Gpedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Speedy renaming and merging

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:

*REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 00:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC). Currently, there are 182 open requests (refresh).


Current requests

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the relevant article (in case of C2D) or parent category (in case of C2C).

  • Oppose speedy, this nomination conflicts with WP:C2D: Enforced disappearances in Bangladesh. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the main article was moved to Enforced disappearance as this is the most common name. The other categories should be moved, not this one. (t · c) buidhe 17:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, Agree with renaming all the other "Forced disappearances" by country categories to "Enforced disappearances" .... but can this be done as speedy to meet WP:C2D ?? Hugo999 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think so, because the article was moved after an RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Labelling as 'speedy' completed; here are the categories;

Opposed requests

Yep. Sorry, but that is inaccurate. Scholars routinely use the word Iran(ian) when talking about the country and its people during those centuries. The name of Iran was in usage of at least as early as 224 when the Sasanian Empire was founded, and medieval native writers often use the name Iran as well. "Persian" is not a conventional way to refer to the culture and people at all, since a vast amount of its inhabitants were not of Persian stock, but part of other Iranian groups, such as the Daylamites, Parthians etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
These categories have been moved see here and here within the 48 hr period by User:JJMC89 bot III. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Full discussion is in order, since nobody can point to any consensus or prior discussion about these changes. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert on the subject, but my impression is that Persia has been the more common term used up to at least 1935, when Reza Shah issued a declaration to change it (which was apparently reversed to some extent in 1959). The article about Hafez calls him a Persian poet, not an Iranian one. The same is true for Ferdowsi and Omar Khayyam. There's a whole article about the Name of Iran, and it's also discussed in the lead section of the Iran article, and there's a whole section called "Replacement of Persia with Iran" in the Reza Shah article. It doesn't seem entirely uncontroversial. I don't really know whether scholars have typically been applying the name change retroactively. (It's true that the other name did also exist before 1935.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Your impression about the 1935 bit completely correct, that was the case back then. However, nowadays, English scholarship mostly use the term 'Iran(ian)' when referring to the country pre-1925 as its more accurate. As for Hafez etc, that's because it was certain that they were of actual Persian stock, something which can sometimes be hard to discern since primary sources often mixed Persians up with other Iranian groups. The thing is however, a lot of historical Iranian figures, be it writers, generals (Asfar ibn Shiruya, Surena), or rulers (Parthian Empire, Buyid dynasty), were of Iranian, but certainly not Persian stock. Referring all those figures as 'Persian' would be like, er, calling a Kurd or Pashtun for a Persian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Full discussion is in order. We would be governed by usage in independent English language sources. If Iran is the predominant contemporary usage, not just for present day Iran but for the region in historical contexts (other than ancient Persia, then we would probably not be seeing the result we do in this n-gram. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not really the best comparison, considering "Persian" refers to the language as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Certainly needs a full discussion. Especially in the case of the literary figures, where "Persian" refers to the language not the nationality - the first one I look at is Bangladeshi - Muhammad Faizullah. Please someone kindly ping me when the discussion opens. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • For writers, a rename to "Persian-language" might be an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

Comment Brandmeister a full discussion might be better to establish whether dark ages is a proper noun per WP:NCCAPS. The category had Dark Ages (historiography) linked with a cat main template, but I changed the link to cat more as the article focuses on one Dark Age. TSventon (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the target to Dark Ages (historiography) per C2D, though the parenthetical disambiguation may be hypercorrect. Brandmeistertalk 14:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I still think a full discussion would be useful. "Dark Ages (historiography)" is about the use of Dark Ages to describe the Early Middle Ages, which is only one part of this category. TSventon (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind in that case. Brandmeistertalk 15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion. TSventon (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


Current discussions

January 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

January 23

Category:Blackwater people

Nominator's rationale: rename, this was part of a speedy nomination and the parent category is still listed at WP:CFDS. While the parent's rename to Category:Blackwater (company) is uncontroversial, the rename to Category:Blackwater people was opposed on WP:C2C grounds. Nevertheless, probably by accident, this category was processed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Schierbecker and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Operas by Ignacy Paderewski

Nominator's rationale: He only wrote this one opera so the category is redundant

--Smerus (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Modeling and simulation

Nominator's rationale: merge, simulation requires modeling anyway, so the scope of this category is not any different from its parent. The article Modeling and simulation gives the impression that "M&S" is a buzzword specifically in engineering, but still for categorization that does not help much. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Breweries by country

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, very underdeveloped tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


January 22

Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format

Nominator's rationale: I recommend that this category be deleted, and all accompanied images in the category get the {{Should be SVG}} tag removed. Tagging non-free images with this template is at odds with our non-free content policy. Per WP:NFC: ... editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder.

Having these images tagged as such leads editors to believe that it is okay to have non-free logos vectorized by themselves or other users; I believed so for a long time, and such requests are made regularly at Gpedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. The only proper use of this category would be so that users know what non-free raster images exist, such that it would be nice if the copyright holder has released a vector version of said image – something that more-often-than-not does not exist. In all, the category serves almost no purpose and leads to misconceptions about Gpedia's policy on non-free SVG logos. – Pbrks (t • c) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Aquificae

Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Aquificae") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Aquificota).[1] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Acidobacteria

Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Acidobacteria") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Acidobacteriota).[2] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Deinococcus–Thermus

Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Deinococcus–Thermus") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Deinococcota).[3] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Nominator's rationale: This would match the article - Vrije Universiteit Brussel and I think be clearer. But there are three universities located in Brussels, Belgium:

Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)}}

  • Comment. I fully agree that there is a benefit in splitting the category into three listed, but what is the rationale for this approach? There is no rationale for assuming VUB is intended; "Free University of Brussels faculty/alumni" should refer, if anything, to the pre-1969 institution. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Split -- Both the Flemish and Francophone universities have names that translate to the present cat-name. The nom needs to provide wach article with a new category relating to the three institutions listed. When someone can assure us that this has been done, the presnrt categories can be deleted. It is not fair to ask a closing admin to undertake a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are already alumni and faculty subcategories for Université libre de Bruxelles and Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Modeling

Nominator's rationale: rename to contrast more clearly versus Category:Scientific modeling; and also to align with subCategory:Models (profession). Keep Category:Modeling as a disambiguation page (analogous to Category:Models). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support adding disambiguation, for consistency with the subcategory and for greater clarity. Regarding the spelling, "modelling" appears in both the Merriam-Webster and Lexico (US English) online dictionaries, with no indication that its usage is restricted to British English, whereas "modeling" is noted in the Lexico UK English dictionary as "US verb modeling". Does this mean that the spelling with two Ls is an area of MOS:COMMONALITY between American and British English? Ham II (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Golden Raspberry Award winners

Nominator's rationale: To call this "winners" is misleading when the award carries a negative connotation and is a way of saying "this was the worst _____ of the year". We'd therefore be better off using "recipients" instead as one does still receive this award, it's just not the type people give as praise like Oscars, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, etc. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Listify (if necessary) then delete -- Whatever the merits (or demerits) of this category, it offends against WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Ticino rapid transit

Nominator's rationale: The parent article for this category has been deleted on the grounds that the concept does not exist: Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Rete celere del Canton Ticino. There isn't a Ticino rapid transit network; there is a collection of stations receiving service, but that's not the same thing. This category and the child stations category should be deleted; no recategorization is necessary. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:People from Spring Hill, Barbour County, Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Scientific simulation software

Nominator's rationale: merge, scientific simulation software is not a separate class of simulation software, nearly all simulation software may be regarded as scientific. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Trigonal crystals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure)LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category structure. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Category:Triclinic crystals

Nominator's rationale: Content is identical to Category:Triclinic crystal system, apart from main article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already part of the parent categories' trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Tetragonal crystals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure)LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Content is identical to Category:Tetragonal crystal system. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to address all three of these nominations concerning categories of crystals. I discussed this with Kent G. Budge back in October (see User talk:Kent G. Budge#Categories of minerals). I wrote there,
Actually, I think it's better to have both a category "Cubic crystal system" and a category "Cubic crystals". At Gpedia:Categorization#Category tree organization they say there are two kinds of categories, "topic categories" and "set categories". "Cubic crystal system" is a topic category, whereas "Cubic crystals" is a set category.
and Kent said "Okay, that makes sense". This of course applies to the above mentioned categories, not just to "Cubic crystals" and "Cubic crystal system". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Category:Asian-American issues

Nominator's rationale: Lacks a well-defined scope, and is largely redundant to other subcategories of Category:Asian-American society. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:African American–Asian relations

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT — contains only 1992 Los Angeles riots, which does not appear to directly involve race relations. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. In any case, the category is wrongly titled. "Asian" refers to the continent, not "Asian-Americans" as an ethnic group. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


January 21

Category:Former associates of Switzerland

Nominator's rationale: The current name sounds odd, particularly due to ambiguous "associate". If, per stated scope, this is for "former associates of the Old Swiss Confederacy", then something along the lines Category:Associated states of the Old Swiss Confederacy or Category:Former associated states of Switzerland. The proposed name is provisional. Brandmeistertalk 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not cantons though, because the whole point of these associates is that they were not a full member canton of the Old Swiss Confederacy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:CSKA Pomir Dushanbe managers

Nominator's rationale: This would match the article of the club.Cacrats (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Amphoe

Nominator's rationale: And also move subcategories Amphoe of X Province to Districts of X province (with lowercase province to match the downcased province names; these can probably just be speedied). Amphoe was changed to district(s) pretty much in articles a long time ago I think; categories should follow. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Also note that district and subdistrict downcasings are being worked on (see Gpedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13), which needs to complete before we speedy the subcats. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main article is still at Amphoe though... the case for the categories would be stronger if the main article was renamed first, but then it's quite conveniently precise and more succint than Districts of Thailand (though Provinces of Thailand indeed uses the English term). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    I guess it would have been smarter to start with an RM discussion at Talk:Amphoe then. What about the subcategories? Does it make sense to move them to match articles even if we don't move this top-level one? Do we know why the conversion from Amphoe to District was not quite completed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    I started RM at Talk:Amphoe#Requested_move_22_January_2022. If that works we can speedy this one. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Highly Cited Researchers

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of any of these people. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Brandmeistertalk 20:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • "Highly Cited Researchers" is a specific published list—the capitalisation indicates it's a proper noun.
      • We don't have a separate article on it, currently it's a redirect. As such, a standalone category looks excessive. Brandmeistertalk 13:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: See also previous CfD, where it was kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That was a rename nomination though. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Medieval Persian people by occupation

Categorisation of Persian/Iranian people is a mess at present, with no logic to it. This proposal leaves out writers and poets, where categorisation by language may be more appropriate. I think they need a seperate discussion. If we can agree these above then I hope their century based subcategories can be handled speedily. Copy of the discussion about speedy renaming is below.Rathfelder (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

copy of earlier speedy discussion
  • Full discussion is in order, since nobody can point to any consensus or prior discussion about these changes. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert on the subject, but my impression is that Persia has been the more common term used up to at least 1935, when Reza Shah issued a declaration to change it (which was apparently reversed to some extent in 1959). The article about Hafez calls him a Persian poet, not an Iranian one. The same is true for Ferdowsi and Omar Khayyam. There's a whole article about the Name of Iran, and it's also discussed in the lead section of the Iran article, and there's a whole section called "Replacement of Persia with Iran" in the Reza Shah article. It doesn't seem entirely uncontroversial. I don't really know whether scholars have typically been applying the name change retroactively. (It's true that the other name did also exist before 1935.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Your impression about the 1935 bit completely correct, that was the case back then. However, nowadays, English scholarship mostly use the term 'Iran(ian)' when referring to the country pre-1925 as its more accurate. As for Hafez etc, that's because it was certain that they were of actual Persian stock, something which can sometimes be hard to discern since primary sources often mixed Persians up with other Iranian groups. The thing is however, a lot of historical Iranian figures, be it writers, generals (Asfar ibn Shiruya, Surena), or rulers (Parthian Empire, Buyid dynasty), were of Iranian, but certainly not Persian stock. Referring all those figures as 'Persian' would be like, er, calling a Kurd or Pashtun for a Persian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Full discussion is in order. We would be governed by usage in independent English language sources. If Iran is the predominant contemporary usage, not just for present day Iran but for the region in historical contexts (other than ancient Persia, then we would probably not be seeing the result we do in this n-gram. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not really the best comparison, considering "Persian" refers to the language as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Certainly needs a full discussion. Especially in the case of the literary figures, where "Persian" refers to the language not the nationality - the first one I look at is Bangladeshi - Muhammad Faizullah. Please someone kindly ping me when the discussion opens. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • For writers, a rename to "Persian-language" might be an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon, BarrelProof, HistoryofIran, Cinderella157, and Johnbod: pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are mostly (except the doctors) historical categories, and (despite some change going on) I tghink "Persian" is still the usual term for the pre-modern. At least Persian-language writers are no longer included. This should not have been attempted as a speedy. Yet another abuse of that much-abused process. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "Iran(ian)" is now the most used term in modern scholarship, since its also the most accurate (hence why we also now have article names Qajar Iran, Safavid Iran). The name Iran has been used politically at least since 224, as attested by numerous sources. A lot of historical "Persian" figures are of Iranian descent, but not Persian. It would be nice if experts on this topic could come with their opinion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, the Persians are an Iranian ethnic group that make up over half the population of Iran. We cannot expect wp editors to make a distinction between Persian Iranian people and non-Persian Iranian people, especially not for people from earlier centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: The dropdown does not contain an accurate copy of the earlier discussion at Gpedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. See this link for latest vervion of discussion at Gpedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Also, a heap of categories of this type have been moved by bot within the 48 hr period of initial listing. This was noted in the previous discussion (see this edit). Categories already moved should not be excluded from this discussion as a fait accompli. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Persian is an ethnicity, and Persia has been used historically for the region of Iran. Iranian refers to both a modern country (Iran) and to an ethno-language grouping. In this case, ethnicity and and nationality are not interchangable terms and there is the matter of the most appropriate term to apply to historical contexts - where common name independent reliable sources would be the standard to be applied. Looking at one case, Category:16th-century Iranian people by occupation is based on nationality. The category as written implies an equivalence between modern Iran and an Iranian nation in the 16th century. Taking another example, the target of a move per above: Category:Iranian physicians. It is mainly populated with modern day Iranian nationals. It is proposed to merge this with Category:Persian physicians. It makes little sense to me. The matters seem pretty messed up and I think that a simple move will only make things worse. As I said before, this n-gram concerns me. If Iran is the predominant contemporary usage, not just for present day Iran but for the region in historical contexts (other than ancient Persia, then we would probably not be seeing the result we do. It also concerns me that WP may be getting caught up in and facilitating nationalistically driver revisionism. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The category as written implies an equivalence between modern Iran and an Iranian nation in the 16th century. -> The word "equivalence" is not very accurate, I would rather rephrase it as: the relationship between modern Iran and 16th-century Safavid Iran is similar to the relationship between modern France and 16th-century France under the Valois dynasty. As is not a problem to have categories of French people by century despite the fact that society and politics in 16th-century France was very different from now, it should also not be a problem for Iranian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I have said [it] implies an equivalence. You would say that it isn't equivalent. I agree. Therein lies the problem. The example of France simply goes to support the case I would make. The English common name and concept of France as a nation state and as an ethnicity has existed since about the 10th century and essentially as we know it today, since about the 15th century. "French" is pretty much interchangeable for both nationality and ethnicity across a broad span of history. You obviously have a perception that forms your opinion; however, we are ultimately here to serve our readers that come here to sate a degree of ignorance. Categories names should be natural. This means they should be based on the English common name appropriate to the context - ie there is a natural connection to the name. "Persian" would appear to better satisfy this than "Iranian" for an historical reference to nationality. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Dansk Melodi Grand Prix by year

Nominator's rationale: Following redirects this category now replicates Category:Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest; there are no individual articles remaining to necessitate a separate category just for Dansk Melodi Grand Prix articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicates a category that is more precise. Grk1011 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Autism by country

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, a very underdeveloped tree. A merge for the country subcats is unnecessary because the content of these categories only consists of organizations that are already in Category:Autism-related organizations and e.g. Category:Disability organisations based in Australia‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Versus fighting games

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NONDEF, I have checked a large number of articles and none prominently mentioned "versus". By the way, Versus fighting game is a redirect to Fighting game. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: This would match the article. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- English nobility would be the holders of English peerages created before 1707. Before that there were also separate creations of Scottish peerages. Irish peerages also existed and were sometimes used to give a person a title without a seat in the British House of Lords. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • But Category:Medieval Scottish nobility should not be in the United Kingdom. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose A "by country" category is fine, as long as it is restricted to the life of that country (i.e. post 1801). It is likely, however, that this category is polluted with entries from multiple centuries (I have not looked too deeply into it). Far safer would be a category of "Peers in the Peerage of the United Kingdom". Does it already exist? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It does - for example Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Why not stick with that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • At present there are many articles about people who lived before 1800 in this category. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's because many people use "British" for the nation (if such a thing exists) when they instead mean the state. That's another reason why I oppose it - nation vs state confusion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "British nobility" should be a parent category to the UK category, the English category, Scottish category, Irish category. These other kinds of nobility should not be categorized under the UK category when they are concerning topics that predate and expired before the creation of the UK -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:2D fighting games

Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned sock; unnecessary since all non-3D games are 2D and they don't need an additional subcategory. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose If Category:3D fighting games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) exists, I see no reason why "2D" shouldn't exist as well. If categorization by graphics style is not relevant, then delete Category:3D fighting games together with 2D, if it is relevant, then 2D should be kept. There should not need to be a category exclusion search to find these things if you want a category listing of 2D games. I hazard that if many users were to use the category-intersect tool for this use, it would be computing intensive -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Excuse me if I'm a bit... dubious about an anonymous IP editor commenting on something created by a banned sock. But you do bring up a good point. Perhaps a name change to something like Category:Fighting games with 3D combat would make things more distinguishing. Otherwise I am fine with deleting both as overbroad categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Platform fighting games

Nominator's rationale: Per original title created by Oinkers that is more WP:CONCISE. I have already moved the main article to that title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Platform fighter seems to be the more common term used in sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, is ambiguous in relation to contact sports on platform arenas, like Lei tai.--Mvqr (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Gpedia requested images of Muni Metro stations

Nominator's rationale: Both of these categories are unlikely to see any significant use - all current and former stations have been photographed, and only a small number of future stations are planned. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Glad to hear it; no objection as creator. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


January 20

Category:Maltese-language writers from Malta

Nominator's rationale: The general rule is that we dont categorise people by language if they use the language of their country. Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per nom, but just delete because the articles are already in the various subcategories of Category:Maltese writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Object the target should be Category:Maltese-language writers. English is a widely used language in Malta and I expect there are Maltese people who write in English or mainly so. I doubt there will be many writers in that language elsewhere. We should not merge writers in one language with those in another. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Beauty pageant films

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other "films about" categories. DonIago (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there any "Beauty pageants on film"? At one time they were regularly on TV, so that the possibility of a non-fiction film exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There's films that feature beauty pageants as part of the plot. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Bol family

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this is unlikely to hold more than the two current articles for the foreseeable future. User:Namiba 13:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

3rd millennium in Nepal provinces

Nominator's rationale: Not helpful for navigation, as they only contain one sub-category each (C21). There are no equivalent categories in Category:2nd millennium in Nepal, and most other countries in Category:3rd millennium by country do not have such sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Millennium categories are rarely warranted. If the top periodic category is centuries, there will be few cases where there would even be 30 subcategories (back to 800 BC), In a very few cases, we might go back another 20 centuries, but 50 subcats in a container is not too many. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use Wikiplus

* Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use Wikiplus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Nominator's rationale: Contains only Template:User Wikiplus and User:Kinosang. Note that User:镜音铃/Wikiplus (which I do not endorse and do not know whether it's safe) appears to be licensed with only the Apache License meaning we can't host a local copy. The instructions to load it from a non-Wikimedia domain (which is a bad idea anyway) will no longer work once the cross-origin resource sharing gets enabled here. (it's already enabled on beta cluster) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep CfD should not be used to adjucate an content dispute than has little to do with categories. This category is no less useful than any of the others in Category:Wikipedians by Gpedia-related software. If Template:User Wikiplus gets deleted, then this can be speedied as G8. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Pppery, the related template could be kept, deleted or userfied. If the template gets deleted, the category could indeed be speedied. If the template is kept or userfied, I think the category should still be deleted as it contains only 1 user. And that number isn't expected to go up as CORS once enabled will prevent any convenient way of loading Wikiplus. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment' I'd recommend to delete it while/if there is no substance added. Del per SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Forced disappearances in Iran

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, so it does not make sense to have a separate category for Iran unless it can be populated. I do not support any other upmerging since it does not make sense to categorize a person in "Violence in Iran" or "Human rights abuses in Iran". (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:14th-century Azerbaijani poets

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:RS. As Azerbaijanis were barely an ethnic group prior to the late 19th/early 20th centuries according to peer-reviewed English-language WP:RS, and English-language sources make no mention (or barely ever) of individual Azerbaijanis predating this time period, these categories will never be populated. Same goes for these categories created by the same user ("Multituberculata") within the same time period.[4]-[5]-[6]-[7]-[8] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
For the record: I just noticed that this IP[9] is mimicking said users edits in relation to these categories throughout several other Gpedia languages (e.g. [10]-[11]) The IP's operator, who I presume is the same as whoever operates ""Multituberculata", is doing this in all likelihood to create more audience/i.e. room in order to press such categories as "legitimate". - LouisAragon (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete POV cats, intended to project a distinct Azerbaijani identity back in time before it existed. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, Azerbaijani literature goes back in time quite a bit further than the 19th century, so perhaps writers and poets should be exempted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: Category:Azerbaijani-language writers Category:Azerbaijani-language poets and Category:14th-century Turkic people (etc.) would suffice in such circumstances. We can't resort to historic revisionism when WP:RS speak against it:

"The third major nation in South Caucasia, the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


January 19

Category:Indian subcontinent Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Single-user category added by a userbox stating This user is proud to be from the Indian subcontinent !. This is not helpful to categorize, and the sole user is already in more specific location categories so a merge is not necessary. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Classical mystics

Nominator's rationale: delete, these are Neoplatonist philosophers who are already in Category:Neoplatonists. It is a bit odd to call them "mystics" if only because that word is usually associated with religion rather than with philosophy. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Black British criminals

Nominator's rationale: This strikes me as odd. Notably, there is no corresponding Category:White British criminals (or any other racial classification of British criminals), nor do there appear to be categories for criminals by race for other countries. BD2412 T 16:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between ethnicity and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Being a criminal is not generally an occupation. Rathfelder (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It is still a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably racist, because Black people have long been stereotypically associated with crime on both sides of the pond. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • So it isnt a trivial intersection? Rathfelder (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Defunct drinking establishments in New York (state)

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layers with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There will surely be some defunct drinking establishments other than in New York and Oregon, but it is less likely that there articles about them since this requires local expertise on a very narrow topic. For example the Oregon articles have largely been written by a single editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Defunct drinking establishments in the United States, and reparent the Oregon category underneath this -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • As Hugo999 has newly created this US-based parent category, the undersized categories can be merged into it -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • (as nom) ok, agree with that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete both and reparent Manhattan directly under United States, until that category is much better populated. By the way, the LGBT category is also limited to New York and Oregon. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Types of fire

* Propose merging Category:Types of fire to Category:Fires by type Nominator's rationale: I have tried to work out if there may be a subtle difference between "types of fire" and "fires by type", but I'm not seeing the practical difference in the nature of the categorised articles. If these are kept unmerged, they will need clear statements of scope. Fences&Windows 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the intention was for Category:Types of fire to contain only articles, and Category:Fires by type to contain only subcategories. But that distinction has become muddled and should either be reinstated cleanly or merged, with no opinion which. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Resort per Pppery, divide the articles for specific kinds of fire (and not fire events) into "types of fire", and articles on fire events into "fires by type" and respective subcategories. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. I really see no convincing advantage to have two seperated categories. --Just N. (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment, I have reorganised the content of the two categories a bit, per some of the above comments. The question is if merging is still desirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Marcocapelle, thank you. I've added a description to each category of the intended scope. Then I think we can close this now w/o a merge. Fences&Windows 16:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Mint 400 Records

Nominator's rationale: All of these categories don't have a mainspace article and the current draft for Mint 400 Records has been rejected several times for failing notability. There is no need for this category and its subcategories to exist. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Seems to be a useful category tree despite having no article. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is no requirement for articles to exist. Given the size of Category:Mint 400 Records artists‎ it is surprising that the label is not notable. Oculi (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because the record label is not notable for an article is not a reason to delete. There are multiple notable records for the label and categorizing albums by label is standard practice and is useful.--Mvqr (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete only Category:Mint 400 Records album covers as there is no established scheme for album covers by record label. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


January 18

Hong Kong doctors

  • Rename Category:Hong Kong doctors to Category:Hong Kong medical doctors
  • Nominators rationale There are about 22 or more categories of medical doctors based on the local usage issues, personally I think we could reasonably apply this name to all categories in this tree. It clearly is justified in the Hong Kong case. However without medical the name is too ambiguous so we should add medical to the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Hong Kong physicians in place of current redirect. Category:Doctors suggests Category:Physicians, so per Category:Physicians by nationality these should go there. Brandmeistertalk 18:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment does Hong Kong English exclude surgeons from being physicians? If so, the suggestion of "physician" would be inappropriate -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom, this is a typical case of WP:ENGVAR and I am assuming that for Hong Kong we use British English (correct me when I am wrong about that). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom; we do use British English for Hong Hong (eg Category:Organisations based in Hong Kong). Oculi (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • if we must rename, then as nom. Hong Kong as a former British colony uses British English and (I expect) British practice. However, I am not sure we need a rename. In British English, if some one is referred to as a doctor, it usually means a medic. I have Ph.D. but would not normally be referred to as "a doctor" in a non-academic context. It should be sufficient to include the word "medical" in the headnote. As a matter of information, a generation ago, a doctor who qualified as a surgeon would drop the title Dr and become Mr (or Mrs or Miss), but that is (I understand) a dying practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Current member states of the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: Splitting this into two subcategories, current and former, looks redundant. The main article is at Member states of the United Nations which is sufficient for WP:C2D, so the only subcategory making sense is Category:Former member states of the United Nations. Brandmeistertalk 16:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Until somebody creates a "former" category, then the parent contains both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and remove header from the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge removing (or replacing) the headnote. The former members consists of countries that have merged or split, and are better as a subcat. We do not normally encourage "current" categories, but in this case it is unlikely to become obsolete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:War video games

Nominator's rationale: It's rather unclear whether this category refers to wargames or video games thematically about war. (It's the latter - Category:Computer wargames is the former.) The title change would make it more clear and prevent the current confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I understand the difference between the two categories. Article Computer wargame seems to be the main article of both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle: "War video games" is meant to be for games that are - plot/setting wise - about war, but not necessarily wargames. Something like "Call of Duty" would fall under the category, despite obviously not being a wargame. That is the confusion that is taking place here - people are assuming it is a wargame category and putting things outside of it. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment wouldn't it be Category:Video games based on war ? The games are based on war, but not "about war", which is what you're trying to distinguish it from. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- There are two slightly different things involved, but I am not sure whether a robust boundary between them can be identified. One is what was once called a tactical exercise without troops, in which generals planned tactics for war as part of their continuing training. another is video games where the proponent is invited to shoot his enemies. These are two extremes, but I expect there is a continuum between them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Regardless of renaming I would suggest containerizing this category. Unless a game is about a specific war (in which case the article is in Category:Video games by war) the war element is trivial. For the same reason, Category:War video games set in Europe and Category:War video games set in Asia may be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


January 17

Category:Songs about days

Nominator's rationale: There are over 20 songs in this category with the title "Someday". Are such songs really about days? WP:SHAREDNAME and just plain overcategorization by a very generalized topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: The songs refer to either specific days of the week, specific holidays or reflect hope about about an undetermined day when the protagonist of the song will solve a certain problem. In all cases it gives the protagonist in the song a certain perspective about these days. The songs aren't just about his/her emotions alone, but also put them in a certain time frame. User:Kjell Knudde 10:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC).
Someday? Really? I could see having Category:Songs about days of the week but this is just overkill. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs pruning, not deletion. I Don't Like Mondays is centred on Monday, the beginning of the work week. Graduation Day (The Four Freshmen song) is about a specific day, graduation day.--Mvqr (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The problem is not with the actual category but whether the pages in the category have supporting evidence to be included in said category, as per WP:CATV. This is only an issue if the editor adding the category is introducing original research or not at least skimming the article beforehand to learn about the song's true meaning, therefore adding an incorrect category. There are some cases where "day" is being used metaphorically, but this problem is not rooted within the category itself. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Who's going to do this maintenance before it gets completely out of hand? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs about nights

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. Are all these songs really about nights besides some form of the word "night" being in the title? Seems like a bit of an obscure connection. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The category's creator, Kjell Knudde (talk · contribs) seems to have had a good idea, but it has recently been expanded. Many of the songs on my watchlist that have the word "night" or "tonight" in them have been added, and yet they are not about nights, they are simply discussing things that have or may occur on a given night. As long as the categories entries are duly vetted, I think it could be a good cat, otherwise, it makes no sense to keep it and will become fodder for edit wars. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: The songs refer to nights as a moment of loneliness, partying or a memorable romantic moment. In all cases it gives the protagonist in the song a certain perspective about these nights. They serve as mood pieces. The songs aren't just about his/her emotions alone, but also put them in a certain time frame. When the word "Tonight" is used, it provides the protagonist of the song with an anticipation about the upcoming night. In all cases the songs put a strong emphasis on nights and would make less sense if the lyrics didn't directly refer to it. User:Kjell Knudde 10:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}.
  • Keep. Certainly some pruning is in order. However while Vincent (Don McLean song) ("Starry starry night" in the refrain) is not truly on the night, songs such as Star Light, Star Bright, Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, or Lonely Nights are certainly centred around the concept of the night. Mvqr (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm going to repeat what I said above: The problem is not with the actual category but whether the pages in the category have supporting evidence to be included in said category, as per WP:CATV. This is only an issue if the editor adding the category is introducing original research or not at least skimming the article beforehand to learn about the song's true meaning, therefore adding an incorrect category. There are some cases where "night" is being used metaphorically, but this problem is not rooted within the category itself. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Concur with related comments above. - JGabbard (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:ARPG MMO hybrid games

Nominator's rationale: Without a main article to base this on, this category feels like a case of WP:NARROWCAT. If this category is kept, it desperately needs a rename. The current name is completely made up and yields no google results other than Gpedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Please stop spreading misinformation. #1, #2 & #3. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This search produces only Gpedia and Gpedia mirrors. At any rate, it's still a very narrow category. I would support merge per Marcocapelle. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no well established abbreviation, but the terms I found in use are MMOARPG, Action-MMORPG, MMO Action-RPG and ARPG MMO. We could also use the term massively multiplayer online action role-playing video game, but its very long. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Fractional airlines

Nominator's rationale: Fractional ownership of aircraft is an aviation industry business model whereby ownership of an aircraft (commonly a private jet) is pooled among private members, and revenue flights conform to regulations governing on-demand or charter operations (for example, 14 CFR Part 135 in the US).

The category should be renamed because fractional air operators are charter (or 'on demand')) organizations, not scheduled airlines. Airlines operate under their own regulatory standards (14 CFR Part 121 in the US). Headphase (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Academics of the Helsinki University of Technology

Nominator's rationale: Seem to be the same thing Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge - the creator of the newer one (Rathfelder) should have noticed the existence of the earlier one. Regardless of the outcome of this cfd, terminology in Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland should be harmonised (one way or the other). Oculi (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oculi is right on both counts. I think the reason I missed the earlier category because it wasnt in the form I was expecting. But I am afraid earlier efforts to agree the form of these categories have not got anywhere. Is there any mechanism which might help? Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait and relist nominating all Finnish siblings. I do not speak Finnish and have no idea whether the most appropriate translation is the Americanism of faculty (used for 9) or the British norm of academics (7 cases) in the parent. Certainly all 16 should be harmonised one way or the other. Is there a Finnish speaker who can advise? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge (or else merge), the two categories have the same scope. Merging does not have to wait for a broader renaming proposal: even when there is no consensus to rename any of the siblings, the merge should still go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Smog (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Artist has a significant number of projects under both names (14 as Smog, 8 as Bill Callahan) and I think it would make sense to keep those names separate in this regard. QuietHere (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can definitely support this solution. QuietHere (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Gpedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FAll_current_discussions">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>