WP:CFD/T

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_October_4

October 4

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Lostwave

Propose merging Category:Lostwave to Category:Lost musical works

Nominator's rationale: "Lostwave" is basically an ill-defined currently trendy Internet term that refers to music of unknown origins, which can also refer to completely lost works such as Ready 'n' Steady, or songs that are only known based on fragments, which seems to be the most common as listed on the page. While it is definitely "real" insofar its a term people use and there is something of a community around it, the fact it isn't clearly defined to begin with, and almost completely overlaps with "Lost musical works", "Rediscovered musical works" or "Works of unknown authorship" doesn't really make it suitable as a category. Iostn (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memoirs by American prison officers

Propose deleting Category:Memoirs by American prison officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. The category has two entries which could easily be upcat to Category:American memoirs and Category:Memoirs by prison officers Vegantics (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Riize

Propose deleting Category:Riize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only album articles which are already sufficiently categorized in an albums subcategory for the group. This is an unnecessary eponymous parent per WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per WP:CATMAIN. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 04:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an obvious case of WP:OCEPON. Artists only have an eponymous category if there are some articles about them personally, which is not often the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated vote rationale see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CATMAIN RachelTensions (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CATMAIN does not provide any rationale for keeping eponymous categories but simply provides instructions on how to categorize articles within an eponymous category should one exist. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This category has been expanded, with several new articles and subcategories added since this nomination was opened. May warrant re-evaluation. RachelTensions (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new subcat are just image files, which would already be placed in individual articles, and the group would be more defining to SM Rookies than the other way around. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 4 subcats added to the root category: Category:Riize songs, Category:Riize EPs, Category:Riize album covers, and Category:Riize audio samples. RachelTensions (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another article was just created & added. RachelTensions (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the albums and songs categories already link to each other (as usual), SM Rookies does not belong in this category, that leaves only one spin-off article next to the eponymous article and they already refer to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would all the subcats just have no parent cat? RachelTensions (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, all information about this topic is interlinked anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 4#Category:Riize.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spacecraft endings

Propose renaming Category:Spacecraft endings to Category:Spacecraft retirement

Nominator's rationale: There does not appear to be such a thing as a "spacecraft ending". I suggest renaming to correspond with spacecraft retirement, which can be the main article of the category. I do realize that will necessitate the removal of various subcategories, but as-is, it is too vague overall and does not correspond with any actual terms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NCT Wish albums

Propose deleting Category:NCT Wish albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Two redirects which are articles already in Category:NCT Wish songs. Information provided in the song articles do not further elaborate on the single albums to justify both albums and songs categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait some discussion needs to happen elsewhere as to whether the two articles should be reclassified as "single albums" rather than just "single" - I believe for consistency sake they should probably be migrated to the “single album” format which would be valid for this category.

Either way, the artist has an EP being released in about 5 hours that will inevitably have an article created in the extremely near future (within hours) that will belong in this category which could change the direction of this deletion discussion before the nomination can run its course. No point in going through a week worth of deletion discussion if by the end of it the nomination rationale that all the votes are based upon will no longer be valid. RachelTensions (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Steady (NCT Wish EP) has now been created and added to the category. There are now multiple articles using this category. RachelTensions (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support, as long as there aren't articles the category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle There are now articles. RachelTensions (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:NCT Wish EPs is now created and I moved the Steady (EP) there. Should this cat be deleted even though there's now a subcat? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 05:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two redirects and a subcategory as of relisting. Is this enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who are Wheelchair Users

Propose renaming Category:Actors who are Wheelchair Users to Category:Actors who are wheelchair users

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. Fram (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was after talking to two actors who are wheelchair users. Like Blind or Deaf actors, chair users have their own identity, and they have particular access needs which makes accessing the profession of acting particularly problematic. They seemed to be a category missing from Actors with Disabilities... which is a title that is questionable. I know quite a lot of Disabled Actors and although they are actors first, being a Disabled Actors has two useful interpretations. From a cultural standpoint they are a community, which is why when the Disabled Artists Alliance was formed, over 300 disabled actors and theatre creatives who lobby against cripping-up in the UK, they chose the name, because from a social model of disability perspective they are also disabled by the ableist attitudes and assumptions when it comes to casting. GRF (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a defining intersection? There are no other occupation categories in Category:Wheelchair users other than sports which is something different. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting point, but when you consider visibility of disability in dramatisation, people see the chair. There is an an actor with cerebral palsy who ambulant wheelchair user called Zak Ford-Williams. He has appeared on stage not in his chair, but as he can only stand for a limited amount of time, and his movements are so exhausting, his time on stage is all he can manage on the day because of a combination of pain and fatigue. He creates an illusion of not being disabled by pushing what he is capable of. He always takes a bow from his chair at the end of the performance and talks about the reaction of the audiences who make assumptions about him, and about this being a political act and post modernist in itself, and a wheelchair is a symbol of that. It is as important as any other portrayal of visible disability, and we have categories for other disabled actors, why not wheelchair users? GRF (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pppery to Actors with disabilities and Wheelchair users. Technically, using a wheelchair is not a disability (so egrs doesn't need to apply), so the comparison to being blind or deaf doesn't work amazingly. And even if it did count, the argument posed by Garethfw is for keeping disabled actors. Mason (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about a social, cultural, medical or political perspectives. If it is about diagnosis, how do we confirm hidden disability actors with for example dyslexia have a diagnosis, or self-diagnosed, self-diagnosed or "identify as..." which is not strictly medical, it is cultural. Then how do we deal with deaf, Deaf or hearing impaired actors? Here we have medical, cultural and political models.

I have dyslexia and ADHD (you have to trust me and I have a full diagnosis from two psychologists nd a psychiatrist, or so I say...), but if I was an actor the audience would not know I was disabled and if I declared I was there is no evidence apart from self-identity, which cannot be verified. So having a visible disability, or having the aspects of a condition being visible so the audience label me as "disabled" such as having one arm, that is both political, cultural and to a degree medical, although they are seeing a trait without knowing the condition. Which is where wheelchair users come in, although they have different conditions they can experience common barriers both in social attitudes as well as physical ones, and as such they are a community and have an identity, so this is social model of disability, and political model, regardless of medical.

I'm really confused because it is confusing as the categories do not seem to align with any particular model of disability. GRF (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing opposition to renaming if kept, but should this category be merged/deleted? If so, should we merge or just delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge This is not a defining intersection at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about aircraft

Propose merging Category:Video games about aircraft to Category:Aviation video games

Nominator's rationale: These are overlapping categories. THe merge target is older and was merged into this one outside of the cfd process. Mason (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These cannot be overlapping categories as Category:Aviation video games currently does not contain any content. I also believe you are saying I should have renamed Category:Aviation video games rather than creating a new category. Though these two categories are technically different, as the name and subcategories have or had a different structure, also Category:Helicopter video games wasn't a part of Category:Aviation video games before I redirected the category. Furthermore the category Category:Video games about aircraft is very small, just saying. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all the content from the Aviation category. All of the excuses/explanations you've listed does not justify circumventing the CFD process. Mason (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the original category of Category:Aviation video games was always too small, overly-vague, and conflicted with Category:Flight simulation video games. It is a better idea to instead just delete both Category:Aviation video games and Category:Video games about aircraft.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The right process is to request a rename at this forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current name of category actually works better, especially because it is a child category of Category:Video games about vehicles. When the page Category:Video games about aircraft is deleted and merged, we will have to rename the category to the original name I desired. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant that the current name works better. You should have proposed a rename instead of recreating a category. Mason (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually going to say that first because I changed my mind. We're doing any of that. We'll just merge it instead and leave it as is. The category is very small though. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think that the size of the category is relevant? It doesn't matter about the size. The problem is that you're circumventing the process. Mason (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all flight simulation games are about aircraft. Apparently some people don't realize that things that can fly, but are not aircraft also feature in games, such as dragon riding, bird riding, and other manner of fantastical creatures. Therefore, games about aircraft and flight simulators should be separate categories. Rather, delete Category:Aviation video games as overly vague. I am also concerned about the tree of Category:Works about aviation and whether that is vague and overlapping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an issue with converting "aviation" to "aircraft". The discussion is mainly about proper procedure. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This CfD process has been a disaster. Finding a non-vehicle based-simulator under Category:Flight simulation video games category is like finding a needle in a haystack, Category:Video games about aircraft will end up being a largely-overlapping category with Category:Flight simulation video games. So it is a better idea to just delete both Category:Aviation video games and Category:Video games about aircraft.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop double voting. The issue is that you circumvented the CFD process and are now suggesting delete because you don't like the verdict. Mason (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I just added Airplane Mode (video game) which would appear to be your supposed "needle in a haystack" given that it's about aircraft but has nothing to do with piloting them. This only further proves my point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm Are you opposing combining the categories, opposing the name, or endorsing circumvention of procedures? I'm fine with a merge and rename to the original. The issue is that there are two categories, and the Aviation video games category is much older, so it's edit history should be preserved. Mason (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is not much older than the other, both were created in the last 2 years, so there is not really a need to preserve history eithe way. I support maintaining the current status quo, while deleting "aviation" to avoid confusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Aviation video games, which I will note is currently a {{category redirect}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People supporting a merge, do you support deleting Category:Aviation video games?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical looping technologies

Propose merging Category:Chemical looping technologies to Category:Chemical process engineering

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There are one two pages in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, though I am not sure if Category:Chemical process engineering or Category:Chemical processes is the right target. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really sure either, so any content experts would be much appreciated! Mason (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with potential rename to expand scope slightly for inclusion of additional related articles. I've never heard the phrase "chemical looping", but I know that pressure swing adsorption, anthraquinone process, and several decaffeination processes are all a comparable concept. Maybe something with "cycle" rather than "loop" is better? These are all like a catalytic cycle, but where the cycle is interrupted by time and/or place instead of a one-pot type of process. Thanks for the WPCHEM ping, HouseBlaster! DMacks (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: so how exactly should this be renamed? And which other articles can be added after renaming? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not sure of the name. I'm in the chemistry world, not engineering, so I don't know if engineers have a more-general term here. In addition to the three articles I already mentioned, also sulfur–iodine cycle (and other thermochemical cycles) and Girdler sulfide process come to mind. DMacks (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! It hadn't even occurred to me that this is about engineering rather than about chemistry. I left a notification at the WikiProject Engineering talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're welcome! I looked up some likely synonym/descriptor phrases, and couldn' find anything else consistent. "Loop" in the context of reactor design seems to have several distinct modes (closed vs open; but a flow reactor might be a loop but not have discrete reaction zones; and component reactions might each be themselves a batch vs continuous). Hopefully some engineering folks can help figure out a reasonable term of art here. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll emphasize the message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering. And thank you to DMacks for your help so far!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, both of these processes can be pointed towards a broad category of Category:Chemical processes, followed by Category:Chemical_reactions or buried deeper under Category:Combustion.

Reasoning for this, looking at both associated articles, they describe oxidizing reactions (one literally for combustion and the other for a process of reformation/gasification (which is creates gases like H2/N2/etc.)) The name (if applicable) could be renamed to something to the effect of oxidative looping, combustion looping, process looping, etc. Process is probably the most broad and applicable — ChemicalBear (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: thoughts? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realize that this has been relisted twice already, but I think this needs more thurough discussion and consensus seems very close. I will ping people again :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: thoughts on the above? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had the expertise. I'm fine with either a rename suggested by content experts or a merge. Mason (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Como, North Carolina

Propose merging Category:People from Como, North Carolina to Category:People from Hertford County, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British patrolwomen

Propose merging Category:British patrolwomen to Category:British women police officers
Propose merging Category:Women West Yorkshire Police officers to Category:West Yorkshire Police officers and Category:British women police officers
Propose merging Category:Women Metropolitan Police officers to Category:British women police officers and Category:Metropolitan Police officers
Propose merging Category:Women Merseyside Police officers to Category:People from Merseyside and Category:British women police officers

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge these intersections doesn't meet the criteria for defining under WP:EGRS. One note: For Women Merseyside Police officers Either dual upmerge under egrs or broaden to Merseyside Police officers. Mason (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Women Metropolitan Police officers, which is clearly valuable as a large and notable category. Given the history of women in policing (and in the Met in particular), this is a notable intersection. Merge the rest, but only merge Category:Women Merseyside Police officers to Category:British women police officers. Note these are non-diffusing categories, so female officers should also be in the parent category for their force anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Necrothesp's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to know more about how the intersection between Women Police officers and the met is defining. Just because they're both important on their own doesn't mean that the intersection is. What does @Necrothesp think about repurpsong Category:Women Merseyside Police officers to Merseyside Police officers? Mason (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solent_University (and sub-categories)

Propose amending Category:Solent_University to Category:Southampton_Solent_University
Propose amending Category:People_associated_with_Solent_University to Category:People_associated_with_Southampton_Solent_University
Propose amending Category:Academics_of_Solent_University to Category:Academics_of_Southampton_Solent_University
Propose amending Category:Alumni_of_Solent_University to Category:Alumni_of_Southampton_Solent_University

Nominator's rationale: The university has changed its name and the alumni category link on the wikipedia page has been incorrectly updated, so is currently going to a blank category page Mystery Cat (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean a Blank Category page? Mason (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer science award winners

Propose merging Category:Computer science award winners to Category:Computer scientists by award

Nominator's rationale: These two categories currently have almost the same content and ideally should have exactly the same content. I couldn't find any existing documentation about which one is preferred, so I'm proposing merging one way but we could merge the other way too. Shardul.chiplunkar (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre

Propose merging Category:Members of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre to Category:Knights of the Holy Sepulchre

Nominator's rationale: This category is superfluous. If you're a member, you're a knight, and vice versa. M.O.X (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Downmerge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Oppose’’’ The Order consists of both knights, nuns and laywomen, several of whom are listed under this category. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the Monk (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Daniel the Monk's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 12:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, there are also dames next to knights. So there are two solutions: reverse merge, or split between knights and dames. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish expatriates in the Czech lands

Propose merging Category:Polish expatriates in the Czech lands to Category:Polish expatriates

Nominator's rationale: merge, if kept it should become Category:Polish expatriates to Bohemia, Czech lands is an anachronistic term. But there is no expatriates to Bohemia tree, so better to upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle Why did you empty sibling Category:Danish expatriates in the Czech lands out of process? There is a Category:History of the Czech lands and a main article Czech lands. You may not personally like the term, but it is well-established in historiography, as it would be an actual anachronism to use "Czech Republic" to refer collectively to Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia before 1993. I think you'll need a better justification to upmerge this category and to ECOOP its sibling than that you perceive Czech lands to be an anachronism. Alternatively, all 4 people might fit into Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia, as they all appear to have lived in Prague between 1198 and 1918, so that might be a fine alt merge? NLeeuw (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw: I suppose you mean Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia as a second merge target next to Category:Polish expatriates? That would be alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the Danish sibling, there was one article in it and I removed it because of the content of the article. That had nothing to do with "Czech lands", otherwise I would simply have added the category to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I could agree to a dual merge to Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia and Category:Polish expatriates. That would be per WP:MFN because Category:Polish expatriates in the Czech lands is currently somewhat underpopulated with just 3 members, not because there is something wrong with the term Czech lands.

Princess Louise of Denmark (1875–1906) was born in Copenhagen and moved to Ratibořice Castle in the Kingdom of Bohemia, where she lived from 1896 to 1906. How does that have nothing to do with "Czech lands"? Either way, in this situation, the category should have been nominated for deletion/merger or something, not emptied out of process without stating a reason.

Nevertheless, we could probably agree on a dual merge here as well: to Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia and ~~Category:Danish expatriates (or~~ Category:Danish emigrants as you already did). NLeeuw (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Princess Louise belongs in an emigrant category, not in an expatriate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Dual merge in both cases then? NLeeuw (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to NL's latest suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 12:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a dual merge to Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia and Category:Polish expatriates is alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bordeaux tramway stops

Propose merging Category:Bordeaux tramway stops to Category:Tram stops in Bordeaux

Nominator's rationale: I'm not familiar with public transportation in France but it looks like these categories are duplicates of each other. Since this category is the only category in Category:Tram stops in France by system, it seems wiser to merge this category rather than doing a merge in the opposite direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, all subcategories under Category:Tram stops in France by commune should be deleted. All these tram stops are part of the network of Bordeaux tramway. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Are you supporting this nomination as a first step, or do you oppose dealing with only one category? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This category that is now nominated is the only one that should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I created this distinction, I can answer the question on the rationale. Category:Bordeaux tramway stops is a category for all the tram stops on the Bordeaux tram system, whilst Category:Tram stops in Bordeaux is a category for all tram stops in the commune of Bordeaux. As the tram system extends beyond the commune, they are not duplicates, but as the Bordeaux tram system is the only current tram system in the commune, Category:Tram stops in Bordeaux is going to be a subset of Category:Bordeaux tramway stops, unless we have articles on historic tram stops, which doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not greatly wedded to the idea of multiple categories; I created it this way because I had previously been criticised for putting stops that were not in the city of Zurich in a 'Tram stops in Zurich' category and been pressured into this two category approach there. If the community has swung against that approach, I'm happy to go with that. I also note that, as Marcocapelle points out, all the sub-categories of Category:Tram stops in France by commune are now in the Bordeaux agglomeration (I'm pretty sure that was not the case back then), so there is merit in his suggestion to merge both categories into Category:Bordeaux tramway stops, and then delete Category:Tram stops in France by commune and all its sub-categories. That would of course break the link between commune and tram stop, but maybe that is not worth keeping. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added text to both categories explaining their content, which will be useful whatever is kept. Mea culpa, I should have done this when I made the distinction. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on chris_j_wood's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Graph algorithms

Propose renaming Category:Graph algorithms to Category:Algorithms in graph theory

Nominator's rationale: Needs to be called either that or Category:Graph (discrete mathematics) algorithms, per graph (discrete mathematics) and WP:C2D. The latter seems more awkward, though. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional terrestrial planets

Propose merging Category:Fictional terrestrial planets to Category:Fictional planets

Nominator's rationale: Whether a planet is made of rock is rarely ever defining to a fictional work, as compared to a real-life planet, and is typically the default for notable fictional planets. They could be made of glass, steel or unobtainium and it would essentially make no difference. Therefore this category is fairly unnecessary and should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Provisional governments in Indonesia

Propose deleting Category:Provisional governments in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Name of category does not match the (only) subcategory. Also, there has only been one provisional government n Indonesia, so this category is unnecessary Davidelit (Talk) 03:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, every country was own Provisional governments, that for every user detect how the sentral of goverment controled as centralized system. Putu Suhartawan (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete accompanied by unrelenting creation of red link categories in the Indonesian project shows a lack of clarity as to english meanings, and already existing categories and subject. Strongly suggest there is inadequate demonstration as to any understanding WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT JarrahTree 04:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore - since nomination editing and adding to the category show a very limited understanding what the meaning in english actually is in the context that the nominator has stated above.JarrahTree 04:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see it. "Provisional" instead of "provincial." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the three articles are entirely unrelated. One is about before the Provisional Constitution of 1950, one article is about an institution based on that constitution and one article is about East Timor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians

Propose renaming Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians to Category:LGBTQ+ Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The parent article has been renamed to LGBTQ (RM discussion) last month and the related WikiProject has now also been renamed to WP:LGBTQ+ (RM discussion of the community) after another discussion, so following WP:CONSUB and WP:C2D, I propose the user category also follows suit, aligning with the sentiment of the WikiProject that the community has embraced LGBTQ+. Raladic (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, I can't see any reason why this category would have a different sort of name than established in mainspace. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename This is really WP:C2D material and didn't need discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People have been objecting to C2D renames (even though it clearly applies) – see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 11#LGBT nominations which were opposed at CFDS. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century Somali people

Propose renaming Category:11th-century Somali people to Category:11th-century Somalian people
Propose renaming Category:10th-century Somali people to Category:10th-century Somalian people

Nominator's rationale: Opposed for speedy.C2C: parent is Somalian people by century, but @Marcocapelle: makes good points that "Category:Ethnic Somali people and the country Somalia did not exist yet in the 11th and 12th century. " Mason (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit problematic because there is also Category:Ethnic Somali people and the country Somalia did not exist yet in the 11th and 12th century. On top of that it is unclear whether Somalian would include or exclude current Somaliland. So I think it is better to re-parent these categories, move them from the Somalian to the Ethnic Somali tree. Also rename the 13th to 19th century categories to "Somali". For example in the 13th century category there is someone in the Maldives who was probably an ethnic Somali. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SpaceX astronauts

Propose renaming Category:SpaceX astronauts to Category:SpaceX-flown astronauts or something similar, per discussion on the Category talk:SpaceX astronauts.

Nominator's rationale: Prior to September 2024, all astronauts listed in Category:SpaceX astronauts had simply flown on a SpaceX capsule launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Now, with the completion of the recent private spaceflight mission Polaris Dawn, two SpaceX employees—Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon—have been astronauts (while employed by SpaceX) on this recent commercial spaceflight. It would be confusing to categorize the two of them as merely the sense of astronauts who have flown on SpaceX equipment, as they are also SpaceX employees, and are categorized in Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. (more emplyees are planned to fly on future spaceflights). N2e (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the current tree Astronauts by space program > SpaceX astronauts > SpaceX employee astronauts makes sense. If anything, Category:SpaceX employee astronauts (2) is unnecessary since 1) it is simply an overlap of Category:SpaceX people (21) & Category:SpaceX astronauts (38), and 2) is not (yet) needed for diffusing either of its parents, but that can be overlooked if it grows quickly enough. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge its subcategory into Category:SpaceX people. "SpaceX" is not a space program, it's a company. And as the nom said, they are not technically "SpaceX astronauts". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toxic enzymes

Propose deleting Category:Toxic enzymes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category isn't very helpful with only one page in it. Mason (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not meaningfully different from Category:Protein toxins and can be merged/redirected into that. ― Synpath 11:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related: while updating Category:Protein toxins with Botulinum toxin I found Category:Biological toxin weapons - a bizarrely named, small category with mostly protein toxins within it. I removed the small molecule toxins from it and think it should be merged to Category:Protein toxins. ― Synpath 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Typo in my last relist comment. I meant to ask "Should we merge?"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of molecular biology is very limited, but considering that Category:Enzymes is part of the tree of Category:Proteins it sounds reasonable to merge and possibly redirect the nominated category to Category:Protein toxins. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesian bureaucrat

Propose deleting Category:Indonesian bureaucrat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Absurdly general (and ungrammatical) category, potentially encompassing 10 percent of the population Davidelit (Talk) 00:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 280 million people - not practical to even consider potential issues, the existential issues arising from a singular designation is not what wikipedia is about JarrahTree 00:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we need the real data about how the bureaucrat doing coruption culture for being normal, the realiable source is the best think for learning how the coruption growth. Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wikipedia categories are for an on line encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX. A closer examination of existing categories, and a more clearer understanding what WP:ABOUT might mean, the new categories being created are superfluous, and not help for what an average reader might learn about Indonesian politics or culture; the clarification of what already exists in the Indonesian project might help. JarrahTree 04:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no meaningful distinction with Category:Government of Indonesia. The two subcategories are already in that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The contents here included Category:Mayors of places in Indonesia (except that mayors are politicians, not bureaucrats) and one person who was already in the Category:Indonesian civil servants subcategory and thus represented duplicate categorization — so the only thing that wasn't a total misfile is the civil servants category, and the only thing left after cleanup is the civil servants category. But no other country's civil servants category either has or needs a "bureaucrats" parent for it, because civil servants is a synonym of bureaucrats, not a subcategory of it. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist attractions in Salem

Propose deleting Category:Tourist attractions in Salem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: IS empty. The one entry was not relevant, so was deleted Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category has been emptied. You know, Isoceles-sai, you can tag empty categories CSD C1 and that won't entail a week-long (or longer) discussion. There is really no point of having a discussion about an empty category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category is added in multiple articles which is relevant to the category. So no need to delete the category. MVDR Enthusiast (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Looks like the Category was under construction. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tourist attractions in Salem, Tamil Nadu, aligning with parent and sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is already a category of Category:Tourist attractions in Salem district and most of the entries added to the new category are a copy paste from the old category. Most of it is located in Salem district rather than the town/city itself and has been deleted. Weak keep as there are still a few entries relevant to it and I have added it as a subcategory to the original category. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, then it should be merged to Category:Tourist attractions in Salem district rather than renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If kept, it should be moved over to Category:Tourist attractions in Salem, Tamil Nadu to both align with its parent and sibling categories, and to avoid confusion for other Salems, such as Salem, Massachusetts. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 100 most prominent Serbs according to a committee of academicians at the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts

Propose deleting Category:The 100 most prominent Serbs according to a committee of academicians at the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an overcategorisation that duplicates an existing list (The 100 most prominent Serbs) and is an example of an essentially arbritrary WP:TOPTEN, and is not a defining characteristic of the included persons. We definitely do not need both a list and a category here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]