Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 6: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 478: Line 478:
*'''Support''' Per nom. The companion article, [[Same-sex attraction]], redirects to homosexuality already. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per nom. The companion article, [[Same-sex attraction]], redirects to homosexuality already. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Support''' per nom [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 19:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Support''' per nom [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 19:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per nom. Homosexuality means the same thing as same-sex sexuality anyway. [[User:SAMBOT2000xp|SAMBOT2000xp]] ([[User talk:SAMBOT2000xp|talk]]) 16:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


==== Category:Fictional characters who can teleport ====
==== Category:Fictional characters who can teleport ====

Revision as of 16:59, 9 January 2024

January 6

Establishments in Hejaz

Nominator's rationale: The 1916 category for Hejaz riyal is the only page categorised in this hierarchy. Saudi Arabia strictly began in 1925 but 4 other pages are categorised in Category: Establishments in Saudi Arabia by year before that date, and it will be more useful for navigation to categorise this one likewise. The Hejaz riyal was the start of the Saudi riyal anyway. – Fayenatic London 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1940s assassinated French politicians

Nominator's rationale: We really don't need to diffuse at the intersection of decade, nationality, occupation, and manner of death. I have said that I preferred diffusing by nationality than continent, using this page as an example. However, I don't think we should be diffusing by continent at all. And what I meant was that IF the choice was between continent and nationality (and I had to pick one) Mason (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT people by identity and occupation

Nominator's rationale: This follows from the recent merge of Category:LGBT people by gender identity and occupation into Category:LGBT people by occupation. See also the recent merge of Category:LGBT people by sexual orientation and nationality into Category:LGBT people by nationality. These merges remove the intervening "by identity", "by sexual orientation", and "by gender identity" category levels, so that all LGBTQ+ identity-based subcats are more directly accessible to the reader (grouped together under a sort key, as in the "by nationality" cat). Currently, in Category:LGBT people by occupation, the trans and NB subcats are in the main category, the queer and intersex subcats are in the "by identity" subcat, and bisexual, gay, lesbian, and pansexual are yet another level down in "by sexual orientation".Trystan (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sri Lankan political philosophy

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophy of mind images

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about philosophy of physics

Nominator's rationale: Dual Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexuality by culture

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tunisian politics by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian politics by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guyanese politics by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic encyclopedias

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Mason (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players of American football from Enugu State

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 18:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Revolutionaries from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: Following brief discussion at [1]. I assume it was created when categories like "Fooian people" became "People from Foo", but this one is problematic. The people in this category are (or should be) Russian, not simply from the Russian Empire, which would also include many Polish, Ukrainian, etc revolutionaries (which I hope we can agree should not belong in a subcategory of "Russian revolutionaries"!). Furthermore, the existence of this category promotes overcategorization, since many of its members were active both before and after 1917. The category simply needs to be merged upward to its parent. asilvering (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are descriptions of two different things and shouldn’t be merged into a single category that would result in potentially labelling many people of non-Russian identity or ethnicity as “Russian” just because some tsar’s army conquered their country. The empire was a régime that controlled many countries, and we should not be making changes that favour a historical bias that academia is in the process of shedding.[2] If anything, the other category should be split into ethnic Russian and from the Russian Federation categories.  —Michael Z. 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac sorry, I missed this comment before. I find it perplexing - removing some of that historical bias is precisely what I am suggesting. I do not believe that Polish, Ukrainian, etc revolutionaries should be in this category. It is strange to call these people "from the Russian Empire"; I do not believe that is how they were identified historically, nor by historians. The decolonization that Slavic studies is attempting is in this same vein; here is a quote from that article Many scholars say the Russian state receives too much focus in academia at the expense of the colonized nations, regions, and groups, including Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, as well as ethnic minority communities in Russia itself.. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess you’re proposing a change in the defined scope of the category, where I only perceived a change in name. That’s fair, but some editors will reasonably want to categorize people according to the state where they were born and lived, possibly for their entire lives. IMO people can and should also be categorize people by their country even if it lacked statehood and belonged to an empire, and the nation they were a member of or paid allegiance to.
In either case, “Russian X” is IMO ridiculously ambiguous and will never well serve either readers or editors. We should use clearly labelled categories like X from Muscovy, X from the Russian Empire, X from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, X from the Russian Federation, ethnic-Russian X, etcetera.  —Michael Z. 03:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American inventors

Nominator's rationale: Per previous Cfd on "Jewish American inventors" - WP:EGRS. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per @Namiba Mason (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom

  • Propose renaming:
Alumni by English colleges and universities
Alumni by Scottish colleges and universities
Alumni by Welsh colleges and universities
Nominator's rationale: In every case I've seen, "Alumni" comes at the end. As far as I can tell, only U.K. univeristy and colleges alumni category are named as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories of Category:Alumni by university or college in Ireland also follow this style. Ham II (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per consistency. BhamBoi (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 60 categories were untagged. I have tagged them accordingly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: per Necrothesp, "Alumni of" reads more naturally. In any case a recent enormous cfd renamed 'XXX faculty' to 'Academic staff of XXX' and we were promised that a follow-up cfd would rename all instances of 'XXX alumni' to 'Alumni of XXX'. Perspicax (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: we also drive on the left in the UK. Left is right! And vive la difference! I agree with the above that "Alumni of ..." is more natural in British English and less ambiguous for some categories that include commas, especially colleges. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm with everyone else that this reads more naturally and is easier to use. As others point out, we recently changed all the faculty categories to "Academic staff of XXX", so the consistency argument actually favours renaming all the alumni categories to "Alumni of XXX", unless we'd like to overturn that previous CfD. -- asilvering (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per Necrothesp. "Alumni of" reads better and is less ambiguous. --Uhooep (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Same-sex sexuality

Nominator's rationale: split, it is unclear why an intermediate category layer is needed. If content is clearly about same-sex sexuality then it belongs in Category:Homosexuality, if it isn't then it can't belong in a same-sex category either and then it belongs in Category:Human sexuality. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can teleport

Nominator's rationale: I'm shocked this category lasted this long, given that it's not defining in the slightest. Teleportation is usually a pretty basic magical ability in a lot of fantasy. For example, Edelgard von Hresvelg belongs here because she warps out in various cutscenes, but there is no way that teleportation is defining for her, or any of the other characters in this category. Fails WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 13:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Are you kidding me? Teleportation is a clearly defined and distinct superpower which many fictional characters have, and how is it any less of a defining character trait than any other supernatural ability in fiction? I think you just want to delete everything for the sake of deleting. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American players of American football

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS. The rationale is the same as the recently deleted Category:African-American basketball players (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_2#Category:African-American_basketball_players). For the vast majority of African-American players of American or Canadian football, their ancestry is not cited in reliable sources and is not defining. The articles Black players in professional American football and History of African Americans in the Canadian Football League exist which detail how this has changed over time, which is a much better way of doing so than this category. User:Namiba 16:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. As I've pointed out in that nom, I think that this entire chain of nom's is problematic. The argument of "their ancestry is not cited in reliable sources and is not defining", while being a black american in the united states is still very much defining. At the very least, these pages need to be upmerged to the American players category instead of deleted. Mason (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Mason. Also, as I have repeated before, the POINT of these categories is to help with navigation and keep categories from getting too big. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other means to diffuse large categories that are more pertinent, such as club, position, league, period etc. Guideline WP:FINALRUNG explicitly advises against using ethnicity as a means of diffusion (you should diffuse a large category by ethnicity if is it not already diffused by another non-EGRS characteristic). Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If reliable sources don't indicate someone's ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc, then it is extremely irresponsible to put them into categories to which there is no proof they belong. It flies in the face of WP:BLP and WP:V, two core guidelines of Wikipedia. "I think they're X" is not a reasonable standard but that is how the vast majority of these articles are categorized.--User:Namiba 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am *extremely* skeptical of your statement that most of these pages aren't supported by evidence. For example, you said that Aquil Abdullah had "no claim of african heritage" [4]? You even called me snarky when I asked you about it (Talk:Aquil_Abdullah#Removed_categories). Yet, the page said "He was also the first African-American male to win a rowing national championship in 1996, when he won the single sculls competition.[2]" along with several sources supporting it. Mason (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think they are supported by evidence, by all means, don't take my word for it. Go read 10, 20, 100 random articles and see how many claim African-American ancestry.--User:Namiba 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's harder than it seems. Of course, some athletes' racial backgrounds are well-documented (Willie Thrower, Colin Kaepernick, etc). But if we're talking about a random guy who played a dozen games in the NFL in the early 2000s, we may struggle to find a source that explicitly mentions his race. Journalists do not always have a specific reason to bring up that topic. Zagalejo (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLPCAT, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources." Including categories which are unverified and unverifiable, which this is in the case of thousands of articles, is not a good idea. If it is not repeatedly mentioned in sources, it is, by definition, not defining and should not be included.--User:Namiba 15:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. In most cases, players are placed in this category not because they are commonly and consistently called African American football players by reliable sources, but by face test. Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging those who participated (on both sides) of the basketball discussion but have not already commented here so that we might form a consensus on these categories as well: User:Rikster2, User:Zagalejo, User:SportsGuy789.--User:Namiba 18:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unchanged opinion from my deletion vote in the basketball discussion. This category is too vague, non-defining, and opens a door to a definitional discrepancy (i.e. Black is now the politically correct and commonly used description, not African-American). SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I just ran into this category editing an article and was surprised there was such a thing. How are biracial and multiracial players to be categorized? Or is Wikipedia intent on maintaining the "one drop" rule of the bad old segregationist South? As a big majority of NFL players are black or bi-racial, this category provides no useful illumination. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many US LEAs (e.g. FBI) are not police departments. Apokrif (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that we don't need to segregate police departments from other types of law enforcement. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should rather merge to Category:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction (more general term,). Apokrif (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Category:Fictional portrayals of police departments in the United States * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works by setting

Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Massive duplication, especially for future dates. Setting is inherently fictional, so any instances of non-fictional subcategories such as Category:History books about the 16th century can simply be moved out. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical note that the edit button for this section seems to be broken and redirects to random other sections on this page:

"Could not find the comment you're replying to on the page. It might have been deleted or moved to another page." Respublik (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trick-and-draw games

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining category for card games. The most common classification used is at "card game" which splits trick-taking games into plain-trick and point-trick games, each of which is further subdivided. This category sits awkwardly across both types and would include a very large number of games in which you simply play a trick and then draw another card, as opposed to trick-taking games where all the cards are dealt out. There is no way of further subdividing it which is why the systems used by recognised authors don't use it. Bermicourt (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There were 14 members previously, such as Two-ten-jack, Sixty-Six (card game), and Schnapsen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neuroscience education

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic chapels in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 article. No objection to recreation if it becomes sufficiently populated. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional humans

Nominator's rationale: The very notion of this category is flawed and overbroad. It is quite simply not necessary, because a character being a fictional human is the default, whereas them being inhuman is an exception. That's not to get started with why this is categorized under "fictional apes". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From the very beginning I intended this category to only be a container category for subcategories, not articles, so that it won't become too broad in scope; hence why the original name for this category when I created it was Category:Fictional humans by type. Also humans are indeed great apes, it's a fact that can't be disputed. I don't know what exactly you are arguing for here. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that it's a container category, it's that it's problematic as a category period.
Humans are technically primates, but common sense is that people would not be searching for humans as a subcategory of primates outside of a scientific context. It is exceedingly odd when done in a context of fictional characters.
Both these decisions appear to be motivated by a desire to make direct duplicates of real-life scientific categories/classifications while totally ignoring the distinction between how things are treated in real life vs. fiction. Real life and fictional categories cannot and should not perfectly match up, because they're two different things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Is that really your only gripe with this category? It's also a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by species and Category:Fictional humanoids. But what you stated isn't even a proper justification for deleting it. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional human races

Nominator's rationale: I've come to think that this category is too heavy an overlap to exist. When we say "fictional race", from a standpoint of humans, a humanoid race is the default. If we want to further specify, there are categories for that. But there's no need to specifically categorize groups of humans. This can be diffused to Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Fictional species and races depending on the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate merge/split Category:Fictional human races into both Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Human-derived fictional species. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish Free State culture

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with just one child (Category:Sport in the Irish Free State), which is already in Category:Culture of the Republic of Ireland through other means. Note that the Irish Free State (1922-1937) is not a former country, it is a former political regime of an extant country. Place Clichy (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layers with just one child. They are not useful for navigation. Place Clichy (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chapels by country

Nominator's rationale: Each only contains 1 article. No merging is necessary for the Mexico category as the article is in Category:Dominican churches in Mexico and Category:Roman Catholic chapels in North America. No objective to recreation if any become sufficiently populated in the future. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous languages of Europe

Nominator's rationale: Do you know what's in common between Basque, Slavic languages and Oghur languages? They are indigenous languages, according to some editors. Follow-up to #Indigenous peoples of Europe: the term indigenous is not a pertinent descriptor for these European languages, which are no more or no less indigenous than other neighbouring languages. Simple deletion (no merger) as all content is already correctly categorized e.g. in Category:Languages of Europe by country and Category:Language isolates of Europe. Place Clichy (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An Indigenous language is the language of an Indigenous people. It may have legal status as such, and may be subject to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such a deletion proposal should be made on a global basis and require an RFC.  —Michael Z. 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentary films about men

Nominator's rationale: manually merge per WP:EGRS, films about men in general is not a notable topic in itself. The merge should be done manually because most of the content is already in Category:Documentary films about music and musicians or in Category:Documentary films about politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings in Ede, Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A dual merge is not needed, the subcategory is already in Category:Paintings in the Netherlands by collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pan-Oceanianism

Nominator's rationale: Only one eponymous article (WP:C2F). Place Clichy (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: merge, there are some Dutch museums with a lot of notable paintings, but there aren't many museums for paintings, and thus a very detailed geographical category tree does not make much sense. The proposal consists of only a selective merge because much of the content stays in the tree of Category:Paintings in the Netherlands by city anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples of Europe

Nominator's rationale: merge, the history of Eurasia is full of peoples migrating for thousands of kilometers and assimilating with other peoples to other peoples. It is impossible to tell which peoples are truly indigenous. At best we can tell which groups are ethnic minorities, but that is what the "Ethnic groups" tree is for anyway. For example, the Crimean Tatars are here, of whom their ethnicity emerged only since the 13th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Indigenous peoples are not just “ethnic minorities.” They are the subjects of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, are designated as such by UN member states (the law of Ukraine designates three such peoples), and have certain protected rights different from those of “ethnic minorities.” Eliminating these categories should not be done on a regional basis and based on the random opinions that history is hard and the supposed indeterminability of “truly Indigenous,” and distastefully bad logic about Crimean Tatars (a stereotypically colonial statement casting doubt on the legal rights and very validity of a national group that’s been subject to genocide and persecution for centuries).  —Michael Z. 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The indigenous label is never used consistently in Europe. It is a risky game to call which ethnic groups are indigenous and which are not. Terms like ethnic groups and minorities are much more reliably used in academia in the European context. Main article Indigenous peoples and main Category:Indigenous peoples clearly define the term as linked to societies that have been overwhelmed by modern colonization, which is the case in Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania and the Americas but not Europe or Asia. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Establishments in Baden by century

Nominator's rationale: These currently only contain C19 subcats. Once the "by century" cats are deleted, the template on the subcats will automatically place them instead in the parent e.g. Category:Establishments in Bremen. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Kilwa Sultanate

Nominator's rationale: Merge hierarchy which currently exists for one article alone (Great Mosque of Kilwa) aside from the Sultanate itself. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sidi Boushaki

Nominator's rationale: There's really not enough here for a category. One category (with a single item), the person, and the Zawiyet named after them Mason (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boumerdassi family

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two people in this family category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from CITY by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one occupation in each of these categories, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Performance psychology

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category/field. Merge to the closest area. Mason (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabi Malayalam-language education

Nominator's rationale: Only page in here is about a memorial, upmerge for now until there's enough content to populate this category Mason (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabi Malayalam-language songs

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabi Malayalam-language literature

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page + a category (with only one page in it) in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Odia-language culture

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. The lone page is already in the potential target category Category:Odia language, so delete instead of upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available.

Category:People killed in the war in Sudan (2023)

Nominator's rationale: Same reason as the previous proposal TheLibyanGuy (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponyms in anatomy

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge (or listify). There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allelopathic substances

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navgiation Mason (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uzès family

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There's only one very short page in here, which is extremely unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Goyon

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful to have this category with only two familty members it in. This family is primarily notable for having a male marry into Grimaldi line, and letting the Grimaldi name continue (If I'm reading Charles Auguste de Goyon, Count of Gacé correctly) Mason (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incest in Greek mythology

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_28#Category:Incest_in_legend * Pppery * it has begun... 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that distinction makes sense. Most of the figures mentioned above only feature in one myth, one centered around incest. How would incest not be a defining attribute for, say, Myrrha, Byblis, or Menephron? It's the only thing ancient authors mention them in relation to. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War in Sudan (2023)

Nominator's rationale: It is now 2024 and the conflict is still ongoing TheLibyanGuy (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also do note that when and if the war ends, the category name may need to be changed again. TheLibyanGuy (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]