To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:
* NO BOTS[[:Category:old name]] to[[:Category:new name]] – Reason~~~~
Remember to tag the category page with:{{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 10:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are224 open requests (refresh).
Administrators andpage movers:Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categoriesare processed following the 48-hour waiting period and are moved by a bot.
Oppose all "in fiction" renamings: if we changeCategory:Foos in fiction toCategory:Fiction about Foos, that changes the content of the category fundamentally. The first category is aset category about Foos, the proposed new name is atopic category about a certain type of fiction. Please seeWP:Categorization, set vs topic categories. I think this is highly questionable, because they're not the same thing, and it certainly doesn't qualify as speedy.HandsomeFella (talk)17:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An ambiguous state name is OK when clear from context or previous disambiguation e.g. "Washington" the articleWashington (state).
New York State is acceptable, but for other states, use the short name or "State of" or "Commonwealth of" to name the state or its government, always capitalized if matching the formal name.State of New York,Commonwealth of Massachusetts,state of Massachusetts,Montana state budget. This avoids confusion with state universities and sports teams likeArizona State (which redirects toArizona State University).Washington State is a disambiguation page; it is especially important to useState of Washington for the state andWashington State University orWSU for the university.
The above is meant to be descriptive of common practices, not prescriptive.
”
Everything in that article seems to indicate towards a need for disambiguation where needed or out of necessity. As I've pointed out, there is not yet a need for disambiguation on that Category page. There is absolutely nothing that suggests that New York State must beNew York (state) by default on Wikipedia. That is not a rule, and you're putting thecart before the horse.DA1 (talk)04:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was recently moved in the opposite direction, and now you moved the article without any consensus. We should proceed via a full discussion, not here.Ymblanter (talk)08:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy. It is far from obvious that the nameSayfo has gained a wide enough understanding to be immediately preferred toAssyrian genocide, making the move too controversial for speedy. This would benefit from a full discussion.Place Clichy (talk)13:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. In favor of this proposal. Labeling it as Assyrian goes against C2D guidelines and raises other controversial issues. It also fails to address the complexity of the label.User623921 (talk)10:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugsalot: I'm just saying this is too sensitive and unclear for speedy, and I suggest a full discussion at CfD. On a wider note, these discussions (which are far from unanimous consensus) seemed to be mostly concerned by some belligerent editing we have seen in the past about theAssyrian name, to which some seemed to prefer other terms likeAramean (a debate strangely apparently internal to the Swedish diaspora). However, this often contentious back-and-forth editing seems to have calmed down a lot on Wikipedia lately, as seen e.g.here orhere.Place Clichy (talk)17:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are more mentions of the event as the Assyrian genocide compared to the event as Sayfo, and the event is generally referred to as the Assyrian genocide barring arguments for a Syriac, Aramean, or Chaldean label.Surayeproject3 (talk)17:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
disagree. From means they originated there, while Of means they are associated with the place. Governors of Kirundo Province often came from other provinces.Aymatth2 (talk)21:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter: This isn't a part of the site I understand well, but I'm here because some categories were renamed onLegends of Runeterra andLeague of Legends: Wild Rift. I feel strongly that this change should not mirror the parent and I cannot find the discussion for those changes being made. "Spinoff" is a singular word on its own, but needs a hyphen when used as an adjective (e.g., "spin-off games").Spinoff (media) is fine. "Spinoff game", on the other hand, is just plain bad grammar. —ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)21:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: As a non-native speaker, I do not have any opinion on this. I just implemented the result of the discussion which appeared to be consensus. Probably the only reasonable way forward is a full discussion atWP:CFD.--Ymblanter (talk)12:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the topic is presumably notable, but it is not a defining characteristic of the biography articles. Those are two very different things.Marcocapelle (talk)18:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: NPOV issues with the term perpetrator -- perpetrator is an inherently value-laden term that assumes criminal activity, whereas combatant is a neutral term used in international law to describe participants in military conflicts.Althistwikibox (talk)14:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is strictly necessary, but here's the link to the Wiktionary entry for "perpetrator."
Nominator's rationale: They are part of the same family, but otherwise rather different and each have their own main category. There is no apparent reason to combine the two into a single category. This would also apply to any combined subcategories, or if the ensuing category would be too small, the contents would be upmerged.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)09:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's specifically talking about the United States region of North America. I don't think people are dumb enough to believe that the United States was around in prehistoric times, but neither was the continent as we know it in some cases, so "Dinosaurs of North America" would be equally as bad under your logic.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)14:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As saidelsewhere, all geographic regions of the modern day are anachronistic to fauna from over 75 million years ago. Dinosaurs of Pangaea is hardly a useful description given that *every dinosaur* that lived in the Triassic lived on Pangaea. North America didn't even exist until after all non-avian dinosaurs were extinct. There is also a double standard here, as modern animals also do not respect geopolitical boundaries. SoCategory:Birds of the United States is equally problematic.IJReid{{T -C -D -R}}02:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point that the continents are anachronistic as well. Then we may just as well delete geographic categories for dinosaurs entirely. Dinosaurs have already been categorized by geological age, that may suffice.Marcocapelle (talk)07:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' What is being considered as "Africa" here? If it isn't the Roman province, then using the term "Roman Africa" could be construed to be anything on thecontinent of Africa, and not just theregion of the province. Thus the proposed name is highly ambiguous.Roman Libya andRoman Africa also engender confusion, as Rome called the continent Libya (Ancient Libya]), and there was also provinces called Libya, and our article on Roman Africa is not the same scope as the categories being proposed to be renamed --65.92.246.77 (talk)00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@65.92.246.77: Good question. I'll repeat the relevant remarks from the prior discussion:
inDiocletian's administrative reforms (sometime between 284–305 CE),Africa (Roman province) was split intoAfrica Zeugitana,Africa Byzacena, andAfrica Tripolitania. In 314 CE, these provinces were grouped together along with almost all Roman provinces on the African continent in theDiocese of Africa. Thus there essentially was no Roman province named just "Africa" in the 3rd-5th centuries. With my rename proposal, I suggest the new category scope includes all Roman and Byzantine-controlled areas on the African continent.
So, this would include Roman Egypt? In this case I think it would be better to call it "Roman North Africa", to dispense with terms that may be confused with entities that existed called "Africa" under Roman rule. --65.92.246.77 (talk)03:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using "Roman Africa". It's as good a choice as "North Africa", since the Romans wouldn't have used that terminology, and readers who don't know that Egypt was never included in Roman Africa won't distinguish Egypt from "North Africa" either; thus there is no advantage to "North Africa". The alternative proposal, "Diocese of Africa", would be inaccurate for at least half the period covered, and add a potential layer of confusion due to the use of "Diocese" as an ecclesiastical designation.P Aculeius (talk)12:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have to be clear what we mean here. Is it Roman people from Africa (including people from Egypt) or is it people from a specific place under Roman control?★Trekker (talk)13:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anybody suggested doing so. "Roman Africa" doesn't normally include Egypt, though "North Africa" usually does, which is why "Roman North Africa" might be confusing. There's a simple way to address this, though it won't necessarily eliminate all mistakes: mention on the category page that "Roman Africa" excludes Egypt, which was a separate province at all periods of Roman history. That won't prevent editors from mistakenly including persons from Egypt, but it will provide guidance for anyone who checks the category first, and for pruning it when people are mistakenly included.P Aculeius (talk)20:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not seeing consensus on rename target, but clear consensus for a rename. I will also tag the categories. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pages related to the WikiProject meta banner
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Not likely to have anything else in the future;{{WPBannerMeta}} is a historical template after it was Lua-fy-ed.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere per nom. I have no opinion about the merge target. (I am just noting that the proposed merge target is not the parent category.)Marcocapelle (talk)06:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This article seems overbroad as to be unhelpful. If one can look briefly enough to stay in a good mood, it does not seem the analogousCategory:Violence against women would be terribly helpful without all those subcategories.Remsense ‥ 论23:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCYEAR. Not useful to diffuse the 20th century by year in French Polynesia. Do not need to merge the individuals year categories to "YYYY in Oceania" because the content is already in that tree. –Aidan721 (talk)21:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The eponymous parent is just a redundant and unnecessary layer to the "works by" subcategory each of these hold since none contain anything else but its main eponymous article.StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me15:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Justdelete. The songs written are all redirects, and the albums and songs categories are interlinked. This discography page can be downmerged to those two subs.StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me14:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only subcategory in target, and it only houses two subcats of its own. Seems like a redundant layer to me. Did also houseNile University, but I removed that because it's in a different city.QuietHere (talk |contributions)03:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that this should be renamed per c2c New Zealand Māori people by occupation, but I'm not sure that it's clear cut.SMasonGarrison01:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even if restricted purely to New Zealand this would excludePasifika scientists such asDianne Sika-Paotonu (who should probably be in this category as originally named) and for whom it would not make sense to split off a separate category. The better fix is to broaden the parent category and its hierarchy. —David Eppstein (talk)07:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only categorized disestablishment in the Colony of Santiago is that of the colony itself. Upmerging that leaves a chunk of category tree empty. Separately, this upmerges sparsely populated years (most years don't even have categories) into decades for disestablishments in the Spanish West Indies, paralleling what was done for establishments. --Beland (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Beland (talk)21:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only categorized establishment in the 16th century in Santiago is that of the colony itself. Upmerging the articles leaves a chunk of category tree empty, which is the rest of the above cleanup. --Beland (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Beland (talk)21:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, in principle the "Fiction" tree consists of "Works" and "Fictional elements" (e.g. "Fictional characters") but in practice the above categories only contain "Works".Upmerge when a Works subcategory already exists (from the 14th century BC onwards).Marcocapelle (talk)19:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They serve different governments. It's like saying that there shouldn't be separate categories for American federal senators and state senators.Atchom (talk)23:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: these are events in the very vague meaning of "anything that happened in history". This is follow-up onthis earlier discussion. Manually merge, because a few subcategories are already in the military, political or social history subcat.Marcocapelle (talk)06:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (As Creator): It currently only contains navigational boxes, but I see no reason why it should only be limited to such. I chose the name as a sort of future proofing.Why? I Ask (talk)02:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, but the categories are useful for investigating the history of the territory now covered by Guatemala, without getting lost in a maze of categories and articles that are not directly relevant. I thereforeoppose. Modern territorial boundaries are often used for historical study.Simon Burchell (talk)15:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdraw nomination. The categories have been restored and instead made subcategories of the speculative fiction category, which seems reasonable to me.Clarityfiend (talk)21:08, 23 March 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I don't see a page for this project and its been over 5 years since this category was created. If there isn't a project, then this category isn't really needed.Gonnym (talk)17:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only here because the reason for this CfD appears to be due to the fact you decided two edits I made in which I added this category were non-definining - despite the fact that one of the articles has anentire subsection on the topic. Furthermore, the previous nomination pointed out by @Marcocapelle above, was started by none other than yourself just five months ago, and was closed as "no consensus". Are you going to continue pushing this until you get the outcome you want?Iostn (talk)19:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting, relevant to current societal dialogues. It's perhaps not considered relevant in these discussions to remark that the entry is amusing and fun, but it is.Tim Bray (talk)23:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It used to apply toTybira, which was removed from this category somehow. I'd argue that Tibyra is known entirely because of sodomy condemnation and then contemporarily beingreclaimed as a queer (homo/trans) icon. So this category is useful for the 'questioning' period of time that scholars are still speculating what sexuality suits them best. Sappho, for instance, would certainly be consideredWlW, yet some still question if these sapphist relations were merely falsified 'mockery' (story) or history. The same can be said to a lot of them. People in general, including scholars, may interpret these labels as degrading. On the other hand, much research has confirmation bias, post-truths, or logical leaps, things that are avoided in STEM sciences.Foucault denominated this phenomenonanachronistical.Vivb1 (talk)08:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As someone who was involved in the first two discussions, most potential issues with this category have already been addressed. I do not believe that this conversation is any different than the ones already had. I have no problems with the category in its current form because it is written to specify where it does and does not apply. The category isn't any less valuable to well sourced articles just because of the slim chance it could be misused. Also, if this category referencing a historical figure's sexuality is "non-defining" then shouldn't that apply to all LGBTQ categories? Either all of these categories are relevant to understanding a person's identity, or none of them are.Rylee Amelia (talk)22:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly defined category that would work better as a list. For a start, how is "historical figure" defined? David Bowie died less than ten years ago. Are living people eligible for inclusion (presumably not due toWP:BLP issues)? Others are included whose historicity is unclear (David and Jonathan, thedisciple whom Jesus loved). The category description states that it is for individuals "whose sexual orientation is ambiguous or disputed, and thus subject to controversy". There seems to be a very wide mixture of circumstances captured by this category, including what could be subcategorised asCategory:People rumoured to be gay,Category:LGBT people who never officially came out, andBiblical figures associated with homosexuality. I see sexuality beingdiscussed in the articles currently included, the extent to which it is it "ambiguous", "disputed" or "subject to controversy" varies widely. Is Freddie Mercury's sexuality really "disputed"? A person's sexuality is a defining characteristic, the public/academic perception of their sexuality is not.ITBF📢13:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I really don't like calling it the Burr conspiracy bc we just don't understand it enough but that's the Worldcat and LOC name for this topic as well as the article so blah fine consistency!jengod (talk)16:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strains of copycat crimescan be defining (and is for Christchurch and Columbine, which have had academic works written about them in connection with the attacks they inspired), but there has not been a single actually confirmed or generally agreed upon Isla Vista copycat attack and the phenomenon is not really discussed as it does not exist. The Toronto van attack tie to Isla Vista was later revealed to be a lie the perp of that made up for attention and the connection to the others is not established, and is not evenmentioned in some of these articles - the perp merely being an incel who mentioned him does not a copycat make.PARAKANYAA (talk)04:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge per nom. Being honest, I can't tell the distinction between the "1st" and the "House of Courtenay". As far as I can tell, its the same family/relation.Omnis Scientia (talk)20:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is certainly not an option because these people were of the same family. Either rename, with a more explicit disambiguator, or merge.Marcocapelle (talk)07:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Overcategorization by association. The people categorized here were not all associated with GLAAD in the sameway -- some were presidents, some were staffers, some were board members -- so they cannot simply be generically categorized as "associated with".Bearcat (talk)22:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,it'slio! |talk |work06:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Dispute of scope: All staff, or only presidents? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)06:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what the purpose of this category is supposed to be. It appears to be a collection of republics, which are already well categorized, rather than a collection of "Regional Forces."Gjs238 (talk)12:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The category was originally meant to be a collection of soviet republics and regional forces that existed during the russian civil and acted under the bolsheviks. The list came from a previous version of the russian civil war article which at present does not list these republics, instead listing them under "Regional forces". I tried adding the category as a link in the infobox but ran into problems. In my opinion, the category still has use since it directly links several soviet republics with little documentation outside of their own articles and esspecialy within the russian civil article which makes little mention of them.BreadStickGuy (talk)13:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is also wrong, only some of them are in that category since the rest ceased to exist following the Union Treaty such as the Persian, Galician, Far-Eastern etc. There is simply little documentation for these early soviet republics outside of this category. This can be fixed if these early republics are added into the existing Republics of the Soviet Union which i am open too.BreadStickGuy (talk)02:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was going to submit a speedy rename request per C2D before realizing that this was requested 5 months ago but was opposed atCategory talk:Tyla (South African singer) on the grounds of "Tyla" being too ambiguous. I disagree with this assertion because the main subject article has no disambiguation required and there is nothing at the non-existent Tyla cat. Considering no formal CfD was initiated from that original discussion, I am starting this now. People looking for a cat about Tyla would not be surprised to find articles only for the singer mononymously known as Tyla.Trailblazer101 (talk)03:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even whenTyla is the primary topic of the singer predominantly known by this name? That's whyTyla (disambiguation) exists, and if any other Tylas from that DAB warranted a cat of their own, I'm pretty sure they would be properly disambiguated. That logic just does not add up to me.Trailblazer101 (talk)05:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People can add articles to categories without looking at the main article or even without looking at the category page, so disambiguators are more important for categories than for articles.Marcocapelle (talk)06:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but reasonably, most editors would likely do their due diligence first. We cannot and should not preemptively take inaction just because some people could assume something that is incorrect. I find it hard to believe someone would genuinely want to add this cat thinking it would be for anyone with this name.Trailblazer101 (talk)22:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying people might add other articles to the cat is not really valid reason, because there are lots of Chris Browns and we do not see that happening. Beside, we will keep our eyes on the cat to make sure that simple mistake does not happen.dxneo (talk)23:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation through at least the end of the 10th century.WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR.Manually merge to the decade parent as many of the articles may already be in subcategories of that category. –Aidan721 (talk)16:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these categories should be kept and where possible further populated, not upmerged to very broad categories.Fram (talk)16:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was "per SMALLCAT" which no longer has consensus, and that was for year categories, not for decade categories. We have already lost so much useful categories due to the imagined need for bigger, less precise categories because, well, no idea why, losing information for the sake of having less categories I guess. Why would you force a reader who is interested in the 700s in Japan to go through all the articles from the 800s in Japan, or all the articles from the 700s, to get what they need?Fram (talk)08:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was forboth years and decades. And 700s and 800s are in separate centuries, so a reader would not need to do that. –Aidan721 (talk)12:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Need to populate time categories on a finer level, not remove existing work that merely results in less precise categories.Doprendek (talk)22:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Time categories like years are inherent categories. One knows what the categories will be even if they "don't exist" yet (i.e. don't have an included Wikipedia article--yet). The answer in this and other cases of (for now) "underpopulated" years is to always include a good breadcrumb template at the top of the category to easily move to the next or previous year in the category. This provides not only simpler navigation but more precise categorization. If people who insist on "ease of navigation" through years really want to help out, I suggest a discussion on assigning an all-purpose standardized year navigation template, expected in any year category, that would have a robust skip-gap feature that seamlessly incorporates years as they are added to the category.Doprendek (talk)15:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as inherent categories, we create categories upon need. In ancient periods there is no need for years, in even more ancient periods there is no need for decades. The chance that someone interested in the ancient history of Japan isonly interested in the 950s is very close to zero.Marcocapelle (talk)07:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the "in Italy" categories before the reunification should instead be called "on the Italian peninsula" and thus split off "on Sardinia", "on Sicily", "on Corsica" --65.92.246.77 (talk)03:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus on how centuries prior to modern Italy should be categorized. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)22:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (Merging would have to involve manual sorting of decade+country subcategories into the correct continents.) It seems redundant and a bit confusing to have the decade+location event categories have two different schemes - one where countries are listed by continent and one where they are listed alphabetically. This results in some countries being accidentally listed in one scheme but not the other. I would suggest getting rid of the alphabetical listing because navigating to other countries on the same continent in the same period sounds more useful. --Beland (talk)02:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, this will only work when the subcategories are nominated too. Substantively I would rather do it the other way around, because our current division between Europe, Africa and Asia does not make a lot of sense in the world of the past.Marcocapelle (talk)06:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agnostic as to which direction to merge, but just want to make sure it's going the right way before I nominate a huge number of categories. Also wondering if the right thing to do is to nominate them for deletion? A lot of them are already categorized per-country, but maybe not all. But presumably per-country categorization could easily be added later if we do a mass removal. Or we could do a manual merge from per-continent to per-country categories? --Beland (talk)22:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ideology and criminal status. It is non defining the way we are presenting it - we do not have a category for communists convicted of crimes, nor should we. Crimes motivated by neo-Nazism are probably defining, but a sizable portion of the people in this category were convicted for crimes that are not at all related to their views (mostly petty crimes or sex crimes), maybe a majority, which is not defining. And for a renamed category and purge that would contain only the people known for committing Nazi motivated crimes I don’t know what we would call it.
Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection between religion/ethnicity and ideology. Sure, this is weird. Is it defining? No.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While this category is certainly interesting it is a non defining intersection between religion/ethnicity and ideology.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the ones I've looked at don't make any clear reference to being about narcissism, and certainly offer no reliable sources discussing it. It's not a defining characteristic of any of the ones I've looked at.--Northernhenge (talk)19:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/manually merge/delete, these are isolated and poorly-populated categories, this is not helpful for navigation.Marcocapelle (talk)08:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category that can be repurposed to be slightly broader to screenwriters, rather than just writers for televisionSMasonGarrison12:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or merge? (if merge, then where?) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or merge (if merge, to where?) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge - unnecessary overcategorization. If a submarine is an attack submarine, categorize it as such. If it is a ballistic missile submarine, categorize it as such. If it fires cruise missiles, then add that category. If nuclear, add that category. Etc., etc., etc. Otherwise we end up with a mish-mash of combination categories.Gjs238 (talk)19:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic of these games. In fact, the vast majority of the articles in the category don't mention Street Fighter 6 at all. This would work best as a separate list or, if there's enough room, a section inStreet Fighter 6.Pichpich (talk)20:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having just worked on theWalter Hackett article I discovered a significant error. The writer never went by the name Walter C. Hackett. This naming convention appears to originate with IMDb and amazingly has even made it into some scholarly books published post 2000 (probably the scholars never bothered to check and just trusted the internet). However, the author never called himself or wrote under the name Walter C. Hackett. He did write under the names Walter Hackett or Walter L. Hackett (both of which are his real name). His middle name was Lawrence. See the extensive referencing on this that I have done in the article to census records, voter registration records, WWII draft cards, and multiple newspaper accounts across American and British newspapers confirming his name as Walter Lawrence Hackett extending from the 1890s into the 1940s. As a writer he was primarily known by just Walter Hackett with no middle initial in newspaper coverage and publications of his works while he was alive (although occasionally the L. was given, particularly in his early career). Best.4meter4 (talk)03:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to parents. 3 album series with little to no potential for growth.StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main articleDraft:World Premiere Plaza has been moved to draft space due to lack of sources. If Disney's plans come true, there will likely be sufficient sources in a couple of weeks, but for now we should probably delete this category.Chrisahn (talk)23:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the one article (now in draft space), there's no reason for this category to exist.StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me17:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is for current and past broadcast stations of the Green Bay Packers. Not sure how this falls intoWP:PERFCAT but open to renaming. Got nominated for deletion even before I filled it! « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. The defining characteristic of these articles is that they are about media in Green Bay, and the articles are already categorized as such.Marcocapelle (talk)00:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with a delete, it pretty much amounts to the same thing. I have to confess, I didn't look too closely at the songs, but if they're notWP:DEFINING then they shouldn't be included.--woodensuperman17:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category. As always, stub categories require at least 60 articles in or under them, but this only had 23 articles in it when I first found it -- and after checking them and finding that several weren't even really stubs anymore, it now only has 17. Further, cryptocurrency is one of those subject areas where Wikipedia is constantly battling self-promotional spam from every crypto evangelist and every new startup crypto exchange under the sun, so crypto-related articles see a higher than normal rate of spam deletion -- which means that even if 43 other cryptocurrency-related stubs could be found to populate this properly, it's still not at all clear that this wouldstay over 60 articles in any sustained or ongoing way, except perhaps if we could get it wellbeyond even 60 articles for cushioning room. So the template is fine, as it can just upfile its entries into the parent category in the meantime, but there would need to be a lot more articles than this before a dedicated category was needed for them.Bearcat (talk)21:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: University and college theatres in London is a single-page category and thus appears to beWP:OCNARROW. I propose up-merging into just University and college theatres in England as the other parent category, Theatres in London by type, is aWP:CONTAINERCAT for types of theatre in London. University and college theatres in England currently has five pages and two categories (including the one proposed here for up-merger) so is not large enough to justify diffusion.Robminchin (talk)23:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy. It is far from obvious that the nameSayfo has gained a wide enough understanding to be immediately preferred toAssyrian genocide, making the move too controversial for speedy. This would benefit from a full discussion.Place Clichy (talk)13:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. In favor of this proposal. Labeling it as Assyrian goes against C2D guidelines and raises other controversial issues. It also fails to address the complexity of the label.User623921 (talk)10:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugsalot: I'm just saying this is too sensitive and unclear for speedy, and I suggest a full discussion at CfD. On a wider note, these discussions (which are far from unanimous consensus) seemed to be mostly concerned by some belligerent editing we have seen in the past about theAssyrian name, to which some seemed to prefer other terms likeAramean (a debate strangely apparently internal to the Swedish diaspora). However, this often contentious back-and-forth editing seems to have calmed down a lot on Wikipedia lately, as seen e.g.here orhere.Place Clichy (talk)17:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are more mentions of the event as the Assyrian genocide compared to the event as Sayfo, and the event is generally referred to as the Assyrian genocide barring arguments for a Syriac, Aramean, or Chaldean label.Surayeproject3 (talk)17:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, these are events in the very vague meaning of "anything that happened in the field of". The subcategories are in fact entirely unrelated, except partially as a case ofWP:SHAREDNAME.Marcocapelle (talk)17:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment.. For the sake of the discussion, I tried to populate the category. It now contains a subcategory and three articles, which is still small but not ridiculously so. I'm leaning keep, but I won't make a fuss if the category is deleted.Pichpich (talk)19:09, 21 March 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merging to "Byzantine people" doesn't make sense, because the only subcategory consists of Gallo-Romans, who weren't Byzantines. There were still Romans, of course, but ATM none are in the category. If it's deleted now, it can still be re-created if and when there are some other contents.P Aculeius (talk)13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Award" is not considered apart of their proper name as these are not limited to a specific publication and should be omitted. This follows a series of recent template and page moves. ~Dissident93(talk)01:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a weird category that apparently mostly containschatbots out of all things. Even though I know that's what this category is trying to do, this does not look like a "category for games or books where the plot is determined by the user." at all!QuantumFoam66 (talk)00:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe in you. When excluding all the, um, chatbots; I realized that it has many of the pages thatCategory:Interactive fiction does. While interactive narrative may be a different thing from interactive fiction, somehow; I do not think you're going to try to keep this category, especially because it is not defining for all these chatbots because nobody notes the chatbots for having something to do with whatever "interactive narrative" is. Also this thing calledOnline Caroline, whatever that is, does not even belong to Interaction fiction (not narrative because we would move it) either.QuantumFoam66 (talk)23:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Do you also propose merging the parent toCategory:People convicted of crimes? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)17:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]