Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 22

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 to

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional human races to Category:Fictional species and races

Nominator's rationale: I've come to think that this category is too heavy an overlap to exist. When we say "fictional race", from a standpoint of humans, a humanoid race is the default. If we want to further specify, there are categories for that. But there's no need to specifically categorize groups of humans. This can be diffused to Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Fictional species and races depending on the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate merge/split Category:Fictional human races into both Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Human-derived fictional species. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Fictional species and races per nom. In addition I would expect that Category:Fictional species and races can be limited to Category:Fictional species but that is probably for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am ok with Category:Human-derived fictional species as the second split target instead of Category:Fictional species and races. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2024 (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.

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. Unclear whether the "indigenous" label is subjective or not.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Indigenous peoples of Europe to Category:Ethnic groups in Europe
• Propose merging Category:Indigenous activists of Europe to Category:Minority rights activists
• Propose merging Category:Indigenous peoples of Russia to Category:Ethnic groups in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Indigenous peoples of Ukraine to Category:Ethnic groups in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: merge, the history of Eurasia is full of peoples migrating for thousands of kilometers and assimilating with other peoples to other peoples. It is impossible to tell which peoples are truly indigenous. At best we can tell which groups are ethnic minorities, but that is what the "Ethnic groups" tree is for anyway. For example, the Crimean Tatars are here, of whom their ethnicity emerged only since the 13th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Indigenous peoples are not just “ethnic minorities.” They are the subjects of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, are designated as such by UN member states (the law of Ukraine designates three such peoples), and have certain protected rights different from those of “ethnic minorities.” Eliminating these categories should not be done on a regional basis and based on the random opinions that history is hard and the supposed indeterminability of “truly Indigenous,” and distastefully bad logic about Crimean Tatars (a stereotypically colonial statement casting doubt on the legal rights and very validity of a national group that’s been subject to genocide and persecution for centuries).  —Michael Z. 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The indigenous label is never used consistently in Europe. It is a risky game to call which ethnic groups are indigenous and which are not. Terms like ethnic groups and minorities are much more reliably used in academia in the European context. Main article Indigenous peoples and main Category:Indigenous peoples clearly define the term as linked to societies that have been overwhelmed by modern colonization, which is the case in Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania and the Americas but not Europe or Asia. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See also #Category:Indigenous languages of Europe.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, then I propose to keep Category:Indigenous peoples of Europe, mention on its page that this is about having a legal status as indigenous, and have these three Ukrainian peoples in there, as well as Category:Nenets people, Category:Vepsian people and Category:Sámi in Russia, three peoples in European Russia with the same assignment. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging. Some ethnic groups in Europe are legally designated as Indigenous (including the Crimean Tatars). The Sami, Nenets, the many groups defined in Russia as Indigenous, etc. Erasing that distinction by merging the categories is unhelpful in my view. XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 22 January 2024 (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.

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. In line with the above nomination.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Indigenous languages of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Do you know what's in common between Basque, Slavic languages and Oghur languages? They are indigenous languages, according to some editors. Follow-up to #Indigenous peoples of Europe: the term indigenous is not a pertinent descriptor for these European languages, which are no more or no less indigenous than other neighbouring languages. Simple deletion (no merger) as all content is already correctly categorized e.g. in Category:Languages of Europe by country and Category:Language isolates of Europe. Place Clichy (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. An

Indigenous people. It may have legal status as such, and may be subject to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such a deletion proposal should be made on a global basis and require an RFC.  —Michael Z. 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think there is a connection to be made between the Slavic languages and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the specific European context, there are a number of ethnic or

linguistic minorities, such as the Basques, Catalans, South Tyroleans, Turks of Western Thrace etc. but it is better to describe them as minorities than indigenous. BTW Slavic and Oghur languages (incl. Turkish) are not in the minority. Place Clichy (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be closed consistently with the above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:26, 31 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with extrasensory perception to Category:Fictional espers

Nominator's rationale:

Rename for conciseness, since that is the common name for such powers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not an obviously common name, and would be confusing. Mason (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The word "esper" seems uncommon. It does not

WP:NATDAB. jnestorius^(talk) 17:56, 22 January 2024 (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.

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:Mythological Indian royalty to Category:Royalty in Indian mythology
• Propose renaming Category:Mythological Greek royalty to Category:Royalty in Greek mythology

Nominator's rationale: parent is Characters in Greek mythology by occupation Mason (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, and also rename all these categories accordingly:

• Category:Mythological Indian royalty to Category:Royalty in Indian mythology
  • Category:Mythological Indian monarchs to Category:Monarchs in Indian mythology
    • Category:Queens in Hindu mythology to Category:Queens in Indian mythology
  • Category:Princes in Hindu mythology to Category:Princes in Indian mythology
  • Category:Princesses in Hindu mythology to Category:Princesses in Indian mythology

AHI-3000 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the Hindu versus Indian renames. Mason (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I just thought that "Indian" would be more broadly inclusive than just "Hindu". AHI-3000 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While that seems well-intentioned, I'm not sure that there's a significant amount of non-Hindu mythology that's distinctly Indian. Most of India's other major religions originated elsewhere, or have little or no mythology associated with them, at least as the term is commonly understood in English. While there's some mythology associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (some adherents might object to the term), none of these are distinctly Indian, or have mythology connected to India. Zoroastrianism is primarily rooted in Persia. Baha'i, also rooted in Persia/Iran, is a modern fusion of Islam and Hinduism. Sikhs and Jains don't really seem to have any mythology in the traditional sense; Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, and to the extent that Indian Buddhists incorporate deities in their practices—and not all do—they are usually Hindu deities. Some of the other religions are variants of Buddhism, often developed elsewhere. I do see a few indigenous or tribal religions, but they seem to have very small numbers of adherents, and it's not clear whether they have distinct mythologies involving royalty. That said, "Hindu mythology" probably would be fine as a title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: on the other hand, is there not Hindu mythology that's not related to India, but to, say, the Khmer Empire or Bali? In India, we do have Meitei mythology and Category:Meitei mythology. That said, I believe that Hindu mythology is a fine title and does not need renaming to Indian mythology. Should Category:Kings in Meitei mythology be placed in Category:Kings in Indian mythology, which should therefore be removed from Category:People in Hindu mythology? Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a valid point. I looked through the religions listed in the table at the top of "Religion in India" to see whether there were distinctly Indian but non-Hindu mythologies, and did not see this one listed, presumably because the number of adherents listed (235,000) would constitute a religious minority of only 0.016% of India's population, given the 2023 estimate. That's relevant, but not necessarily determinative. There could also be others. I'm generally in favour of more categorization, not less; so if there are enough individuals to be worth distinguishing mythological Meitei royalty from mythological Hindu royalty, then the proposed title change from "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mytholdy" makes sense. P Aculeius (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per
  WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep these but merge in subcategories. There is a good deal of content in this tree, but too many layers before one reaches them. This is probably mainly a matter of upmerging monarchs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Peterkingiron is right, the articles in Category:Mythological Indian monarchs should be moved further down to Category:Kings in Indian mythology and thereafter Category:Mythological Indian monarchs can be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 22 January 2024 (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.

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Edo literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Edoid languages

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A very inappropriate nomination. There are several categories that grew from a single member to 10s and 100s. This category is likely going to grow and I see this inappropriate. There are several other things I am going to write about that will fit into this category. Also, the Edoid languages category is not even related to the concept of Edo literature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If articles appear we can always recreate the category. For now it is a matter of a crystal ball whether that is going to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support merge as its unhelpful for navigation in its present state. I see nothing about this nom that is inappropriate. Mason (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This category now contains two members and a subcat and as such my Keep rationale stands. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 members.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The category is clearly ineligible because it has members. Merging it to Edoid languages does not in my own view add any value rather it removes and it doesn't make sense either—to me. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could use further subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for Now The oppose/keep votes all hope that more content emerges and I do too. Per
  WP:MFN, let's merge for now with no objection to recreation later when more content emerges. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:41, 22 January 2024 (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.

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.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic theologians to Category:Catholic theologians

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent to Category:Catholic religious workers, there is no distinction between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology. If this goes ahead, I will nominate the subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are a number of important distinctions between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology... First and foremost the position of the Holy Spirit within the trinitarian structure, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is Eastern Orthodox, that is something different. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My Maronite friend disagrees, he says that you are presenting the Catholic Church's position but many Eastern Catholics don't agree. Of course that is just hearsay, I would love to see a source for the claim that there is no distinction between the theologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no source for Eastern Catholic theology because it does not exist. Of course individual people may not agree with everything that their church teaches, but that it is not what theologians categories are about. Even theologians may not agree with everything that their church teaches. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If one exists and the other does not there is a massive distinction between the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't get me wrong. I mean to say that there is no separate Roman or Eastern Catholic theology. E.g. there is one Catholic catechism. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is merely an observation as it's not a subject I will pretend to know anything about, but Category:Old Catholic theologians‎ exists, if this makes a difference. --woodensuperman 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Old Catholic Church is a different church than Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So are the Eastern Catholic churches... They're different churches from the Catholic Church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is absolutely wrong. The
  Eastern Catholic churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Seconding this comment. Category:Old Catholic theologians should remain separate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Old Catholic theologians are very often Catholic theologians or priests who parted from the Catholic Church on topics such as papal infallibility. Ignaz von Döllinger is an example among many. So Catholic doctrine and debates over it are at the heart of what defines an Old Catholic theologian, it is not different. There is ample reason to put them in a parent Category:Catholic theologians. As for Eastern Catholic theologians, while they adhere to the theology of the Catholic Church, they are just not Roman Catholics. Place Clichy (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. I think that it is helpful to make the distinction between types of catholicism for diffusion purposes. Mason (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So does this mean you would agree to make Category:Catholic theologians a parent of Category:Roman Catholic theologians and Category:Old Catholic theologians? Re: Eastern Catholic theologians, I don't think there are enough articles to populate a separate hierarchy (especially with a double century/nationality structure), but they can be placed directly in the parent Catholic theologians category in the absence of a more specific one. Place Clichy (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I think that they'd both be parented by Category:Catholic theologians. My concern is more about ways to diffuse the very large Category:Roman Catholics by century, which this rename would impact. Mason (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 22 January 2024 (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.

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 both.

(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Tajikistani people by occupation and location to Category:Tajikistani people by location

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navifation Mason (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Alternatively this category and its subcategory may be just deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggesting this as an alternate proposal: –Aidan721 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tajikistani sportspeople by location to Category:Tajikistani sportspeople
• Propose deleting Category:Tajikistani people by occupation and location

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Tajikistani sportspeople by location is empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_11#Category:Sportspeople_by_country_and_populated_place. (I have checked that the others in that nomination did not leave other loose ends like this one.) – Fayenatic London 11:07, 24 January 2024 (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.

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. Weighing up the previous discussion in addition to the arguments here, I think there is consensus to merge this. The primary dispute is whether Gambits are categorised arbitrarily, with the arguments in favour being stronger.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Chess gambits to Category:Chess openings

Nominator's rationale: As pointed out in several places on wikipedia, chess opening terminology is inconsistent and not a useful basis for classification. The

Two Knights Defence, which usually involves the sacrifice of a pawn, arguably is. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose, if some articles do or do not belong in the category then that should be discussed at article talk pages. Generally these openings are described as gambits. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no value in subcategorizing chess openings in this way. Far more useful to have all openings in the same category. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently there are both Chess opening and Gambit which means that so far the community has deemed these two topics worth having their own article. This means that having two categories is also fine. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose changing to non-diffusing. Everything that is a gambit should also be an opening. This will enable readers to find an opening without knowing whether it is a gambit, or indeed, without knowing what a gambit is or what the word "gambit" means. With this change, the Gambit category can be useful without also being confusing. Withdrawing this proposal, see discussions below. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit. If people generally don't accept the c4 pawn in the Queen's Gambit and then hang on to it, it doesn't mean that it's not a gambit, there are lines where White just can't win it back. Also, I think that making it a non-diffusing category, as Bruce leverett pointed out, makes sense. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chess opening nomenclature is a matter of tradition, not systematic classification. It arose haphazardly. The Queen's Gambit is definitely not a "gambit", White can even regain the pawn immediately by 3.Qa4+ (though it's not the best move). Several lines that *do* involve actual sacrifice of material don't have the word "gambit" in their name. This is why names of openings are not a useful guide to their classification, and subdividing chess openings into different classes on wikipedia is a bad idea. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Deltaspace42: I had guessed that you had used a syntactic, rather than semantic, classification of openings. I don't think this is necessarily the best classification, but I am glad that we are on the same page w.r.t. making it non-diffusing.

    In pre-Wikipedia chess literature, a gambit was any opening variation that starts with a sacrifice of material. This would include

    Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation

    .

    I have no trouble classifying

    Catalan opening

    leads to similar positions with Black hanging onto a pawn on c4.

    I see that Queen's Gambit Declined is classified as a gambit, whereas Slav Defense is not, but they are both defenses to the Queen's Gambit (siblings, so to speak). This is potentially confusing. I am not sure how this can be fixed in a non-confusing way. Should the responses to a gambit be classified as gambits? Then that would include Slav Defense. Or should they not be so classified? Then that would include Queen's Gambit Accepted and Queen's Gambit Declined, not to mention Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bruce leverett: We can also create a subcategory related to Queen's Gambit opening variations and include there Slav Defense and other openings. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)K[reply]

    What would be the point of that? How would such a category improve the encyclopedia? Quale (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Alternatively if
  WP:CHESS
  community could have created a gambits subcategory at any time if it thought it was useful, but tellingly it did not.

The suggestion that a chess gambits category should contain chess opening articles whose titles contain the word "Gambit" is shockingly poor for multiple obvious reasons. 1) Some chess gambits including important lines such as the

Marshall Attack do not include the word "Gambit". 2) The names of chess openings are not defining characteristics, and categories are supposed to be defining characteristics. You might just as well create a category Names of US states that end in "ia". 3) Because chess opening names are not defining characteristics there is no main article for chess opening names containing the word "gambit". You can observe that list of chess gambits

does not use this definition of gambit which is found nowhere except on this discussion page.

A different suggestion is that editors could have pointless arguments on multiple chess opening article talk pages whether the article belongs in a gambits category. The only people competent to make this determination are experienced chess players and they are telling you right here that they have no interest in doing that. It serves no purpose; the problem is entirely artificial. It was created only because someone decided to change the categorization of chess opening articles in a way that is not helpful and was not desired by the editors who actually do constructive work on these pages. Just the fact that it can be difficult to know whether a page belongs in the category is a sign that it is not helpful. When it's too hard for a reader to know whether a page is in a category then that category might not be good, especially when it serves no purpose.

Finally, although the "chess opening gambit" usage is common even with chess experts, strictly speaking it is chess opening variations that are gambits rather than the openings themselves. In common parlance "chess opening" is often used to mean "chess opening variation" (and similarly "opening" for "opening variation"), but this is the kind of shorthand experts often use in many fields because there is no chance of confusion when speaking to other experts. (Worse still there is no clear division between an opening and a variation. In many cases the distinctions were made centuries ago before chess was studied in a systematic way.) In many cases we have articles on the gambit variations, but in other cases we don't and the gambits are discussed in the parent opening article. You could decide that the parent articles don't go in the gambits subcategory even though they discuss gambits, or you could create redirects for all the gambit variations and put the redirect pages in the gambits category. It would be simpler to go back to December 25 when there was no gambits category. Because it is actually opening variations that are gambits this classification is much better suited to a list, and we already have list of chess gambits. (That list article has other problems and is frustrating to chess editors, but those issues are different than the ones with the gambits category). Quale (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Given that for 20+ years of wikipedia history this category didn't exist, the default assumption should be in favour of the status quo, not in favour of the newly intoduced and imprecisely defined category. This new category will lead to pointless arguments about what is or isn't a "gambit", and for what purpose? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MaxBrowne2: This category existed before, under the name of "Gambits", but was removed recently. I created this category and only after that I checked the Gambits category, I even posted a question on the Help desk, but didn't get an answer on what to do: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_26#Category:Chess_gambits_(Unanswered_-_please_help,_I_don't_want_to_wait_until_someone_WP:G4's_this_category_;_;) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It occurred to me that we should look to our sources, i.e. to chess literature. I have seen quite a few opening books and references that classify the openings as "queen's pawn games", "king's pawn games", or "flank openings", or similar terminology. So I could hardly object to three categories like those. On the other hand, I do not recall any opening reference with a separate section for gambits, and searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess. It looks like by creating a "gambits" category we are breaking new ground, which explains why it is so difficult. I am considering striking my earlier vote in favor of one to support. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bruce leverett: searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess - What about this book "Gambit Chess Openings" by Eric Schiller, 2001 from the Gambit article? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this is not the first time this has come up. Experienced chess editors really don't want this category. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21#Category:Gambits MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not have a copy of Schiller's book, nor was I able to find a review of it online, although Tony Miles wrote a famous two-word review ("Utter crap") of one of the companion volumes, "Unorthodox Chess Openings". I would reserve judgment, for now. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Quale that the syntactic classification, i.e. categorizing openings by their name, is ridiculous. And, in agreement with MaxBrowne2, I see that it's difficult to impossible to arrive at a good semantic classification. The fact that I disagreed with him over the classification of Queen's Gambit is an illustration of this, but there are many other examples. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The very fact that

  WP:CONSENSUS. By the way it is irrelevant that the closer of the previous CfM (a long term admin with AGF and CIV issues) has since been banned; if you're going to bring that up, so has the prolific sock-puppeteer who created the former category "Gambits". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @MaxBrowne2: The very fact that Deltaspace42 chose to reintroduce this category despite knowing that an almost identical category had previously been rejected by the community. On the Helpdesk post, I said that I learned about the previous deletion only after I created the category. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I'll strike that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Marco. This category can certainly be misused, but that is not a reason to get rid of it. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit is classic
  WP:SHAREDNAME * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not quite, it does not only share the name but also - or rather, primarily - shares the characteristic of a gambit. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For reference, here is a link to the discussion of the Gambit category from 2018 (the result was that it was deleted).

It was claimed that

WP:NONDEF

applied, i.e. that "gambitness" is not a "defining characteristic". In the present discussion, we have already seen examples in which even experienced players do not agree whether or not an opening is a gambit. These are not obscure variations, but are generally well-known openings. I can give more examples, if anyone is interested.

It was also claimed that

WP:ARBITRARYCAT

applied, because there are a number of notable openings or variations of openings, that do not have "gambit" in their names, although they look like, smell like, and taste like gambits; there are other openings and variations that have multiple names, some of which use the word "gambit" and some of which do not. I can give examples of these situations, if anyone is interested.

The result of the 2018 discussion presumably hinged on the arguments that were presented. If we want to overturn that result, I would presume that the discussion must start by refuting those arguments. When a question like this is once answered, it should stay answered, unless something has gone terribly wrong. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Changing my position, as per discussions above. My earlier proposal to make the category non-diffusing is the best lipstick for this pig; the category would still cause more problems than it would solve. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2024 (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.

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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Superhero schools to Category:Fictional schools

Nominator's rationale: Selective merge to Category:Fictional schools, with the subcategories being purged entirely. There are not enough individual schools here to justify a separate category. Alternatively, rename to Category:Fiction about superhero schools and upmerge the actual schools, while making the parent category Category:Fiction about schools. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disperse in the tree of Category:Fiction about schools, since most articles aren't about a school but rather about a film or series etc. It is fine if an article belongs in Category:Fictional schools but most articles don't, and should be moved to siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Split to Category:Fictional schools and Category:Fiction about superhero schools. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Fictional schools and Category:Fiction about superhero schools per LaundryPizza03, but I think in practice this can simply be renamed to Category:Fiction about superhero schools with a few members also being added to Category:Fictional schools if they are not already in it. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per FL. I agree that the easiest way to do this would be to rename Category:Superhero schools to Category:Fiction about superhero schools and then do the rest manually. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:35, 30 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by art school to Category:Academic staff by art school
• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by business school to Category:Academic staff by business school
• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by education school to Category:Academic staff by education school
• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by law school to Category:Academic staff by law school
• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by medical school to Category:Academic staff by medical school
• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by music school to Category:Academic staff by music school
• Propose renaming Category:Faculty by public health school to Category:Academic staff by public health school

Nominator's rationale: parent categories, including Category:Academic staff by university or college, and most children (except U.S. ones) have been renamed to use academic staff instead of faculty, which is ambiguous. These categories, which are location independent, should probably use the same generic term. Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per nom Mason (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per precedents. (I added "by music school" which was tagged but not listed.) – Fayenatic London 09:03, 24 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:FLaMme artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As best as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't categorize actors by agent/agency. Gjs238 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Guideline
  WP:PERFCAT explains why this is a bad idea. Place Clichy (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, artists can easily move from agent to another, it is not a defining characteristic of the artist. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:FLaMme to Category:FLaMme artists

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Serves no use. It's only content, subcategory Category:FLaMme artists, can stand on its own or also be deleted. Gjs238 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Equally fine with me Mason (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Mount Vernon Seminary and College alumn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Typo, redirected to Category:Mount Vernon Seminary and College alumni. We generally don't keep redirected categories for unlikely typos, however they are not eligible for speedy deletion under the present criteria. Place Clichy (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it should be speediable per
  WP:C2A. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2024 (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.

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 18:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People involved in plagiarism controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 11#Category:Plagiarists, of which this is essentially the same thing but less defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about merge to academic scandals? Mason (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge people to a category about the scandals themselves? That wouldn't exactly work. Nor is plagiarism necessarily related to academia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this was last discussed in 2006 which was 17 years ago. also "people involved in plagiarism controversies" is far more verifiable than plagiarists, which assumes some sort of judgement of guilt.

more generally a very useful tag anytime a plagiarism controversy happens, which is like every year or so. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's verifiable, but it's not defining to simply be accused of plagiarism. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why not? Jjazz76 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we normally categorize people by conviction, but this is not a crime that results in many court cases, so it remains more a matter of
  WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Marcocapelle.--User:Namiba 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marcocapelle. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (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.

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

(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose renaming Category:English cricketers of the 21st century to Category:21st-century English cricketers

Nominator's rationale: I see no reason that this category should be formatted so differently Mason (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. And does anyone know what's going on with the siblings in Category:English cricketers by era? –Aidan721 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No idea, but my guess is it has to do with rule changes (but that's total speculation). @Omnis Scientia might have some insights, as they're more familiar with sports categories. Mason (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison, @Aidan721, they are divided by eras - more specifically by styles of play AND rule changes; hence the very specific years. I checked further and a previous Cfd voted strongly to keep. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good to know. Thanks –Aidan721 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2024 (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.

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 as nominated.

(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Retired women's professional shogi players to Category:women's professional shogi players
• Propose merging Category:Retired professional shogi players to Category:professional shogi players
• Propose merging Category:Deceased professional shogi players to Category:professional shogi players

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersections. We don't have other "professional" player categories like this. Also no need to intersect with whether the person is alive or dead. Mason (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As an irrelevant intersection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Tao Yuanming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There's only two pages in this category: the writer and their notable fable, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Women's cricket in South America to Category:Women's cricket by country

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer with just one child (Brazil). Women's cricket categories are organized by country, there is no other continent-level category. Place Clichy (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I added an additional sub-category. However, still support just deletion now (since the additional child shouldn't be merged and the Brazil cat is already in the target). –Aidan721 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete per Aidan721. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Tsuchimikado clan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Taga clan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this clan. Delete for now, as it's unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only article in Category:Tsuchimikado clan was a religious organization rather than a person. I have merged that article to Onmyōdō, so now it is empty. Dekimasuよ! 03:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, Category:Tsuchimikado clan is empty now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2024 (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.

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 as nominated.

(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Horror films by region to Category:Horror films
• Propose merging Category:Horror fiction by region to Category:Horror fiction

Nominator's rationale: These categories are just for continent and country/nationality container categories, a useless additional layer. Place Clichy (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My intuitive reaction would be to Oppose this, but maybe I missed something. Why is it useless according to you?@Place Clichy and Smasongarrison:. I am only expressing my view about films (not fiction in general), but Category:Cinema by country subsumes various film genres. Why would this one be an issue? What do you mean by just for continent and country/nationality? Sorry if it's obvious, but for me, it's not.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (edited after having read the kind explanation below)[reply]

  @Mushy Yank: categories are only useful as a tool for helping navigation. This proposition does not delete any content, it just moves it a little bit to make it easier for users to find what they're looking for. Most topics are organized in the following fashion:

Category:Horror films
  > Horror films by continent > Asian horror films etc.
  > Horror films by country > Australian horror films etc.
  > Horror films by genre etc.

Currently, these categories look like this, which is generates one more useless click for the user to find the content (imho):

Category:Horror films
  > Horror films by region
    > Horror films by continent > Asian horror films etc.
    > Horror films by country > Australian horror films etc.
  > Horror films by genre etc.

Nobody is actually looking for the container categories themselves (the ones called ... by ...), but they are mandatory to avoid the root category for becoming too large. However, containers of containers are, in most cases, useless. Place Clichy (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.Thanks. I had missed something. Will amend my !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It does indeed seem to be an unnecessary layer. The nomination makes sense. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this means support (making it clearer for the discussion closer). Place Clichy (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as not useful. If not merged, rename to "by location". – Fayenatic London 08:55, 24 January 2024 (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.

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 as nominated.

(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Airlines of the Americas to Category:Airlines by continent
• Propose merging Category:Defunct airlines of the Americas to Category:Defunct airlines by continent
• Propose merging Category:Lists of airlines of the Americas to Category:Lists of airlines by continent
• Propose merging Category:Aviation in the Americas to Category:Aviation by continent
• Propose merging Category:Transport companies of the Americas to Category:Transport companies by continent
• Propose merging Category:Transport organizations based in the Americas to Category:Transport organizations by continent
• Propose merging Category:Transport in the Americas-related lists to Category:Transport-related lists by continent
• Propose merging Category:Transport in the Americas to Category:Transport by continent
• Propose merging Category:Lists of companies of the Americas to Category:Lists of companies by continent
• Propose merging Category:Defunct companies of the Americas to Category:Defunct companies by continent
• Propose merging Category:Economy of the Americas-related lists to Category:Economics-related lists by continent
• Propose merging Category:Defunct organizations based in the Americas to Category:Defunct organizations by continent
• Propose merging Category:Lists of organizations based in the Americas to Category:Lists of organizations by continent
• Propose merging Category:Companies of the Americas to Category:Companies by continent
• Propose merging Category:Service companies of the Americas to Category:Service companies by continent
• Propose merging Category:Banking in the Americas to Category:Banking by continent
• Propose merging Category:Banks of the Americas to Category:Banks by continent
• Propose merging Category:Industries in the Americas to Category:Industries by continent
• Propose merging Category:Pornography in the Americas to Category:Pornography by continent
• Propose merging Category:Sex industry in the Americas to Category:Sex industry by continent
• Propose merging Category:Tourism in the Americas to Category:Tourism by continent
• Propose merging Category:Journalism in the Americas to Category:Journalism by continent
• Propose merging Category:Science and technology in the Americas to Category:Science and technology by continent
• Propose merging Category:Communications in the Americas to Category:Communications by continent
• Propose merging Category:Mass media in the Americas to Category:Mass media by continent
• Propose merging Category:Currencies of the Americas to Category:Currencies by continent
• Propose merging Category:Economy of the Americas to Category:Economies by continent
• Propose merging Category:Youth in the Americas to Category:Youth by continent
• Propose merging Category:Water in the Americas to Category:Water by continent
• Propose merging Category:Education in the Americas to Category:Education by continent
• Propose merging Category:Men in the Americas to Category:Men by continent
• Propose merging Category:Jazz festivals in the Americas to Category:Jazz festivals by continent
• Propose merging Category:Arts festivals in the Americas to Category:Arts festivals by continent
• Propose merging Category:Music festivals in the Americas to Category:Music festivals by continent
• Propose merging Category:Cultural festivals in the Americas to Category:Cultural festivals by continent
• Propose merging Category:Festivals in the Americas to Category:Festivals by continent
• Propose merging Category:Hospitals in the Americas to Category:Hospitals by continent

Nominator's rationale: overlapping scheme, the only content is related to either North or South America. Follow-up to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10 § Category:Organizations based in the Americas by country, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § Americas. Place Clichy (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per long precedent. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, it would have been different if there were a substantial number of articles covering both continents simultaneously, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support like precedents. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 24 January 2024 (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.

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose merging Category:Ethnic Montenegrin people to Category:Montenegrin people

Nominator's rationale: Near-empty non-defining category. There is actually much debate whether Montenegrins actually constitute a separate ethnicity, and there wouldn't be much content to place here rather than in the target category and its children. Place Clichy (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (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.