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 01:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC). Currently, there are 56 open requests (refresh).


Current requests

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

Category:Songs produced by Tonči Huljić category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what was removed, but managed to add 2 new members. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opposed requests

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

  • Category:Chief Justices of Gibraltar to Category:Chief justices of Gibraltar – C2A. Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose per C2d. The main article is at Chief Justice of Gibraltar as it's a proper noun. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Timrollpickering: we have duplication and so should merge one way or the other. The capitalised version is the newer page. C2C within Category:Chief justices by country would currently mean using capitals, but IMHO the subcats of that one all need renaming to lower case like Category:Vice presidents – within that one, the articles about the office use capitals, but generic references to the title in plurals (lists and category names) use lower case. There is a guideline about this but I can't remember it right now... – Fayenatic London 19:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I dont mind which way it goes. Can we merge them and then discuss the capitalisation? Rathfelder (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I propose to process it as nominated.– Fayenatic London 08:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Reverse merge per C2C & C2D Most categories are still using capitals properly, they haven't been changed by the handful of obsessives who forced a bad section into the style guide and then proceeded to treat it as a dictat from on high. The office/title distinction is a hair split given how often a post holder is referred to by the position title as a proper noun but that distinction has been lost on the obsessives. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Process as nominated. Chief Justice of Gibraltar is a title; Chief justices of Gibraltar is not. Oculi (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Current discussions

August 10

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group templates

Nominator's rationale: Empty category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group people

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



August 9

Category:Naval mutinies in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. I also believe it should be moved up a category and be a subcategory of Category:Mutinies instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Breton businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between ethnicity and occupation, see also WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alternatively rename them scientists/businesspeople from Brittany. Geography seems more significant than ethnicity with these biographies. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Soldiers in science fiction

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Unless the soldier is a supersoldier (and there's already a category for that), the fact that they appear in a sci-fi setting isn't defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aerial warfare in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, to make it more definingly about aerial warfare. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Invasions in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, to make it more definingly about things that are specifically about invasions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename categories Category:Human rights abuses by period and Category:Crime in Australia by time

Rename Category:Human rights abuses by period to Category:Human rights abuses by century; to be a subcategory of Category:Crimes by century,

Rename Category:Crime in Australia by time to Category:Crime in Australia by century similar to Category:Crime in Norway by century, and as a subcategory of Category:Crimes by country and century,

Both these categories relate to the last three centuries, and renaming will integrate them into a series, rather than being “orphan” categories. Hugo999 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Novels about war and conflict

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is very little discernible difference between one category and the other. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works by period

Nominator's rationale: rename and merge, "by period" is the standard format of these types of categories (e.g. Category:Arts by period, Category:Literature by period, Category:Architecture by period) and there is no reason to have two of these categories. If this goes ahead, I presume that the "by date" and "by period of creation" subcategories can be speedily be renamed to "by period". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose it's works by date. The date category tree is by date. Periods are a subset of dates. The Baroque Period is a period, 1842 is a date, not a period. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose To take a random example; "Piano concerti of the Classical period" and "Piano concerti of the Romantic period" (is that how the categories are named? do they even exist? whatever, the idea is the same no matter what the categories are) is a meaningfully separate way to distinguish these than "Piano concerti by date of composition" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. Category:Works by period of creation seems to have been created by user:Stefanomione to separate named-period categories from date-based categories. I find this separation unnecessary. That user has since been banned from category activity and much of his work has been reverted. – Fayenatic London 09:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I feel this distinction is entirely valid and should be retained, as per similar comments above on this item. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:French mission settlements in North America

Nominator's rationale: The current name gives the mistaken impression that is it meant to include missions started by French-Canadian and French-American priests after the fall of New France. The note on the category page makes it clear this category is for missions in New France only. A separate category will need to be create for "French missions" created after the fall of New France. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 16:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Banks based in in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex

Nominator's rationale: does not need double "in" - Arjayay (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, but this can be speedied, surely? Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Breton women

Nominator's rationale: rename, save one article (to be purged) these are women of the medieval Duchy of Brittany. After renaming the category can be reparented to Category:Medieval Breton people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose renaming. The existing, broad category covers all Breton/ethnic Breton women, not just a certain specific time period. Scanlan (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:17th-century Breton people

Nominator's rationale: merge overdue categories, the duchy of Brittany lost its independence halfway the 16th century, and rename or merge the parent category for less ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bishopric of Trent

Nominator's rationale: The scope is not concerned with the see (diocese) of Trent but with the princely state of the Holy Roman Empire. Name is consistent with other Price-Bishoprics of the Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not against the rename, but the category is small enough to be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let's keep for the moment. The above comment might be true for every bishopric Category so a wider discussion may be needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bengali-language newspapers published in the United States

Nominator's rationale: One of several 1-page subcategories of the listed merge target; I will bulk nominate all of them if this one closes as merge. Should also be merged to Category:Bengali-language newspapers. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Debut live albums

Nominator's rationale: There is really nothing significant or defining about an album being a music act's first live album. These could be released early in one's career or late or even after they pass. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This is to not include such debut mixtape and live albums under the debut albums categories which are for studio albums. So many bands and artists release mixtape albums or live albums as their first ever album, before their debut studio album. I've seen many live albums inappropriately categorized as a debut studio album and this category is to distinguish the two. As you can see in Category:Debut albums, Category:Debut mixtape albums also exists. It was right for Category:Debut remix albums to go, as this type of album would never be released as an artist's first ever album. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see a single live album in this category that qualifies as an artist's debut release, so this interpretation seems a little fogged. If this is indeed true, and this category gets kept, these articles should be purged. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is true, they just haven't been added yet. Category still being populated. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Characters in animated series

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Category:Animated television characters by gender and Category:Animated television characters by series. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swiss people by language

Nominator's rationale: The first three category pages state that they are mis-named or ambiguously named. That text was added by Dbachmann in 2016.[1] This is a procedural nomination to open a discussion either for renaming or for that explanatory text to be replaced. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An alternative is to delete the first three. If fully populated, way too many Swiss people would be in a German- or French-speaking category to make the categories useful. And with some exceptions the language borders coincide with the canton borders (WP:OVERLAPCAT). The 4th nomination is just to create a new subcategory, but it should become a subcategory of Category:Ethnic groups in Switzerland, because it has nothing to do with ancestry. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support deleting the first three for the reasons described by Marcoapelle.--User:Namiba 13:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep -- rather than rename. Some cantons are Francophone; others are German-speaking; a few are Italian-speaking. It would be better to split Swiss people by canton. Swiss people can be split by canton, and these categories can be groups according to language. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We already have Category:People by canton in Switzerland but I think we'd better leave it to implied language instead of creating explicit container categories for language on top of the canton categories. Two cantons are bilingual by exception (Valais and Graubünden) and there can also be individual exceptions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They can not clearly be related to a canton so we might have a separate discussion about them. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those would definitely require a separate discussion, since writers and singers are much more often categorized by language than people of other professions. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have put those sets (singers, writers) into the nominated categories – thank you. I also found Category:Suisse romande as a parent category for French-speaking Switzerland, but no equivalents for the others. – Fayenatic London 14:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Toho Monsters

Nominator's rationale: I don't think "monsters" needs to be capitalized. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Standardized tests for Physics

Nominator's rationale: Category with a single article serving no real purpose. OpenScience709 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Hotels in Financial District, Boston

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Hotels in Boston. No need for a subcategory with a single entry. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Porto-Novo

Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in three categories, of which one article does not really belong in a city category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Child murder during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Russia has invaded Ukraine several times, this format follows similar categories such as Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the parent article is called 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 11:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Football teams in Austria-Hungary

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layers, with one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Set families

Nominator's rationale: To match the main article, Family of sets. The majority of contents are of a set category. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:Family of sets. This is clearly a topic category: most of the contents are theorems, problems, lemmas, conjectures, theories etc and not families of sets. Oculi (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Islamic characters in comics

Nominator's rationale: Muslim is prefered term ★Trekker (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


August 8

Category:Twitch streamer stubs

Nominator's rationale: Following Category:Twitch (service) streamers. L33tm4n (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People from Brittany

Nominator's rationale: The anchor article is Bretons. Clearly not everyone "from Brittany" is ethnically a Breton, but I dont think it is realistic to try to distinguish them from each other, and the existing subcategories dont succeed in doing so. The headnote and the article define Bretons primarily by geography. NB maybe the merger should be the other way round. But I dont think we should have the two categories unless there is a clear distinction, which I dont think is possible. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have added some explanatory text on the page of Category:Breton people to clarify the distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, the Category:People from Brittany and its many subcategories [should] refer to the administrative region, which has as much 'right to exist' independently as a category as those for every other French region. If it is felt that the distinction between things relating to traditional, cultural language-based Brittany (i.e current Category:Breton culture‎ etc) and those relating to modern-day, administrative, non-necessarily-Breton-in-nature Brittany is not clear enough, then consideration could be given to re-naming the latter Category:People from Brittany (administrative region) or similar - that would use the same phrasing as Category:People from Occitania (administrative region). As mentioned above, Category:Breton people by occupation should be looked at. Some of the subcats there relate to 'old Brittany', but many are mostly or entirely modern-day people living in the region, i.e Breton scientists, Breton businesspeople‎, Breton musicians, Breton artists and Breton writers - those of the relevant vocation from an older, pre-France period can be distinguished as such by the existing 'Xth century Breton people' ‎category, and if a significant portion of their work refers to Breton culture/language, there are indicative categories for that too. It would be more straightforward to re-name/re-purpose these smaller categories than the original proposal, although I believe we are thinking on the same lines in wanting to tidy this up. Crowsus (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Aruban expatriates in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is an invalid category: Aruba is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, no other sovereign state involved in this situation Crowsus (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be Closed to match outcome of Curaçao category (above). The considerations are exactly the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Curaçao expatriates in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is an invalid category: Curaçao is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, no other sovereign state involved in this situation Crowsus (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In contrast to above I cannot find a proper source for regulation of migration from Curaçao to the Netherlands. If deleted, the subcategory should be deleted too, I have tagged that one too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Possible keep -- These are separate polities separated by the Atlantic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This government document links to the individual requirements for mainland Netherlands citizens going to the islands, but states "If you want to relocate to the Netherlands from Aruba, Curaçao or St Maarten, you don't have to meet any conditions" so it appears it is not a mirror image situation. My impression is that the requirements for Dutch people would be very much a formality, and other information I have found in respect of visas (eg here) is that citizens of Curaçao etc are Dutch citizens with the same passport and travel rights as those from the mainland. But agree its not a clear cut situation. Crowsus (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Dutch expatriates in Curaçao

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is an invalid category: Curaçao is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, no other sovereign state involved in this situation Crowsus (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not sure about this. Dutch people need to have a residence permit to settle here [2]. I think the status of Curaçao is more comparable to membership of the British Commonwealth than to Scotland. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Dutch emigrants in Curaçao as this maintains the intent of the category without using incorrect wording. While expatriate specifically implies leaving one's home country for another, emigration includes those who moved from one part of their home country to another with special administrative status. Other categories exist under this precedent, such as Category:Chinese emigrants to Hong Kong. Sam WalczakTalk/Edits 18:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Might keep -- Curaçao was a Dutch colony, so that it is effectively a separate polity from the mother country. I think it is self-governing, somewhat like British overseas territories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I dont think you can be an expatriate in your own country, but you can certainly migrate from one part of it to another. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • While it is obvious that you can't be an expatriate in your own country, the question is whether or not these two islands are still "the same country" as the Netherlands. The perception in the Netherlands is that, with the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles in 2010, Curaçao and Aruba became independent countries (with a few shared facilities) while the other four islands remained Dutch. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Dolby Cinema films

Nominator's rationale: Whether or not a film is in Dolby Cinema format is not an essential or defining characteristic of the film. If an article happens to mention this format, it is usually in the context of a press release or a source reiterating that press release's details. Reviews and similar coverage do not mention it, unlike something like true IMAX format. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:American women of Filipino descent in politics

Nominator's rationale: This would match up with categories such as Category:21st-century American women politicians. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 07:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Punjabi cinema

Nominator's rationale: The name "Punjabi cinema" is confusing. We have two Punjab in India and Pakistan. We have the category Category:Cinema of Punjab for whole Punjab Region (including India and Pakistan) That's why I suggest to rename it to "Cinema of Punjab, India" You can rename it to "Pollywood" also because we have category "Lollywood" for Pakistani Punjabi Cinema. But Pollywood also means Peshto Cinema. Mehedi Abedin 23:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: I understand why you oppose. But even you are right many people will wounder that which Punjab the category is about? That will be confusing. For example, we have Category named "Cinema of West Bengal" that makes Bengali cinema. But we don't have category named "Bengali cinema". Why? Because Cinema of Bangladesh makes Bengali cinema and having a category of Bengali cinema will create confusion. The same apply for Punjabi cinema related categories. It will be best if we can rename and convert the category to "state cinema based category" instead of "language cinema based category". No other country make Telegu cinema. So having Category:Telugu cinema will not create confusion. The example given by you is out of the main concern. Mehedi Abedin 23:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While the article may be limited to India, it is unlikely that the term is limited to India. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Agree entirely; which is why the article (and its category) should both be renamed. I expect there is Punjabi cinema outside Asia. Oculi (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Effect of tropical cyclones

Nominator's rationale: rename/merge/split, better alignment between the category layers. All content is about tropical cyclones aka hurricanes but it does make sense to have a separate US subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC) (signed a few hours later)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:BBC 100 Women

Nominator's rationale: Delete We have consistently found, most recently at Gpedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Category:Time 100, that these categories based on published lists are WP:NOTDEFINING to the people categorized in them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep not based on nom. I'm not sure what this means - but this list is in a different class to "40 under 40" and other clickbait titles. The unveiling of this list attracts such invitees as Women in Red who devote edit time to sorting out the notable in the list from the (few) ephemeral. The BBC is reliable and it doesnt publish oodles of lists - I would define someone as "she was on the BBC 100 women list" and you will see this mentioned in articles and on wiki. Have a look at the edit histories of these women. Their articles are created because they are "defined" by this list. Victuallers (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep The category usefully defines the subject as a recipient of a BBC100 listing. Great use is made of the category by those on WP who care for women biographies. The purpose of categories is to serve use cases & we should prioritise that over a fetish about the subjective notion of "non-defining". --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Definingness is not a fetish, it is the primary criterion for the existence of categories. Besides for maintenance purposes there are already lists at 100 Women (BBC). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete -- This is essentially a list of people featured in a BBC broadcast programme series. Possibly listify, but the main article is largely a list. The people were probably selected by BBC as notable. They did not become notable by being featured. Not exactly a performance category but not too dissimilar. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Wow! there was a bbc programme? Can you send a link? I went to the event at the BBC but I never knew there was a TV programme. When was it broadcast? Can you add this extra detail to the Gpedia aricle? Victuallers (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete What links a scientist with a peace activist with a rapper? Nothing, save that they were listed as women of note in a BBC program. They are named in the article 100 Women (BBC) and time would be better spent seeing if some of the redlinks there shouldn't become blue. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh great you saw it too. This programme seems amazing. Tell us more! Oh and What links a scientist with a peace activist with a rapper? Could it be that they all French? Or they are all amputees? Or all medically trained? Are all these categories incorrect? Victuallers (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Victuallers. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom, which is consistent with WP:OCAWARD and WP:OCLIST. Surely there are better ways to improve equal representation on Gpedia than to keep non-defining categories about appearances in a media series that feature 100 people every year. JBchrch talk 20:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Tagishsimon Gamaliel (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CATDEF. If it was defining for the subject, then it should be mentioned in the lead of the article. Looking at several at random: Eleni Antoniadou mentioned briefly in the career sub-section, Chipo Chung not mentioned anywhere, Alicia Garza mentioned pretty near to the end of her bio, Scarlett Curtis no mention, Nadia Comăneci no mention, Lucy Finch at the end of her bio, Jane Fonda right at the end of the article in the very last bit of awards & honours, Gurinder Chadha no mention. Those were literally the first ones I checked, and at best the info is a brief mention buried deep in the article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOPTEN. What makes this list especially relevant to most of its recipients? It seems to have a very large amount of entries every year, and the criteria isn't mentioned anywhere. And it is clearly not as famous as the Fortune 500 and Time 100, whose categories have been similarly deleted. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I share the opinions of both Tagishsimon and Victuallers but would also point out that these mainly young enterprising individuals are selected for the impact they have made, often in countries which receive little attention. I am not aware of any TV programmes but can confirm that most, if not all, have been featured on radio broadcasts of the BBC World Service, in addition to fairly detailed background on the BBC's website. The category appears to me to have much in common with the many categories we have in relation to awards.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep the BBC is a highly regarded broadcasting organisation, and its 100 Women list is drawn from women who have been in the news across the World Service for their roles in society, please see: "...candidates who had made the headlines or influenced important stories over the past 12 months, as well as those who have inspiring stories to tell, achieved something significant or influenced their societies in ways that wouldn't necessarily make the news." So to answer the question about commonality, it is that the recipients of the listing are all women who have influenced societal issues in their countries of origin, and subsequently have had measurable impact around the world. This article mentions the importance of 100 Women to the representation of women on Gpedia. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your argument, is not about the notability of the members of the cat, but the claim, and by all those supporting keep, that there should be a category scheme, "People mentioned by broadcaster." Because that is what you are supporting. How about Presidents mentioned on Fox News? Or musicians mentioned on MTV? Cartoon characters on Disney Channel? Because voting! keep here makes that a possibility with WP:CATDEF being totally ignored. Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing differentiating this category from the Category:The X Factor (British TV series) contestants and their ilk here on enwp if we are going down "this is nothing but a whole list of people who appeared on a BBC programme", etc. route. The main article should be imo broken down by year and individual articles created for each one as that would allow us to go more in depth as to why these people were chosen and make it more consistent with other award articles. -Yupik (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. The entries already exist in a list, so why have a WP:TOPTEN-skirting category that isn't defining? Why this list and not the far more famous Time 100 or Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women or any other ranking of people whose only unifying characteristic is "being chosen for a "top people" list in [year]"? And why not turn it into a projectspace category if it's really needed for article creation, like we do for edit-a-thons? Also, in the list page, how does reproducing the list for each year not constitute a copyright violation? Revisions reproducing the Time 100 list were revdeled and a restriction to including only the top 10 was imposed. This is an identical situation to the list article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Songs about seasons

Nominator's rationale: These songs are about something that happened/was imagined to have happened one season, not about THE season. Many of the articles are silent about what the lyrics are about. Please see similar discussions which resulted in delete, CfD for Songs about days and CfD for songs about months Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Hama in the Syrian civil war

Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Lists of Disney television series episodes

I think this category needs to be "Disney Channel-related lists," as the network has its established brand distinct from other Disney units (similar to Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network). It seems redundant to "Lists of Disney Channel television series episodes‎" and "Television series by Disney." Most shows listed fall within Disney Branded Television (formerly Disney Channels Worldwide) either way. (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSmike46 (talkcontribs) Reply[reply]

  • Procedural comment, this nomination was added the 23rd of July rather than the 20th. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not all of it seems to be Disney Channel-related. There is also e.g. List of Disney XD TV channels. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: This is part comment, part opposition, but not only does it not specifically only cover Disney Channel but this user appears to have added non-episode-related pages (like the aforementioned Disney XD one) to the category in an attempt to change its scope before requesting this change. (The following is more comment than explanation of opposition.) They tried to speedy rename this and a few other categories a few times (without creating an entry or explaining why, so the only way people could easily oppose it was to revert the incomplete speedy edit) before doing an incomplete attempt at full discussion on several pages (only placing the template, not creating the discussion, similar to the issue with the speedies) before finally getting the hang of it and making this CFD discussion. I have a hypothesis that all the dating is off from when it was actually posted here because perhaps they posted about it somewhere else and are copying that explanation of their reasoning? - Purplewowies (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: To me this appears to represent a scope change, and I'm not aware that there was any discussion with any WikiProjects that might have a stake in this kind of change. As Purple noted above, this editor has made other dubious category-related edits that make me concerned that they don't have a good understanding of how categorization works, and as such, I can't support their efforts to change categories without any indication that they're speaking from an informed position. If and when editors with experience working on Disney-related articles come forward supporting this change, I'll reconsider my position, but at this time I feel Mega needs to focus more on collaborating with their fellow editors rather than striking out on their own in this manner. DonIago (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Split instead to the target name, as most of the current contents are lists of program(me)s on Disney Channel. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support split, there is enough content for a separate Disney Channel category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Ballpoint pen art

Nominator's rationale: rename and reparent per actual content of the category. Apart from the main article they are all biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Fwiw, there's Spirograph there too. Not sure what is "best" here, so I'm neutral. "Artists" are narrower, the current name allows for adding for example works of art, not that I know of any with articles atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Engineer of the Russian Empire

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artists of the Russian Empire

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Models of the Russian Empire

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Railway stations served by Crossrail

Nominator's rationale: Crossrail is not the company serving these stations, and all stations are served on the Elizabeth line, which stems from the Crossrail project. Jalen Folf (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Songs written by Sin

Nominator's rationale: It needs disambiguating from the deadly sins, but as the person doesn't have an article not sure of the options, (songwriter), (composer), (record producer). Richhoncho (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete -- The songs are not in English; there are only two items (usual minimum 5); no main article on Sin (person). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, there's no minimum role per WP:SMALLCAT. Nor had being an English subject been a requirement. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment by nominator. OK It was a hot day yesterday and we all make mistakes, so no harm done, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply and the language of the songs in the category is not defining for not having a category. The nomination is to disambiguate from Sin, and on further reflection I suggest Category:Songs written by Sin (record producer). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Song recordings produced by Sin

Nominator's rationale: It needs disambiguating from the deadly sins, but as the person doesn't have an article not sure of the options, (songwriter), (composer), (record producer). Richhoncho (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete -- The songs are not in English; there are only two items (usual minimum 5); no main article on Sin (person). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually there are 5. Richhoncho (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, there's no minimum role per WP:SMALLCAT. Nor had being an English subject been a requirement. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment by nominator. OK It was a hot day yesterday and we all make mistakes, so no harm done, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply and the language of the songs in the category is not defining for not having a category. The nomination is to disambiguate from Sin, and on further reflection I suggest Category:Song recordings produced by Sin (record producer). It would be good to have input from the creator of the cats, they were notified.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Nakhchivan-Maragha school of architecture

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a term that only appears in Soviet/Azerbaijani historiography, i.e. historiography loaded with historic negationism vis-a-vis the history of the region (see also; Historical negationism#Azerbaijan, Media freedom in Azerbaijan, Human rights in Azerbaijan, Human rights in the Soviet Union). - LouisAragon (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per argument. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep LouisAragon The Nakhchivan-Maraga school of architecture was created in the era of Eldiguzids. And at that time, Nakhchivan and Maraga were part of the same state. Of course, it is normal that such an architecture exists in these regions. It's just the name of an architectural school. No territorial claims. In Iranian architecture, the Arg of Tabriz, Dome of Soltaniyeh and Red tomb located in Maragha belong to the Azerbaijani architecture. Iranian researchers also confirm this. --Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's not a single WP:RS out there which defines and demarcates a "Nakhchivan-Maragha school of architecture", hence this category does not belong on Gpedia.
  • "It's just the name of an architectural school. No territorial claims. In Iranian architecture, the Arg of Tabriz, Dome of Soltaniyeh and Red tomb located in Maragha belong to the Azerbaijani architecture."
Regardless of whether some local architects from modern Iran defined this as "Azari" or "Azarbayjani" or not (referring to Iran's own Azerbaijan region), you know very well that when you feed this category in Category:Architectural schools of Azerbaijan (which in turn feeds into Category:Architecture of Azerbaijan), the intention is to connect it to the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan (the territory of which was not known as Azerbaijan at the time) and to detach it from Iran. Its like calling Byzantine architecture in North Macedonia "North Macedonian architecture". Thanks for confirming my earlier concerns about negationism though. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Filmed deaths

Nominator's rationale: Per the outcome of Gpedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_1#Category:Filmed_accidental_deaths, I reiterate my statement that most modern major incidents are caught on camera, and that this is not a defining trait of the category members. Some entries are neither biographies nor specifically about deaths. Pages should be upmerged to other categories, where applicable. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I highly dispute that most major incidents are filmed. Where's the proof in that? How would most suicides be filmed, unless the suicider filmed it themselves, which many wouldn't do. Similarly, why would most killings be filmed? Many people would be busy killing or trying to avoid being killed, to participate in filming their own incidents. Most serial killers certainly don't seem to film their kills. As for third party filming, where are the cameras in the middle of the jungle? There's no evidence that the Murdaugh murders were filmed and they were recent and high profile. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep/Manually merge per Marcocapelle --Koltinn (talk) 10:23, 01 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Filmed landslides

Nominator's rationale: Mose modern incidents are filmed, not a defining characteristic. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, category is based on a trivial characteristic. Merging is not needed, the articles are already in a landslides by country category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support deletion --Lenticel (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I dispute that most landslides are filmed. Most landslides happen outside of human observation, so are certainly not filmed. Even incidents that happen inside of human environments, many of those that happen at night are not filmed or not visibly so, as the film shows nothing -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Filmed police brutality

Nominator's rationale: Most modern incidents are filmed, not a defining characteristic. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge, category is based on a trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I would dispute that "most" modern incidents are filmed. I would say that most are not filmed at all. Whether the bodycam is off or malfunctioning, or there is no bodycam, or the interrogation room filming is turned off, or it happens in an unmonitored van, it is many times not filmed at all. If there is no third party, the first party frequently is unable to film it. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Albanians in Montenegro

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2C, consistency with established category tree names (WP:CATNAME#Heritage). Griboski (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The reason I created the category is for the purpose of being able to distinguish between ethnic Albanians in Montenegro and ethnic Montenegrins of Albanian origin (Petar Perkolic, Camil Sijaric). Lumping them all together into "Montenegrins of Albanian descent" feels like an inaccurate representation of their respective identities.Alltan (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The category applies for both cases. A person who is a Montenegrin citizen and of Albanian ancestry belongs in the category Montenegrin people of Albanian descent, regardless of whether they just arrived there or their Albanian ancestry goes back several generations. This is generally done for all ethnic origins in a given country. --Griboski (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would this apply to people of Albanian origin who may not consider themselves as such AND are citizens of Montenegro? Say for example Marko Miljanov, Avdo Mededovic and Jakup Ferri. All these were Albanian origin, but would it be fair to say they are nothing more than Montenegrins of Albanian descent? Any user who would see say Andrija Radovic and Ali Pasha of Gusinje would be rightfully confused. I believe a second category is very much warranted.Alltan (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S, take a look at the category "Serbs of Montenegro". It usually sits right next to "Montenegrin people of Serbian descent".Alltan (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you'd add "Albanians in Montenegro" to Miljanov? That makes less sense considering his background/identity as Serb. I did notice there were specific categoric splits in some cases. I just wasn't sure about the purpose of the additional category. Given the overlap, I assumed it would be a replacement for the category tree since nearly all of those who were added were citizens of Montenegro of Albanian descent. It seemed like an overcategorization. --Griboski (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are 29 articles under the category "Montenegrin people of Serbian descent", while the "Serbs of Montenegro" one includes around 244. I appreciate your concern, but as I said, there has to be a certain level of distinction between the above mentioned figures, regardless of their Albanian origin. On Miljanov, it would not be accurate at all to describe him as an Albanian in Montenegro. He was however of direct maternal and paternal Albanian origin, therefore the "Montenegrins of Albanian descent" would be, relatively, fitting. I believe all these factors give merit to keeping the category.Alltan (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment, some articles such as Bljedi Bardic may be moved from one category to the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reverse merge The Albanian population is an ethnic population, not one that migrated, so I think "descent" does not quite work. Descent works in the Americas with populations that have migrated, but does not work with ethnic groups who have no clear connection to a place. Albanians as a people and Albania as a country are interelated topics, but you need no ancestor who ever lived in modern Albania to be Albanian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • True but one can also (no longer) be part of the ethnic Albanian community and still having Albanian ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose merge In Montenegro, there is a clear distinction between Albanians in Montenegro and Montenegrins of Albanian descent. Albanians are a constitutionally recognized minority in Montenegro, they are not just Montenegrin citizens of Albanian descent. The term Montenegrin of Albanian descent is mostly used for ethnic Montenegrins who have some - recent or distant - Albanian origin. When this term is used in a conversation, all participants know that the person to whom they're referring is not an Albanian in Montenegro but an ethnic Montenegrin or at the very least a non-Albanian, Montenegrin citizen.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Legacy sequels

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. The listed definition also disagrees with Sequel, which states 20 years, not 10. This also appears to be a film specific term, but the category is full of video games and comics as well, industries that do not, to my knowledge, ever use the term. -- ferret (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep- The listed definition can easily be fixed, I believe it is WP:DEFINING, and even if other industries do not use the term, the term still makes sense when applied (also there are plenty of film entries anyway). Also, Sequel needs more non-film examples anyway. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You believe this is something commonly and consistently used in reference to these topics? I don't believe that's the case even for the films. A quick review found none of them to mention the term in their prose. Very defining. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Regardless of whether 10, 15, or 20 years is picked, it's an arbitrary divide. Per suggestion at arbitrary cat rule, if there's a desire to represent this information, make a list article like "List of film sequels by time since previous entry" that can show that Tron Legacy came out 28 years after Tron and the like. (Canvassing disclaimer: knew about this due to a mention on Discord - as did the above vote, I suspect.) SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - sorry for not mentioning that, yes, I did also hear it through Discord. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - I agree, however, I read it being used on numerous different news sites. It seems to bee a term that wikipedia-notable sources have been using hence why I made the category.Americanfreedom (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Americanfreedom: I'm sure it was made in good faith, just I'm not sure a category is the right approach here - if notable sources describe it as such, great, but that can be normal article content rather than categories. Maybe, per my above comment, using the current entries to start a List of sequels by time since previous entry, and tag it with "incomplete list"? Then make List of legacy sequels redirect to that new article. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, any cutoff is too arbitrary. A list will serve the purpose better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Micrococcineae

Nominator's rationale: The suborder Micrococcineae is no longer in common use. The family Micrococcaceae encompasses the same genera as the obsolete Micrococcineae. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]


August 7

Category:Tetrazines

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only the main article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
copy of WP:CFDS discussion
Regards JWBE (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:American monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests

Nominator's rationale: Perhaps the subcategory should also use "in Virginia" instead of "Virginian..." (?) --Another Believer (Talk) 23:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 14:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Animated characters in film

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 15:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is a character being an animated character in a live action film notable enough that we should put such a character in such a category. I am noticing that the hulk is being included here, but as a character Bruce Banner/the Hulk are one, and sometimes he is animated and sometimes not. So is being anominated some of the time defining enough or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, animation is a defining characteristic of the film, not of its characters. At most (if there are any) Category:Animated characters in non-animated films would be defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deletion will not work yet, because of the subcategories that are still in it. For now, it should be containerized. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apparently, the previous time, I had not seriously considered the distinction between animated characters in animated films versus animated characters in live action films. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep The chacter being animinated is distinct from the film being animated. Is Roger Rabbit in an animated film? How about Pete's Dragon Elliot in the 1970s film "Pete's Dragon"? I think the chacater itself being animated is worth noting even if they are the only animated character in the film, and I do not think a film becomes an "animated film" just because some of the characters are animated. If a film is live action with one animated chacter thrown in, it still remains a live action film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Completely agree with the latter. Appearing in a live action film would in fact be the only relevant occasion for animated characters to be categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Taoist pilgrimages

Nominator's rationale: rename, both articles are about Mazuism and it is unclear whether Mazuism is part of Taoism. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Dune (franchise) materials

Nominator's rationale: Most of the items in this category are merely redirects, with only one being its own article. Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category can be removed and the one article upmerged with no real consequence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 20:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And FYI, all of the redirects are already placed in Category:Dune (franchise) element redirects to lists via the template {{R from fictional element}}, so maintenance-wise they just need to be removed from this category after its deletion.— TAnthonyTalk 23:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Depictions of people

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, it is unclear why we need to find paintings and sculptures based on people at a different location than e.g. songs or videogames based on people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, obviously, although like Johnbod I do prefer 'about' than 'based on'. Note this is (for me) a result of this discussion the participants are welcome to read and engage with: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Culture#Naming_of_articles_in_Category:Topics_in_culture:_time_for_consistency? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment -- We seem to be coming round to the idea of merging both to Category:Works about real people. This covers paintings, film, books, etc. We need to draw a distinction between history and fiction. Inevitably, a painting of a historical event will be composed by the artist (not a photo) and a historical novel may involve real historical people, as well as people invented by the author for the purposes of his story. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge Category:Depictions of people to Category:Works based on people. No need to use "real". If they were not "real", they would be characters, or "fictional", etc. Oppose using "about". We use "based on", for WP:PRECISION reasons. To give an example, We Didn't Start the Fire could be grouped in a "works about people" category, but not in a "works based upon people" category. And consider Garden Party (Rick Nelson song), it's known to be based upon an event, but could also be said to be "about" people - clearly it should not be categorised this way. We focus on the specific over the all-too-broad. - jc37 10:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • (as nom) Several suggestions have been done to rename the target, which is not what this nomination is about. My conclusion is that the proposed merge is so obvious that it does not even have to be discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Attempted coups in the Soviet Union and Russia

Nominator's rationale: Although this presents historical continuity, we normally split categories by country rather than combine histories like this. The second nominated category contains Russia 1917, Soviet 1957 & 1991, Russia 1993. The first contains only the combined subcat for attempts. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support in principle because we have separate category trees for Russia and for Soviet Union. But I fear after splitting we are left with two very tiny categories. An alternative is to disperse the content among the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Query When does an attempted coup become a coup? What's the success criteria for a coup? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Thameslink railway stations

Nominator's rationale: I originally merged both these categories to enforce the original intent of this category, however, some stations in this category that are served by Thameslink are not served by Great Northern, and vice versa, and gives confusion to those searching within this category for stations in a specific company. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then they may be nominated for merger. Which also makes sense because it is one franchise. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]