< June 27

June 29 >

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. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Actors by region in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Actors from France by region
Propose renaming Category:Artists by region in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Artists from France by region
Propose renaming Category:Footballers by region in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Footballers from France by region
Propose renaming Category:Writers by region in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Writers from France by region

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#X by Y in Z. Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support having the splitter at the end. Now we are at it, can we also change Actors from France to French actors, etc.? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:FC Pari Nizhny Novgorod seasons. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FC Nizhny Novgorod seasons to Category:FC Pari Nizhny Novgorod seasons

Nominator's rationale: To comply with the club name change EpicAdventurer (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per C2D, match parent article name. Giant Snowman 10:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; only one member. Queen of Hearts ^talk 18:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus The dispute is whether this intersection is sufficiently defining, and people have made arguments on both sides in similar numbers. The 2016 consensus being overturned was weak, based just on two thinly-argued comments in a messy discussion, so is not binding here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- I've actually been thinking about this a little... what in EGRSD implies a higher bar than the intersection being notable/encyclopedic? Is there someone who could explain that higher bar in a way that makes it clear where the guideline does not? In particular, I don't see anything that suggests a higher bar, and the section's prose even ends with "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?" (Which. It can. The nom says as much.) I'm considering changing my !vote to a non-weak oppose, but I wanted to see if anyone can make me see something in EGRSD that I'm not picking up on. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Here's the quote from egrs, with two underlines.@Purplewowies
  
  >Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics) with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless that combination is itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic), as academically or culturally significant in its own right. The mere fact that such people happen to exist is not a valid criterion for determining the legitimacy of a category.
  
  It effectively says that the intersection needs to be defining as a topic, as opposed to some categories that are just used to diffuse a larger category, like 1901 events etc or people from Georgia. The fact that such people exist isn't enough, which is effectively the argument I'm making. The literature says that these people exist and do at higher rates, which could and does support a page existing, but it doesn't mean that there's a body of academic literature that the intersection of two identities is defining above and beyond that two identities by themselves. Mason (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the explanation! I'm still of the mind it's defining based on that guideline, but I'll keep my "official" !vote labeled as weak. *thinking emoji* - Purplewowies (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (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]

Keep, numerously populated, interesting and useful. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Interesting and WP:useful are not reasons to keep categories. In fact they are both arguments to avoid, especially when it a violation of other policies. Mason (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, as per WP:USEFUL you've just hyperlinked, [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. Usefulness is indeed to be avoided in AfD discussions, not here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an intersection which reliable sources recognize and discuss, as with Autism and LGBT identities. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup It's definitely a valid horror subgenre, but could use some cleanup, particularly for the franchise categories lumped in.

ThanatosApprentice (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Reverse merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Youth activists to Category:Child activists

Nominator's rationale: I think we should just merge these two categories, they're both extremely similar with the defining feature being that the activist is notable for being young. Mason (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom or reverse merge per article title Youth activism. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Child activists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge, which should also come with renaming all subcategories from "child" to "youth". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reverse merge would conflict though with all of the Fooian children categories. Mason (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so we should also nominate those. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a "lot" of those, just look at for example Category:American children Mason (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would merely propose renaming the subcategories of Category:Child activists and move these under Category:Youth in the United States etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So would they no longer be parented by American children etc? I'm just trying to make sure I understand the final vision. I'm not opposed, but I'm also not not opposed. Mason (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am inclined to say yes, no longer be parented by American children etc. But that would not be a big issue for me. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging, in either direction - I've slightly reworded for greater clarity the head note for Category:Child activists to read as follows: "This category is for individuals who were notable as activists during childhood, i.e. before the age of 15." Whereas the head note for Category:Youth activists refers to the age range of 15 to 24 years, which conforms with the definition of "youth" that was adopted by the United Nations. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalous+0: if it is really desirable to make this distinction (which I am not convinced of) it means that every subcategory by nationality needs to be split too. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw and Smasongarrison: Marcocapelle already replied to Anomalous+0's comment above; do you have thoughts? House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think that the distinction between youth and child is important for categories at these intersections. I'm more on board with reverse merge and removing children as a parent. Mason (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I think the objection has some merit, though I don't feel strongly about it. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:User Fanoflionking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:User Fanoflionking Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:User Fanoflionking landmark edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Pages created by User fanoflionking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Fanoflionking talk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Fanoflionking user page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:UCFD/I#Personal userspace categories. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Chiang Mai to Category:Kings of Chiang Mai

Nominator's rationale: per article Kingdom of Chiang Mai. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll need to think this over, but right now I'm leaning toward oppose as there's no consensus in history-writing on the English-language term used to refer to such rulers, though rulers is commonly used. On a related note, I notice you've attempted a reorganization to match the category's scope with that of the Kingdom of Chiang Mai article, which I'm not sure was optimal. As raised at Talk:Lan Na, there was not a separate "Kingdom of Chiang Mai", rather the article just covers the a period in Lan Na's history when it was under suzerainty of Bangkok, so it's probably the articles that need to be re-structured. But the categories can be updated again when and if that does happen. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Indirect WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012: any further thoughts? – Fayenatic London 11:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll oppose per my above comment. King is not the standard terminology here. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Films with scents to Category:Olfactory art

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Removed three entries where this was non-defining, leaving just the two films and the general topic (which isn't itself a film so maybe shouldn't be in here as an entry; perhaps ((catseealso)) would've made more sense). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that it's not defining on Postcard from Earth, where the 4-D aspect of the film is discussed substantially. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article only mentions the scent once in the lead and says nothing substantial about it in particular. If there's more to be written about that aspect then it should be added, at which point I would reconsider the category placement. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 16:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NARROWCAT. A little surprised to see that Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (film) wasn't even categorized here. No problem with some light cross-referencing via "See also" sections. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer deletion over merging? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, @Erik, please clarify your vote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I missed that it was a merge request. Still, looking at the items in Category:Olfactory art, I feel like these are very different topics, and I don't see films that happen to be about scents to be olfactory art by any definition. It should be up-merged to a category "Scents in media" or "Films about senses", but neither exist. Still think deletion is ultimately best. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the history of these effects is documented well in the article Smell-O-Vision. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to deletion. Erik makes a fine point about the association being loose. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Autistic Wikipedians. There is a lot going on here, but given a clear majority of participants (four, one of which is "mild"; compared to two in opposition, one of which is described as "lean") feel that the categories should be merged, it would be supervoting to close this as anything but merge absent strong arguments in opposition. The non-merger of the mainspace articles was brought up, but that did not sway the opinions of others. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome to Category:Autistic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category. Asperger's syndrome is no longer an official diagnosis so there shouldn't be a category suggesting it is either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the categories should be merged. Jarble (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it mildly licentious (maybe?) to request a merge of this Category, when the two main articles that are the subject matter of this proposal, namely Asperger syndrome and Autism, are currently being Considered for Merger with no unanimous clear consensus ~~reached~~ against the adoption of said merge proposal.

However, if I am wrong (entirely possible) and this proposal is not precipitate in view of the on-going discussion mentioned further above, then I Oppose, since not all countries have adopted ICD-11, and it continues to be an official diagnosis in some jurisdictions. There is also the possibility that some people might, for whatever personal reasons, identify more with the Asperger’s label than they do with Autism. We should not be taking away a notably significant and not-yet-historic diagnosis because of ICD-11. -Konanen (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Konanen, I didn't know about the merger and I would be against it myself since the scope of articles and categories are very different. Categories have a more stricter rules. From everything on the matter, Asperger's is no longer an official diagnosis. I wouldn't have taken the step if I wasn't sure. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: Can you (or anyone else) please share what the rules on categories are? I have no idea where to find them, and I really enjoy not spewing nonsense, which I cannot do if I do not know the rules. Thank you in advance! –Konanen (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Konanen, hey there. You can read the rules at WP:CFD. Being completely honest, its fair complicated and I don't fully understand it myself. Still figuring it out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support, we should keep article Asperger syndrome for historical reasons, but user categories like Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome aren't about history, they are about now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. The removal/subcategorization of Asperger's isn't really as clear cut. Many people were diagnosed with the disorder when it was in existence (which I think was as recently as 2019?), and they might very well still identify with that diagnosis, even if its been subsumed. I'd really like to get some more voiced from folks active in the Autism wikiproject as well as folks from the category itself. (I'm aware that we have have some good representation in CFDs, but... I'd rather have more voices on this rather than fewer). Mason (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I would love for them to have a say, certainly. I'm personally still learning about it myself and I could very well be wrong here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was very confident that you would :) And I think that the tentative approach we're taking here is a good way to go about it. I could be convinced in either direction. Mason (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if the term does not exist anymore then the category should not exist, just got diagnosed with autism today. Sahaib (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose following non-merger of articles, see Talk:Autism#Proposal_to_merge_Asperger_syndrome_here. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both It's time we revisit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome which was closed as no consensus despite the lack of any clear argument to keep. This category has always failed WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. And I say this as someone with Asperger syndrome myself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't consensus to do that then merge. The point isn't how I (or other members in the category) identify themselves, it's whether there is some value in grouping people who choose to identify in one way versus those who choose to identify in the other way on what modern science now says is the same issue. And I'm not seeing it.
Because of my longstanding position on user category CfDs I'm not a good representative of the autism/Asperger's community here, other than the principle that wanting ones view of the rules to be followed strictly is a common manifestation of the syndrome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Syndromic autism with no consensus on whether the category should continue to exist or not. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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[1], whereas "Syndromic autism" gives about 3,470 results[2]. 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, House Blaster (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]

Oppose deletion. Autism is not just a slightly higher prevalence; it is a significant and clinically relevant feature of these syndromes, affecting more than a third or even more than half of the patients in some cases. Digressivo (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles do not even mention autism. Or, people with Cornelia de Lange syndrome may exhibit behaviours that have been described as "autistic-like", which is not to say that they are autistic people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific literature clearly indicates the significance of autism spectrum disorder in these syndromes (e.g., see the sources cited in the Syndromic autism article). Therefore, I think the issue here is to improve the articles to include the relevant information rather than removing the entire category. Digressivo (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Old roads in Morocco to Category:History of transport in Morocco and Category:Roads in Morocco

Nominator's rationale: merge, poorly populated category and other countries don't have this sort of category either. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Marcocapelle. My thought when creating this category was to populate it with articles about road systems in Morocco at various historical periods. Even if other geographical areas or countries don't have such a category, that's not a sufficient ground, in my opinion, to merge it or delete it. Perhaps we should consider creating more such categories for other countries or regions, if they can be populated with available topics. In fact, I think topics related to history of traffic and roads still need a lot of coverage. Ideophagous (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any articles in Category:Roads in Morocco that could be moved to "old roads". Besides, how old is old? That is pretty subjective, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle I agree that the title of the category is a bit ambiguous and can be improved. For example "Category:Ancient roads in Morocco" or "Category:Historical roads in Morocco" may be a better fit. As I already mentioned, a lot of coverage is still needed for these topics, not only for Morocco, so it's quite expected that you won't find many articles in such a category. Ideophagous (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then at least the category is premature. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3][4][5][6].
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, Qwerfjkl talk 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]

Oppose: The Arab world is not more loosely defined. It's the member states of the Arab League. Charles Essie (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Arab League is just that: a league. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian police chiefs to Category:Australian police commissioners

Nominator's rationale: Inline with article names. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not all of them held the title of commissioner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The head of ACT Policing is named "Chief Police Officer". TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Bugs Bunny video games and purge. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games featuring Bugs Bunny to Category:Bugs Bunny video games

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Daffy Duck video games and purge. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games featuring Daffy Duck to Category:Daffy Duck video games

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current name clarifies that Daffy Duck is the featured character, while the suggested name will include any trivial appearance of Daffy. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not how the established category tree/naming scheme works.★Trekker (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fan translation of video games to Category:Fan-translated video games

Nominator's rationale: Although this category's name was copied from the article Fan trasnlation of video games, this category lists individual games that were fan-translated. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existence of an unofficial version is a trivial characteristic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LaundryPizza03. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The existence of a fan translation is not a trivial characteristic. Mother 3 is a game notorious for still not having an official translation, so much so that Mother 3 fan translation has its own article. I can't see how that's not WP:DEFINING. It's literally in the title. Nickps (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per LaundryPizza03. I say for now because something like Mother 3 fan translation certainly belongs in this category, but one member is not sufficient to support a category. If and when it is recreated, it should host articles about fan translations, not video games which happen to have fan translations. But mere existence of fan translations for a game is not defining for that game itself – it is only defining for the translations themselves. If this is kept (and that is a big "if"; I firmly believe that this category should be deleted in its current state), I would agree that the proposed rename makes more sense than the current name. But I still strongly believe that this should be deleted. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Video games based on Looney Tunes. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Video games featuring Sylvester the Cat to Category:Video games based on Looney Tunes

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. Only three games here are actually defined by Sylvester. ★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, while SMALLCAT no longer applies, nom is right that the large amount of these articles is not really about Sylvester the Cat. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes) video games and purge. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 00:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games featuring the Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes) to Category:Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes) video games

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Intersex pansexual people to Category:Intersex plurisexual people
Propose merging Category:Intersex bisexual people to Category:Intersex plurisexual people

Nominator's rationale: These categories are too small, merging would make them bigger together. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, we do not have a category tree for plurisexual people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcocapelle. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Intersex people and the respective subcategory of Category:LGBT people. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would lead to deletion, since the articles are already in subcategories of these targets. I would not be against that though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Electric bass guitars by manufacturer. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Dean bass guitars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 1-article category. Merge to Category:Electric bass guitars by manufacturer Gjs238 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:History of Podgorica. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Centuries in Podgorica to Category:History of Podgorica

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Redcar and Cleveland geography stubs to Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 27 stubs, below the usual threshold of 60. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge districts are generally not a good way of subdividing even if they have enough as most people won't know what district a place is in, the ceremonial county is far better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete both House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Permadeath games to Category:Permadeath video games
- Added on relisting:
- Propose deleting Category:Permadeath role-playing games

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with similar category names in "Video games by gameplay element". Also because I recently created a separate category for permadeath role-playing games. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Insufficiently disambiguated from Category:Permadeath role-playing games. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if it is a defining characteristic. If not deleted, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete Not aware that permadeath is an actual genre, so it fails WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? (I don't see any opposition to the rename, if the category is to be kept.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. I have added the new parent created by QuantumFoam66 into the nomination. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wp:CATDEF, it's not defining. Permadeath role-playing games isn't a thing as all tabletop roleplaying games are permadeath if that's how the table plays it. There is no such thing as a rule that applies to a all instances of a particular role-playing game and that kind of would go against the purpose and meaning of them. All role-playing games are permadeath, or not permadeath, depending on the desires of the people playing the game. It's a pointless category that means nothing and is not supported by any references or industry discussion. By trying to create it and add it to articles I believe the editor may not understand what a role-playing game is. Canterbury Tail talk 00:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 28

X by region in France

Category:Whirly-Girls

Category:Fictional illeists

Category:FC Nizhny Novgorod seasons

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation

Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients

Category:Former high schools in Tokyo

Category:Autistic LGBT people

Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism

Category:Central Greece

Category:Body horror video games

Involving countries

Category:Youth activists

Category:User Fanoflionking

Category:Rulers of Chiang Mai

Category:Films with scents

Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome

Category:Syndromes with autism

Category:Old roads in Morocco

Category:Secularism in the Arab world

Category:Australian police chiefs

Category:Video games featuring Bugs Bunny

Category:Video games featuring Daffy Duck

Category:Fan translation of video games

Category:Video games featuring Sylvester the Cat

Category:Video games featuring the Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes)

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions

Category:Intersex plurisexual people

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)

Category:Dean bass guitars

Category:Centuries in Podgorica

Category:Redcar and Cleveland geography stubs

Category:Permadeath games