Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 22
November 24 >

November 23

Category:Black slave owners in the United States

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.
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: C2C was opposed because the main page name is
Black slave owners in the United States. It think we should rename it to reflect that slaveowner categories use nationality, not country Mason (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Black slave owners in the United States to Category:African-American slave owners – C2C: updated to reflect that slaveowner categories use nationality, not country Mason (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have to oppose for now as the main page is at
    Black slave owners in the United States. Gonnym (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Should we just move this to full? @Gonnym Do categories always have to match the main page? Mason (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when they don't there should usually be a good reason. This isn't the case of them not being the same, this is a case where they are the same and a request to break it. Should the article also be renamed? Is renaming the category changing the scope? Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, yeah, it sounds like we should do a full discussion because the page name is narrowed to Black people who owned slaves in the united states, but the category isn't limited to slave owning in the united states. Mason (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and Gonnym: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Mason (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, we normally categorize by ethnicity rather than by skin color. The article should be moved too, I guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 24 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:Fagiano Okayama Next

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 13:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the main article and a subcategory. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Smasongarrison and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this ping was for @Aidan721 Mason (talk) 23:57, 23 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 by sexual orientation

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 and delete.
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge, simplification of the category tree such that fictional gay men, lesbians and bisexuals can be found directly under Category:Fictional LGBT characters as one would expect. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Including all subcategories of the male and female categories to Category:Fictional LGBT characters and its subcategories. Categorizing by gender feels unnecessary, even potentially insulting given the context. I simply think that only one category is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:10, 23 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 can manipulate other superpowers

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
(non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 23:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless extra category layer, merge per
WP:NARROWCAT. An alternative target is Category:Fictional characters who use magic (isn't copying powers in itself a form of magic? Is negating magic, magic in itself?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. And this isn't even necessarily a magic power. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I disagree about the proposal to merge to the magic category, but agree with Marcocapelle that this layer is too small. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:32, 1 December 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:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors

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 There's slightly more support than opposition for two different incompatible merges here (one of which is labeled "restructure"), which prevents either from having sufficient consensus to implement despite 6 weeks of discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom Mason (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pretty sure there used to be articles in this category when I made it.★Trekker (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @StarTrekker: I suspect those articles have all been subcategorized into the fairly rich category tree under the one subcategory referenced by Marcocapelle. BD2412 T 18:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. That category has "Holy Roman Empresses" as a parent category, but it doesn't take into account that not all wives of men who became Holy Roman Emperors were empresses.★Trekker (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restructure. This contains one subcategory that contain further subcategories (such as Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors by person) that should really be direct subcategories of this category. BD2412 T 18:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or restructure?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, to clarify, you suggest moving the subcategories of the sole subcategory up a level? Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors by person should be merged to Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors. I see no reason to keep it as a separate tree. I gather that the "Wives of" category is a subcategory of a Category:Holy Roman Empresses, and I don't know if there is some distinction where there are wives of Holy Roman Emperors who were not therefore Empresses, or Empresses who were not wives of Emperors, but that can be hashed out. BD2412 T 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, Okay, I think the best way to carry this nomination forward would be to close this one as procedural close and then start a new nomination for that. Do you have any problems with that? Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we ask Smasongarrison what they think? Perhaps we can resolve this in the current discussion. BD2412 T 17:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with doing that. Mason (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors by person to allow it to be merged as a result of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:31, 23 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 Asian martial arts practitioners

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
(non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer of overcategorization made by a blocked user. Merge per
WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If these categories get merged, shouldn't they be moved to Category:Fictional martial artists by type instead? AHI-3000 (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems very reasonable. The subcategories should be there anyway, regardless whether the merge goes ahead or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 23 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 machete fighters

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 with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated..
(non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 13:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious
WP:SMALLCAT situation, with the potential for expansion slim. I'm not really sure it would even fall under "swordfighters" so I am only proposing a merge to one of the parent categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:11, 23 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.

Fictional characters who have mental powers (2)

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 as nominated.
(non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 12#Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers. I have tried to match the target names to their contents or siblings. Suggestions for better names are welcome. – Fayenatic London 15:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename AHI-3000 (talk) 18:22, 23 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:Category:Ornamental grass

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a clear cut case of
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as pretty much every grass is used by someone, somewhere as an ornamental grass. Brand new category added today. I have already contacted the creator. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
copy of discussion from my page
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:Financial reporting standards

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: redirect to
(non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 23:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: They are synonymous as financial reporting is part of the accounting process and the end product of accounting are financial statements.
American Accounting Association (AAA) defined accounting as "the process of identifying, measuring and communicating economic information to permit informed judgments and decisions by users of the information." The difference between the two terms is purely nominal. Pre-2001, the standards issued by IASC are called "International Accounting Standards" (IAS). Post-2001, the standards issued by the succeeding IASB are entitled "International Financial Reporting Standards" (IFRS). Seanetienne (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, so merge and redirect. 15:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Category has been emptied by the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I removed Category:International Financial Reporting Standards as a sub-cat. The fact that Category:Accounting Standards has all this category's content but not vice versa further proves my point that this cat is redundant. Seanetienne (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, Seanetienne, since this category is empty, this discussion on a Merge is moot. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Liz for your explanation. I made this proposal because my previous attempt was reverted for being discussed. With evacuation being another route I feel safe now to proceed further work. Seanetienne (talk) 02:30, 26 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:Ninja Warrior (franchise) contestants

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/delete as nominated.
(non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Clearly fails
WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 13:55, 23 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.

Rugby players' wives and girlfriends

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 13:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Following discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 11#Category:Wives and girlfriends of association football players, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Category:Gaelic footballers' wives and girlfriends, and a few others at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 3 it seems clear that consensus is against these categories, so the below should follow suit. --woodensuperman 11:50, 23 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:Neo-Western film series navigational boxes

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
(non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now, without objection to recreation of the category when more navboxes are created. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: nom's rationale given for merging is
    WP:SMALLCAT, which is deprecated (no longer backed by community consensus) as of Oct 2023. But I would also raise the issue that unlike some other potential subgenres, the neo-Western subgenre is different enough from its parent category to warrant subcategorization. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Butlerblog: the category is not helpful for easy navigation though. The parent category also contains only a few navboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a matter of opinion with which I happen to disagree; otherwise, I would not have opposed. I actually find it helpful as a subcat. Further, and to reiterate, the nom is based on a deprecated guideline. It is no longer backed by community consensus and was demoted to
    WP:HISTORICAL with no replacement (meaning, it was not superseded by another/new guideline). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 23:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for now. per Marcocapelle.Mason (talk) 02:30, 24 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

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 all * Pppery * it has begun... 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Shift to a more defining name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also propose renaming these subcategories:
Category:Comics characters with immortality to Category:Fictional immortals in comics
Category:DC Comics characters with immortality to Category:DC Comics immortals
Category:Marvel Comics characters with immortality to Category:Marvel Comics immortals

AHI-3000 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose this either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The meaning is identical, but a shortened title is better. Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging secondary nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support shorter is better since it does not change the meaning. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:01, 23 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:American Quarter Horse trainers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 9#Category:American Quarter Horse trainers

Category:Haitian emigrants to insular areas of the United States

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
talk) 01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now as this category doesn't help with navigation. Mason (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 23 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:Massacres committed by Latter Day Saints

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 23:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of PROD; concern was:

There really doesn't need a category signaling out a religion like this, especially when there isn't any similar pages for other faiths like Catholicism and Islam. It just reeks of someone having an ax to grind
— User:Randomuser335S 2023-11-23 03:53:29

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary I would argue that Catholic and Muslim and similar sibling categories would be very welcome. Unfortunately, too much violence in history was committed by religious groups. Some of these categories already exist, although less explicit, e.g. Category:Anti-Muslim violence in India. If the nominated category is not kept, it should at least be merged rather than deleted, in order for the articlesto stay in the tree of religious violence and in the tree of Latter Day Saints. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, but the odd thing about that category was that the user who created it also made the "Native American massacres committed by Latter Day Saints" sub category. My problem with that is that have been far more incidents of Native American massacre and abuse incidents from perpetrators of other dominations, like the Californian Genocide, the Spanish mass killings of the Tainos, the King Philips war massacres, etc., and yet they don't have a specific category for them. This might be a very clumsy analogue, but it came across to me that they were fussing about their car's back window scratched while ignoring the burning engine. Incidents involving the LDS church are just a drop in the bucket in the history of European colonization of the Americas, while the category's creator is trying to make like it's an entire ocean.
    The person has also made several hardline claims in one of the linked pages (the Akiens massacre to be more specific) that more then a little off putting to me. For some context, the Akiens massacre was an incident when 6 Californian travelers were detained by Mormon militiamen during the "Utah War" standoff with the federal army, and were later murdered in unclear and suspicious circumstances. The person pushed the notion that the killings were directly ordered by the Brigham LDS president and territory of Utah governor. Although I've fleetingly heard of this incident before, I've never read of anything of that being reaffirmed as an undisputed fact by credible sources.
    They citied some sources to back their edits, but unfortunately those were mostly rare, out of print, books and subscription walled academic sites, and thus were almost completely inaccessible to me. Given how the Akiens incident has been over shadowed by the much more well known Mountain Meadows Massacre and has been mostly buried in the depths of time, it was a bit difficult finding anything beyond a handful of mormon dissident forums and the occasional apologist website.
    Going on a side tangent, the history of the LDS church can be quite frustrating to research. It is a very niche topic in the mainstream world, and tends to be dominated by two bitterly competing schools of thought. One is its' adherents trying to protect the church's reputation at all costs, while the other are the critics campaigning to subversive every LDS narrative. Both sides don't have any qualms with twisting the records to their own ends, and thus the truth is often garbled in the crossfire.
    Overall, the user has a clear point of view they are trying to promote, which in my opinion goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Randomuser335S (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the suggestions of Randomuser335S I have up-merged the "Category:Massacres of Native Americans by Latter Day Saints‎" into the main "Category:Massacres committed by Latter Day Saints" as it's already a smaller category without the Native American subcategory. Additionally, I have improved the Aiken massacre article stub with better citations and wording for improved verifiability, NPOV, and citation access and modernity. Thank you for bringing those areas for improvement to my attention. Feel free to make improvements to it as well. Please refer to that specific article's talk page for further suggestions as this thread should focus on the discussion of the broader category.
    For future Wikipedia improvements on the topic of massacres I would love to see Randomuser335S create the articles and subcategories on incidents of Native American massacres and abuse incidents from perpetrators of other denominations. I think that would be a very valuable addition to Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for spearheading that effort. I think them not currently existing is more an argument for the importance of them being created rather than showing that the reliably sourced and documented murders of hundreds of innocent people at the hands of Mormon groups are a mere "window scratch" I'm "fussing" over. I think those people's lives mattered enough for Wikipedia even if Randomuser335S considers them just "a drop in a bucket".
    In summary, I don't think "Category:Massacres committed by FARC" or "Category:Massacres committed by the Tigray Defense Forces" should be deleted or considered insignificant either, and those exist at the same category level. I would argue that "Category:Massacres committed by Latter Day Saints" is a useful navigation category given the number of documented instances, and that a future "Category:Massacres committed by Roman Catholics" and similar categories as proposed by Randomuser335S would be valuable additions. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who worked on the Battle at Fort Utah page, I think it's fair to have a category about violence perpetrated by Latter Day Saints. I am not trying to diminish or excuse the violence against indigenous peoples, but the reason that the page is called Battle at Fort Utah instead of Massacre at Fort Utah is because the Timpanogos were able to fight back. While I would think that bows vs. guns would be called a massacre, the consensus I found in the literature was that it was a "battle." So because there is a technical definition of "massacre," I wonder if the category would be more useful with a slightly changed name. Also, I work in the BYU library and I'm happy to help spot-check sources. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:24, 27 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:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license

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 both to Category:Formerly open-source or free software, without prejudice against a speedy rename if the list gets renamed. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a
WP:OVERLAPCAT with no reason to exist separately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We have Category:Formerly free software and Category:Formerly proprietary software. I'm with jc37 on the ambiguous meaning of "free". Software can be "free" but proprietary (using it does not cost money), and "open-source" but proprietary and not free (you can see the source code, but copying it is illegal and using it may cost money). I'd prefer using unambiguous categories of license: copyleft, permissive, and proprietary is the main division.
But we already have a Wikipedia-cat definition of "free" software, given at Category:Free software. So we can subcategorize "free" into copyleft and permissive licenses.
So... I suggest we merge and subdivide. We subdivide the huge Category:Formerly proprietary software into Category:Proprietary software converted to a permissive license and Category:Proprietary software converted to a copyleft license. Likewise, Category:Formerly free software and Category:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license could be merged and have subcats Category:Copyleft software converted to a proprietary license and Category:Permissively-licensed software converted to a proprietary license,
HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intellectual property has been notified. They or a similar project may know more about this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both per jc37. Qwerfjkltalk 22:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Formerly free software to allow it to be renamed as a result of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:44, 23 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:Greek Orthodox Christians from Lebanon

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: Reverse merge * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the vast majority of Lebanese Eastern Orthodox Christians is "Greek Orthodox", it is foolish to have them dispersed among two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge or keep. It is defining enough for Greek Orthodox people to be left in the Greek Orthodox category tree, especially parents Category:Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and Category:Greek Orthodoxy by country. I recon that content is spread kinda arbitrarilly between the two. A downmerge could help, but I don't feel strongly about it. Place Clichy (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I recon that content is spread kinda arbitrarilly between the two." That is exactly my point. A downmerge may be inaccurate in case there is incidentally one or two non-Greek Orthodox people among them, so I prefer upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually unlikely, besides the occasional error (I found an article for a contemporary Oriental Orthodox in the Eastern Orthodox category). (Eastern) Orthodox Churches are territorial, and present-day Lebanon belongs to the territory of the
    Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch since the earliest Christian times. Despite the fact that the terms Greek, Orthodox and Greek Orthodox have slipped in meaning with time, Christians there are Greek, in the sense that they use Greek texts for liturgy, since the Septuagint and the Gospel were written in that language, and continuously. If there are other Orthodox Christians there, e.g. Russian Orthodox, they wouldn't be from Lebanon. I wouldn't say the same for e.g. church buildings or monasteries, because you sometimes have foreign churches, but that's the case for people. I'm browsing the category right now to see if there's an exception. Place Clichy (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 13:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least some sort of merging needs to happen, either as nominated or reverse. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Lebanon to allow for a reverse merge. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:34, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_23&oldid=1189969062"