Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 7

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:Crowd crushes, perhaps as a first step to renaming the human stampede hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Crowd crushes in 2021 to Category:Human stampedes in 2021

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category without any parents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A crowd crush isn't a stampede, as explained at length at Stampede#Human stampedes and crushes. The category is therefore not a duplicate, and was created because there was opposition to placing Astroworld Festival crowd crush in any stampede category. Einsof (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: As noted in the article for stampede, a crush and a stampede are inherently different things. Curbon7 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That said, perhaps a conversion to a general crush category would be in order, as I notice the most famous instance of a crush, the Hillsborough disaster, isn't in this sort of category. Curbon7 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A stampede and a crush are very different incidents, as made clear in the lead of the stampede article. To conflate them is propagating an untruth. WWGB (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt rename & populate to Category:Crowd crushes per Curbon7, the current category has too few articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• An alternative is to rename the category tree Crowd crushes and stampedes, so it includes both. Jim Michael (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is also a reasonable possibility. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, I think this is better than my original proposal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also opposed, per per Einsof, Curbon7, WWGB because (as stated) they are inherently different things. If a single category is required, I would support renaming to 'Category:Crowd crushes' (per Curbon7 and Marcocapelle) and adding all relevant crush articles there. I also note we have a plethora of human stampede by year categories, many with only one article in them, and that many of those articles are (reading the descriptions) patently misnamed. More food for thought? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Market police departments of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Market police" isn't really a thing in the US: we'd call these Private police or Special police. I suspect someone looked at Category:Market police forces of the United Kingdom and created it by analogy. Also, there's only one page in this category. Apocheir (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as creator. To be fair, they're not really a thing in the UK either, and although I suspect there is more than one such force in the US and I had hoped it would be a category of more than one, I think it will remain this way for a while, so happy to get rid of it. ninety:one 23:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Italian people in arts occupations (could have been a speedy WP:C2C rename). (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Italian art people to Category:Italian people in arts occupations

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with all other subcats in Category:People in arts occupations by nationality Gjs238 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Church of Ireland schools in Ireland to Category:Church of Ireland affiliated schools

Nominator's rationale: Same content. The Church of Ireland doesn't so much own the schools as the schools are run under the ethos of the Church of Ireland. So it's more accurate to say that they are affiliated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - identical content. Oculi (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cricket Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Populated by User:UBX/cricket, which says

• Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in cricket. --Bduke (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as duplicate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer deletion to merging, as a userbox statingThis user is fond of cricket does not meet the criteria for populating a "interested in" category. I still prefer a merge to the status quo, although I note neither merge !voter has provided any reasoning for why they prefer merging over deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Justus Nussbaum (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Crickipedians? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Candidates in the 2016 Philippine vice-presidential election, and nominate siblings for renaming likewise C2B. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Vice-presidential candidates in the 2016 Philippine presidential election to Category:Candidates in the 2016 vice presidential election

Nominator's rationale: Elections for vice president in the Philippines is a separate ballot question from the president, so they are not exactly "vice presidential candidates in the presidential election." Howard the Duck (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Move to Category:Candidates in the 2016 Philippine vice presidential election as per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, why has "Philippine" been omitted in the proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Candidates in the 2016 Philippine vice presidential election per the rationale of the nom. Oculi (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Candidates in the 2016 Philippine vice-presidential election (hyphen needed). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's actually an entire category at Category:Philippine vice-presidential candidates. I'd push for renaming all subcategories on that category to whatever gets consensus here. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Who the heck needs such a Philippine vice president elec category? --Just N. (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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