Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12
November 14 >

November 13[edit]

Category:Neo-Western film series navigational boxes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 23#Category:Neo-Western film series navigational boxes

Category:Star Wars: Visions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Star Wars animated television series. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. ★Trekker (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can see the article being split with a season 3 as it is already pretty long to scroll through. For me, those 3 articles and their images are enough for a category. Gonnym (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 23:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Songs written by Thomas Jefferson Kaye[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Actually keep by head count, but the justification for single-article musician categories has come into question. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member of category, although there is a page for the producer, I don't think it warrants a category as it doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without objection to recreation of the category when more articles are written. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only because WP guidelines permit single member sub-categories as part of larger categories (there are presently nearly 9,000 members in Category:Songs by songwriter). It would be wrong to single out a single category when there are over 400 single member categories in Songs by songwriter and who knows how many thousands in Category:Songs by artist. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 23:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am striking my support for this nomination on its own after Richhondo's comment, would still be interested in a broader discussion about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Richondo as well. I would be interested in a broader discussion. Mason (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The SmallCat guideline that allowed for single article categories for songs and books is gone but I was never clear while the exception was there in the first place. It would make sense to get input from the Books and Songs WikiProjects in a broader discussion to clarify what, if any, navigational purpose these serve. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Creeper (DC Comics)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only the main article and Beware the Creeper. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Soviet and Russian military aircraft (3)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 15#Category:Soviet and Russian military aircraft and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_29#1920s_Soviet_and_Russian_military_aircraft. Rename the categories to "Soviet" (which improves Wikidata links) then create new parent categories for "Russian". – Fayenatic London 21:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These are two different states and shouldn’t be lumped together as if one, because the Soviet Union has multiple successor states and aircraft originated in more than one of them.  —Michael Z. 15:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Four traditions of geography[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Four traditions of geography

Category:Towns in Álava[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Populated places in Álava. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't seem to meet WP:CATDEF. Its stated purpose is "to contain all towns in Álava", but all articles in it are about small villages/hamlets. Furthermore, there is no consistent way of telling whether a given municipality/settlement should count as a town or a village. Santi2222 (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with spirit possession or body swapping abilities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 3#Category:Fictional characters with spirit possession or body swapping abilities

Category:Sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine navigational boxes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, just one template in a category does not serve a navigational benefit. There isn't even a parent category for sectarian violence in the Middle East navboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_13#Category:Mandatory_Palestine_war_and_conflict_navigational_boxes further down on this page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politicians' deaths from disease[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Not a defining intersection. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: There are other concurrent discussions all pertaining to Category:Politicians by cause of death in which similar or the same arguments are being made.
Nominator's rationale: There are many people who should be included in the category (such as William Henry Harrison), but this is extremely broad. Benjamin Franklin wasn't even in office when he died. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "trivial" for this context. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close and merge this discussion with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 11#Category:Politicians killed in duels, unless you think this category warrants its own separate discussion. Although for starters, your rationale is already under discussion in the linked thread. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaundryPizza03 Thinker78 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. trivial intersection, there is not a meaningful intersection between disease death and politician. I do not understand why the category creator won't wait until the extremely similar categories are evaluated. Mason (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should understand. I created this category on 03:24, 11 November 2023‎ , you requested that I don't create more of the topic on 15:37, 11 November 2023, 12 hours after the fact. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I did not examine the time stamp closely. Mason (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per WP:CATDEF, reliable sources reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to disease as a cause of death of politicians, unless for privacy reasons or lack of information in some cases they don't. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator stated that [Category:Politicians' deaths from disease] is "extremely broad". Then, more so is Category:Deaths from disease. Therefore, diffusing is the answer. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diffusion is first done when there is a specific and large existing category filled with numerous pages. Marcocapelle is saying that this category is extremely vague and broadly-defined. Diffusion is not a solution to a broad and vaguely defined category. Deaths from disease is already diffused by country and some diseases. Further, even if there was an extremely, over crowded category, we would diffuse first by century before occupation for deaths. Mason (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator, whose comments about "extremely borad" I was refering to, is LaundryPizza. Even in your argument, Deaths from disease is even broader than Politicians' deaths from disease. There is also the Category:Causes of death by occupation‎, parent category of Category:Politicians by cause of death. Vaguely defined? How is death by disease vaguely defined? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Vaguely defined? How is death by disease vaguely defined?" Genuinely, @Thinker78, how the intersection (politicians who died from any disease) not vague? Why is this intersection meaningful? Is there academic literature on how politicians who died from a disease is meaningful? I could see an argument for a specific disease, like Coalminers who died from blacklung. Black lung is a occupationally hazzard. How is general disease meaningfully intersecting with occuption.
"Even in your argument, Deaths from disease is even broader than Politicians' deaths from disease." My "argument" is that we don't diffuse by occupation until it is necessary, and that century and country would come first. I don't understand why you won't actually engage with others people's perspectives or even the core of the issue. This isn't about arguing, this is about CONSESUS seeking. Mason (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question. You say it is vaguely defined. Why do you think it is vaguely defined? Please elaborate because people have different ways of thinking and what is immediately evident for you may not be for others. Also, One thing is "vaguely defined", another thing is the more subjective term "meaningful". Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most people die from some type of disease, so this isn't a useful category for classifying people. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the parents is Category:Deaths from disease‎ , from which this category derives. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: diseases do not have the awareness for political motive, so the fact that these people who died from disease were politicians is a trivial note. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this argument a couple of times now and I respect your point. My understanding is the Category:Politicians by cause of death doesn't necessarily have to do with motive, but the main topic is cause, regardless of motive. This category simply in my view answers the question, what did the politician die of? Which I don't think is trivial as to say if the politician died with a watch on their wrist. There is also Category:Line of duty deaths, which is not a parent category. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional water monsters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 12#Category:Fictional water monsters

Category:Fictional career criminals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a misused and possibly arbitrary grouping; there is no corresponding real-world category, but Career criminal redirects to Habitual offender; this seems to be sorting through illegal occupations, as Category:Fictional serial killers is not here. Some entries are already in another subcategory of the same; for example, most of the subcategories can be placed within Category:Fictional criminals by crime. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sequences in time[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently WP:MADEUP grouping of unrelated things. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judicial and penal systems people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While investigating another CfD, I discovered that this is a mishmash of unrelated occupations and statuses, from Category:Criminals and Category:People in law enforcement to Category:Executioners and Category:Lawyers. Most are covered by Category:Law enforcement occupations or Category:Legal professions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transcontinental countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "transcontinental" appears to be used here (based on the countries that have been added to it, and also on uses of the word in articles) to mean "occupying space on more than one continent". It isn't clear to me that the word ever had that meaning before someone started using it that way on Wikipedia. A brief search through Google Books, for example, for works containing both "Turkey" and "transcontinental" appears to find no pre-Wikipedia matches where "transcontinental" is being used to describe Turkey. It's possible that all Wikipedia-contemporary matches that use the term that way got it from Wikipedia—which demonstrates the peril of allowing Wikipedia to invent its own words or its own meanings for existing words. (The real meaning, as indicated by its parts, is "across a continent", such as a transcontinental railroad. The only countries that are transcontinental in that sense are Russia, the United States, Canada, and Australia.)
Unless sources can be found to show that the term already had the newer meaning without having picked it up, directly or indirectly, from Wikipedia, we shouldn't be using the word in that sense. In that case, the category should be renamed, or else only the four above-mentioned countries should be in it. Largoplazo (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward agreement with Largoplazo on this. Most dictionaries do not include this "in multiple continents" meaning, and those that do are recent and easily could be simply recording usage recently observed and caused by Wikipedia. Regardless, the term is too ambiguous to use this strange way. I would think that what the category is presently trying to get at is "multi-continental countries" or if we don't even like that quasi-neologism, then "countries with territory in multiple continents". If we wanted a category for the four countries that span across a continent, then that could be expressed as "continent-spanning countries", "countries spanning a continent", etc. Then we have the problem of List of transcontinental countries which appears to be a WP:OR festival (most especially when it comes to distinguishing between "Europe" and "Asia" which are not true continents and have debatable, subjective boundaries). So far, only three of the sources cited at the list article have used "transcontinental" this way and they all post-date Wikipedia (and post-date that article, which was created on 21 April 2005‎ as "Transcontinental nation", promptly tagged as OR, and shortly merged with another article on the same topic, "Bicontinental country"). However, there are a lot of other sources that were not quoted from directly, and it would be a lot of work to go through them all trying to find pre-WP uses of the term in this way, much less to assess the totality of them to deterine whether this is a well-enough accepted usage for WP to be using it as if it made sense to our readers. And we also have the weirdness that Transcontinental country redirects not to that expected list article but to Boundaries between the continents.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Borders between continents are not strictly defined anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per WP:CLNT. List of transcontinental countries takes great lengths to explain that this list can be many things, or anything, depending on what you chose to include or not. Which means that populating this category can only lead to endless back-to-back. On the other hand, continents don't change often, so this information isn't really informative at all. As Marcocapelle put it more concisely: this is not a defining characteristic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Place Clichy (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment by nominator It feels to me as though people who strive to classify countries as covering territory in more than one continent do so because they see something remarkable about it, but the only way it would be remarkable is if one starts with a premise that everything is supposed to fit neatly into categories--this little box fits in this bigger box, this other little box fits in this bigger box, with no overlap. So there's a premise that each country mapping to one continent is somehow normal, and that falling outside of that norm is worthy of its own categorization and merits a five-dollar word to describe it. It seems to me that it's comparable to considering it "normal" for a given person's work to be associated with a given century, so that Titian was a 16th-century artist Albert Einstein was a 20th-century scientist. So, then, when you have someone like Natalie Portman, whose acting career spans the boundary between the 20th and 21st centuries, if you're very hung up on neat categorization, you're going to want to call out the people who defy your expectations and given them a name and a category of their own, like Transcentury actors. "Transcontinental countries" is kind of like that. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom. Mason (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jupiter (mythology)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Jupiter (god). (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 00:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with main article Jupiter (god) Redtigerxyz Talk 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional murdered children[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Fictional murdered children

Category:Fictional infants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Made by blocked users. Falls under WP:OVERLAPCAT as needlessly specific. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fictional characters often do not age, unlike real people, and there are specific tropes associated with each stage of childhood. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: I can maybe get this if "adolescents" is renamed "teenagers". Teenage fiction is a big thing after all. But infants? What special tropes are unique to those under two? That in my opinion is a complete overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the same concept. Dimadick (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional children by occupation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Fictional children by occupation

Category:Fictional North African people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily fine subcategory with only 3 subcategories (one of which is questionable) and 2 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created by a blocked sock; several similar categories are up for speedy deletion per G5. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with trauma[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 00:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by blocked, disruptive user. This seems to conflate physical with mental trauma and appears to be very WP:SUBJECTIVECAT in nature as are many of their category creations. The stuff in here is also in other categories, so no need to merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mixture of unrelated definitions of trauma. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kentucky women entrepreneurs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:Businesspeople from Kentucky and Category:American women in business. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 00:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of a category in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_5#Category:Sportswomen_from_Kentucky, Category:Kentucky businesswomen, that is its only parent at the moment. Category:Entrepreneurs redirects to Category:Businesspeople. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional non-animal life forms[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fictional life forms. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Significant WP:OVERLAP to the point that this category is unnecessary. I think most people realize plants are not in fact animals. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. An unnecessary subcategory layer that fails WP:OCMISC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, we normally do not categorize things by what they are not. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters

Category:Fictional characters with abnormal ageing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Fictional characters with abnormal ageing

Category:Fictional characters with slowed ageing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category was made by a blocked user. Violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, as there is no obvious definition of what the benchmark is for their aging being slowed. (In contrast to an immortal, who simply does not age). For example, if you are a 3000 year old Martian, is your aging "slowed" (compared to humans) or just normal for your species? That is why this category is difficult to ever manage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of how non-humans (especially human-like aliens and supernatural beings) are categorized, there is a large overlap with Category:Fictional characters with immortality. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters who were petrified[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very obvious WP:NONDEF fail, as it is not defining for a character. Made by blocked, disruptive user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5, sock in question is the only editor besides the one who added the CfD tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with immortality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 23#Category:Fictional characters with immortality

Category:Executive ministers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Executive ministers

Category:Ministerial positions in the Government of the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Duplicate category, no useful difference between the two. Place Clichy (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional shield fighters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#Category:Fictional shield fighters

Category:Mandatory Palestine war and conflict navigational boxes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Mandatory Palestine war and conflict navigational boxes

Category:Fictional characters by occupational types[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Category:Fictional characters by occupational types

Category:Taisha-zukuri[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article Taisha now exists. As per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_14#Category:Taisha this should be moved back to Category:Taisha Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect you said to reconsider after the article exists. It exists now. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: Thanks for creating the article! - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG thank you for changing the categories on the main article. Do you support this move? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic and WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle you also added the category to the irrelevant page of Taisha-zukuri and were the one to make the erroneous move in the first place I’m inclined to believe you have some kind of vendetta against this category. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus about what the category is supposed to contain (yet) so it does not make sense to remove the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as there is an existing RM for the article itself, and I'm also leaning towards supporting Marcocapelle's delete. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is certainly reasonable that we categorize Shinto shrines as carefully as, say, Christian churches. For comparison, Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral is categorized under both architecture (Category:Coptic architecture) and, for lack of a better word, the religious "rank" (Category:Cathedrals in Cairo). It seems to me that Category:Taisha-zukuri conveys the architecture while Taisha (shrine)--under whatever title it ends up with--conveys the rank so that the existing category should not be replaced by a potential second category. (What I'm less sure, and the main article doesn't really answer, is whether "Taisha" status is subjective or a promotional naming which would not make a good category, or whether there is consensus on what shrines qualify which would make a good category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevelationDirect it is worth noting that the shrine name Taisha is a rank that has been heavily policed in the past. I haven't found the best sources for some of the claims yet, hence why the article doesn't talk about it that much, but in Imperial times many shrines forcibly had their names changed from Taisha to Jinja, and even then only a couple dozen highly ranked shrines used the name, and in my understanding after WWII Ikoma Shrine, and abnormally low ranked shrine that had the name before the Japanese Empire changed its name to Taisha, but then changed its name back to Jinja in response to a request by Izumo-taisha.
    So I definitely do not consider Taisha as a subjective or promotional name.
    Category:Taisha-zukuri might be worthy of existing as a means of categorizing shrines with the architectural style, although I think something like Category:Shrines built with Taisha-zukuri would be more sensible, but there really is no correlation between a shrine being a Taisha and using Taizha-zukuri archirecture. Mishima Taisha and Takebe taisha for example use Nagare-zukuri, Fujisan Hongū Sengen Taisha uses sengen-zukuri (which is named after it and very different from Taisha-zukuri), Kasuga-taisha uses Kasuga-zukuri which is also named after it and unelated to Taisha-zukuri, Sumiyoshi-taisha sumiyoshi-zukui, the list goes on and on.
    In fact the only other Taisha that uses Taisha-zukuri is Kumano Taisha, most shrines that use it are much smaller. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, my friendly suggestion would be to withdraw this nomination (since it seeks to substitute one for the other). Instead, you can continue to work on the improving Taisha (shrine) article, especially the sourcing, that could be a main article for a potential second category. (You could of course create that category now, but without putting the concerns above to rest that the title is not subjective or just a shared name, it might get deleted at CFD.) Either way, thanks for improving the shrine topics! - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect In that case I withdraw the application. As you can see now the contents of the category are radically different and it is actually about Taisha-zukuri Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colony of Victoria people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from the Colony of Victoria. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency. (see the category's subcategories) ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Slaves in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Slaves from the Ottoman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping category, slaves are "from" not "in" Mason (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a person from the Ottoman Empire enslaved by Barbary Pirates and sold to Brazil, would be a slave from the Ottoman Empire, but a Ruthenian enslaved by Tartars and sold to someone in the Ottoman Empire would be a slave in the Ottoman Empire and not from it. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP makes a fair point, but at present we don't have a category for slavery by country. Mason (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disney animated animals[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#Category:Disney animated animals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_13&oldid=1189516911"