine (region) exists. --Hassan697 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• From reading the other comments, my conclusion is that for all ethnic Palestinians, we should use  Category:Palestinians. For nationals of the the modern State of Palestine we use Category:Palestinian people.
Category:Palestinian people should be merged into Category:People from Palestine. The categories should have clear descriptions of the purpose.
Category:People from Palestine should be a sub-category of Category:Palestinians Isoceles-sai (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge that the category name could be debated and that an exception—similar to the one for Georgia—could be considered, I believe this should be addressed in a separate renaming discussion. My current proposal focuses solely on eliminating scope duplication. Later we can discuss whether an exception should be made for Palestine, similar to Georgia. However, this is a separate issue from the current redundancy. Additionally, the case of Georgia is different because Georgia is a disambiguation page, whereas Palestine is now the article about the modern state, with the disambiguation page moved to Palestine (disambiguation). --Hassan697 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pittsburgh Labor History

[]

Nominator's rationale: This should be made consistent with all other categories of history by specific topic in a specific region. See, for example, the subcategories of Category:Labor history by country or Category:Cold War history by country. Also MOS:TITLECASE. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alt rename, as suggested by Namiba? Clear consensus for a rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

Sports events in Russia by month

[]

Nominator's rationale: A large volume of sparsely populated month categories, most with one or two pages each. Merge to continent categories must be manual since Russia is a transcontinental country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

Category:International airports by country

[]

Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Category:International airports in India and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Category:International airports. Gray eyes (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the rationale is weak to me (decisions from 14 years ago?) and I disagree with the idea that international airports aren't defining. I certainly don't want to have look through dozens of aerodromes to find international airports. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale still stands firm in my opinion. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge All "international airports" are airports. No need to have an overly specific and confusing category. That does not help our readers because they need to know the difference while airports can also change status. The Banner talk 23:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose And thank you for the relist HouseBlaster. The nominator references outcomes of 14 year old deletion discussions about a catch-all category "International Airports", and a specific category "International Airports in India" as rationale. However, this nomination calls for deletion of a master category and merging all those nested under it. It would be a stretch in my view to accept the arguments made in those discussions blanketly apply to ALL of the merges proposed here. For example:
- Both the 2011 discussions relied on arguments that calling the Airports "International" was not a defining feature, nor set them apart. To support this, TheBushranger cited an example of an Airport in the US renaming itself as an International airport simply for marketing reasons and there appeared a level of agreement that this was the norm. I contend that while this may be the case in the USA, it is not necessarily so globally.
- International Airport defines specific characteristics (eg. customs and border control facilities allowing International travel). Look at the categories affected by this proposal, this definition is certainly the case in Australia, where the "International" status must be endorsed and designated by the government.([6])([7]) I believe this is also the case in Denmark.([8])
- While the "International" distinction may or may not have been a defining feature of Airports in India in 2011, it most certainly is in Australia in 2025. None of the arguments presented so far provide arguments based in wikipedia policy, nor does it make any sense to remove the category "International Airports in Australia", which easily identifies the 30 or so actual designated international airports as distinct from the other 600 airports in the country! Dfadden (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might split the nomination between countries. At least in the Netherlands the only relevant distinction is with or without passenger services. Almost every airport with passenger services is an international airport. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would be a very sensible course of action. The nomination as it stands is far too broad and the merge proposals seem arbitrary and poorly considered. Further examples: Bangladesh (3 clearly defined International Airports) [9]; New Zealand - number has varied over time, but the government certainly differentiates between International and domestic only airports based on defining characteristics like customs and immigration facilities. [10] Dfadden (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example. Not too long ago, Indonesia stripped a lot of airports from their international status ([11]). I have not checked if those 17 airports were recategorized but without a merge they would suddenly disappear. IMHO that is an argument for merging. The Banner talk 13:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check. There is no such category as International Airports in Indonesia, nor is any such category named in this proposal so I'm not sure it is relevant? But assuming your argument is relevant, if recategorisation causes articles to disappear from a category that no longer applies to them, isnt that the system working as intended? Dfadden (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed the point that it is an example. The Banner talk 03:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Canary Islands are considered neither part of the EU nor part of Europe. Is a flight from Spain to Tenerife "international"? Or Denmark to Greenland? How would you categorise Lydd Airport? And what happens when Scotland gains full independence or is bought by Trump? If you retain two separate categories, how will you audit the decision as to which category applies? As already pointed out; you cannot trust the airport names alone. Will it be based on airlines & destination tables (another contentious issue), or the provision of passport control and customs facilities, and how often are these features identified? How does this apply for Schengen area flights? If the airports are all lumped together in one category, these questions are all neatly avoided.
FUN FACT; Birmingham International and Dusseldorf International have both voluntarily removed "international" from their official names, but I can assure you both still provide plenty of international flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WendlingCrusader (talk • contribs)
Hello, not sure who you are (your comment was unsigned), but I agree with you that the category should not just be defined by name alone, and that the distinction varies from country to country. Europe and the Schengen area is a special case. I do think in most other parts of the world, having customs and passport control facilities is fairly definitive though. That's why i think Marcocapelle's suggestion to split the nomination and consider the country merges individually is sensible. See the examples i gave above for Bangladesh and Australia where it is very clear in official sources that certain airports are designated as international gateways and there is some legal/administrative status as such. I would suggest these sources are much more reliable than airline and destination tables or what an airport chooses to call itself. Dfadden (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - not really a WP:DEFINING feature of airports. Many airports are 'international airports' that are not International Airports, and many airports (such as Tallahassee International Airport for instance) have the name but don't offer the service. Above all, this isn't a useful categorization for the reader, as it splits a region's airports between multiple categories. This may well be a case where it'd be useful for a (well-referenced and carefully curated) list, but not for categorization. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main category & merge categories on a case-by-case basis per Marcocapelle and Dfadden. Scope has evolved since the 2011 discussions. it's lio! | talk | work 05:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was surprised this CFD discussion is still open as Gray eyes has already emptied all of these categories. Just pinging HouseBlaster. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I generally recuse from re-closing CFDs which I had previously closed. It appears that a non-admin closure was attempted, but reverted, so that is probably why Gray eyes started processing the discussion. Gray eyes, would you be able to revert your changes until the discussion is properly closed? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reply here, Gray eyes, on undoing your edits? This doesn't look like unanimous opinion here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a defining feature of airports, as those which accept international flights need to have physical facilities and staff for this (e.g. immigration facilities and officers, customs facilities and officers and often more stringent security screening arrangements). For instance, only a small subset of airports in Australia are approved to accept international flights - see the official list here. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Schengen area as all airports then are international; renominate the rest individually per above. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

Category:American mathematicians by populated place

[]

Nominator's rationale: Not everyone living and working in the United States is "American". This is a category for sorting people by where they live and are practicing a particular occupation; not a category for designating citizenship or nationality. We shouldn't confuse the two. I am not sure how to do a bundled nom, but I would nominate all of the cats at Category:American people by occupation and populated place and Category:People by nationality and occupation and populated place to mirror this change because when you get down to the small cats like Category:Actors from New York City; it could have many people who aren't "American" in that cat but who are working actors who live in NYC. I don't think we can or should make this category tree nationality/citizenship dependent because where someone lives and works is not necessarily tied to either of those two criteria. 4meter4 (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate subcategories for upmerging, they are a trivial intersection between occupation and place of birth. Oppose the current nomination but merely for consistency reasons. I'd be ok with renaming all nationality categories to country categories. Nationality is a modern concept that we also anachronistically apply to periods in history when the concept did not exist yet. And even in modern times, the country where one lives is more relevant than the passport one has. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree that the people in these cats are there because of “birth”. At least when I apply these cats I try to place them based on where someone was doing their job (although I am sure I have used it the other way too before thinking about this issue more recently). For example a doctor born in California but working at NYU should be categorized in Doctors from New York City because that is where that are practicing medicine. That would seem clear and defining. Misuse of cats is not a valid reason to remove a category. Granted we could probably do a better job communicating how to use the category tree with an explanatory note on each cat page in this tree to encourage people to place cats differently in this area by discouraging people to use place of birth in the occupation by location cats and sort by where they actually were working/employed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently we agree on this matter. But at the same time the people by populated place categories are polluted by birth-only assignment to such an extent that they better be blown up and started over again. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathize with that perspective but I think it would be better to try and remove inappropriate people rather than delete the categories.4meter4 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New towns by decade

[]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think it is necessary to have a separate establishments category for planned communities/new towns. For consistency, merge to the populated places tree, diffusing by year where applicable. WP:OVERLAPCAT –Aidan721 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If kept, rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge these examples, per nomination. In my view a separate discussion would be needed to rename the category tree from "new towns" to "planned communities" (which may have its merits). At the moment, many of the populated places in these "started in the" categories are not "towns" and several of these categories have a negligible number of suitable articles to make them worthwhile as a navigation aid. Sionk (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to planned communities per 4meter4, but agree that additional cleanup work is needed per Sionk. it's lio! | talk | work 09:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

Category:Integrated Resorts

[]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Casino hotel is the main topic. Overlapping topics. Rename to "Casino hotels...". –Aidan721 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • For the top category: merge or reverse merge, I do not know what the best terminology is but I checked a number of articles and they were all about a hotel including a casino. The subcategories should follow the top category in accordance with the merge direction. Also decapitalize to "integrated resorts" if that name is kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge, per Marcocapelle - Not sure either, but we obviously don't need both trees per WP:OVERLAPCAT. - jc37 11:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • An integrated resort is more than simply a casino resort. There is a difference between the two. An integrated resort features hotel space, a casino, convention space, dining, shopping and entertainment. A casino resort simply needs to only include hotel space and a casino. An integrated resort is a type of casino resort, but it is more than just a casino resort. Working in the industry myself, I can affirm that there is a difference between these two terms. --NevadaExpert (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is an issue of defining "integrated resort". What must be present for it to be an integrated resort? Hotel + casino + dining? Because many (if not all) casino hotels have that. I am OK with using "Integrated resorts" if we can correctly and accurately define it. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An integrated resort features hotel space, casino space, convention/meeting space, dining options, shopping and entertainment (such as a performance venue or resident shows). That is basically the criteria or what we in the industry call an integrated resort. The term was first coined in Singapore, but the industry at large has adopted the term broadly. NevadaExpert (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that different than a Resort? - jc37 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not every resort has those options I mentioned. There are resorts which do not feature a casino or entertainment options. It is different. NevadaExpert (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to see the distinction as well. Sounds a lot like a marketing term by people in the industry that probably should not be adopted for WP. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why do we care about what "other" options are present at a "resort"? We have Hotels, then Casino hotels, and now we're adding whether they have other entertainment or shopping options? Sounds an awful lot like list material. I'm also questioning the difference between Category:Resorts and Category:Integrated Resorts. Which seems like another instance of WP:OVERLAPCAT. This is starting to feel like WP:TNT might be appropriate for the whole "integrated resorts" tree. - jc37 15:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nature of the hospitality industry has changed. Hotels have changed. The hotels we had in Las Vegas fifty years ago were certainly different from what we have today. While integrated resorts originated in Las Vegas, the term was coined in Singapore. Is it more list material like you are saying? Absolutely it is. But it is an accurate description of the kind of resorts we are talking about. These categories will keep things on Wikipedia plus terminology on this subject up to date. Working in this industry myself, I feel that what we have on Wikipedia about these properties can be improved. One of the ways to do that is to be even more specific. If you have a property which features hotel space, a casino, dining, shopping, convention/meeting space and entertainment options, then it is certainly an integrated resort. NevadaExpert (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may well be. But that doesn't mean we should categorise the locations in that way. As you note, it's a list of criteria, that varies by location.
    I'm looking at Resort#Recreation, and it has many different kinds of resorts, including the "integrated resort" that you note. We simply don't need a bunch of parallel trees that are similar in this way. That's pretty much the definition of WP:OVERLAPCAT.
    I suggest creating a List page for this, so that each set of criteria can be explained for each Resort. Or in other words, to indicate what each resort offers.
    While I see that we have a List of casino hotels, it doesn't look like we have a List of resorts, integrated, or otherwise. - jc37 02:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be an option too. I do think that any property that is an integrated resort, that it would be noted in the article for purposes of clarity and accuracy. NevadaExpert (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based upon the above discussion, it would appear that: All "integrated resorts" are "casino hotels", but not all "casino hotels" are "integrated resorts". (integrated resort redirects to casino hotel.) This suggests to me that we should merge everything to the "casino hotels" cats. And allow for listification of those casino hotels which are integrated resorts to List of resorts (or List of integrated resorts, if wanted), at editorial discretion. This way, the features that distinguish an integrated resort from the rest of the casino hotels can be enumerated and explained on a single page for reader comparison. I'm not suggesting merging to Category:Resorts, because apparently whether or not a casino is involved, is the deciding factor there. Though I won't be opposed to a double merge to both trees (Casino hotels, and Resorts). - jc37 22:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An article for List of Integrated resorts is a compromise that I would find agreeable. However, it should be organized by country with potential subsections for states (the US, Australia) or provinces (Canada), etc.
    But to keep the article organized, we must be very clear as to what constitutes and integrated resort. It contains six components:
    1. Hotel
    2. Casino
    3. convention and/or meeting space
    4. shopping
    5. dining
    6. Entertainment (may be entertainment venue attached and/or a resident show
    Some additions may need discussion on the talk page which is fine. Some are harder to classify as integrated resorts than others. My point is that the page should not become disorganized. I can see unregistered users coming in and making nonsense additions. Any established user who would like to come on board with me on this topic would be deeply appreciated. All in all, this sort of article would help make Wikipedia more up to date on this issue and the topic of integrated resorts. Anyway, let’s keep each other posted and coordinate. NevadaExpert (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All good reasons why these should not be categories.
    Incidentally, this discussion is not preventing you from starting that List page at your own editorial discretion. - jc37 21:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could certainly do that when I have the time. But I would prefer to plan carefully and not rush these things. I have some ideas. NevadaExpert (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721, Marcocapelle, Underbar dk, and NevadaExpert: so are we going ahead with jc37's proposal? it's lio! | talk | work 02:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I only nominated the categories for capitalization issues. I have no comment on the other issues that have come forth. _dk (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to keep the categories, but to correct the capitalization issues. NevadaExpert (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support jc37's proposal. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

Category:Setians

[]

Nominator's rationale: The title and description is confusing, but every item listed is affiliated with or is the Temple of Set. Non-Temple of Set Set affiliations are not included. Category should thus be renamed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs third-party opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

Category:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California

[]

Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in this category redirect to the same page. Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: This is also the case for the following 15 siblings:
Do you want to nominate those as well (I believe those are all the subcats of Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city that have this exact issue)? (As was the case with the already nominated category, for some of those siblings, the eponymous article would need to be added to some cats before nominating the cat for deletion.) Felida97 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Manual merge? Expand the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expanding and refactoring nomination...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the new categories should be called "Category:[insert city here] mayoral election redirects". ミラP@Miraclepine 15:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of the merge is to merge only the non-redirect article from each category so there's no flooding happening. Strong oppose creating redirect categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: Yes, the (non-redirect) articles will still have the category upmerged and part of the tree. Can you please specify any issue with redirect categories being part of the tree? After all, the point of my idea is to make the redirect categorization more uniform with, for example, Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe redirects to lists being part of the Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe, since these IMO should be allowed per WP:SUBTOPICCAT and WP:INCOMPATIBLE. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: any response? it's lio! | talk | work 12:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_old_discussions
No tags for this post.