June 9

Category:Ipswich town preachers

• Propose merging Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Clergy from Ipswich

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is effectively is the same. Mason (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose capitalisation: move Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Ipswich Town Preachers. When this category entered the jigsaw world of signs, known as wikipedia, it was unclear whether the category should use uppercase letters to initialise not merely Ipswich, but also "Town Preacher". The Oxford Academic use lower case, but local historian John Blatchly goes for uppercase. I think the advantage of this that it is clear that this refers to people who held a formal role, rather than a simply being a wikipedia category that lists Clergy from Ipswich. Often Ipswich Corporation appointed people from elsewhere. Bearing in mind the significance of some of those who occupied this role such as Samuel Ward (minister) or Cave Beck, it would seem appropriate to have such a category. I feel that capitalisation will indicate the category is more formal/historical. Leutha (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I've reverted your unexplained removal of this category from the proposed merge target. How is this category not Clergy from Ipswich? And why is the current category parented by 17th-century clergy. Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from the discussion above, the category is quite formal. Many people filing this role were not from Ipswich: Samuel Ward (minister) was from Haverhill, Matthew Lawrence (preacher) was from North Lincolnshire, Cave Beck was from London. The references for the Town Preachers are largely consistent from 1604, G. R.Clarke gives a list of 7 before 1604 in his 1830 The history and description of the town and borough of Ipswich ^: 343. However only one appears in Blatchly's list in his book on The Town Library of Ipswich (1989)^: 177. Any suggestions as regards how to handle the earlier individuals such as Roger Kelke, the Marian exile who returned to become Ipswich Town Preacher from 1560 until 1575, according to Blatchly? ibid ^: 4. Leutha (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... so it sounds like this information would be better served as a list. Categories are supposed to be there to help people navigate between pages. I would *strongly* encourage you to look at how other categories handle clergy from a region.

It seems like you are under the impression that People from a city is only for people who were born from the city. That's too narrow of a definition, as Bishops of CITY/ diocese are placed within the clergy from CITY/REGION etc category. And, so if I am understanding your very long comment, you're added the parent because there's only one example of of a precher from before the 17th century, but you don't speak to what about after the 17th century. Mason (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, clergy is usually a formal role, that is not a good reason for a split. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's now clear that Ipswich Town Preacher was a formal appointment by the Corporation. As for the current lowercase category name format, this is correct per MOS:JOBTITLE. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former high schools in Tokyo

• Propose splitting Category:Former high schools in Tokyo to Category:Defunct high schools in Japan and Category:High schools in Tokyo

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. No need to diffuse highschools within a specific populated place and status (Defunct vs current; note that one of the targets is currently being speedy renamed from Category:Former high schools in Japan) Mason (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. It seems to me that Category:Former high schools in Tokyo and Category:Defunct high schools in Japan are sort of synonyms. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was apparently missing the difference between "Tokyo" and "Japan" :-( Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tokyo is equivalent to a prefecture, not a city, in a manner like a U.S. state. I'm not sure if this would make the category more viable, or if there should still be a split? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Arab historians

• Propose merging Category:12th-century Arab historians to Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge to 12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world Mason (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I have been making efforts to phase out the Category:Medieval Islamic world WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT tree, step by step. I gave it a break in September, but I still think the whole tree should be phased out. Isolation is not a problem; the real issue is creating pseudo-historical unity where there was none for WP:POV reasons. NLeeuw (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have an alternative merge target? Such as 12th-century historians?Mason (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging Nederlandse Leeuw. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think a Reverse merge would work, at least for those who were Arab. We should check for Persian, Turkic etc. historians in the MIW cat. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  E.g. Basil bar Shumna is described as "Syriac". Might fit in the Syrian subcat? Otherwise it seems fine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that reverse merge doesn't address the issue of the isolated target. I'd much rather merge to Category:12th-century historians instead of a reverse merge, per egrs and the fact that the category is isolated. Mason (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. Upmerging Category:12th-century Arab historians to Category:12th-century historians, Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world to Category:12th-century historians, or both to Category:12th-century historians? NLeeuw (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on reverse merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose reverse merge per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Spain 1

• Propose upmerging...
  • Category:Battles in Asturias‎ (4 P) to Category:History of Asturias
  • Category:Battles in Cantabria‎ (3 P) to Category:History of Cantabria
  • Category:Battles in La Rioja (Spain)‎ (3 P) to Category:History of La Rioja (Spain)
  • Category:Battles in the Region of Murcia‎ (3 P) to Category:History of Murcia (region)
• Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See Germany, Italy etc. NLeeuw (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles by location in Greece

• Propose upmerging Category:Battles by location in Greece to Category:Military history of Greece by location
• Propose renaming Category:Battles in Central Greece to Category:Military history of Central Greece‎
• Propose renaming Category:Battles in the Peloponnese to Category:Military history of the Peloponnese‎
• Propose renaming Category:Battles in Macedonia (Greece)‎ to Category:Military history of Macedonia (Greece)
  • Propose upmerging Category:Battles in medieval Macedonia (3 P) to Category:Military history of Macedonia (Greece)

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See Italy, Germany and other recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Housing rights activists from Detroit

• Propose merging Category:Housing rights activists from Detroit to Category:People from Detroit

Nominator's rationale: Category with only 1 entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Activists from Detroit instead. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Activists from Detroit as a more specific target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acquired citizenship

Category:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

• Propose renaming Category:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud to Category:Songs involved in the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

Nominator's rationale: Specifies what's in the category The Midnite Wolf (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not sure this is a good idea. because some things might not be a song for example the New Ho King restaurant which got very famous because of the feud. there was also a pizzeria, and if more things comes up "songs" would not make sense Freedun (yippity yap) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that Freedun has been blocked as a sock (in other words, I consider this unopposed as of now). Given that there is a potential objection, I will relist, but in a week if there are no further comments I would close this as soft rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial merge as a possible compromise, by creating Category:Songs involved in the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud as a subcategory of Category:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud which would allow New Ho King to remain in the main category while moving all the songs to the new category. This would also allow any future non-song pages/categories to be added under the main category. Relinus (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet technology companies by Bangladesh

Category:Secularism in the Arab world

• Propose merging Category:Secularism in the Arab world to Category:Secularism in the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: I know that technically these are different regions, but... these categories overlap so healvy I think we should merge them. Mason (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but purge the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: If Moroccan and Tunisian sub-categories are to be purged due to this merger, then I would oppose it, because the perceived and projected cultural ties among the Arab world are notable enough to warrant grouping all of these topics into that category.---Konanen (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing in the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories hints at being part of a movement in the Arab world. The content is very specifically related to these two countries only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle, I do not understand your point:

    1) Point of clarification: do subcategories and pages within the Secularism category have to reference specific concerted movements, or is any topic related to Secularism within the named geographic region (whichever that may be) sufficient to merit inclusion into the category?

    2) Morocco and Tunisia are, by definition, part of the Arab world. Any movements existing in these countries are therefore logically movements within the Arab world, so unless I have lost all of my abilities to read and understand, I do not think your comment makes sense.

    Clarification would be appreciated! –Konanen (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Konanen: there is certainly an Arab world, but it isn't obvious that there is Arab world secularism. Unless further evidence is provided this category is a case of a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I am very sorry, but I still fail to understand it isn't obvious that there is Arab world secularism. What does that even mean? Does a movement of secularism have to be run by the same organisation in every single country that is part of a defined geographical region (→ Arab world) to be considered as existent? If so, then how does merging Category:Secularism in the Arab world into Category:Secularism in the Middle East make any sense? And why not merge that into Category:Secularism in Asia when we are at it? Konanen (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Konanen (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • In order to get any further in this discussion you need to make a case that "secularism in the Arab world" is an encyclopedic topic. That does not require a single organisation though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I appreciate the categories may have heavy overlap, but I do not see why the Arab World, as a geographical and political area/unit, should be of lesser importance than, say, Category:Secularism in England while nobody suggests merging it into Category:Secularism in the United Kingdom, or merging that one into Category:Secularism in Europe.
  @Marcocapelle suggests that, if the merger goes through, Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories should be purged. That would be a disservice to the bigger picture, since all countries of the Arab world have significant influence over each other’s political movements, see for example the lead at Arab Spring. Marcocapelle’s requirement to make a case that "secularism in the Arab world" is an encyclopedic topic seems to me to be iniquitous, as well. But never let it be said that I would not try to source proof of definingness of the subject matter [1][2][3][4].
  However, if a merger is considered absolutely necessary, then I suggest renaming Category:Secularism in the Middle East to Category:Secularism in the Middle East and North Africa, modelled after Democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you. –Konanen (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Question/Comment: Asking for evidence to support something being defining is not "iniquitous", that's a reasonable bar. But what I'm struggling with is why we need both Secularism in the Middle East and Secularism in the Arab world. Are they distinct enough to warrant two categories? I think that merging in reverse would also be fine. Mason (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mason: Yes, because the Arab World is a reasonably well-defined geocultural area, while the Middle East, which is a more loosely-defined geopolitical region, comprises—per the WP article—five non-Arab World countries, and moreover lacks 6 to 9 (depending on the count) countries considered as belonging to the Arab World. In other words, there are roughly 18 countries making up the Middle East, 13 of which are part of the Arab World, while the minimum count of the latter comprises 19 countries (maximum: 22 countries).

  It may be useful for some users to limit their browsing of the topic to only Arabic-speaking countries, as their political developments are usually heavily influenced by one another, and correlations within them would be of greater interest, which is not the case for non-Arab World Middle Eastern countries, which has a contested/varying definition. –Konanen (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not asking if Arab world and the middle east are distinct. I'm asking if the intersection with secularism for each is distinct. Mason (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. @Konanen, I would say the term "Arab world" is the more loosely defined region of the two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, I think we can create a Category:Secularism in North Africa to represent the second half MENA countries and add any related article there. Just a thought. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good solution Mason (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I would suggest Category:Secularism in Africa instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this already exists, Morocco just wasn't in there yet. I have added it now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century African-American politicians

• Propose merging Category:18th-century African-American politicians to Category:African-American politicians and Category:18th-century African-American people and Category:18th-century American politicians

Nominator's rationale: 3x Upmerge. Per African-American officeholders in the United States, 1789–1866. There is only one person Wentworth Cheswell who will ever be in this category. Mason (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Single merge to Category:18th-century American politicians because the article is already in other subcategories of the proposed targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hamas bombers

• Propose merging Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas members

Nominator's rationale: "bomber" is not an occupation. User:Namiba 01:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but Populate Bombing and especially suicide bombing is not necessarily like a paid "job", no, but it is a "role" in a military, paramilitary or terrorist organisation, even if it is literally the last thing they'll ever do. For the record, I understand "bombers" to include "bomb-makers". Therefore, Category:Hamas members by role is appropriate. (There is a whole Category:Hamas suicide bombings and List of Palestinian suicide attacks, which shows this is a common role within the organisation). Currently, Category:Bombers (people) is in the Category:Criminals by crime, while Category:Suicide bombing is inter alia in Category:Military tactics.

Although the category had only 2 members when nominated, it could easily be populated with more. I just added Mohiyedine Sharif, Yahya Ayyash, Samar Sabih, and Nidal Farahat. Most of these were already in Category:Hamas military members. It might be worth re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members, although that would leave Category:Hamas members by role pretty much empty. I think it is quite a redundant layer anyway; we could Upmerge it to Category:Hamas members instead. NLeeuw (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a redundant layer and we do not have this kind of intersection for other groups.--User:Namiba 00:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba So you agree with Upmerging Category:Hamas members by role to Category:Hamas members, and Re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members? If so, could you please tag Category:Hamas members by role accordingly, and change your proposal, or add it as an Alt proposal? Thanks in advance!

If you mean something else, please clarify, so we can discuss it. NLeeuw (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, rather to Category:Hamas military members. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but I would rather populate and re-parent Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members, and upmerge Category:Hamas members by role to Category:Hamas members; see my explanation above. NLeeuw (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that works for me.--User:Namiba 14:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great! NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tagged that category to make it part of this CfM. NLeeuw (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Category:Hamas members by role has not been tagged for a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. Bomber isn't defining. Mason (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: "Bomber" and "military wing membership" aren't specific roles – they are attributions or in some cases here allegations or associations. Leadership is also a vague concept in the context and can refer to individuals at all different levels up and down the hierarchy, so "leader" is also not a specific role here. There's no reason why these sub-categories wouldn't simply be more usefully listed under the main category anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iskandar323: please revert your removal of the category from various members. It defeats the purpose of CfD if you do so. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The category wasn't populated with any "bombers", which are aircraft. It contained five military engineers and bomb markers and one suicide bomber, which is a precise term. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have restored the six members.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iskandar323, @Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, what is your preference regarding the nom's proposal and the alternative proposal by Nederlandse Leeuw above? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be merged to Category:Hamas military members, but that would only prequel a further discussion on renaming/deletion. At the moment, it is imprecise and could be readily deleted as vapid and meaningless. Alternatively, five members are "bomb markers", not "bombers", so it could be renamed to that; however, the last is a suicide bomber, which would need removing in case of renaming. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient villages in Israel

• Propose deleting Category:Ancient villages in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in appropriate parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with acquired citizenship

• Propose merging Category:People with acquired citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens by country
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Azerbaijani citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Azerbaijan
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Austrian citizenship to Category:Naturalised citizens of Austria
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Armenian citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Armenia
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Australian citizenship to Category:Naturalised citizens of Australia
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Argentine citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Argentina
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Angolan citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Angola
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Andorran citizenship to Category:Naturalised citizens of Andorra
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Algerian citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Algeria
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Albanian citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Albania

Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename per recent Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose People can acquire citizenship through other means than naturalization. Many jus sanguinis countries allow people to register as citizens without going through the naturalization process if they have family ties to the country. The discussion was poorly attended and flat out wrong because most people with acquired Israeli citizenship got it via a different process than naturalization. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: so if merged it should be a reverse merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would lean towards opposing merge because heritage citizenship acquisition is very different from naturalization, and could be a defining difference. Besides naturalization is a more common term, because most countries with a lot of new citizens get them via naturalization primarily or exclusively. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Buidhe, so would you suggest the other way around? "Acquired" being the more broader term. @Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison I think merging as is would be better, don't you? I would also open to reverse merge too since "aquired" is a more broader term covering types of citizenships. I just don't think splitting hairs between types of methods is advisable here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is also true, so I am not wedded to a particular merge direction. I do think that these categories should be merged somehow since the difference between the two is pretty trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support a merge. I'm of the same opinion as Macro. A merge would be good, either direction is fine with me.Mason (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pppery and Ymblanter: please do not process the previous nomination pending discussion about this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it was already processed two days ago, but the categories can be retagged and included here, if there is consensus to revert we can revert. Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 1: If a merge does go ahead, the parent categories will need to be edited manually. Note 2: I only found this after merging Wikidata on some of the former set. I am willing to undo that work if there is consensus to revert. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syndromes with autism

• Propose renaming Category:Syndromes with autism to Category:Syndromic autism

Nominator's rationale: "Syndromic autism" is much more commonly used than "Syndromes with autism". For example, on Google Scholar, "Syndromes with autism" OR "Syndrome with autism" yields about 516 results[5], whereas "Syndromic autism" gives about 3,470 results[6]. Additionally, renaming this category would also make it correspond to Syndromic autism article. Digressivo (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Add Syndromic autism as Main article. NLeeuw (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic of these syndromes. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A syndrome is a collection of symptoms that co-occur and therefore when autism is one of these it is prominently listed in the RS and can be considered defining.

  I'm not against the rename but for reference the title was chosen for consistency with other "syndromes with" categories. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • They aren't syndromes with autism but rather syndromes with a slightly higher prevelance of autism than average. Most articles hardly make any reference to autism. A list would be much better in this case, and that is already included in the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The ones I added had due weight to mention autism in the first couple of sentences, even if it isn't universal. The category seems to have expanded in the meantime and may need a purge instead. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion? (I am not seeing opposition to the rename if this category continues to exist, so if there are no further comments I would expect this to be closed as rename with no consensus on whether the category should exist.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion given that what Marco has written. Mason (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century Baduspanid rulers

• Propose renaming Category:13th-century Bavandid rulers to Category:Bavand dynasty and Category:13th-century Iranian rulers
• Propose merging Category:13th-century Baduspanid rulers to Category:Baduspanids and Category:13th-century Iranian rulers
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century Bavandid rulers to Category:Bavand dynasty and Category:14th-century Iranian rulers
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Baduspanid rulers to Category:Baduspanids and Category:14th-century Iranian rulers

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse Bavand or Baduspanid dynasty by century. Instead I think we should repurpose it to be a nationality category. Mason (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, better merge them to existing categories rather than establishing a new tree with only two subcategories. The merge targets (next to the dynasty) would be Category:13th-century monarchs in the Middle East and Category:13th-century Iranian people and likewise for the 14th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But why? Both dynasties almost lasted 1000 years and had many rulers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the category only contains two centuries... and we don't typically have categories at the intersection of occupation+century+family dynasty. And we don't have parent categories for several of the two way intersections, which makes it hard for me to see a case for why this narrow intersection is defining. Mason (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of differing options; any compromise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to merge it into the existing categories. Mason (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

• Propose deleting Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gnangarra 09:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnangarra The category description can be changed. If articles can use past tense words like "were" and "was" in reference to a tribe, I'm not seeing why the word "extinct" is out of question. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the issue of using the "tribes" to decsribe Indigenous Countries, Cultures and People in Australia is inaccurate at best racist at worst. The term itself implies a lot of colonial misinformation and a distinct lack of understanding of Indigenous Cutlures in Australia. The use of past tense in words like were or was is also not an indicator of the Indigenous Countries, cultures, languages or peoples continuation. Very specifically by calling a Country extinct that frees the restriction of cultural protocols applying when working on with Indugenous Cultural materials. All countries are still in existance and are represented through Land Councils who manage everything from protocols on entering a country, to land rights. My reasoning is not playing words games its saying that the assumption of being extinct is a misnomer, even in languages and cultures where a recent Language conference in Queensland a professor was luaghed off stage when he stated that a language was extinct yet multiple people stood up and spoke the language. Without rocksolid gold plate sources published within the last 4 years the label of extinct is a false narrative derived from the recent history wars, and anti landrights campaigners. The other issue we have is the Australian Bureau of Statistics problematic collection of reliable data as it records just one language spoken not all In the context of the Census, 'Indigenous' or 'First Nations' results are defined by respondents who have answered that they are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There are over 230 Australian Indigenous Languages that the Census records which is less than the actual number of Indigenous languages.[7]. Gnangarra 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the use of "tribe" isn't my decision. It is used for many articles about Aboriginal Australian groups, so that seems to perhaps be a wider issue worth fixing. What is the continuation of a group like the Toogee? What is the relevant land council? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe is not used in Australia, the poor use of terms in Wikipedia articles is one of the many barriers people working with Indigenous cultures struggle to address as shows Wikipedia in a bad light and not respectful of the culture. Basically ticks all the racists, Inforwar, challenge faced out on the street its up to us to lift our standards. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle Aren't we talking about cultural extinction? Are you defining extinction as the literal death of all group members without any descendants? That seems like an unorthodox interpretation. The Susquehannock people are extinct as a tribe, despite having some descendants in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. I don't see any contradiction here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Frustratingly, the term "extinct" seems to be used somewhat inconsistently for both cultural extinction and the death of all group members (at least, from a google search). Is there a better term we could use to distinguish the two? Category:Extinct ethnic groups is currently a subcategory under Category:Human extinction which implies the latter, so perhaps it should be renamed and/or categorized differently if most of the members are groups that are only culturally extinct. Psychastes (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seneca-Cayuga Nation is not an Indigenous Country in Australia, you are making comparisons that are not like for like. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And? I'm addressing Marcocapelle's statement about the broader category tree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If not an outright deletion then certainly a renaming to be more clear would seem to be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What would you propose and why? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Genocide happens. Wishful thinking doesn't change that. "Extinct" is a harsh and ugly word to apply to people; it's natural to recoil in disgust at the idea. It may be very appealing to think that a group "didn't really go extinct" because some of their descendants blended into other groups. But if the group no longer exists as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language, the group really is extinct. Perhaps something like Category:Former Indigenous peoples would be less noxious to the moral sense of the reader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Genocide happens — In particular Genocide of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mitch Ames That leads to two questions. Is there even one example in all of Australian history of an entire group being murdered without any known descendants? Are there any examples of groups who, through genocidal violence and assimilation, ceased to exist as distinct cultural groups? In both cases, there would have to be terminology to describe a group that once was and now is no longer. If not "extinct", there would still have to be some other description. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, we need to be careful not to conflate "genocide" and "extinction". Genocide does not require killing all of the people - it is defined as "intentional destruction ... in whole or in part". Extinction requires that they all die, but doesn't require intent. There may be an overlap, but they are not the same thing, and neither implies the other. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  agree genocide doesnt equate to extinction. @Bohemian Baltimore perhaps you should start with List of massacres of Indigenous Australians to understand the extent of Geonicidal acts in Australia. Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gnangarra Since my meaning apparently wasn't clear; there are genocidal acts of violence which lead to the literal or cultural destruction of peoples. What terminology would you use to refer to groups that have been physically annihilated in entirety through genocidal violence, disease, etc? What terminology would you use to refer to historical groups that may have living descendants but that are no longer culturally distinct due to genocidal violence, etc? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the issue the assumptions here are made based on the use of past tense language in the article, none of them have any reliable sources to support being included in this category. Given that the category itself should be deleted. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gnangarra There are a small number of articles. I do not have a strong opinion on the category, whether it should be renamed or deleted. But I reiterate my question; are there any historical Indigenous Australian groups that can be said to have once existed but that no longer do? What terminology should be used to refer to those historical groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont have any reliable sources to answer that question, all I know is the articles in this category dont have reliable sources to even be included in the category. The whole purpose of raising it here is exatcly the category itself not some wider theoretical discussion on meanings or what ifs. I gather I can remove them all from this category for lack of sourcing that clearly supports the claim. Gnangarra 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gnangarra How would you feel about a category such as Category:Historical Indigenous peoples in Australia, Category:Historical Indigenous peoples, etc. or would that involve the same quandaries? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  to quotes The articles are fine in Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland anyway. Marcocapelle Gnangarra 05:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mitch Ames I'm not conflating genocide and extinction; I myself belong to a group whose history includes the former but not the latter. But I would question why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies. I don't think a term like "cultural extinction" implies that. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies — Because when we are talking about people, that's what the word means "Extinction is the termination ... by the death of its last member." Admittedly if we are talking about culture we could say that the group is extinct if nobody belongs to it. (If we all gave up editing and WMF deleted Wikipedia, Wikipedians could be said to be "extinct", but most us would still be alive.)

  My main point here is that we should probably not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, because it is neither necessary nor sufficient for "extinction", and is unnecessarily emotive. Yes genocide happened, but that does not determine whether a particular people is extinct or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mitch Ames Okay. So what terminology should we use for "cultural extinction"? What terminology should we use to refer to historical groups that no longer exist as distinct cultures? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term "cultural extinction" is not helpful at all. Even if there is no tangible remainders of a culture you never know how much of customs and oral literature have been exchanged with and integrated in other cultures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but that doesn't mean that the group still exists. So what terminology would you use for a group that once existed and does not now? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd prefer using no terminology at all over inaccurate terminology. The articles are fine in Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: having now been through every article not one defines the culture, people, or country as extinct, sadly Tindale works from 1974 is the primary source in every article and the most recent. The issue there their inclusion is based on whoever started the article using a generic type sentence like according to tindale they (some past tense word) from this area in Queensland. Ironically the only article with recent sourcing is about the current issue of domestic violance in Australia which makes no sense as its in this category. Gnangarra 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Presumably you could solve the problem by changing "The Xxxx were ..." to "The Xxxx are ..." (other verb tense changes as appropriate), and providing a reliable source to support the statement of their continued existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I could change the wording, but as all the articles are basically say Tindale described these countries on his map as being xxxx, their inclusion in the category isnt based on reliable sources or hints of a reference to Extinct. I suggest the category becomes extinct. Gnangarra 14:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Possible alternatives to "extinct", for the purposes of renaming the category (tree):
  * Historical: we already have Category:Historical ethnic groups of Australia - which possibly should be merged (one way or the other) with Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia. Note that Category:Extinct ethnic groups is a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups, so probably Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (if it remains) should be a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups by continent
  * nonextant
  Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for the record I had created this category in response to seeing a universal category being created for Extinct Indigenous groups, including Australian people, it seemed at the time better to identify the Australian component of an apparent claim. Note that by creating the category, I did not necessarily agree with either the category title or its assumptions, which is why I placed in bold comments as to the very specific event/issue raised in articles. I am intrigued by the discussion to date, as it seems either concentrating upon category trees and related subjects, or the issues of how to name groups of people who have been affected by reduction or severe loss of population. As the process in this particular part of wikipedia is relative to categories, there is a problem as to whether the actual subject is best ventured as to the veracity of terminology. It could be for everyones advantage to delete the original parent category, and find somewhere other than this CFD to explore the issues that are raised here. A collaborative approach to the wider wikipedian understanding of how to 'frame' the larger world wide issue of how and when ethnic groups have decimation of population is something well beyond the bounds of this cfd, and to simply arrive at a decision here on one small perspective does the larger project some significant disservice. Definitely not a 'free for all' RFC or similar, it needs a very specific guideline and process that works through the issues raised here, for the larger project. But then this is wikipedia, anything could happen. JarrahTree 02:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion, but no concrete proposals (which is not inherently a bad thing!). What should happen to the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I hadn't formally voted yet, but as noticed the category is problematic, and one can also navigate between the articles via Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autistic LGBT people

• Propose merging Category:Autistic LGBT people to Category:LGBT people with disabilities

Nominator's rationale: This category is a the recreation of Category:LGBT people on the autism spectrum, which was deleted per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Category:People_on_the_autism_spectrum as a non-defining intersection. The overall topic is notable, but individuals as the intersection of a specific disability and sexual orientation/identity doesn't really meet the higher bar of WP:egrs. I encourage the category creator to see if the category was previously created before they make more intersections with LGBT and disability. See for a similar ongoing argument for Lesbians with disabilities Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26#Category:Lesbians_with_disabilities Mason (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but disperse in the tree of Category:People on the autism spectrum in the first place. I am not sure about the proposed merge target because I do not know if autism is generally considered to be a disability. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep I disagree that only identity+action are more defining than identity+identity, in fact I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT muderers (which one thing has nothing to do with each other, but since they are religioculturally/traditionally seen as sinful, then we have these guidelines). And as EGRS notes, When making a new category, be sure there is substantial existing research on that category of people specific to the occupation in relation to their sexual orientation. while making it unclear about identity+identity instead of occupation. And as you linked, the topic justifies it as notable. Actually, I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT with disability. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  also, isn't it the nominator responsible for searching old deletions to support their arguments? Because I found no previous deletions and decided to create, in my perception for the first time, the category. If I saw that it was deleted before, I would rethink it before creating it. but since that's not the case, I don't understand why you mentioned this fact. or do you mean that previous deletions justify recreation? --MikutoH ^talk! 00:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator linked to the previous discussion. As you can see the category name was slightly differently but the scope is exactly the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh you're right, I accidentally ignored the link. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion had small quorum with two voting, IP nominated multiple categories in the same bascket. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Repilies/Questions: What do you @MikutoH mean by identity+action versus identity+identity? Because the requirement for intersections is the same per WP:EGRS. The bar is set high to avoid tokenization and stereotypes. Most of the categories that meet the threshold for egrs is indentity+occupation. It's a much higher bar to cover three way intersections: being LGBT, being disabled, and the specific kind of disability. It isn't about what you find to be defining. It's what scholarly sources say is defining. We are also running afoul of final rung. Mason (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was talkibg about this sentence: a person's actions are more important than, for example, their race or sexual orientation.. And Wikipedia:Consensus can change. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And you ignored the studies in the article you linked. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok thanks for clearing that up. I don't disagree with you. I think that the intersection of two identities can be defining, but it does require a heavier bar. And, I just don't think that there's enough literature to support the intersection right now. What I've seen in the literature is descriptive that people are more likely to have both identities than by chance alone. But there are a lot of descriptions like that, such as men who's name start with L are more likely to be lawyers. (Ok not that extreme, but it takes more than just the fact the intersection exists). Mason (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Disability, and WikiProject Autism have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - I think this intersection does qualify as defining for the purposes of EGRSD (in part because it is a notable intersection that I think several reliable sources discuss the incidence of and connection between in-depth), though my opposition is weak purely because I'm concerned maybe there's some nuance of the guideline I'm not understanding here. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom but, @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, I would say it should be manually merged with Category:LGBT people and Category:People on the autism spectrum. I don't think autism is a disability per se. I can be considered as such in severe cases but not everyone would agree that it is in all cases. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I tend to take a broader definition of disability to explicitly include autism and other (equally lovely) flavors of neurodivergence, but you're right that not a universal opinion (It probably stems from my default of wanting more folks on my team 🤣).

@Omnis Scientia Would you be willing to do the manual merge to determine which folks should be added to the intersection (lgbt+disability)? I think it would be helpful to have someone who has a less universalist approach make the decisions. I'm happy to help with the rest. Mason (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, I understand that perfectly! Its a good thing to be inclusive. And sure, I would be willing to manually merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Much appreciated as alwaysMason (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People on the autism spectrum

• Propose renaming Category:People on the autism spectrum to Category:Autistic people or People with autism

Nominator's rationale:

See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 1 § Category:People on the autistic spectrum

The main article was moved and also based on this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current name strikes an acceptable compromise between person-first or identity first language that neither of proposed renames addresses.[8][9][10][11] Furthermore, the main article was moved to Autism, which doesn't solve the problem for people on the spectrum. Mason (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant are the two CFDs for this category. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 22#Category:People with Asperger syndrome/on the autism spectrum and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 31#Category:People on the autism spectrum Mason (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Autism has been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this is really a WP:COMMONNAME type of discussion. I think "people on the autism spectrum" has become the common name by now but I would welcome if someone would come up with relevant statistics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose:"on the autism spectrum" is terminology that has significant support amongst autistic people themselves [12] and is at the very least terminology that few people hate.[13] The preference for identity-first language is not as uniform as it's made out to be, and "on the autism spectrum" represents a fairly non-controversial compromise. Its only drawback is that it's not as popular. In academic research, I'm assuming it's because they tend to use the full name "autism spectrum disorder". Google Scholar search results of the past 10 years yields this: "people with autism" -> 29.300 results, "autistic people" -> 16.900 results, "people on the autism spectrum" -> 5.590 results, "people with autism spectrum disorder" -> 12.200 results, "people with ASD" -> 17.000 results. On Google Trends, "autistic people" has overtaken "people with autism", and "people on the autism spectrum" ranks far beneath both of them.[14]

Based on popularity (academic and common) and the fact that there is support among autistic people, I'm not completely opposed to changing it to "autistic people", but said support is far from uniform so I'm hesitant about a hard line stance. TheZoodles (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospitals in Dharwad

• Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Dharwad to Category:Hospitals in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Hindu temples in Dharwad to Category:Hindu temples in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Dharwad to Category:Buildings and structures in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Engineering colleges in Dharwad to Category:Engineering colleges in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Medical colleges in Dharwad to Category:Medical colleges in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Universities and colleges in Dharwad to Category:Universities and colleges in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Education in Dharwad to Category:Education in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Neighbourhoods in Dharwad to Category:Neighbourhoods in Hubli–Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Dharwad to Category:Hubli–Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Government of Dharwad to Category:Local government in Karnataka
• Propose deleting Category:Geography of Dharwad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Roads in Dharwad to Category:Roads in Dharwad district
• Propose renaming Category:Road transport in Dharwad to Category:Road transport in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Rail transport in Dharwad to Category:Rail transport in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Transport in Dharwad to Category:Transport in Hubli-Dharwad

Nominator's rationale: These categories are one half of a twin city Hubli-Dharwad. The cities have a single municipal corporation called Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. (It's like the Twin-Cities Minnesota). Almost all of these categories were made by now blocked sock puppet. Mason (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is will impact a lot of categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Body horror video games

• Propose deleting Category:Body horror video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be entirely original research, not a thing whatsoever in video games, or in horror video games. User has been warned repeated for adding, and now creating, incorrect categories. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup It apparently is a thing in video games, there are plenty of sources that describe games as body horror, such as this one and this one. Body horror also has its own parent article. I'm not really aware of what bad categories this user made, but either way, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and that alone isn't a reason to delete a viable category. Any games that sources don't describe as body horror should be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree to keeping/cleanup AHI-3000 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Jewish agricultural colonies of Podolia Governorate

• Propose merging Category:Former Jewish agricultural colonies of Podolia Governorate to Category:Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire and Category:Historic Jewish communities in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only one article in the category is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States religion navigational boxes

• Propose deleting Category:United States religion navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete; duplicate category for Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes. The only template in it is already in Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States navigational boxes. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Category for the Template:Synagogues in the United States has been moved from Category:United States religion navigational boxes to Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes.; enagling deletion of the religion category in favour of the religion and beliefs category. Rangasyd (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, although Template:Synagogues in the United States wouldn't need to be put into Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes‎ since it's already in Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States navigational boxes, which is a subcategory of Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes. Relinus (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz, I believe Rangasyd, acting in good faith, removed the only content of the category. I've added it back. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism

• Propose merging Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism to Category:Former atheists and agnostics

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), it is unclear how these two categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. I think that converts from FOO is supposed to model other religion converts categories. I'd be interested in anyone from the religion/athesist categories chiming in in case we're missing something. Mason (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's part of an overarching category sceme with a certain logic. Former Fooians can become converts to some other religion, e.g. Barism.

• But if the new religion or lack thereof of the former Fooians cannot be determined, we cannot diffuse them to a subcategory called converts to Barism from Fooism.
• Or, it may be that a former atheist or agnostic has embraced some form of theism, but not converted to a specific institutionalised or traditional form of it. Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism is a containercat that currently only allows us to diffuse former atheists and agnostics as converts to Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. But of course, those are far from the only options on the 'market', so to speak.

I think this indeterminacy, as well as lack of options to diffuse to, is what requires these categories to remain separate. (Honestly, I understand where the idea to merge them comes from, and I had to think for quite some time before figuring out why I had a hunch that it might not be a good idea, and writing this down haha). NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A good example of a former Fooian whose current religion or lack thereof cannot be determined is Wesley Snipes. Raised as a Christian, converted to Islam, then left Islam, and we don't know what he considers himself these days. The default assumption may be that he is therefore an atheist or agnostic these days, but no RS says that, so such a conclusion is OR.

Similarly, there has been quite a lot of controversy around Antony Flew, a life-long atheist who appears to have embraced some form of theism just before he died and co-wrote a book titled There Is A God with a Christian. That Christian co-author has claimed that Flew converted to Christian theism just before he died, and that the book is "evidence" of Flew's wholehearted, sincere embrace of the Christian religion. Meanwhile, several atheists came out and called foul play, alleging that the co-author put words in Flew's mounth in order to construct a deathbed conversion story that is really convenient for propaganda purposes, and that Flew seems to have not embraced Christianity specifically, but a more general vague theism. Who can say? Flew is not there anymore now to explain. That's why he is in Category:Former atheists and agnostics, but not in Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, as his religious views just prior to his death cannot be precisely determined, and thus diffused. NLeeuw (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or widen the scope of the merge. The category Category:People by former religion has quite a few categories in it, including this one, of people by former religions or former non-religion. If we merge this one it would make sense to merge all of them. However, I feel like both categories are useful, as "Convert" categories show what they converted too, while the "Former" categories (which include the Converts as a subcat) are for those where the conversion "destination," for lack of a better word, is unknown. Relinus (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting categories like Category:Converts to Christianity, or Category:Converts to Islam, etc. all have many subcategories named "Converts to ____ from ___" which include the subcategories of Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism, namely Category:Converts to Buddhism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, Category:Converts to Hinduism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism, and Category:Converts to Judaism from atheism or agnosticism‎. It's not clear how this would be dealt with in the merge proposal. Relinus (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. You explain some of what I was trying to say better than I could. NLeeuw (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand the logic. Of course there are people who do not fit a "converts to" subcategory deeper in the tree. But how does it matter whether these people are in a general "converts" category or in a general "former" category? They are both general categories. In terms of widening the scope of the nomination, I am definitely planning to follow up with sibling categories if this goes ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the discussion is on merging the convert/former categories into one category even though they are both needed for the reasons stated above, namely that, as you say, "there are people who do not fit a 'converts to' subcategory deeper in the tree" but who would still fit into the "former" category. Since every religion/non-religion has both a "former" category and a "convert" subcategory, removing one or both for only atheism/agnosticism doesn't make sense. You would need to do the same for all religions, ie. merging Category:Converts from Buddhism and Category:Former Buddhists, etc. (That was what I meant by widening the scope of the merge, however, I would actually oppose that too, since it doesn't make sense either.) Relinus (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Relinus: until your bracket we seem to agree. I already mentioned I will do a follow-up nomination for all religions if this goes ahead. I do not understand why within the brackets you suddenly jump to a different conclusion. Why doesn't that make sense either? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video games by language

• Propose deleting Category:Spanish-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Czech-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Portuguese-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Arabic-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Video games using Mohawk dialogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this whole thing video game language category is just a big mess. These categories are tied to three previous Cfd - here, here, and here - where the nominator is behaving oddly. They nominated it but the began to oppose it the moment people voted delete, saying they would withdraw it but never did and instead created more categories. I don't know what is going on. These are the rest of the categories which weren't nominated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely overlapping with country(countries) of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty pageant controversies

• Propose deleting Category:Beauty pageant controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of this category are people, not events. Describing people as "controversies" simply because they've attracted some sort of negative media attention during their career - or, in some cases, for no evident reason at all - seems inappropriate and potentially a BLP concern. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Heavily purge, there are four articles that may stay here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Greece

• Propose splitting Category:Central Greece to Category:Central Greece (region) and Category:Central Greece (geographic region)

• Proposed contents of Category:Central Greece (region) – modern times (after 1987)
  • Main article: Central Greece (region)
  • Other articles: Template:Central Greece, Decentralized Administration of Thessaly and Central Greece
  • Child categories: Category:Buildings and structures in Central Greece, Category:Culture in Central Greece (but re-parent Category:Archaeological discoveries in Central Greece to Category:Central Greece (geographic region)), Category:Geography of Central Greece, Category:Organizations based in Central Greece, Category:People from Central Greece, Category:Sport in Central Greece, Category:Tourist attractions in Central Greece, Category:Transport in Central Greece, Category:Central Greece geography stubs.

• Proposed contents of Category:Central Greece (geographic region) – history (before 1987)
  • Main article: Central Greece (geographic region)
  • Other articles: Attica, Phocis and Locris Prefecture.
  • Child categories: Category:History of Central Greece, Category:Archaeological discoveries in Central Greece.

• Propose purging Attica (region).

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. Central Greece (region) is the modern administrative region (Περιφέρεια perifereia) established in 1987. Central Greece (geographic region) is the historic geographical region (γεωγραφικό διαμέρισμα geografiko diamerisma) abolished in 1987. I have WP:BOLDly renamed Central Greece (an WP:UNSOURCED article) to Central Greece (geographic region), and turned Central Greece into a DP, hoping to clarify the situation. Splitting the category is the next logical step. Child categories can be renamed if so desired per WP:C2C once this split is approved. NLeeuw (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds like a too complex solution for a not so complex problem. I think we should just remove Attica from Category:History of Central Greece and every of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is too simplistic a solution for a complex problem. I'll illustrate the problem with maps:

• 
  Central Greece (region), after 1987
• 
  Central Greece (geographic region), before 1987
• 
  Geographic regions of Greece, before 1987

If we want this category to be only about the modern administrative region (perifereia) of Central Greece, it's not just about removing Attica, it is also removing parts of Western Greece, removing the northeast coast of the Pelopponese (or not?), removing Kythira (or not?), but adding Skyros (or not?), and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough to remove those too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I nominated grandchild Category:Battles in Central Greece for renaming to Category:Military history of Central Greece. Under my current splitting proposal, that renaming proposal remains unaffected. But if we want to avoid the Lorraine problem, as in previous "Battles in" discussions, it might have to be renamed to Category:Military history of Central Greece (region) later on. My splitting proposal was designed mostly to solve that potential Lorraine problem ahead of time, but I guess it doesn't really matter, as we can always C2C it later. NLeeuw (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Farmers practicing sustainable agriculture

• Propose merging Category:Farmers practicing sustainable agriculture to Category:Farmers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection with occupation. Mason (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, then to Category:Organic farmers instead, and perhaps also to Category:Sustainability advocates. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former atheist critics of atheism

• Propose splitting Category:Former atheist critics of atheism to Category:Former atheists and agnostics and Category:Critics of atheism

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this narrow intersection. Also, it's unclear from the name if this is supposed to be former critics of atheism or former atheists. Mason (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Single merge to Category:Critics of atheism because all articles are already in a subcategory of Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, except Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the articles are already in Category:American critics of atheism and Category:British critics of atheism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you also going to merge Category:Former Muslim critics of Islam into Category:Former Muslims and Category:Critics of Islam? It seems like the same logic would apply to both, so the decision should be made together. Relinus (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I'm not sure yet whether we should split, but if we do, then both categories. NLeeuw (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]