< March 5 March 7 >

March 6

Category:Prehistoric synapsids

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: restructure. BlackholeWA, please go ahead per the discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect subcategory tree BlackholeWA (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an adjunct to the discussion below about birds/dinosaurs, I ended up taking a look at the supercategories of Category:Mammals, up to and including Category:Amniotes. For the most part, this is structured mostly as I'd expect, with categories for lower clades being included as subcategories of higher clades. However, I noticed that something seemed to be slightly off with the category tree for the categories Prehistoric synapsids and Pelycosaurs.

The category tree looks roughly like this, excluding branches:

Amniotes > Synapsids > Prehistoric synapsids > Pelycosaurs > Eupelycosauria > Sphenacodonts > Sphenacodontoidea > Therapsids > Mammals

There are two major problems with this, from what I can tell as somebody who is not a paleontologist. Firstly, the tree takes an odd route through "Prehistoric synapsids", despite the fact that the subcategory tree includes all mammals. In this sense, we are categorizing all modern mammals as "Prehistoric synapsids", which is obviously not accurate categorization.

Secondly, and perhaps the root cause of the problem, the "pelycosaurs" category seems to have some incorrect contents. According to the corresponding article, Pelycosaurs used to be considered a proper taxonomic order, but have since been redefined as a paraphyletic group that specifically excludes Therapsids and their descendants, such as the mammals. As such, the category currently contains subcategories that are supposed to be specifically excluded from its definition!

I think the entire problem could probably be solved by cutting Prehistoric synapsids and Pelycosaurs out of this tree, and, for instance, directly placing one of the three subcategories (Eupelycosauria maybe?) into Synapsids. I don't want to do this myself, however, as doing so would possibly mean restructuring the subcategories of Pelycosaurs so that all the right articles are still contained, and I'm not sure I know enough to correctly make the "break" at the right point, let alone do recategorization afterwards, so I thought I'd bring the matter here. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Prehistoric synapsids" I think would do fine remaining under Synapsida after removing Eupelcyosauria and Pelycosaurs as subcategories.
As for Pelycosaurs, looking at the remaining pages I think this category could perhaps be dissolved altogether. Two of them (Mesenosaurus and Mycterosaurus) are already under the Varanopidae subcategory of Eupelycosauria, so their inclusion directly under Pelycosauria seems redundant in the first place. The pages for Protoclepsydrops and Pelycosauria itself could probably also be put under Synapsida—the former's classification being indeterminate beyond synapsid, and the latter for its relevance to synapsid systematics.
Again, completely oblivious to the logistics of sorting categories, but I hope my input helps some. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was exactly the sort of input I was hoping for. I think we will probably be able to take your suggestions forward, if nobody objects. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in WWE

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 Category:Wikipedians who like WWE to Category:Wikipedians interested in WWE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fundamentally the same category, except Category:Wikipedians who like WWE is much more popular. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 6 March 2021 (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.

Template:Vietnam-painter-stub

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template with only 3 transclusions, doesn't even categorise into a separate category. ((painter-stub)) or ((Vietnam-bio-stub)) would work equally well. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Byzantine-era pagans

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. A follow-up nomination to consider exclusively a rename to Category:Late antique pagans could be started. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category almost exclusively encompasses pagans from between the conversion of Constantine in the early 4th century and the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Western Empire in the late 5th, a period usually referred to as 'Late Roman', not 'Byzantine'. Many of these did not even live in or come from the East Roman/Byzantine Empire, and there were very, if any (not worth categorizing), pagans in the historical Byzantium of the Middle Ages. The only oddity if this cat. is renamed as proposed would be Gemistus Pletho, who lived in the 15th century, but the designation 'Late Roman' is not technically incorrect for him. Avilich (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think splitting is appropriate. Those pagans who lived past 476 were still a relic of classical Roman times, and the label 'Byzantine' – broadly used to distinguish the Greek and Christian Empire from its Latin and pagan counterpart – is contingent on them ceasing to exist. Aside from the philosopher Plethon, there are very few people, if any, who could be genuinely referred to as Byzantine pagans. People from late antiquity didn't magically switch from being Roman to Byzantine simply by living past 476 or 500. Avilich (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this is a better name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire world outside of Roman influence in late antiquity was non-Abrahamic. This is too broad. Avilich (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late antiquity refers to the Roman and Byzantine Empire only. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't, see its wikipedia page. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions the rise of Islam in passing but late antiquity is not an islamic period. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't need to be an "Islamic period" for it to include everything that was going on in the region during that time. Late Antiquity is not a religion/empire specific term.★Trekker (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue was whether the entire world would be included and that is not the case, as late antiquity is primarily about the Roman and Byzantine Empire. It would be absurd to include early Muslims in Category:Late antique pagans. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who like cold weather

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't see how this is relevant to building an encyclopedia Le Deluge (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2021 (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.

Birds

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: remove Category:Birds from direct membership of Category:Dinosaurs, as this bypasses its existing proper categorisation via Category:Paravians which is already within Dinosaurs (albeit nine layers down). Dinosaurs is in turn already within Category:Reptiles (four layers down). Commendation to StarryGrandma for pointing this out; this point was only made rather late in the discussion, and explicitly influenced several who commented afterwards. Also, keep the popular culture categories for birds out of those for dinosaurs, etc. – Fayenatic London 08:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He means me. Please glance at the articles Bird, Dinosaur, Dinosaur size, etc. Wikipedia defines birds as dinosaurs, avian dinosaurs to be exact (the extinct ones are called non-avian dinosaurs). Just because I edit the topic and keep categories and articles on my watchlist in order to edit the topic does not mean disruption has occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source. To support your totally non-standard use of the words you would have to cite actual reliable sources using these terms, not just Wikipedia. However see I have cited two very reliable sources showing that you are just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your second reliable source says that birds are dinosaurs, and discusses how humans eat dinosaurs for dinner.Randy Kryn (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are English words, which have meanings government by common usage, not claudistic analysis. In common English usage dinosaur refers to a class of animals that all went extint millions of years before the first humans came to be. THis is how my Physical anthopology professor used the term in arguing that dionsaurs and humans never coexisted. Here [1] states dinosaurs died out 65 million years before the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/first humans existed. Here [2] is another firm no to dinosaurs and humans ever coexisting. I could cite lots and lots and lots and lots more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source says birds are dinosaurs, and is a major point of the article which has a misleading sub-headline. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belongs to a CfD discussion about Category:Dinosaur films on February 20. It is probably better to keep it together rather than starting a new discussion per today. Content wise I agree with John Pack Lambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another reason to delete the Category:Dinosaur films? not only have we no objective view of how much about dinosaurs a film must be, but we seem to have a difference of opinion on what dinosaurs encompass. The Birds (film) now a dinosaur film. As Spock would say: "fascinating". But, as between dinosaurs and birds, I do agree that conventional usage distinguishes the two. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum This simple, basic presentation at this Berkley website "Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals — just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct." Is the first Google hit for the string 'Dinosauria'. — Neonorange (Phil) 20:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AddendumThis frivolous request should be taken up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs — Neonorange (Phil) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is factually wrong. Humans belong to Synapsida, the sister group to Reptilia within Amniota. Humans are not reptiles and did not descend from reptiles. Early Synapsids were once referred to as "mammal-like reptiles" but this terminology is considered deprecated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh For Goodness Sake! Category:Reptiliomorphs: "During the Carboniferous and Permian periods, some tetrapods started to evolve towards a reptilian condition." Only pedants would argue about whether I'm referring to the more specific Reptilia versus Synapsida. Mammals split. Birds split. They all have their own taxonomy. We shouldn't waste everybodies time trying to create strict heirarchies of such splits, when the details are disputed and unknowable.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: please consider removing your last 6 words because they are not relevant to this discussion and they might lead to a huge off-topic discussion. If you remove the words, do not hesitate to delete this comment too. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay we've had our fun, this discussion has officially become nonproductive. I recommend we close this (keeping birds as a dinosaur subcategory, per status quo and scientific consensus) before it starts to become less wikipedia more seedy subreddit. BlackholeWA (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humans ARE classified as apes. --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, birds being dinosaurs is only mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede precisely because of objections like the ones found elsewhere in this discussion. It is a defining characteristic in some senses, but also one that editors throw a fit over. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be describing a standard scenario in which there is no consensus for inclusion of certain information in the lede paragraph. If there's a dispute about whether it's defining, I'm wary about categorizing by that feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"birds are not reptiles"? So I should tell the publishers of the text used to teach biology at my community college that their book is wrong? Many of the current texts used in colleges and universities have switched to presenting birds as part of their coverage of reptiles. Because they are reptiles. Your objections are based on outdated science. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even all scientists agree on it. There is enough scientific writing about the extinction of the dinosaurs. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scientific consensus is that birds are avian dinosaurs. The "extinction of the dinosaurs" is mostly a byphrase for the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. Words used to simplify doesn't mean that the truth isn't... true BlackholeWA (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. There exist some sources that say "dinosaurs have gone extinct" - Well, yes, because they are using the phrase "dinosaur" to mean "non-avian dinosaur". While this is a common usage, there is no reason for us to not use more proper definitions in the encyclopedia. Same goes for the "common terminology" argument. This isn't a case of common naming, this is a matter of stating sourced facts.
2. Being a taxonomic dinosaur is not a "key characteristic" of a bird - Why not? From an evolutionary and taxonomic standpoint, it is probably their most important characteristic. Who is deciding what makes these characteristics important? Current consensus holds that it is important enough that it is prominently discussed in the existing bird and dinosaur articles, with much emphasis, and taxonomic subgrouping is almost as straightforward as you can get as viable defining categories for biological organisms. Also, disregarding the bird category on its own, not including the bird category within the dinosaur category makes that category incomplete - as the accepted scientific definition of a dinosaur definitely encompasses modern birds. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original discussion here was most definitely NOT about films. Perhaps another discussion was, but not this one. If people are going to post comments like "Birds are not dinosaurs.", with a demand that categories be removed they have to expect to get pushback from the scientific community! MeegsC (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take the effort to click the link to the original discussion that has led to the current discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had trouble finding any link to the original discussion, but it doesn't change anything. You and John Pack Lambert keep asserting things that are, at best, misunderstandings of biological fact. Or, worse, completely outdated theories. --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the two applies to me. I am asserting that scientific language and common language have diverged. When a non-biologist uses the word "dinosaur" they mean the same thing that biologists in scientific writing would call a "non-Avian dinosaur". Neither is wrong, it is a matter of language, and (for this discussion) a matter of weight. I would imagine that common language would have more weight in Wikipedia (e.g. per WP:COMMONNAME), especially in non-scientific category trees like films. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BlackholeWA, although if any scientist 'pedians come along and argue that it's not an appropriate taxonomic classification I'd likely defer to them and change my !vote. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Russian Empire Azerbaijani people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People of the Russian Empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Russian Empire Azerbaijani people to Category:Azeri people from the Russian Empire or Category:Azeri people of the Russian Empire or Category:Azeri people in the Russian Empire
  • or Upmerge to Category:People of the Russian Empire
Nominator's rationale: Prefer from to match ((Fooers from Boo)), but Speedy discussion had of and in would be another possibility. Record as precedent at WP:CATNAME#Heritage.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy discussion
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2021 (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.

People from Samos

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division and (in this case) to island level. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2021 (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.

People from Serres (regional unit)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Serres (58,000 people), Irakleia, Serres (4,000 people), Sidirokastro (6,000 people) and Nigrita (9,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2021 (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.

People from Thesprotia

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Filiates. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian-South African culture in Johannesburg

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCLOCATION) There is no concept of "Asian South African Culture", let alone a city-based "Asian culture". Chinese, Asian (synonymous with Indian) and Japanese people in SA/Johannesburg are not a coherent group in any way Park3r (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2021 (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.

Categorization of People

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: (see below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG VENUE
If needed, start an RFC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a centralized discussion about merging Wikipedia:Category names#Categorization of people into its main guideline, Wikipedia:Categorization of people.

Nominator's rationale — we have many recent CfD where the creators of categories have not read all of the instructions, resulting in much more work here. Originally, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) was a WP:POLICY. Over time, various parts have been split by Francis Schonken. This is making it harder for editors to grok.
The former has subsections (I'd originally created several of them):
  • Neutrality
  • Occupation
  • Heritage
  • Residence
  • Time periods
The latter has newer parallel subsections, several of which are nearly the same:
  • By nationality and occupation
  • By heritage
  • By place
  • By time period
  • By year
Better yet, there are many defined shortcuts to make documenting easier, such as WP:COP-PLACE, WP:COP-HERITAGE, WP:COPCENTURY.
The latter also has an extensive section:
  • Creating a new category where details specific to people are gathered.
Francis Schonken recently opined: "... People don't read guidance (and even less edit accordingly) when something isn't expressed clear & compact. And that's what is wrong with the newly proposed text (which was in fact already included in the guideline all along). Even proponents of that text were thus far unable to locate it in the guideline. ... Please consider reformulating it to something that is more easily understood, and hence more easily followed by Wikipedia editors."
Merging them will make future discussion easier here at CfD, and has better facilities for edit summaries.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose burdening CfD with this. The cleanup needs to happen, only if and when such cleanup would appear problematic (which thus far does not seem to be the case), more precise points could be brought here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is backward. We decide the guidelines here in centralized discussion. We only polish them on the Talk pages. Agree that cleanup needs to happen. But frankly, you did the split with substantial duplication, and that has caused the current confusion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally, all the discussion of how to populate the categories was included under the naming. Now, most of it has migrated to the more specific Categorization of people. Better to move all of it.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned this CfD can be closed now, unless there's an intractable problem with the separation of topics I just operated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, all the parts need to be in one place, not just the parts that you personally like. The separation itself is intractable. It has caused many arguments here at CfD.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The separation of "category naming" guidance from "categorization guidance" appeared fairly simple (didn't take me so much time). Some of the guidance I originally wrote (& still am attached to) for the COP guideline is currently rightly positioned in the "category naming" guidance, so this has nothing to do with what I or you prefer. It's a simple factual separation of the guidance regarding how categories are named (which belongs in the category naming guideline) and how such categories are applied in biographical articles (which belongs in the WP:COP guidance). I'm not impressed that the former failure to effectuate such quite clear and simple separation caused so much CfD trouble in the past, a past which we can put behind us now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • History — correcting some misconceptions in earlier comments:
Copied over Residence subsection, in an attempt to reduce duplication.
This was the first cross link. At this point, Naming conventions already had considerably more detail than Categorization of people.
Naming conventions added pursuant to recent CfD and VPP, not properly updated in Categorization of people (until today).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "At this point, Naming conventions already had considerably more detail than Categorization of people" – possible, but that is no defense of what shouldn't have happened there and then, and apparently was the origin of multiple CfD appearances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've tried this split for 15 years now, it did not work well. Better to move everything to one convenient place, just as we already did for WP:EGRS. Hopefully we learn our lessons from past experience, rather than doubling down on a failed tactic.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, I don't think that a good idea. Grouping category naming guidance on a page titled Wikipedia:Category names seems logical. Moving all guidance that is not about category naming to a more appropriate place, like I did, is equally logical. Sorry if that clashes with your ideas of more flawed forms of guidance presentation being preferable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion should be somewhere else, as the renaming/deletion of specific categories is not proposed and nothing is tagged. A talk page for instance. "Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types." Oculi (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid this discussion is completely opaque. Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose this is a Request for Comment and should be handled as an WP:RFC, not at WP:CFD. If an RFC is opened, I will make further comment there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Detector dogs

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is mostly technical, but why do we have Category:Detector dogs for the main article Detection dog? Either this category is renamed to detection dogs, or the main article should be renamed to detector dog. I honestly don't have a preference one way or another. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works by Ishikawa Masamochi

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. This could be re-considered if more relevant articles are created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Out of curiosity, where does "5+" come from? I'm not familiar with the guidelines regarding cats (when I create an article I give it the cats that I think it should logically have, and if those cats don't exist I create them). Based on SMALLCAT (linked above) I was assuming that only categories that are not theoretically expandable were not to be included, but when met with opposition I started working on another article. However (as the massive drop-off in my monthly contrib count will demonstrate), I'm quite busy IRL these days -- pumping out one other article that could be connected to the existing Genchū Yoteki one through this category seemed like something I could do in the space of a week or so, but four is a bit... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 has been the usual cut-off mentioned in discussions by many editors ever since I found WP:CFD quite a few years ago. At some point of time I suggested to mention this number in the guideline but that idea was rejected, if I remember correctly because it would be too much instruction creep. I still think it would be helpful to mention, not as a prerequisite but as an ongoing practice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point, I also suggested rewriting the editing guideline so we don't have what amounts to CFD case law. We've had several editors read WP:SMALLCAT in good faith only to come here to find out the way we pretty consistently use 5 articles as a rule of thumb. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Color articles with suppressed CYMK data

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a typo of Category:Color articles with suppressed CMYK data. I initially tagged a CSD, but the category is refreshing too slowly for my typo to clear up. I guess it will become empty in a week or so? Sigh. Artoria2e5 🌉 07:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be eligible for a speedy deletion, really. Given that the categories in question came from a template, I just ran an API script available through the Special:ApiSandbox: select the purge option, turn on forcerecursivelinkupdate and set generator to categorymembers under purge, and set gcmtitle under categorymembers to Category:<NAME OF CATEGORY>. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:South Park (season 24) episodes

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. (There was no content to merge to Category:South Park episodes.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I feel this category was made pre-maturely. It should be deleted and remade when the 24th season starts officially airing or we can come to a clear concrete consensus that these specials do in-fact make up the 24th season. Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drives me crazy when people do this. Here, editors consider the situation and weigh in with their opinions but it is moot because someone empties the category before the discussion is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical board games

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category Category:Works about history and similar cases, the current name a bit ambiguous and can suggest this category is for 'old' board games while it is for board games by genre. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian-South African culture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Asian South African. That category would need to be nominated to be renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCLOCATION). There is no real concept of Asian-South African (the term Asian is synonymous with "Indian" in South Africa), and there certainly is no concept of Asian-South African culture. Park3r (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first CfD, so forgive any mistakes I make. The category Category:Asian-South African culture in Johannesburg is not particularly useful. Category:Chinese-South African culture already groups the Chinese places meaningfully. Fordsburg doesn't have much in common with those areas, since it's an Indian and Pakistani enclave, and neither does the Japanese School (which parallels the reason why the parent category is also not useful). It doesn't serve any purpose and can also be deleted.Park3r (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Order of the Republic (Sierra Leone)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Order of the Republic (Sierra Leone)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
Order of the Republic (Sierra Leone) is a Sierra Leonean award and, refreshingly, most of the recipients are associated with Sierra Leone. The 5 articles consists of 3 domestic politicians, 1 UN official stationed in the country, and the King of Saudi Arabia. The award is generally mentioned in passing with other honours and doesn't seem defining. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Civil Order of Savoy

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Civil Order of Savoy
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT)
Civil Order of Savoy was a House of Savoy house order from the Italian Kingdom of Sardinia. We have 3 articles in this category: The 1st and 2nd are princes of the House of Savoy so they are already categorized under Category:Princes of Savoy while the 3rd is a physician with no clear connection either to the House of Savoy or to Sadinia. All 3 mention the award in passing with other honours. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2021 (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.
More