Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24

December 24

Category:Reputed virgins

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> 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Reputed virgins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a veritable can of worms. It might include e.g. presumably the majority of Popes and other RC clergy, and a lot of people who died as children. Should it include people like Arthur, Prince of Wales and Edward Heath? PatGallacher (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial characteristic (maybe with few exceptions). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. This category is for people who are famous as (alleged) virgins, so obviously not children and most popes (not you, Pope Alexander VI). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should have been notified of this Cfd. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see virginity as a notable biographical element. Who cares if they could not find any suitable lover? Dimadick (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one of the first twenty things I think of when I think of Isaac Newton. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Verification alone is problematic, along with any number of issues. Intothat darkness 13:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by the nom, this just looks like an WP:OR magnet. Also, techincally, this is pretty much an all-inclusive category. Because at some point in their lives, presumably all people are. - jc37 21:59, 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:Hello Girls

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Hello Girls

Medieval synagogues by year

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1200 (1 P) to Category:12th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1200
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1205 (1 P) to Category:13th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1205
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1315 (1 P) to Category:14th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1315
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1344 (1 P) to Category:14th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1344
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1357 (1 P) to Category:14th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1357
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1420 (1 P) to Category:15th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1420
Propose merging Category:Synagogues completed in 1492 (1 P) to Category:15th-century synagogues and Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1492

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories. Medieval mosques and churches are also not categorized by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Many dates in the Middle Ages are uncertain, including at least one of the items in this category (Synagogue of Santa María la Blanca, c. 1205). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:53, 25 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:Regencies of Bangka Belitung Islands

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Regencies of Bangka Belitung Islands to Category:Regencies of the Bangka Belitung Islands

Nominator's rationale: Check out "The#Geographic usage" and "wikt:the#Usage notes", along with the naming of subcategories of Category:Bangka Belitung Islands. Wikihistorian (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename C2B. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 25 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:American social media influencers

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American social media influencers to Category:American Internet celebrities

Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category that's distinct from American Internet celebrities? ^SMason_Garrison 04:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, if applicable the articles are already in Category:American bloggers, Category:American YouTubers, Category:American TikTokers etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. ^SMason_Garrison 16:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, and oppose deletion for that matter. Having the subcategory makes for more consistency with our articles, Internet celebrity and influencer, and the existence of the category—and the heaps of secondary source coverage about 'social media influencers' and all manner of web platform based persons like YouTubers and TikTokers—go to show that these are sufficiently defining categories. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTubers and TikTokers were exactly my point. We already have categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may have written unclearly. My point was that YouTuber and social media influencer are separately notable. Michael Sugrue was a YouTuber, but to call him an "influencer" would to me seem to be misunderstanding the genre of his content (education in the history of philosophy). It's possible to be an Internet celebrity, or a noteworthy/notable person on the Internet, without being a social media influencer, making it useful to have influencers as a subcategory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think nowadays social influencers is a broad term, well covering all YouTubers and TikTokers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; "influencer" carries a connotation of trendsetting, especially in the realm of purchasing decisions, e. g., vloggers plugging their Stanley drinking tumblers, Instagrammers recommending articles of clothing, etc. That's not a connotation that readily connotes a documentarian YouTuber like Kevin Perjurer of Defunctland, or an education TikToker like historian J. Draper. (as well as aforementioned historian YouTuber Michael Sugrue; I don't really see "influencer" as the point of overlap between that guy and Mr. Beast.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Hydrangeans's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the discussion above: Category:TikTokers has been a stable subcategory of Category:Social media influencers since December 2019 shortly after the category was created. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing Category:TikTokers from Category:Social media influencers. Category:TikTokers already appears in Category:Internet celebrities, after all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I notice the problem is larger, there is also Category:Internet celebrities and Category:Social media influencers. So you might consider withdrawing this nomination and restart at a higher level. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Language has evolved so that all notable Youtubers, Tiktokers, etc. are "infuencers". This is therefore redundant categorization. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated parent Category:Social media influencers too, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_25#Category:Social_media_influencers. It may make sense to close the two discussions simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, and oppose deletion. Not all influencers are celebrities, e.g. LinkedIn influencers. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all influencers are celebrities, ok, but what is relevant here is that all notable influencers are celebrities. We are discussing categorization of articles about notable people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 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:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

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: containerize. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This cat was tagged for speedy deletion as G4. There was indeed a CfD back in 2021 where this was deleted by consensus. I declined the speedy because this was a lot of material to remove without a discussion, and IMHO I felt this call was just outside of the trust of the community for any one single trusted user. I have no interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize, death by cardiovascular disease in general is too common to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on the previous: if the category is not kept then at least the subcategories should be moved to Category:Deaths by type of illness. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments in previous discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think containerize is the solution here, so that the subcategories are at least moderately closely linked. ^SMason_Garrison 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize per above. If it is known, then it is defining. Respublik (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria what are your thoughts on containerization? ^SMason_Garrison 17:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would allow related caused of death to be easily navigated between. ^SMason_Garrison 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both defining, and relatively easy to locate available sources on it. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still appears to be consensus for a change, but no consensus on what the change should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize Some diseases are too common to be a defining trait, but the subcategories include many rare conditions such as Category:Deaths from heart cancer. Category:Deaths from heart disease is already a container category for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

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:People from the Crown of Castile. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from the Crown of Castile to Category:Castilians

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If merged, this category should be left as a redirect. If not merged, I think we need an extremely clear definition of how these categories are distinct. ^SMason_Garrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse among the 12th- to 15th-century subcategories of Category:Castilians. Admittedly the latter is rather vague: without the description on the category page it might also refer to modern Castilians. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact a reverse merge would solve the latter problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the difference in page history, I'd rather rename Category:Castilians to Category:People from the Crown of Castile, and leave a redirect for some categories behind the scences ^SMason_Garrison 05:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge as discussed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Castilians. If there are no further comments we should be all set for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:07, 24 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 from the Crown of Aragon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

Decades in history

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually merging Category:2000s in history to Category:2000s
Propose manually merging Category:2010s in history to Category:2010s
Propose manually merging Category:2020s in history to Category:2020s
Propose manually merging Category:2030s in history to Category:2030s

Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus their parent category. The decades as a whole are, or will become, part of history. The merge needs to happen manually because many articles are already in, e.g., Category:2000s decade overviews. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I oppose this proposal, because Category: 2020s decade overviews, et al, includes 2020s in sports, 2020s in fashion, 2020s in music, 2020s in film, etc etc,

the category Category: 2020s in history has a few highly useful and highly specific roles ; a) it is for articles describing history in a broad narrative style , namely, 2020s in history, 2020s in military history, 2020s in Asian history, etc etc. and b) it is also for sub-categories pertaining to that decade's history, such as Category: 2020s in military history, Category:2020s in women's history, etc; so clearly those are not limited only to articles that are decade overviews.

And Category:2020s is clearly a broad umbrella category, with hugely wide scope, so it is not interchangeable with this category. Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The concept of history is inseparable from time periods. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is not the time period, it is the content. and you are incorrect. the current decade overview articles include things like 2020s in film, 2020s in fashion, 2020s in sports. so those are NOT history topics. they are topics pertaining to entertainment, or arts and culture, or recreation. not like history at all. can i please suggest that you read the articles referenced above, to comment on this? Sm8900 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza's argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these articles are about history. Namely history of film, history of sports and history of fashion respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per nom and the above. The parent Category:History by decade, should probably go too. The problem for these is that any year-based cat contains articles about "history" of "something". That's what they hold. This being somewhat different than geological eras, or other time scales, of course. But even those contain "history", of a sort. - jc37 22:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. And I've BLARed the similarly-redundant articles in Category:History by decade. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no basis to delete the articles. it requires community discussion. Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 29 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:Non-governmental organizations

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: purge. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose purging Category:Non-governmental organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Note that I'm proposing purging rather than deletion; however, there may be a case to be made that deletion might be preferable due to the scope of the problem.
The term does have a technical definition, but is routinely overused to the point of meaninglessness in the real world, encompassing nearly any organization that exists at all regardless of whether it fits the technical definition of an "NGO" or not — so previous discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5#Category:Non-governmental organizations by country) have established a consensus that trying to categorize for the distinction between organizations that are "non-governmental" and organizations that are not "non-governmental" was not a productive use of wikipedians' time and energy. Accordingly, the category explicitly has a usage note on it saying "This is not a category for articles about individual organizations", as well as a {{Diffuse}} template on it, but unsurprisingly is quite populated by articles about individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, needs to be purged from the category? All the articles? Only articles that don't fit the proper definition? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All individual organizations, since there's both a consensus and a usage note that the category isn't for individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category; thoughts on LaundryPizza's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, purge all individual organizations (all articles except the two on top). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As commonly used, it is synonymous with civil society. Though, this may require deletion of its subcategories as well. Also, there are other top-level general items such as Non-governmental organisations in Georgia (country). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:58, 25 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 who have sacrificed their lives to save others

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. A rename proposal might find consensus, and as always editors are welcome to create a list regardless of the outcome of this discussion – see WP:NOTDUPE. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining category ^SMason_Garrison 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this preposterous. How is this vague? Should it be "People who have knowingly sacrificed their lives to save others"? "People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others"? Blockhaj (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles in a category that does not fit anywhere, we better add a direct link in the See also section of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of people throughout history which can be added to this category. Blockhaj (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not all get a Wikipedia though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but there surely must be tons of articles out there which fits this category no? The current two articles were just the ones i could think of in the moment of creation. Blockhaj (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If you don't add any other articles yourself it'll be very unlikely this category gets further populated. Other editors will not be aware that the category exists because it doesn't naturally belong in any category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I do not see why that is a reason to delete it? Blockhaj (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I have now added more articles and placed it under the category of altruism. Blockhaj (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That does not help. Editors expect to find topic articles in this tree, not biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The purpose of categories is to help navigation. This category doesn't do that, and even if it did the question of whether this meets the criteria of a defining feature. ^SMason_Garrison 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Shouldn't categories help with gathering articles with the same or similar nature? I never find that categories help with navigation, at least on English Wikipedia. Anyhow, which "tree" should this be put under? Blockhaj (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  They don't help with gathering, they help with reading articles about a similar topic after the gathering has been done. And your last question is exactly my earlier point, it does not fit in any tree so it'll never be populated by anyone else. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be well defined and useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator. If kept, it should be renamed as something like People who died after attempting to save others/People who died after saving others, because the intention to sacrifice their life is hardly determinative baring exceptional circumstances. Even then it is somewhat clunky and opaque.Respublik (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The construction "sacrificing one's life" (etc) is cherry picked as it is the most common poetic phrase for this (next to "giving one's life" which is more ambiguous). A more strict and direct name will make the category harder to find i think. Instead, the category itself has a specifying note written on it: People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others.. This can further be expanded on if needed. Blockhaj (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.' I think a good title might be people who died due to efforts to save lives. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is vague imo and not what the category is about. Its about people who knowingly died to save others. Blockhaj (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that in many cases, the person did not know whether they would die when attempting to save someone else. They acted despite the risk to themselves, but they could be certain of the exact outcome beforehand — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, perhaps rename to people who knowingly died due to efforts to save lives. Sm8900 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea for the category is to list people who knew they would most likely die as a result of attempting to save others lives. Ie, they would sacrifice their life (not in the sense of using one's whole life span to invent or create something to save others). Take Vince Coleman (train dispatcher) as an example. Blockhaj (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is indeed vague and impossible to define.--User:Namiba 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but suggest creating list. Certainly there are notable people who did this but it doesn't fit as an encyclopedic category per se, because there's too many vagaries here. However, I propose people who support this category consider creating a list (see all the lists on Lists of unusual deaths) because I think there are probably enough sources that support this as a notable topic. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 18:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against a list if someone is willing to create it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, once upon a time, Kbdank71 had a script to automate listify closes. That said, I don't know how it worked, or even if it still exists. Maybe it's worth asking about something new at Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Bot requests, or even Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). - jc37 22:08, 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:Engineers from Jharkhand

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Jharkhand to Category:Scientists from Jharkhand

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jhaverilal K. Dholakia is not a scientist based on available context, and is in other subcategories of Category:Indian engineers and Category:People from Jharkhand. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:03, 25 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:Alvarado wrestling family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh to Category:Scientists from Himachal Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Engineers are not scientists, however Timothy A. Gonsalves is a computer scientist, and there is no category for computer scientists from Himachal Pradesh. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Substituted amphetamines

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. When taking the CFDS discussion into account, there has already been thorough discussion and WP:RELISTing is unlikely to break the logjam. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines

Nominator's rationale: Per opposed WP:CFDS request:

Extended content

Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines – C2C: Non-standard chemical class category name. See here (i.e., only a single use of "Substituted" in a chemical category name on all of Wiki) and compare other closely related category names like Category:Phenethylamines, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, Category:Cathinones, Category:Tryptamines, and so forth. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article of the category is Substituted amphetamine. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see reasoning above and compare Category:Phenethylamines and Substituted phenethylamine, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines and Substituted β-hydroxyamphetamine, Category:Cathinones and Substituted cathinone, Category:Tryptamines and Substituted tryptamine, and so forth. Category:Substituted amphetamines is an outlier and goes against standards, including within its own category tree (it's a subcategory of Category:Phenethylamines and it contains the Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, and Category:Cathinones categories). There is no reason for this inconsistency and it makes using these categories (i.e., knowing/remembering whether the category has the prefix "Substituted" in its name) more tedious than it needs to be. There are dozens of other examples as well (e.g., see here for just some of them); Category:Substituted amphetamines is the only exception having "Substituted" in the category name on the English Wikipedia. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a month and there hasn't been any discussion, so I'm requesting feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. It looks like there's also some prior discussion above at Category talk:Substituted amphetamines#Rename; the page was previously moved from Category:Amphetamines to Category:Substituted amphetamines. I disagree with the reasoning there and think the category name would still be better as Category:Amphetamines, so continuing with the move efforts. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per nominator — the argument re: consistency (WP:C2C) makes sense to me. After the move, we should make sure that both Amphetamine and Substituted amphetamine are main articles for Category:Amphetamines, analogous to Category:Phenethylamines.
NB. To ensure Category:Cathinones and Category:Methamphetamines are managed accordingly, I've just made Substituted cathinone a main article for the cathinones category, as well as adding Methamphetamine to the methamphetamines category, making it a main article. This seems like the right approach to me, but I have much more experience editing chemistry articles than I do managing categories, so please let me know if you disagree. Preimage (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Amphetamines redirects to Substituted amphetamine, and I see no good reason to deviate from the name of the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:58, 28 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:Neapolitan families

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Neapolitan families

Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor to Category:Lists of buildings and structures in East Timor and Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in Southeast Asia

Nominator's rationale: And other parents. Part of a mass cleanup after the recent rename of East Timor's article to Timor-Leste. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominated and nominee categories are likely to be speedy-renamed now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only a single article in the category, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also identified another valid merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category was speedy renamed to Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in Timor-Leste. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

Category:Aim for the Top! images

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aim for the Top! images to Category:Gunbuster images

Nominator's rationale: The official English name of "Aim for the Top!" (トップをねらえ!) is Gunbuster. Although Diebuster has its own name, in releases in English-speaking markets, it often has Gunbuster 2 (or "GunBuster 2") as another name used in conjunction with Diebuster. Furthermore, Gaina is working on Gunbuster 3. In addition, I created a category on Wikimedia Commons, commons:Category:Gunbuster, for that reason. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I wanted to add that a similar example of having the original name is the Neon Genesis Evangelion category, encompassing Neon Genesis Evangelion, Rebuild of Evangelion, and spin-offs. I figured that by following Evangelion's example, Gunbuster, as the franchise is known by its original name, could be more easily identified and more streamlined across the English-language Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename per C2D - main article is Gunbuster, and has had that name since creation in 2014. - jc37 22:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: I moved the files to the new category. This is now closed. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z. Patterson Do not do Wikipedia:COPYPASTEMOVE, even for speedy moves. Also, if you are not advised to enact your own nominations of CfDs, or CfD speedys ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 31 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.