Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 6

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:20th-century American politicians by state. I will let @Smasongarrison or Marcocapelle make the follow-up nomination to rename the category, if they choose to do so. (OP is blocked, so they cannot do it.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:20th-century American politicians by state or territory to Category:20th-century American politicians by state

Nominator's rationale: It's a duplicate. VirusDontKill (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, without objection to rename the original category to Category:20th-century American politicians by state or territory afterwards. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support merge (to preserve the category history) and then rename. Mason (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: The rename may make sense, however I have a few notes for consistency. The 17th and 18th century categories use "by state", although there were no American states in the 17th century or for most of the 18th century. The 19th century category uses "by state or territory" (note: it doesn't include any of the current US insular areas, but it does include the Republic of Hawaii). For the 20th century, in addition to this one, there also exists Category:20th-century politicians from insular areas of the United States. For the 21st century, there is one category for states and one for insular areas. VirusDontKill (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a long messy history on the category naming of the distinction between by state or by state or territory. There's a recent and long CFD trying to sort it out. My preference is for all those categories to be renamed state or territory or another similar label that makes it possible to lump all these kinds of categories in the same bucket. Mason (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Female-fronted musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Because:

• Doesn't work when considering bands with a mix of male and female vocalists such as Fleetwood Mac and Svalbard, it would be better to just put "mixed gender bands" and "all female bands". Also places undue weight and scrutiny on women in (the) band/s, potentially/usually against their wishes
• I don't think that being "female" is an inherent musical characteristic. It is not a genre, and I feel that it reduces/ghettoizes frontwomen in bands are based on/to their sex rather than their music (not to mention the use of "front"). There are traits in music that can be defined as feminine and masculine (which are available to musicians of ALL genders), which is something you can infer from listening and evaluate. being a woman is literally as surface level as you can get in musical evaluation. plus screaming growling singing etc is not limited to one gender. (see below)
• Listed here are a few articles by reliable sources, written/featuring commentators and musicians, discussing the problem of definining music by gender/using the term "female fronted".

Discuss, I guess. Chchcheckit (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: it categorizes a thousand bands into one thing when they don't sound alike or have much in common besides being women. "women heavy metal singers" is fine, but this is just hasty generalization Chchcheckit (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until if and when Wikipedia has an article with any real analysis specifically around female-fronted musical groups. Otherwise you could take it to any level, e.g. Category:Musical groups with female drummers, Category:Musical groups with all-male musicians but female stage crew. However, I disagree with nom's reasoning – it's not up to us to worry about whether such classification is problematic or not, and male vs female vocals is not a trivial aspect of music, regardless of whether one thinks it should be or not. Mclay1 (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - @Chchcheckit:@Marcocapelle:@Mclay1: I'm hoping I can change your minds considering one of you said "until if and when Wikipedia has an article with any real analysis specifically around female-fronted musical groups." I got this discussion temporarily reopened because the only reason I knew about it was that it closed and groups I was following came up on my watchlist. There was only two who wanted to delete it and I wanted to make my case. One of the bands I follow judiciously is The Motels. That band is the definition of the term "Female-fronted musical groups." It has always been a band with a lead female singer surrounded by four guys playing keyboard, bass, lead guitar, and drums. There have been many incarnations of the band but always the same lead singer, Martha Davis. She is the only lead singer on every song they ever played. She writes all the songs herself on every album. She has managed the band. They have had #1 hits. They have been playing since 1976 and still play today with Martha still writing and singing. I understand that Fleetwood Mac should not be in this category (I agree), but there are bands who deserve it and I never saw this listed.

Another band would be The Pretenders. Chrissie Hynde is the only lead singer, formed the band, managed the band, wrote most of the songs for the band, and is the only continual member. They also still play. I understand that this category can be abused with bad entries or questionable entries, but there are also some very firm choices that fit this category to a tee. It may need an overhaul but I can't see why it should be deleted. Personally I think bands like The Go Gos or The Bangles also belong in this category but if others feel they are better suited towards "All Female Bands" I would understand, though there is no limit on number of categories a band fits under. Does this help any of you to change your mind and keep this category? I'm hoping so because the two I mentioned are far more than just mixed-gender bands. The females really control all aspects of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click) @Mclay1 from both of your points, the issue appears to be definition. While writing this initially I searched (i.e. "Female-fronted definition") and besides listicles of bands and articles disagreeing with the term i didn't find anything that sorta defined what the term meant. I still don't. Given Fyunck's point, would this work better as "female-led" given their dominant roles instead? Idk. Would it better to either implement significantly greater regulation or definition instead of this vague thing or rename it, or other?

will concede that i may have overstretched rationale. striked to get to the point. Chchcheckit (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why it has to be so strict in it's usage. In the US the terms liberal and conservative have all kinds of overlap and arguments. Depending on whom you ask or what sources you use they can have various definitions. Yet at wikipedia we have categories like Category:Liberal Democrats, Category:Liberal media, Category:Michigan Liberal Republicans, Category:Conservative podcasts, Category:Conservative media by country, etc... that can be very subjective yet we have like 3000 categories with liberal or conservative. So a flexible overlapping Female-fronted musical groups category doesn't seem out of line with other categories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about "female-led" but then I thought of Nightwish where the amount of leadership taken by the female singer seemed to depend on who the singer was at the time. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click) @Chchcheckit, I think the definition is clear and there are obviously plenty of bands that fit the bill; my point was more that it doesn't feel like a category that needs to exist. As I said, there's all sorts of categories you could make up for combinations of the gender-makeup of bands, but is it defining? There's no Wikipedia coverage talking about its significance. But if other people think it is defining, I'm happy to change my !vote. Unless there is some analysis on the importance of a woman leading a band, I'd say the only defining aspect of it is that the band has female vocals (which for whatever reason is less usual), in which case we could change the category to Category:Musical groups with female lead vocalists. Mclay1 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mclay1:Hmmm. I understand what you are saying, but this is a term I have heard for decades, and it's quite popular in it's usage. Rolling Stone Magazine has an article on it. Billboard has articles on it. The Grammy Awards has articles on. The Los Angeles Times uses the term. This is not some frivolous term made up by Wikipedians. I'm a bit surprised we don't have an article on it let alone a category. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): Those sources are a good starting point for writing an article, even if it's a stub. In which case, I'd say keep. Mclay1 (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even though the category has an enormous number of members, the boundaries are not well defined. For example, is The Last Dinner Party female-fronted (given that the guest drummer is often male) or Category:All-female bands (given that the drummer is not a member (depending on how "member" is defined))? Is Confidence Man female-fronted when a man and a woman seem to share the leadership role? Could a band keep joining and leaving the category depending on who happens to have led the majority of recent performances? It seems arbitrary, and depends on agreeing a definition of "fronted", and that's in addition to the points above about undue scrutiny and genre. Am I leading because I'm a woman or because it's "my" band?

The point about it being arbitrary could perhaps be addressed by confining membership to bands where we have reliable independent sources consistently describing a band in those terms. The point about scrutiny and genre could be countered by saying we don't delete categories just because they're annoying, distasteful or culturally inappropriate. However on balance I'm !voting delete. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of gender and sex of bands/frontwomen don't tend to annoy me, unless journalists use it as the punchline or linchpin to their reviews/commentary (i.e. "can the Canadians sex up this most uncommercial of styles and become a lady Busted for the Earache Records set and beyond?"). that is something i unequivocally abhor. that's probably where point 2 came from though i now recognize that my feelings regarding that shouldn't play a part in this.

The point about it being arbitrary could perhaps be addressed by confining membership to bands where we have reliable independent sources consistently describing a band in those terms. is something i definitely agree with

// Chchcheckit (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - one thing that bothers me was how I found out about this... after it was deleted by a nominator and two editor votes. It seems to me the articles that have this category should have been notified what was potentially going on. You said there are "an enormous number of members" of this category who have no idea what's being discussed. A neutrally worded link should be placed on all those article talk pages, lest it look like the result was quietly buried so no one that cared would notice. Maybe those band article editors will disagree or maybe they will come up with a great alternative rather than being given a choice of nothing. I can take the time to add it to all the articles listed in the category. note - I notified some of the larger ones...400+ seemed like too many to let know. If anyone wants to add one I missed be my guest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The term was created by the media to categorize bands with a female singer; specifically, male-majority and mixed-gender bands with a female singer. As noted above, over the years there have been many musicians and some journalists who have pushed back against this term because it defines music by gender, treating the existence of bands with a female singer as a "genre" instead of just classifying them by the style of music they play, as the rest are classified; plus, the negative connotation to "fronted" in that gendered context. I think it could be useful for Wikipedia to have a descriptive category for bands with a female singer because this makeup of a band has historically been a minority, as most bands have a male singer, and there's historical and cultural significance to them; this has been written about in the media many times, especially after the 2000s. There should be an article on this topic; there are articles on All-female band and Mixed-gender band. If this is kept, it should probably use a neutral, purely descriptive phrase, not "female-fronted" as "fronted" is vague and suggestive. Lapadite (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We would tend to use the term used in sources, which is female-fronted, not something made up. "Suggestive?" As what? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As in it's not an accurate, precise or neutral descriptor, and may imply that the role of the singer is "fronting". I suggested that Wikipedia categorize this with a literal, descriptive phrase, such as "bands with a female singer". Lapadite (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that's possible, but there can also be a huge difference between female singer and what the Motels and Pretenders have. Those are female-fronted bands. And remember, this is a discussion on deleting the category, not just changing the name. With your suggestion, that would allow a female singer who isn't the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But then you're getting into the territory of trying to define "female-fronted", when it doesn't have an established definition. Does it mean a female singer being the "face" of the band? Does it mean the female singer leading the band? If so, leading what, business, songwriting, image? None of these are the same, none are musical descriptors, and none are unambiguous definitions of a role. As you noted, different bands have singers with different roles or levels of involvement; some are founders of their band and main songwriters (like The Pretenders), some are only hired singers (like Nightwish, which has also had male vocals). The only common denominator is bands having a female singer. Which is why I think the category should simply describe that characteristic. That way there's no ambiguity, no interpretation involved, and you can also include bands with both female and male singers, like Fleetwood Mac. I lean toward keep, with emphasis on changing the name of the category. Lapadite (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing though. The Fleetwood Mac I listened to in the 70s, 80s, 90s, was never a female fronted band. All you have to do is look at every song on every album. They tended to have lead singers alternate but it was not 1,1,1. The lead singing order was Nicks, Buckingham, McVie, Buckingham, Nicks, Buckingham, McVie, Buckingham, etc. LB had roughly half of all the lead songs (sometimes more). There is no way that is a female-fronted band. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It depends on whether we have reliable independent sources consistently describing a band as “female-fronted”, and/or sources debating the point. --Northernhenge (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I view it as an important category. Especially for those who want to search on female-fronted bands specifically. It should then be for specific articles and Talk pages to see if the category applies. Blanket removal is not needed IMHO. Karst (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is made on a number of faulty premises. First, bands with several singers are rare (meaning, noteworthy singers, not a singer and some people doing chorus, or another band member singing one or two specific songs). Just create a new category for those and move them, if needed be. And yes, there's higher scrutiny on the singer of the bands: that's just the way it works, basically since Chuck Berry started it all. Male or female, during a concert the audience is always focused on the singer and everything the singer does or says on the stage. If a rock singer is shy and does not want to be the center of attention and scrutiny, sorry, but he/she should have known better. Pointing that a band is led by a woman reduces or "guettoizes" them? That's a way to view it... and another is that not pointing so is invisibilization. Heavy Metal used to be a male-only urban tribe, nowadays there is an increasing number of women in both audiences and bands, even in front roles, and when asked most of them are proud of this increasing female presence, rather than trying to go unnoticed. It is correct that "female-fronted" is not a genre, and in fact it is not treated as such: the category is a subcategory only of "Musical groups" and "Women in music". And the articles that protest about the use of "female-fronted" as a description, just illustrate that it is indeed a description that is used regularly in the real world (and remember that we are not supposed to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Cambalachero (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Righting great wrongs was an issue I had when I started editing, I’m trying to lose it, thanks for calling it out. Honestly your argument is the strongest. Chchcheckit (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection and the comments below I am more inclined to keep this article on the conditions that the rules are changed somewhat. Y’all have good points honestly. Chchcheckit (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it counts as anything, this is the kind of thing I wish I could discuss with people. I’m glad I’ve got to test my thoughts with other people and realise the shortcomings in them, so I can do better. Chchcheckit (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone begrudges you listing this. What I don't like is the system in that no one was notified that this was under deletion discussion. When an article is listed for deletion you are supposed to look at the talk page and list the discussion link with neutral wording on all appropriate wikiproject talk pages. I don't know if people think of that with category deletions but I think they should. So with this category talk page the only thing listed as a wikiproject concern is WikiProject Women. So that project should have been notified. I would have at the very least also listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music, and Wikipedia:WikiProject New Wave music. At least editors wouldn't think they were being left out of the discussion. Yeah a few of the biggest bands in the category would be nice to inform also, but at least the basic WikiProjects. I would also think that a closer, if they see there are few responses, might want to check that the WikiProjects were notified so as to bring in more informed editors to the discussion. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the notification was given to the wikiproject "Women in music". Cambalachero (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything put there except what I put in long after this closed the first time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that it is a valid category. Blondie is an example of a band that has been consistently called female-fronted for their entire 50 year history in numerous magazine articles. Music journalists seem to know how to identify the category, and fenale-led isn't the same. I can't define it precisely on the spot, but I know it when I see it. And I like many of those bands, which explains why I too noticed the deletion via so many entries changed in my watchlist. Xblkx (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralIt appears that it’s often used in the industry as a marketing term. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entirely valid category, per above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Completely valid category of bands. Whether or not an act should be included is a separate issue that can be discussed on their own article's talkpage. Xfansd (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Tribute albums to musicians. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tribute albums by artist to Category:Tribute albums to music artists Category:Tribute albums to musicians

Nominator's rationale: A rename is necessary here because as is it makes me think that these are tribute albums recorded by these music acts (akin to Category:Live albums by artist). While open to other suggestions for a rename, I'm followed the convention of other "Tribute albums" subcats such as Category:Tribute albums to non-musicians‎. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename due to the ambiguity. The proposed title isn't very clear english. How about Category:Albums made as tributes to musicians and Category:Albums made as tributes to non-musicians. (I wonder what distinguishes a tribute album from an album of covers.) --Northernhenge (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Albums made as tributes to musicians, it's clearer than the initial example. But yeah, original point stands, since "Tribute albums by artist" could imply a singular artist creating a tribute album by themselves. Xanarki (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Tribute albums to musicians for contrast with Category:Tribute albums to non-musicians‎ and per the category Category:Musicians (we don't have a category called Category:Music artists or any other categories I can find using that phrase). No need to change the phrase "Tribute albums" – it fits in the current category tree of Category:Tribute albums and is a common phrase. Although the current name of this category works better for a container category, many of the subcats (particularly the one-page categories) should be upmerged because there's no need to separate them all like that. Mclay1 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Mclay1's suggestion is quite reasonable. "Musician" can encompass both solo acts and groups while maintaining existing naming conventions. Proposal adjusted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The updated proposed new wording is clear. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Kattankudy to Category:People from Batticaloa District

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, this isn't helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters from Orlando, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional characters from Florida. Seems like the most obvious answer. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Oinkers. This category is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional female sex workers to Category:Fictional sex workers

Nominator's rationale: Made by a disruptive user obsessed with making gender/occupation combinations, and it's not clear how this particular combination is defining in fiction at all. I think we're good with just the occupation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not convinced there's any actual reason for deletion. Has 2 subcategories. Makes sense. Gender is most defining in regard to this topic.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Gender is defining for sex workers. It's almost the reverse of the usual situation in categories, where in this case it's notable when a sex worker is male, but it still makes sense to have categories for both and they fit into logical category trees. Mclay1 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:United States Army Air Forces officers. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:United States Army Air Forces officer trainees to Category:United States Army Air Forces personnel

Nominator's rationale: Non defining category. These are effectively people who didn't become officers Mason (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they served in the Army Air Forces, but were neither officers nor enlisted. The recommended parent cat is essentially a container cat with subcats only. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what defining mean. @FieldMarine (It'll help you make better counter arguments). They may indeed be United States Army Air Forces officer trainees (a.k.a. neither officers nor enlisted), but that's not how these people are regularly described. Mason (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They cat description summarizes what the cat represents, and that is reflected in how they are described in the articles with the cat. There are many types of officer trainees depending on what program of entry they sign up for (ROTC, OCS, Aviation Cadet, etc.) but as a whole, the group is a distinct classification in the U.S. military. Of note, in the case of Aviation Cadet, they often held the rank for extended period of time, as did Midshipmen in the Navy. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, Template:Category diffuse does not intend to fully prohibit articles directly in the category. A few exceptions is ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 29 July 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) 02:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:United States Army Air Forces officers. Officer cadets/trainees are usually considered officers by courtesy even if they were never commissioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Necrothesp: That might be true in other countries, but I've never heard of that being the case in the U.S. military. Do you have a reference for that for the U.S. military? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with either target. My point is that this category isn't defining in the category sense of the term. Mason (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought they traditionally wore officer-style uniform rather than enlisted-style uniform in the US military too, which suggests they are considered officers by courtesy. But I may be mistaken. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: are you okay with this merge target? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @HouseBlaster: I am neutral in the discussion about which merge target is best. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Officers receive a commission and depending on the rank, promotions are confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Even junior officers have appointments from the President on promotion warrants. There are regulatory and statutory differences between trainees and commissioned officers, and thus the categories are distinct. I'm not aware of for example, rendering salutes to officer trainees, and in terms of courtesy, enlisted generally referred to cadets as "cadets" and not sir or ma'am. As far as uniforms go, there are some instances where trainees may wear the same uniforms as officers, with some form of distinction, so they save money on uniforms or make it easier to transition if commissioned. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Mammal breeds domesticated by Indigenous peoples. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Breeds originating from Indigenous people to Category:Mammal breeds originating from Indigenous people

Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification. Also, I have just added this to the tree of Category:Mammal breeds. An alternative could be to upmerge the category to Category:Mammal breeds and Category:Indigenous culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. What about Breeds/Mammal breeds domesticated by Indigenous people? The current name and the proposal both sound really awkward to me. Mason (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Mammal breeds domesticated by Indigenous peoples – "peoples" plural per the article title Indigenous peoples. Ham II (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with "peoples". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that suggestion. Thanks Ham II! Mason (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Thank you for suggesting "domesticated by" – such an improvement on "originating from"! Ham II (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Kevin Costner & Modern West albums. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kevin Costner albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There has only been one item in this category for the last sixteen years. Overcategorization. Nicholas0 (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MOS:ALBUM but rename to Category:Kevin Costner & Modern West albums per Kevin Costner & Modern West. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. As Category:Albums by artist says, "all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." This is standard practice for Category:Works by creator. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Philippine Sports Commission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded eponymous category that contains nothing apart from the main article. Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In light of the population of the category since the nomination, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination (though it should continue as there has also been another delete !vote). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At the time of nominate, indeed the category contained only the eponymous article. I have since added applicable entries to the category. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean delete, I can't think of any other example of buildings and structures categorized by who maintains them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 20 July 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) 02:42, 28 July 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) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Asian conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Liberal theorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:European conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:French conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Dutch conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Austrian conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories are extremely vague. An extremely CFD on classically similar categories have been purged Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_3#Classical_liberals Mason (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what about Category:European conservative liberals and subcategories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Marcocapelle's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: see above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy to merge those as well. Thanks for the ping! Mason (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Added and tagged @Marcocapelle:Mason (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming that this deletion gets approved. I'll do a follow up for the subcats of Liberal theorists Mason (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, in France and the Netherlands there are subcategories by party which suffices. Otherwise there are a few individual politicians but classifying them as conservative liberal is very subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, I don't think that Category:Liberal theorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) belongs in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I agree we should move that one to a followup. Mason (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: option B. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option A: rename Category:Multiple citizenship to Category:Multiple nationality.

OR: option B: rename Category:People with multiple nationality to Category:People with multiple citizenship.

Nominator's rationale: consistency. Until other arguments weigh in, option B is the preferred option per article title Multiple citizenship. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 20 July 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) 02:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mild inclination is option B with the understanding that we won't use this rename as precedent for renaming FOOian people by nationality to FOOian people by citizenship. Mason (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars to Category:Venetian–Genoese wars

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose there are land battles for these conflicts as well, even if we don't yet have articles on them. E.g. the Siege of Acre (1257-1258) which launched the War of Saint Sabas, or the Siege of Alghero, or the Siege of Negroponte (1351), which was actually under the category propose for deletion until the nominator changed it to the inappropriate category on naval battles. Constantine ✍ 11:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. We might even upmerge its subcategory Category:Naval battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars to Category:Venetian–Genoese wars as well. As this was a series of 4 separate wars rather than a single war, other parents such as Category:Battles by war arguably do not apply. NLeeuw (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 3 out of 4 wars in this series already have their own subcategories, in which those same battles are also grouped:

(first war) Category:War of Saint Sabas‎ (1 C, 10 P)

(second war) Category:War of Curzola‎ (1 C, 3 P)

(fourth war) (Category:War of Chioggia‎ (1 C, 3 P)

If we upmerge as proposed, then we'll have these battles grouped both in Category:Venetian–Genoese wars and in these 3 subcategories. Per WP:DIFFUSE, that's not very practical. Would it be worth upmerging those subcategories as well to avoid duplication? Aside from the battles and the main articles of the 1st, 2nd and 4th war, the only other contents are "People of the Xth war" subcategories, which we've also already covered in Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars. In short, there's a lot of duplication going on here. I'm not sure which solution I would find most elegant, but I'm considering this alt proposal:

• Category:Venetian–Genoese wars: contains main articles Venetian–Genoese wars, War of Saint Sabas‎, War of Curzola‎, War of the Straits, War of Chioggia‎, and all other articles we can't diffuse;
  • Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars: contains all battles including land, naval and siege battles. No subcategories by war.
  • Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars: contains all people of all four wars. No subcategories by war.

Might this work better than the proposal of nom? NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to discuss further merges but shall we do that in a next nomination? We don't need a trainwreck. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True. I guess we could always rename the naval battles subcategory to just battles if we decide to go with my alt proposal. Your proposal is an okay first step. NLeeuw (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:06, 29 July 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) 02:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Millennia in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:1st millennium BC in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:1st millennium in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:3rd millennium in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:1st century BC in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:1st century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:2nd century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:3rd century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:4th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:5th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:6th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:7th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:8th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:9th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:10th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:11th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:12th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:13th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:14th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:15th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:16th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:17th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:18th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:19th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:20th century in Great Britain
• Propose deleting Category:21st century in Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: delete, presumably the consequence of the deletion of Category:History of Great Britain in this earlier discussion is that its subcategories should also be deleted. I will follow up with decades and years later.

@Omnis Scientia, Ham II, Johnbod, Nederlandse Leeuw, and PearlyGigs: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, let's see how this tree works. Category:Centuries in the United Kingdom has child cats Category:19th century in the United Kingdom‎, Category:20th century in the United Kingdom‎, and Category:21st century in the United Kingdom‎. That means I support a Just delete for Category:19th century in Great Britain, Category:20th century in Great Britain, and Category:21st century in Great Britain as being entirely duplicative. But for the 18th century and earlier, I'll take another look first. NLeeuw (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Kingdom of Great Britain can largely replace Category:18th century in Great Britain; perhaps a merge? Before 1707, most by century categories are just redundant layers for Xth century in England, Scotland and Wales. An exception to this pattern are things like Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom and Category:16th-century architecture in the United Kingdom. Strictly speaking, there was no "United Kingdom" before 1707, so there were no events happening in a UK that didn't exist yet. But that's not really what the category is saying: it is saying that churches and other buildings preserved to this day, and located in what today is the UK, date from the 16th and 11th century, respectively. In that case, these building subcategories only vaguely say anything about events in the 16th and 11th century (namely, construction in century X of building Y), and more about buildings in the UK today that stem from that time. I don't know. I'm not very found of these "establishments" categories anyway, as they all too frequently lead to these sort of anachronisms, and we may well wonder how WP:DEFINING it all is. Thoughts?

  More on topic, I think I am overall in favour of the proposal to delete these categories, unless merging is a better idea. NLeeuw (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, NLeeuw. Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom presents the sort of exception that epitomises the whole problem. First, it has only article, St Tugual's Chapel, which is on Herm in the Channel Islands. As far as I can tell, there is no other chronological category that could hold the article. Its other categories are Category:Herm and Category:Churches in the Channel Islands. I think we need to look at all articles in these GB/UK categories and decide if they need any kind of chronological categorisation. Personally, I think St Tugual's Chapel does not, because of its location. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Channel Islands aren't in the United Kingdom; they're Crown Dependencies. The chronological category for that chapel should be Category:11th-century churches, unless the date can be narrowed down to a decade or a year. Ham II (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh, I had forgotten about the crown dependency status. Makes the categorisation even more awkward and silly. NLeeuw (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good points. Incidentally, its parent Category:11th-century architecture in the United Kingdom is a redundant layer, we might as well upmerge that right away. NLeeuw (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Leaning Keep as these categories cover the island of Great Britain, and are analogous to the Category:History of Ireland tree for the island (not the Republic) of Ireland. This avoids the anachronism of using "United Kingdom" for centuries before the 19th. (The categories for centuries in the UK start at Category:19th century in the United Kingdom.) Category:History of Great Britain by period has subcategories for ancient, medieval and early modern history; that is less anachronistic than if they were in the United Kingdom category tree.

The problem with Category:History of Great Britain was the scope (the period 1707–1800, which made it indistinguishable from the scope of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain); in my opinion it should be recreated, with the scope being the history of the island. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I don't think re-creating the category will solve the underlying problem. The comparison with Category:History of Ireland is tempting, but I think the island of Ireland can much more easily be taken as a scope, as both the Republic and Northern Ireland are relatively recent phenomena that lead to few ambiguities for categorisation.

Perhaps we should first delete the 19th, 20th and 21st-century categories and go from there? NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should immediately delete the 19th, 20th and 21st century ones which have no articles and only the requisite English, Scottish, and Welsh sub-categories. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be rather artificial if a category tree for the island ended in the 18th century. Could there be a "United Kingdom > Great Britain > England, Scotland and Wales" (plus "Ireland (1801–1923)" and "Northern Ireland", as appropriate) structure for the 19th century onwards? Ham II (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to delete all but I think we need to exercise caution by ensuring that all articles are satisfactorily categorised first. For example, Category:12th century in Great Britain has just one entry, Historia Regum Britanniae. That is a famous manuscript with a wide range of categories but we must ask if it needs one relating to its 12th-century British authorship. It is essentially an English work, despite its title, so should it go into just the Category:12th century in England tree, or also into those of Category:12th century in Scotland and Category:12th century in Wales? PearlyGigs (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm inclined to say only Category:12th century in England, as place of production. I agree with you. NLeeuw (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Essentially English?! See Historia Regum Britanniae § Sources – the only English one there is Bede; all the rest are Welsh or, in Gildas's case, a Celtic Briton more generally. The place of production is traditionally, but spuriously said to be at "Geoffrey's Window" in Monmouth Priory, Wales. Ham II (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I missed that. Reading the "Contents" section of the article, the summaries of the twelve books seem focused on events in what became England, both Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon. Scotland and Wales seem to be other places as in "The Britons (in England) are immediately besieged by attacks from Picts, Scots and Danes"; and "The remaining Britons are driven into Wales". I agree with adding it to Category:12th century in Wales but I think we can exclude Scotland.

  Actually, this does underline the need for caution when handling articles in GB/UK categories. Thanks, Ham II. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, the contents of the Historia should be irrelevant to categorising its place and time of production. Even if it had 23 entire chapters on Karakalpakstan in the 7th century, but was written in High Wycombe in the 12th century, it still went only into the Category:12th century in England, not Category:12th century in Uzbekistan (nor Category:7th century in Uzbekistan). NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The island of Great Britain has a distinct history, and we should be able to populate these categories. I suggest recreating Category:History of Great Britain. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:07, 29 July 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) 02:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Neologisms by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Kinda obsolete, "forgotten" category with a handful of entries. (I tried to find Category:1992 neologisms there and surprized to find none.) Its entries should be included into category:Neologisms by decade. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to nominate the subcategories (as well). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont need to nominate them: they are valid. - Altenmann >talk 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I misunderstood your intention. However if the subcategories are valid then so is the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was noit clear enough: this parent is redundant (and non-maintained (and-non-maintainable: there are, like, 2000 years, you know :-): they (and many more others) are in the corresponding categories category:Neologisms by decade, see, e.g., Category:2000s neologisms. It6 contains categories by all years: Category:2000 neologisms,... etc. - Altenmann >talk 21:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In principle it is not any different from all other "by year" categories that we have (and there are many of them). It does need to get populated though. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems you are right; e.g., Category:1943 films etc. are both in Category:Films by year and in Category:Films by decade. Now, who is master of automated tools to do the job? - Altenmann >talk 00:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Valid system of categorisation. Mclay1 (talk) 05:05, 4 August 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) 02:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot to explicitly mention that I am withdrawing the nomination, convinced by the discussion, so it may be closed now. - Altenmann >talk 04:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:20th-century Kenyan male singers to Category:20th-century Kenyan singers and Category:Kenyan male singers
• Propose merging Category:20th-century Kenyan women singers to Category:20th-century Kenyan singers and Category:Kenyan women singers

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary diffusion of just 13 pages. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. If there were more on either end, it would make sense, but for just thirteen people it's unnecessary. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unnecessary is not a sufficient rationale. In any case the upmerges should also be to Category:Kenyan male singers and Category:Kenyan women singers respectively. Perspicax (talk) 16:04, 29 July 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) 02:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 13 is fine for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:01, 8 August 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.