Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 21

January 21

Muay Thai practitioners

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 Category:Latvian male Muay Thai practitioners and rename Category:Male Muay Thai practitioners to Category:Male Muay Thai practitioners by nationality. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why is there only a single article in this category tree? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Paul_012's latest comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:44, 21 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:Ukrainian sportspeople killed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Category:Ukrainian sportspeople killed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Category:Hart wrestling family books

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:Books about the Hart family (professional wrestling). (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is mostly redirects, which I suggest removing from this category, and then upmerging the five remaining articles to Category:Professional wrestling books and either Category:Hart wrestling family or the rename to Category:Hart family (professional wrestling) nominated below. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Responses to Mike Selinker's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:33, 21 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:Itesot people

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) 03:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seem to cover same group of people ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:27, 21 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:Jordanian male racewalkers

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:Jordanian racewalkers and Category:Jordanian male athletes. I'll throw in Category:Male racewalkers as well. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Jordanian male racewalkers to Category:Jordanian racewalkers
Nominator's rationale: also merge with Category:Jordanian male athletes. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 21 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:Pro-Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the articles about rebelling Ukrainians rather than Russian military. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon and Smasongarrison: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm find with unconflating it as you've proposed. SMasonGarrison 01:36, 22 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:Emirati rabbis

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Emirati rabbis to Category:Rabbis in the United Arab Emirates
Nominator's rationale: People who are Emirati (citizens of the United Arab Emirates) can not legally be recognized as Jews, as the law requires all citizens to be Muslim; all the people under this category are not Emiratis, they are Jews of other nationalities simply residing in the country. You can not gain citizenship through living there long enough or being born there (like the US for example). Sources: 1 2 3 4. I am voting to rename this category to reflect this. jolielover♥talk 17:20, 12 January 2025 (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, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming per marco and because this category is for nationality, not by country of work. SMasonGarrison 01:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then the category should be deleted, as there are no people in the category who are Emirati and rabbis, and there will not be in the future as Emiratis are not permitted to adhere to a religion other than Islam. jolielover♥talk 07:13, 23 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:Rape of Persephone

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 and no consensus to take any other actions, without prejudice against a separate nomination focusing only on renaming. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most contents are overly broad for a specific Greek myth. In particular, this creates a category loop between this one and Category:Hades. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case rename to Category:Cultural depictions of the rape of Persephone, re-parent, and purge what does not belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes topurge what does not belong. We could rename it, though the article is at Rape of Persephone, and the category isn't necessarily for any and all cultural depictions – the category (at least as it's currently defined) would not house, for instance, video games or TV shows, which would fall under the scope of a "cultural depictions" category, and I also don't think ancient art is really included in "cultural depictions". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is renaming to Category:Cultural depictions of the rape of Persephone an acceptable alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:09, 21 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.

Government in/of X

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to merge. Any renames can be brought to new nominations. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories; in particular, this creates a category loop for Nigeria and between Category:Government in Quebec and Category:Politics of Quebec. For Canada, Nigeria, and South Africa, it is also possible to segregate the federal and state/provincial governments, like we do in the United States. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's and TadejM's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have looked at the other categories. Nigeria has the same issue as Canada and could benefit from the same solution as I proposed for Canada. But Quebec, Slovenia and South Africa can be merged as proposed. As for Slovenia, nowhere else we make a distinction between the government in a narrow sense and its institutions, although the distinction might be made everywhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. The distinction is actually not between the Government of Slovenia and its institutions, but the Government of Slovenia and all state authorities (all of them being collectively referred to as government in Slovenia in this case). --TadejM my talk 11:07, 23 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:Modernity

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories are too similar, and this is reflected by the fact that they form a category loop. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have Grutness's actions rendered this moot? I will tag Category:Modern history to allow for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:06, 21 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:Human-Environment interaction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to do anything other than fix the capitalization, hence rename to Category:Human-environment interaction * Pppery * it has begun... 18:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlap with Category:Environmental sociology (reflecting the target of Human-Environment interaction) and Category:Human impact on the environment. The ostensible main article is Integrated geography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Human-Environment interaction is one of the Four traditions of geography, originally refered to as the "Man-Land tradition." It is also one of the Five themes of geography. It is a geography topic and is distinct from sociology. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: LaundryPizza03 seems to imply Category:Human-environment interaction; is that an acceptable rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • If kept, then certainly rename. It appears however to be an element in two out of many possible ways of classifying topics of geography and I don't think we should create categories for each classification method. The single most accepted classification is physical geography versus human geography and we can keep that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 22 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:City

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another questionable topic/set split. Part of the category loop Category:City → Category:Cities → Category:Metropolitan areas → Category:Urban areas, which will need to be broken — possibly by breaking the kink between "Metropolitan areas" and "Urban areas". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing an objection to merging; speak up if you do object :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:59, 21 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:Urban guerrilla warfare

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:Urban warfare. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also Category:Urban guerrilla warfare tactics, Category:Urban guerrilla warfare theorists. The Wiki article Urban guerrilla warfare was redirected to Guerrilla warfare in August 2024, which was probably a good call imo. (Ping User:czar who redirected it). However that leaves these orphaned categories without an article that Wikipedia needs to decide what to do with. Deletion seems like the course of action to me, but I don't know that much about categories. Prezbo (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prezbo: is merging to Category:Urban warfare an acceptable alternative? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no objection Prezbo (talk) 23:55, 3 February 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.

Arab supporters of Israel

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: selective merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge, these are subcategories of Category:Arab supporters of Israel but Arab ethnicity does not coincide with nationality. E.g. Category:Moroccan Zionists contains two Jews and zero Arabs. Only include articles in the merge process if the article is clearly about someone of Arab ethnicity. This is follow-up on these earlier discussions 1 and 2.
  • Keep This nomination is backwards — the nationalities should not be subcategories of the Arab category, and should not be merged there because we could lose categorization for non-Arabs from these countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza03's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:38, 21 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:Ante-Nicene Christian martyrs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 4#Category:Ante-Nicene Christian martyrs

Category:Maritime disasters in Kent

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:Shipwrecks in the Strait of Dover * Pppery * it has begun... 18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category because I'm not sure if this has anything to do directly with Kent. The waters off Kent or near it but not with it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, thoughts here? Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is the same as Marco's that this category is defined by the body of water, not the body of land. SMasonGarrison 12:49, 27 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:Black feminists

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:Proponents of Black feminism. I understand this will entail purging the category, so I will list this at WP:CFDWM for followup. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Black feminists to Category:Feminists of African descent
Nominator's rationale: I'm on the fence between deletion and renaming. SMasonGarrison 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per various CfD's for the deletion of Category:Black people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category:Black_feminism is its own concept, it's not simply being of African descendent. Why can Category:Jewish feminists use people-first language but cherrypicking/drawing the line at black feminism? LIrala (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LIrala's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:22, 21 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:Intersectional feminists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 30#Category:Intersectional feminists

Category:Fadrique family

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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, largely overlapping with Category:Counts of Salona. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cplakidas's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:09, 21 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:Visualization (research)

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 both * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Visualization (research) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Visualization research
  • Propose renaming Category:Visualization (web) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Visualization of the Internet
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of disambiguator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Category:Visualization (research) is incoherent and should be deleted instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's most recent point?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:00, 21 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:Anti-modernist films

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: Soft delete * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the scope of the category is too vague. I don't think the parenting is correct either. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 21 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:Scientists from Arlington, Texas

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... 18:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Also merge to Scientists from Texas. Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:37, 21 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.

Disestablishments in the Habsburg Netherlands

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/delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge disestablishments, as sparsely-populated categories, following the precedent for establishments in the same territory at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 16#Establishments in the Habsburg Netherlands by year. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 21 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 Güzelyurt

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) 03:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:18, 21 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:Greek world record setters in athletics (track and field)

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Greek world record setters in athletics (track and field) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Complete outlier that has flown under radar for 8 years, no other split by nationality in World Record categories Crowsus (talk) 09:34, 21 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:Shadow fleets

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:International trade and Category:Maritime transport. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this category necessary? The only non-eponymous article is linked from the eponymous article. Gjs238 (talk) 01:33, 21 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:Possibly fictional people from Europe

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 as nominated. Clear consensus that the status quo is no acceptable; WP:BARTENDER consensus to use the originally-suggested "Fooian people whose existence is disputed" nomenclature. Of course, editors are welcome to move articles from this tree into the "Legendary" tree if that better reflects the consensus of reliable sources. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: parent is People whose existence is disputed. The current name is inconsistent. See conversation on the talk page for context from the creator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Possibly_fictional_people_from_Europe SMasonGarrison 04:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: Add other country/continents as renames. I've added the relevant existing legendary child categories if they exist. SMasonGarrison 18:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seeing at best lukewarm support for the new name, but there is clear consensus that a change is needed. Does jc37's Category:Legendary X people suggestion work for people?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose User:Jc37 means diffusing among the subcategories of Category:Legendary people by continent Category:Legendary people by nationality and that is alright with me. We can still manually add articles to Category:People whose existence is disputed if there is a serious dispute. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that Category:People whose existence is disputed is really hard to navigate without some level of diffusion. SMasonGarrison 18:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once Legendary people (including individuals from folk tales, like John Henry, or from religious texts like the Bible or the Book of Mormon) are removed, is there really that much left? - jc37 18:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends on how one defines "legendary". Are we limiting it to myth and folktales? Because figures from religious texts and from "kings lists" and oral history would also meet that definition. (See Legend.) Most of what I am seeing in those categories are "legendary" people. The few that aren't should be listified to explain what is disputed about them. Another way to put it, is to say that this category scheme is a broadly defined WP:OR magnet, with membership subjectively added, based upon shakily-defined inclusion criteria at best. How is this different than saying "people who are alleged to exist"? (Or even: "People who are alleged to not exist.) We don't keep "alleged criminal", or other such "alleged" categories. We shouldn't be keeping these. As I noted above, if this included BLP articles, it'd be deleted outright. . - jc37 01:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an important point. I would understand "legendary people" to be people on which there is general agreement that they are legendary while "disputed people" are people on which such agreement is lacking. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • An individual can be "legendary" and still have existed. George Washington cutting down the cherry tree or "I cannot tell a lie". So categorizing them as Legendary isn't the issue. It's defining "disputed". According to who? I don't want to wade into the contention of fringe theories, but how "reliable" are we treating "reliable sources" for these? Are we only allowing "mainstream" historians? And how "mainstream"? Are we assessing the sources too? And therein lies one of several reasons that anything to do with "alleged" or "disputed" should be lists. Using categories, we can't quantify the "value" of the dispute or the value of the argument of the disputer(s). How firm is the foundation of the argument that such individuals are disputed? And before we dismiss all legends as fiction, please remember that Troy used to be in that category. And it's apparently been found. And does that lend credence to some or all of the characters from the Illiad or the Odyssey being real? Or should they still be considered legendary? Anyway, that's the trouble here. In the end, it's all just WP:OR. See also: Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields#Source_POV, which explains how/why these things need to be explained in an article if included. Which of course we cannot do in categories. - jc37 05:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Aren't "People from Europe/Africa/Asia" a slightly different thing from "European/African/Asian people"? I'm European ethnically, but I'm not from Europe, for example. Furius (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "X people whose existence is disputed". I don't think "Legendary X people" is suitable for many of the entries currently in this category tree: e.g. Diotima of Mantinea was either a real person or a fictional character; Metrodora is either a real person, a pseudonym, or the result of a misinterpreted text. Neither has the folkloric component which I associate with a legend. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist also clears out an old CfD log page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - So, based on comments above, this cat includes those who would be considered legendary, and those who would not be considered legendary? Then, those that are the former are an easy merge (as I noted above). The latter then should be listified due to (among other things) the many various ambiguities noted above. - jc37 11:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - People could take offense at having a person they believe to be real be called "fictional". Religious and legendary figures are often the subjects of these controversies. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:23, 14 February 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:Maghrebian people 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: delete. Apologies to Riad Salih for stepping on his toes, but there is a process that these things are supposed to follow to ensure that everything is categorized in the most effective way, and currently editors agree that the new for this category has not been actually demonstrated. If he has the time and inclination at any point in the future, he is welcome to work with WikiProject Stub sorting to recreate this category, but for now there is a consensus to delete it. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Maghrebian people stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting {{Maghrebis-bio-stub}}
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category, not approved by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just any topic of their choosing -- a stub category requires at least 60 articles in it before it can be created, so its creation has to be authorized by the WikiProject in order to ensure that there are actually enough articles to justify it.
But this didn't go through the proper process, and has only one article in it with little prospect of finding 59 others -- the Maghreb is a multi-country region in northwest Africa, meaning that almost any potential entries for this would already be tagged for a specific country ({{Algeria-bio-stub}}, {{Tunisia-bio-stub}}, {{Morocco-bio-stub}}, etc.) anyway. (There were two other people here when I first found it, but one was reclassifiable as Algeria and one wasn't a stub at all, and three still isn't 60 anyway.)
And even the template is of questionable necessity if it can't support its own dedicated category -- the one article here just describes the subject as Maghrebi without containing any more specific information about where in the Maghreb he came from (and thus can't be reclassified to a specific Maghreb country), so the template would be defensible if somebody's got a good idea for where else it can upfile him to. But I'm still bundling it here for the sake of discussion, and it can't have its own dedicated category without at least 59 more people than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Bearcat
The category can accommodate more than 60 articles easy. Its primary purpose is to address and prevent the non-editing conflicts between Algerian and Moroccan contributors regarding the term "مغربي" (Maghrebi), which is often mistranslated as "Moroccan."
It is not historically accurate to use labels such as Algerian, Moroccan, or Tunisian for people who lived before the establishment of these states. Historically, the people of the Maghreb region traveled and settled and served in various cities across the region, making clarification in such cases impossible.
The correct and most appropriate category for these individuals is Maghrebian people. Both Western and Arabic sources consistently use the terms "Maghrebi" or "North African" to describe individuals from this region, rather than the modern labels of Algerian, Moroccan, or Tunisian, which are relatively recent and impossible to adopt here.
So I created this category is to ensure historical precision and avoid misclassification. There is no valid way to attribute people from the Maghreb to modern-day countries, especially for periods before the 17th century. This category provides an accurate and neutral way to represent those people. Riad Salih (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to simply assert that it "can accommodate" 60 articles it if it doesn't actually have 60 articles in it now — any category "can accommodate" any number of articles by definition, but that isn't in and of itself proof that we actually have enough articles for it. So it's not a question of what might be theoretically possible, it's a question of how much content is actually in the category now. And you're not free to just create new stub categories yourself without following the proper process, either.
So if you want the category to exist, then your job is to (a) follow the proper process of getting it approved by the WikiProject first, and (b) ensure that it already has at least 60 articles in it the moment I see it in the first place.Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are often randomly labeled as Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, etc., depending on the conflicts between countries, each of which claims belonging to modern nations. A reclassification would certainly have more than 60 possible entries. The North African wikiprojects are rarely active to not say dead so Wikipedia:Be bold. Riad Salih (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the stub sorting WikiProject that has to approve stub categories, not the North African wikiprojects, so the deadness of the North African wikiprojects isn't a legitimate reason to bypass proposing a stub category to the stub sorting wikiproject first. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I dont think that the stub sorting WikiProject can effectively deal with this without involments from editors very knowledgeable about North Africa region or those directly concerned with the region. However, I would have greatly appreciated if you had initiated a discussion instead of directly proposing deletion or modifying the stubs in the articles. Given the long-standing edit wars surrounding these topics, I saw it both logical and necessary to focus on a clear categorization. Riad Salih (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might give User:Riad Salih a week to add more than 60 stubs to the category. They have a fair point about Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia not existing in the middle ages. But I would at least propose to rename the category to Category:Medieval Maghrebi people stubs in order to clarify the scope to editors who haven't seen this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for understanding. I apologize for not being very active on English Wikipedia lately. I have encountered arguments stating that labeling stubs as African stubs is enough, yes but the Maghrebians (North African people) are the Berbers, who belong to a specific ethnicity with distinct historical cultures. Therefore, the African categorization may be considered overly broad. Riad Salih (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles, so delete per the guideline at WP:NEWSTUB. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:48, 4 February 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:Mint food

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Borderline c2c, but I'm not sure this category should exist. But if it should it should be renamed based on siblings in Prepared foods by main ingredient look like Fruit dishes SMasonGarrison 13:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a split into mint dishes and mint drinks? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:18, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_21&oldid=1277694318"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 21, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.