Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 2

April 2

Category:Artists from Beersheba

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Multi upmerge for now. There's only one person in this category, and she's already in Educators from Beersheba SMasonGarrison 22:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. After populating, the category now has 11 members. gidonb (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Someone can perhaps close? gidonb (talk) 17:09, 4 April 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:Beatriz Haddad Maia Tennis coaches

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 10#Category:Beatriz Haddad Maia Tennis coaches

Category:Nintendo Switch Online games

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:Nintendo Classics games. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nintendo has officially rebranded this service as "Nintendo Classics", per primary source. Considering the service never really had an official name beyond "library of classic games for Nintendo Switch Online" and secondary sources are not at all consistent in how they refer to it, it makes sense to use the new official branding in the absence of any overwhelming common name. It's also arguably less ambiguous, as "Nintendo Switch Online games" could be misinterpreted as any game that uses the NSO service for online functionality. (The main article, List of Nintendo Switch Online games, has already been renamed to Nintendo Classics, so this would also maintain consistency.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.
MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:45, 4 April 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:Sports competitions in Nyköping

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 (dc̄) 14:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:51, 2 April 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 Heerlen by occupation

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 (dc̄) 14:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also propose merging-

All subcategories with just 1 or 2 entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:14, 2 April 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:Journalism controversies by media organ

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:Journalism controversies by outlet. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Journalism controversies by media organ to Category:Journalism controversies by news outlet
Nominator's rationale: The proper term in this realm is "news outlet", which is a widely used umbrella term that covers the entire range of news sources - print, broadcast, online, etc. Whereas "media organ" is little used, and doesn't even specify "news". Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not all journalism is news (e.g. The New Yorker). Not all media organs are primarily or exclusively news-focused (e.g. the BBC). jnestorius(talk) 11:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent category is "News media". Can we call this accordingly Category:Journalism controversies by news medium? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The parent category is "News media" Well, "a" parent, not "the" parent. I think a mismatch between the names of parent and child category is in this case a feature not a bug: it signals that the containment is inexact, as with so much of the category hierarchy. The primary aim of the category tree is to aid human readers' navigation, not train AI ontologies. The category contains NPR controversies and Category:BBC controversies, each of which includes news, non- news journalism, and non-journalism controversies. If there is ever a Controversies article split out of The New Yorker article, it should be in this category with the current name.
    2. Can we call this ... by news medium? I don't think so. Assuming for the moment we confine the category to news, I prefer "news organ" or "news outlet" to "news medium", because "medium" here suggests e.g. "newspaper" or "television" rather than "New York Times" or "CNN".
    jnestorius(talk) 18:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised Proposal - Say, how about we simplify the whole thing by just dropping the word "news", and go with Category:Journalism controversies by outlet, which allows readers to infer whatever type of outlet they like, whether it be "news outlet", "media outlet" or "journalism outlet". :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius and Marcocapelle:Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me jnestorius(talk) 12:14, 3 April 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:Entertainers from Enid, Oklahoma

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 (dc̄) 14:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominator's rationale: Also propose merging-

All subcategories with 3 or less entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated.14GTR (talk) 12:54, 2 April 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:Degerfors stubs

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 (dc̄) 14:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories with no possibility to reach the 60 article target for stub categories. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:02, 2 April 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 Wattle Grove, New South Wales

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 (dc̄) 14:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Lost in Quebec (talk) 08:09, 2 April 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:Roman legendary creatures

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:Legendary creatures in Roman mythology. This is a WP:BARTENDER close. Most participants agree that the current title should be changed, but there is no clear consensus on the new name. However, all participants favoring a rename were at least alright with...in Roman mythology, with some debate over whether "legendary", "fantastic", "mythological", or something else is the best name. As a bartender, I am choosing legendary because it is what is currently in the title and has plurality support. A rename nomination specifically focusing on changing the "legendary" verbiage might find consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Roman legendary creatures to Category:Creatures in Roman mythology
Nominator's rationale: rename aligning with article Roman mythology and parent Category:Characters in Roman mythology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that "legendary" is the best formulation, but I think this category is intended to include only fantastic creatures, not animals of any kind. Mythology is full of ordinary creatures (horses, cattle, snakes, ants, eagles, etc.), but I don't think that's what this category is meant to consist of. The proposed name would include them all, so unless that's the intention of this change, it should not be made. P Aculeius (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it would exist (but it doesn't), Category:Animals in Roman mythology could be a subcategory of this, while the articles directly in the nominated category are about fantastic creatures. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's part of the category tree of Category:Legendary creatures. There is also Category:Greek legendary creatures, etc. I think it requires a discussion on that whole category tree. (Noting the recent creation of Category:Creatures in Greek mythology.) Mclay1 (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - some of the creatures are from bestiaries of the time, and not from myth. Some were considered actual creatures at the time -Natural History (Pliny), for example. That said, we tend to treat such creatures as creatures of legend. I also think we need to include "empire" for this, so Rename to Category:Legendary creatures of the Roman Empire Category:Legendary creatures in Roman mythology. - jc37 11:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC) struck per discussion below. - jc37 19:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we come up with a better description than "legendary"? It seems to me that the most "legendary" creatures of the Roman Empire would be the eagle and perhaps the lion. I also doubt whether it's desirable to specify "Roman Empire" when the subject is Roman myth, culture, or folklore, which existed for centuries before Rome was an empire. These didn't suddenly come into existence when Octavian was proclaimed Augustus, and in practical terms Rome had already possessed an empire for a long time before it had an emperor. P Aculeius (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When saying "legendary creatures", what we're describing is non-real creatures from legend/folklore. And when saying "...of the Roman Empire", we're saying that such creatures were noted during that time period (such as Pliny's work, I noted above). Both the lion and eagle are actual creatures. While the Phoenix is a legendary creature listed in Pliny's work. - jc37 12:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Legendary" does not mean "fictional" or "imaginary". Many legendary things are real—I already made this point below, if it wasn't clear from my first post above. The proposal you're making would limit "Roman" to only half of Roman history, and exclude all of what was written of before 27 BC. What's the reason for that? P Aculeius (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that ""Legendary" does not [necessarily] mean "fictional" or "imaginary"" - It is why I am suggesting that term and not "fictional" in the name.
    As for the rest, the word "Roman" needs a clarifying word for this. Otherwise, we're merely talking about the City of Rome. And I presume that you are meaning more than that. - jc37 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that sense, "Roman mythology" is more accurate than "Roman creatures". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you may have worded that wrongly. Perhaps it would be technically correct, though extremely awkward and perhaps tautological, to say "mythological creatures in Roman mythology". But I still think that the best solution is more likely to be something along the lines of "fantastic creatures in Roman mythology". That makes the distinction between the intended scope of the category and ordinary creatures clear, but without the inappropriate connotations of "imaginary" or "fictional", which don't belong in discussions of mythology. Whatever the solution here is should probably also apply to the "classical mythology" category below. P Aculeius (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But this category is clearly intended for fantastic creatures, not ordinary ones. Your proposal expands the scope of the category to include ordinary creatures appearing in Roman myth, but for some reason only myths found in Roman literature after 27 BC—or 31 BC, or 44 BC, or 216 BC—when exactly did Rome become an empire? And the distinction you're drawing, namely that "Roman" somehow applies only to the city of Rome, makes no sense. Romans didn't cease to be Romans when they passed beyond the city walls; Roman mythology wasn't confined within the pomerium. We distinguish Roman mythology from other mythologies of the classical world because it occurs in Roman literature, generally using Latin names for gods or heroes or other things, even if they weren't necessarily of Roman origin, and the Romans regarded it as their mythology—either because it was indigenous to Italy, or because it had been adopted and incorporated into Roman culture and was no longer viewed as alien. P Aculeius (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We seem to agree on "... in Roman mythology" which was my main point. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also fine with "...in Roman mythology".
    But I still think "Legendary" is better than "fantastic", and is definitely better than no adjective. If there is a better word, I'm happy to discuss it. But "legendary" seems to be the prevailing word in the many sources I've looked at for creatures that we seem to be defining as: "fantastic creatures noted during the Roman era". - jc37 14:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One nice thing about going with Category:Legendary creatures in Roman mythology, is that the name clearly indicates it is part of the legendary creatures tree, and the Roman mythology tree. - jc37 19:33, 4 April 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:Legendary creatures in classical mythology

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) 18:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for brevity. "Legendary" is redundant in combination with "in mythology". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with "Roman legendary creatures", the proposed rename would change the scope of the category to include all kinds of animals, birds, fish, insects that occur in classical mythology, which presumably is not the intended scope. The nomination also seems to assume a popular but incorrect meaning for "mythology", giving it the meaning of "fictional, imaginary", rather than the technical definition. A myth is a traditional story told to explain some important point about the world, and the fact that it's called a "myth" says nothing about whether it is literally or only figuratively true. "Legendary" doesn't necessarily mean "fictional, imaginary" either. Many real things are legendary—the Great Pyramid, the Mona Lisa, Babe Ruth. So "legendary" isn't really redundant to "in mythology". Which is not to say it's the best formulation for the category title, but removing it would potentially expand the scope of the category in unintended ways. We need a better way of describing fantastic creatures, but having no qualifier at all opens up the category to real creatures appearing in myth, and I don't think that was the intended scope. P Aculeius (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it would exist (but it doesn't), Category:Animals in classical mythology could be a subcategory of this, while the articles directly in the nominated category are about fantastic creatures. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's part of the category tree of Category:Legendary creatures. Per above discussion on Category:Roman legendary creatures. Mclay1 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_2&oldid=1286429845"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 2, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.