Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 12
December 14 >

December 13

[edit]

Category:Years AD by century

[edit]
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:Years (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, they are the only subcategory of their parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Years AD and Category:Years BC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:38, 13 December 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.

Publicity photographs

[edit]
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: implement LaundryPizza03's suggestion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by the use of the licensing template {{Non-free promotional}} on image files. The text of the template reads, in part, This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit. This scope, reflected in how the template is used, includes publicity photos, but also ads and promotional artwork. The following subcategories should also be renamed per this change:
 • Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale to Category:Promotional images with missing fair-use rationale
 • Category:Publicity photographs with no terms to Category:Promotional images with no terms
 • Category:Publicity photographs with terms of use to Category:Promotional images with terms of use
Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 20:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love this, thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:51, 23 December 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.

Category:People by criminal charge

[edit]
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 to delete; but this is not authorization to use these categories willy-nilly. To start, there were minority views that not even dead people belong in these categories; this point of view did not gain traction. Therefore, the main arguments in this discussion centered around our WP:BLP policy. BLP arguments are – justifiably – given great weight when assessing consensus. To overcome a BLP argument for deletion, you need to convincingly rebut the argument, and mere numbers cannot decide BLP does not apply in a given situation. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is the policy which applies in this situation, and proponents of deletion argued that this meant these categories should be deleted. Refuting this challenge required strong, PAG-based arguments. This high burden was met by the arguments of Levivich et al, who demonstrated that BLPCRIMINAL urged caution, not a blanket prohibition. They also noted that there are some dead individuals for whom BLP is not applicable. Now, where does that leave us? These categories will continue to exist, and there is not some sort of "no BLPs allowed" restriction. However, normal editorial policies still apply. In particular, BLPCRIMINAL does say to exercise caution when using these categories. Therefore, exercise caution; this discussion is certainly not carte blanche to throw caution to the wind. There is also clear disagreement over whether these categories should be included on BLPs, so such inclusion requires a citation to a reliable source (per WP:BLPRS and WP:CATV), and the WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion to demonstrate consensus to do so. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Category:People charged with rape that including articles in categories such as "People charged with X" is a violation of the policy on including BLPs in criminal-related categories at WP:BLPCRIMINAL.

WP:BLPCRIMINAL states that a requirement for inclusion in a sub-category of Category:Criminals is that "the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.".

Given that many of the proposed categories already have sub-categories for people who were convicted, keeping categories for "people charged with X" just invites articles to be added to the "people charged with X" criminal categories before they've been tried and/or convicted.

For any subcategories that are "People convicted of X" or "People acquitted of X", I would propose relocating them to be under Category:People by criminal conviction and Category:People acquitted of crimes, respectively, if they aren't already there. RachelTensions (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about for non-BLPs? Some people surely died before they were convicted, which in some cases is defining enough. I still don't get why we need a separate convicted of tree in addition to the actual crime category. Ideally we'd delete those too, but that will never happen. I feel like in a world where we restricted this to only non-BLPs this category would be fine, but I don't think that's feasible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with one exception: Category:People charged with apostasy in Iran has been nominated elsewhere for renaming to "convicted". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support in principle. However, I don't think that we can just delete the categories without handling the fact that they have the charged crime in common. For example, we would need to move People convicted of crimes against humanity to crimes against humanity otherwise after the deletion, it would only be in People convicted of international crimes. I do wonder if converting the categories into container categories with this explanation about policy would facilitate navigation. SMasonGarrison 21:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Category:People charged with apostasy in Iran has now been deleted as a result of the discussion elsewhere. RachelTensions (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass deletion. For clarity, BLPCRIMINAL states: Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. If we are including verifiable content in articles that state people were charged with X, per WP:BLPCRIME via WP:BLPPUBLIC, then how does it suddenly become a BLPVIO to place them in a cat that says they were charged with X? Sean Combs, for example, charged with racketeering and sex trafficking. Is that not now relevant to his notability? WP:CATV says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. And some of these people in these cats are dead, so BLPCRIMINAL doesn't apply. For instance, Jeffrey Epstein, charged with sex trafficking, which is quite clearly relevant to his notability. We also have Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, these are just allegations, some of the people in this cat have never been charged, tried or convicted. Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas are both in that cat. Are we saying that cat is a BLPVIO as well? If someone wants to make a case by case basis to exclude a BLP from a cat, that is fine, but I oppose this mass deletion per the rationale provided. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sexual misconduct allegations category is also a BLP violation. As for the category requirements for Category:Criminals, relevance to notability is only one requirement, while another requirement is that "the subject was convicted". So anyone who should be in that category would already have a conviction and can be in a "convicted" category rather than "charged with". For BLP violations, the policy is to remove the information and then to determine if the information was appropriate to include, not to include potential violations and then make case-by-case determinations whether to exclude. Further, BLPs without a conviction should not be included in a criminal category or subcategory at all under our policies. As for deceased individuals or historical cases, I believe the proper course of action would be to create a new category that is specific to that designation and would not apply to any living people. – notwally (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that sexual misconduct allegations category that includes articles about sexual misconduct allegations against prominent public figures like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Sean Combs, Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, Woody Allen, Kevin Spacey, Clarence Thomas, Harvey Weinstein, is a BLPVIO? I don't know, I don't think you'll find community consensus for that POV. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those people have convictions and should be in the appropriate category for those with convictions. For the rest, they are a BLP violation. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear. Categories alleging criminal allegations can only be included if there is a conviction that is not overturned on appeal. If you disagree with the policy, then you need to get the policy changed. – notwally (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sexual misconduct allegations category is also a BLP violation + WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear. If you disagree with that category, then you need to nominate it for deletion. Please see our deletion policy and how to use CfD, if you are unsure about the proper procedures, or don't know how to start a deletion discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pending discussion (right here) about related categories and how to proceed, and I don't see how it would any sense to start another deletion discussion until this one is resolved. If you would like to take this opportunity to explain how sexual assault allegations are not allegations of criminal conduct, feel free. – notwally (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course sexual assault allegations are allegations of criminal conduct, and it appears there is a long standing consensus to put those sort of articles in Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, considering that cat is seven years old, and has sixty articles in it. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk pages on any of those sixty pages outling your serious concerns. There's no need to wait for this discussion to be resolved. Like you said, WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear, so you shouldn't encounter any objections. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user you’re replying to apparently believes that people merely accused of a crime are criminals,[1] which is obviously not true from a legal and BLP perspective, so they have different views on crime than most of the world and the Wikipedia community. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no caveats. These categories are all clearly BLP violations and should be deleted as soon as possible. Loki (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories have existed for too long and all of them that include living people violate BLPCRIME. For anyone who has a conviction, they should be put in a "convicted" category. There are cases where a "charged with" or similar category may be relevant (e.g., historical figures charged with witchcraft), but those should be handled with proper categories that exclude any living people. – notwally (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notwally How do you propose it being covered in a way to exclude living people? That doesn’t seem possible by just changing the name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those with better knowledge of categories would be able to offer more useful suggestions. Some things also don't need to be categorized. – notwally (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you said above that the "proper course of action" would be to "create a new category that is specific to that designation and would not apply to any living people", which I do not think is possible. I do think the deletion of this category creates a problem for the existence of the convicted/acquitted of cats, which should also probably be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The acquitted, yes, but the convicted can stay. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Without the existence of the others that category makes no sense. It's part of the set. The convictions aren't the defining bit, any more than acquitted is, it is the crime. Without that, we don't need an oversimplified version of the conviction as a category in addition to the actual criminal category. For example, people convicted of murder is just a worse way to put someone in the murderer category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not possible, then they should just not be categorized. It is possible for others, such as my prior example of "historical figures charged with witchcraft". – notwally (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that is a logical thing to categorize by if the wider tree does not exist. People still get charged with witchcraft in some places, so "historical" is an arbitrary cutoff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It means the people are by definition not living. "People accused in the Salem witch trials" is a current subcategory of the categories under discussion, which is another way to limit the category to non-living people. If you don't think that is adequate, then the category simply should not exist at all. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is a policy, and an important one. – notwally (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not arguing for the category to be kept, but I would like consistency in how this is handled relative to other categories, since I think the non-BLP problems with this category apply to several others. "Historical figure" is a category type we only have three of, and I would say is a poor fit for this situation so I see no reason to make more. I think they should simply all be deleted (meaning ones related to status of criminal process, e.g. convicted/acquitted/whatever other ones we have). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass deletion. There are several dead historical figures captured by these categories for whom BLP does not apply. Charges against, e.g., Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milošević are signifcant enough to be mentioned in their leads, and should be reflected by categories. Renaming the categories to include only deceased people would eliminate the BLP concern without losing the navigation tool for historical figures. Additionally, some of these categories (blasphemy, witchcraft, apostasy) relate to charges that would be widely understood to be persecution, rather than morally culpable crimes, and warrant a separate discussion.--Trystan (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renaming the categories to include only deceased people would eliminate the BLP concern without losing the navigation tool for historical figures. Do you have suggestions on how to rename the categories to make it clear they're not for living people? "Deceased people charged with X"? Whatever it is, it needs to be crystal clear that the categories in question are not meant for living people.
    The question becomes how much actual value do these categories add that it warrants the trouble of splitting off the dead from the living just so they can be categorized for crimes they were never convicted of? RachelTensions (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deceased" is fine, or "Historical", with the category descriptions in either case clarifying not to apply it to anyone covered by WP:BLP or WP:BDP. I think they add a lot of value. Particularly in Category:People indicted for crimes against humanity, there are several articles where the charges are not only defining, but are the central reason for their notability.--Trystan (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am cautiously relisting this. There is clear consensus (both in numbers and given the strength of a BLP argument) that something needs to change. Is renaming an acceptable outcome? If so, what should the new name be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or rename the categories to specify deceased/historical figures when appropriate, or change the policy. The policy as written is unambiguous. As others have said, deleting these categories would create a manual recategorization job. I assume that a renaming of them would involve a more onerous job going through each individual article in every category, which could take time or be forgotten about; BLP violations are time sensitive, so based on that I think WP:TNT is the better option. Safrolic (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion for the same reasons given by other opponents. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Eventual closer should remember that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override PAG, especially when it comes to BLP. The policy is unambiguous. 04:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Safrolic (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It doesn't matter if they're alive or dead, being criminally charged is not sufficient for categorization. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, if it is defining? For Marie Besnard and Aisling Brady McCarthy, the only thing they are notable for is being charged with murder. The latter is still living, so BLP may compel us to leave her with no categories capturing her only claim to notability. But where BLP doesn't apply, why would we choose to leave articles without categories capturing their central defining aspects?--Trystan (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear that while care and consideration is required there is a valid BLP purpose to be served by such categories. "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." There may be individual BLP violations in this mass of data, but the existance of the categories is unambiguously not a BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: #1 maybe there's a WP:BLP reason for removing BLPs from these categories, but that wouldn't apply to non-BLPs, so it's not a reason to delete the categories altogether. #2 WP:BLPCRIMINAL says Caution should be used, it does not create a blanket prohibition. If caution has not been used in assigning these categories to certain articles, then maybe the categories should be removed from those articles; that's not a reason to delete the categories. #3 the Category:Criminals and its subcategories part of BLPCRIMINAL shouldn't apply because Category:Suspected criminals and its subcats shouldn't be subcats of Category:Criminals because suspected criminals are not necessarily criminals. That's an argument for removing Category:Suspected criminals from Category:Criminals, it's not a reason to delete the category or its subcategories. #4 Being charged with a crime is a defining feature for many notable people, so they're perfectly useful/legitimate categories in our category system. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HEB and Levivich. Category:Suspected criminals should not be a subcategory of Category:Criminals since it contains a hodgepodge of categories about convicted criminals (e.g. serial killer ones) and innocent people (i.e. people acquitted of crimes). If they're convicted, they should be in Category:Criminals by crime and not this one. What these categories need is a reordering to properly sort out the convicted categories from the unconvicted ones. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on this, WP:BLPCRIMINAL is unambiguous, but the only reason why it even applies here appears to be because of a serious miscategorization issue. The policy presupposes that everyone in the "Criminal" subcategories, which should be case, but is not necessarily the case for categories such as these. Explicitly legally innocent people such as Category:People acquitted of crimes and Category:People wrongfully convicted of a crime are also included. If we just blindly apply BLPCRIMINAL, then we cannot categorize anyone acquitted or wrongfully convicted of a crime in those categories, which goes against the spirit of the policy. The obvious solution is to fix the mischaracterization and remove any entries for which the charges are not defining/relevant to notability.
    Doing a spot check of of Category:People charged with sex crimes, most cases are of dead people (no BLP issues), then cases left over after a conviction/acquittal has occurred (suboptimal), with the remainder being ones where they are charges of criminals notable for being criminals (probably fine as long as they meet notability standards as an exception to BLPCRIME). One case was of someone currently in trial with a section devoted to the charges, but who is overall not a major figure and the charges itself not being a bit story. I removed the category for not being defining, but imagine that in the case of a major, public figure and the charges themselves being a very large story, inclusion may be appropriate. Based on this, I think the BLP issues can be resolved through normal category maintenance. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my comments, I've also removed Category:Suspected criminals from Category:Criminals, since that's a BLP violation. That technically resolves the WP:BLPCRIMINAL issue, though WP:BLPCRIME is still a factor, though that is not a hardline rule and only requires editors to seriously consider the issue. Here, since being charged is not the same as being convicted, I think it's probably fine for inclusion as long as entries are properly maintained. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on to this, if we want to make maintenance easier, we should probably make these container categories, with subcategories such as convicted of x, acquitted of x, died before trial for x, fugitive for x, awaiting trial for x instead of a general "charged with" category. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:03, 27 December 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.

Category:Fictional gnomes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 23#Category:Fictional gnomes

Category:Single seat helicopters

[edit]
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:Ultralight helicopters and purge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize aircraft by their number of seats. Arguably non-defining; if you take out additional seats for various reasons (adding equipment, long-range fuel tanks, etc.) does the helicopter count as a single-seater? The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is some truth to that for sure, even if most aircraft do get rated for a certain number of passengers. For FAA Ultra-light helicopters they are only allowed to carry one passenger, so we just follow the sources we don't have to make a determination or expand this to other light aircraft that have more flexibility. A75 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Helicopters are categorized this way, the FAA standard for ultra-light helicopters have to be one seat. If you see this list List of ultralight helicopters. I did not choose describe them as FAA Ultralight helicopters, because single seat helicopters have existed before this FAA regulation though they are popular now. In addition, the recent development evtols such as the Jetson One are also categorized this way, and are still baiscally helicopters even if they take a different technical approach. A75 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here, don't take my word for it. If you see Ultralight aircraft (United States), you can see that having a single-seat is important part of this standard. Thank you A75 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For comparison, it is common for fighter aircraft, to be categorized as single seat or two seat fighter aircraft, just to round out this discussion. A75 (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helicopters and aircraft are categorized this way by the FAA, yes. Wikipedia's categorization scheme does not categorize aircraft by number of seats, nor should we, as it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the aircrat, especially to an outside observer. Also an "ultralight helicopter" may well be required to be a single-seat helicopter, but "single-seat helicopter" =/= "ultralight helicopter" as ultralight aircraft is a very specific classification by the FAA. Category:Ultralight helicopters would be a valid categorization alongside Category:Ultralight aircraft. Category:Single seat helicopters is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having one seat is definitely a defining trait, and many single seat helicopters are noted as such. This is similar to fighter aircraft, and of course passenger airliners often mention passenger capacity. I don't have an opinion on starting another category for ultra-light helicopters right now, though we can agree that not all single-seat helicopters may be ultra-lights. A75 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not it is consisdered WP:DEFINING, it doesn't change the fact that we don't categorise aircraft by number of seats. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:07, 13 December 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.

Template:Agapanthiinae-stub

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Template:Agapanthiinae-stub


Category:Persian physicists

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the articles in the category are about medieval people so the category should be under Category:Medieval Iranian people and named accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Smasongarrison: pinging nominator at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SMasonGarrison 04:11, 19 December 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.

Category:Flexible weapons

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is vague what "flexible" means as I initially took it to mean weapons that can be used in numerous situations, not ones that are literally bendy. And in that case, even swords can bend so they are some degree of flexible. There is no main article for this either, so I think it should not exist as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 13 December 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.


Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records participants

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Project hasn't existed since 2011 after MfD. Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 13 December 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.

Category:People Democratic Party politicians

[edit]
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:Peoples Democratic Party (Nigeria) politicians. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Peoples Democratic Party (Nigeria) politicians. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:23, 13 December 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.

Category:Sport shooters from West Bengal

[edit]
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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:34, 13 December 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.

Medieval Catholic churches by decade

[edit]
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 all. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1A: propose populating with churches built as a Catholic church
  • Option 1B: propose populating with churches which still are a Catholic church
  • Option 2: propose merging
Nominator's rationale: populate or merge?, it is obvious that these categories can be populated further when desired. The question is how, because meanwhile a substantial number of medieval churches have been converted from Catholicism to Protestantism. So should we categorize churches as Catholic when they were built as Catholic, or when they are still Catholic? I have added option 2, to upmerge, because this conveniently circumvents the previous dilemma. If there appears to be support for option 2 I will add siblings categories to the nomination ( Done). If there is more support for option 1 then the question is who is going to populate these categories because it is a huge task. I will also leave a notice at the Christianity and Catholicism WikiProject talk pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 13 December 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.

Category:PlayStation 4 Pro enhanced games

[edit]
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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A large number of recent games have undocumented support for this system and fall into this category, but many don't have reliable sources confirming such support, so it is impossible to have a properly representative and accurate list without breaking WP:DEFINING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoryman3 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have to disagree this is not defining... For the recent PS5 Pro release in Nov there was a big to do on the games that would be enhanced. That support for the games being in these categories is big in the articles for the games is not a fault of the category but editors failing to add appropriate sources when including them in these categories. Masem (t) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same rationale as Masem. Can't blame the category if editors aren't properly citing sources. --JDC808 ♫ 22:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to the most recent comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:08, 13 December 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.

Category:Dual screen phone

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Dual screen phone

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 22#Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

Category:American social media influencers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:American social media influencers

Category:Rape in video games

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 22#Category:Rape in video games

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

Category:Delta College Mustangs football players

[edit]
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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two different names for the same category, so they should be merged.
Speedy merge request was opposed because there was no clear naming convention, so I am proposing to use the "San Joaquin Delta Mustangs" convention because it is more specific (includes location) than "Delta College Mustangs". Whatever name is chosen, they need to be merged because there are two categories for the same content. Habst (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion was started here but a consensus was never reached, but as the main category (Category:San Joaquin Delta Mustangs football) uses the specific name I would lean towards using that naming convention for all categories. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories such as the school's baseball ones should also be merged for complete consistency if San Joaquin Delta is chosen over Delta College. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give extra time for objections, given it was opposed at CFD. I will tag Category:San Joaquin Delta Mustangs football players; if there are no further comments in a week this can be closed as (regular) merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 13 December 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.


Category:Fresnillo Mineros players

[edit]
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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These refer to the same team. For some reason, English-speakers still haven't figured out whether to call Latin sports teams "[Mascots] de [City]" or just "[City] [Mascots]." Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 23 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_13&oldid=1266298625"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy