Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 8
January 10 >

January 9

[edit]

Category:LGBTQ historiography

[edit]
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) 10:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammatically better. --MikutoH talk! 23:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom: "LGBTQ" is a list of adjectives, not nouns, and should be treated as such. Cremastra (u — c) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nominator's rationale; the current titles are awkward, and if anything this may make navigation easier, since there are probably many more topics beginning with "historiography" that are not closely related to these, though that is just my guess. P Aculeius (talk) 12:02, 10 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.

Categories:LGBTQ in

[edit]
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 rename. Thorough discussion; unlikely a WP:RELIST would help resolve it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further nominations
Nominator's rationale: Talked in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies#Standardizing 'by country' articles, "LGBTQ in" is ungrammatical, wp:consistent by proxy/analogy: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Category:Transgender; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 18#Category:Intersex.
I believe the main LGBTQ category and "LGBTQ and" categories could receive different outcomes (example: community, people), that's why I nominated separately. I believe the main one can stay that way too.

--MikutoH talk! 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm neutral. I think either is fine.★Trekker (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm fine with either, but can we please leave redirects for any templates floating around. SMasonGarrison 23:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I couldn't pick/know which ones are soft redirects, and as far as I know, MassXFD doesn't tag those pages (either for RFD or CFD), so they can be removed. I couldn't because I couldn't identify which ones are. --MikutoH talk! 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I've already whined about this in RMs: the LGBTQ in format is, as the nom says, ungrammatical, because it's just a list of adjecives. Cremastra (u — c) 00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: always in favour of clarity if it's not somehow disruptive; hard to see how this would be: adding one word shouldn't impede navigation, and the proposed titles would be less awkward. Presumably any issues with redirects can be addressed individually. P Aculeius (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think renaming this is going to lead to changing the existing category tree. LGBTQ is an unusual demographic because people and topics both go under the same heading, "LGBTQ in". For example, Category:Black culture and Category:Jewish culture by country have subcategories which often do not contain the relevant category for people in that subculture, but because of social context, it makes sense for the LGBTQ categories to be sorted this way.
The conflict here is that the point of categories is to organize data for user. These categories are organized correctly, and that required the compromise of making up the awkward phrase "LGBTQ in..." That phrase may not be proper English grammar, but it correctly communicates the category sorting that works for this concept. "LGBTQ in..." includes both topics and people, whereas if we say "LGBTQ topics in...", then Wikipedia's standard would be to move the people into a different category heading.
I would not want someone to come around later and say, "people are not topics, let's separate LGBTQ people from LGBTQ topics to be more like the other demographics, because that makes sense in prose, and that is how the other comparable Wikipedia categories are". If this is simply a rename, then I would support, but that odd phrasing is there for a reason and is not in error. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption would be that biographies are still topics, and can be included. But they could also be added as a subcategory, "LGBTQ people in..." if that seems desirable. Some categories have brief descriptions at the top; we could specify that "'topics' includes people", since that appears to be the intention. P Aculeius (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People is headed, in your words, in Category:Physical objects.
Whether people are semantically objects or not, biography is both a topic and therefore an object.
See also Category:Main topic classifications and Category:Behavior (in which Category:Women is part. Is womanhood a behavior? Let's be more prescriptive).
I'm going to nominate the main categories so y'all can discuss, but in another thread. --MikutoH talk! 17:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the CfD nominator argued that moving the main categories is unnecessary, other editors argued that it is indeed necessary. While controversial, I think this deserves attention, that's why I old-nominated. I'm indifferent (neutral) per Mason and Trekker. It will need relisting I guess. LIrala (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All LGBTQ topics relate to LGBTQ people (their rights, their history, their culture, etc.). The missing noun is therefore "people" rather than "topics". Reducing people to topics is not intuitive (as described by BlueRasberry above), particularly with respect to the subcategories that contain biographies. I would support moving to a structure parallel to the distinction between, e.g., Category:Women in Canada and the subcategory for biographies Category:Canadian women. Renaming the broader category to "Women's topics in Canada" to my ears would be reductive and narrowing, and I think the same concern applies here. Any potential confusion between the subcategories that contain biographies and those that contain more general articles on LGBTQ people can be clarified in scope notes. I prefer the status quo to "topics".--Trystan (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All the topics may relate to people, but not all of them are people, where as all articles have topics—and some of those topics are people. In the current title, "LGBTQ" behaves like an adjective that doesn't modify anything, hence the need for a word such as "topics" for it to refer to. If all of the topics were people, then, "LGBTQ people " would be a good title, but there are topics that aren't people, so it's not. P Aculeius (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All the topics may relate to people… I should have been more specific. They more than relate to LGBTQ people; they are subcategories. The rights of LGBTQ people should fall under the scope of Category:LGBTQ people in the same way that Category:Women's rights is a subcategory of Category:Women. Category:LGBTQ people Is the appropriate root category for both the WP:TOPICCAT of LGBTQ people considered collectively (and their rights, history, and culture) and the WP:SETCAT holding biographies of individual LGBTQ people. Renaming to Category:LGBTQ people certainly would not be a good idea because that is an existing category for biographies. I haven't proposed just mashing them together as they currently are; I think a more exploratory discussion is needed to identify the best way forward for restructuring. Until then, I think the status quo is the best option presented.--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the titles treat "LGBTQ" as though it were a noun, and clear what it refers to, where here it's clearly an adjective that doesn't modify anything. "LGBTQ in Poland" reads as "LGBTQ what in Poland?" Is it a category for individual people, activities, activism, history, rights, nightclubs, media, what? The name of a category normally defines its scope, but here the names are vague and potentially confusing. If, as appears to be the case, they have the broadest possible scope, limited only by geography, then it's still possible to say that by adding a word such as "topics", because everything that can go in the category is a topic, including biographies. The word "topic" isn't dehumanizing, if that's the objection—it doesn't imply that LGBTQ people in the category aren't people, any more than pointing out that people are "nouns" does. People—or people subcategories—are still topics. But not all topics are people. It's a simple matter of finding a word that accurately describes the contents of the category. P Aculeius (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "LGBTQ in Poland" reads as "LGBTQ what in Poland?" LGBTQ people in Poland is the clearest and best answer for the broad topic. Our articles on LGBTQ people by country are a bit all over the place, but the best organized ones have a WP:BROADCONCEPT article like LGBTQ people in Mexico that summarizes and links to more specific topics on the history, culture, and rights of LGBTQ people in the country. The broadest scope category name should match the broad-concept article title. I am not sure I would go so far as to call the "topics" language dehumanizing, but I do find it reductive. I don't dispute that all topics about LGBTQ people are topics, it just sounds weird to my ears to label it that way (similar to how Women's topics would be an awkward, if technically correct, way to label Category:Women).--Trystan (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But if you make the title of the category "people", then it should exclude all other topics—which it currently does not. Just because people make up the majority of topics in the category doesn't mean that the category should be defined as "people". It's supposed to include all topics, not just biographies, so the title should be based on the actual scope of contents in the category. P Aculeius (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories can be set categories, where all subcategories and articles are members of the set, topic categories, where subcategories and articles fall under that topic, or a combination of the two. A combined category, like Category:Women, is not limited to the set of Women (i.e., biographies of individual women), but also includes subtopics (like Category:Women's rights). LGBTQ people should be treated as the broadest category level for both the set of LGBTQ people (individual biographies) and subtopics of the topic LGBTQ people, like their rights, culture, and history.--Trystan (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a guideline somewhere? If it is, there appear to be several counter-examples where a subject article is about a people with a matching category name (e.g., Kuki people, Category:Kuki people). In any event, the alternative seems to be just using the unattached adjective as the parent category (as in Native Hawaiian, not Native Hawaiian topics) which leads us back to the status quo in the case at hand.--Trystan (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of Category:Women and Category:Men - I'm assuming the largest people categories we have - suggests it is also common practice to use a combined set-and-topic approach for people categories. I would say "people" or the unattached adjective are much better than "topics". Since my position is to keep the status quo for now, the "people" discussion can wait for another day.--Trystan (talk) 13:03, 20 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:Silent film people

[edit]
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:People of the silent film era. Clear consensus for a rename. Clear consensus not to use a hyphen. Clear consensus that "People [in/of] the silent film era" is an acceptable name. Rough consensus that "of" is the better preposition. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Compound modifier; it's not about film people (actors, etc) that are silent, it's the films they appear in that are silent. Tagging only the top level to begin with. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while the proposed title is logical and grammatically correct, it looks awkward. If the category consists entirely of performers, then perhaps "Actors in silent films" would be a better title. Currently the word "actors" is widely understood to include both (male) actors and actresses (though there could presumably be a subcategory for actresses if desired), so the only issue I can foresee is non-actors such as producers, directors, or other staff, such as writers, costumers, set designers, etc. If these are to be included, then perhaps a parent category for "Silent film personnel" (or "Silent film era personnel", "Silent film industry personnel"—a handful of silent films were produced well after the "talkies" took over, so era may not be the best choice) would be desirable—I don't see as much of an issue with misunderstanding this title. Although "Personnel associated with silent films" and similar formulations are possible, that does look a bit awkward. P Aculeius (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I copy-pasted this, and mistakenly kept "actors" instead of "people", which was the intention.
    It's a big tree, with subcats like actors – male/female and by nationality – directors, screenwriters, producers, etc.
    If there is an alternative way to phrase it, I'm sure we can have a look at it. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Category Silent film people not found
  • Suggestion: since it's clear that both actors and other personnel are involved, what about "People in silent film"? Here the phrase refers to the whole silent film industry, rather than just actors (in which case we would probably say "actors" and perhaps use the plural, "silent films"). We could put a note at the top to indicate that it includes producers, directors, etc. in case anyone isn't certain. P Aculeius (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Silent film era people per Silent_film#Silent_film_era. There have been silent films outside that era (e.g. Silent Movie and The Artist (film)), but I think the point of this cat is for people that were part of that era. - jc37 13:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support Category:People in the silent film era (or Category:People in film in the silent film era) to match Category:People in literature. - jc37 13:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about "People of the selent film era"? It seems like that would more clearly indicate that they should be people connected to the silent film industry, rather than people who just happened to be alive at the time. P Aculeius (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree of is the better preposition, but there needs to be a hyphen, so People of the silent-film era. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain what the purpose of a hyphen here would be. The original proposal justified "silent-film" because it was possible (though unlikely, IMO) to read "silent film people" as "silent people in film" instead of "people in silent film". But if you did a similar thing here, you would be choosing between "the era of silent film" and "the silent era of film", which mean the same thing. There is no ambiguity to avoid by hyphenating the normally unhyphenated "silent film". P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No ambiguity is not a good excuse for a grammatical error in my opinion. See Compound modifier#Examples. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since "silent film" isn't normally hyphenated, the only reason for doing so is to to preclude ambiguity, which does not exist in this instance. P Aculeius (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it isn't normally hyphenated; it's a regular adjective modifying a regular noun, so why would it? You don't say "a large-car", do you? For the categories here though, they combine to a compound modifier modifying another noun, as explained initially. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that you're parsing the term correctly: "silent film" isn't like "long film", "exciting film", "violent film", in the sense that it's just "film" preceded by the adjective "silent" as a description. "Silent film" is a compound noun, referring to a particular thing, not what in Wiktionary we call a "sum-of-parts" item, the meaning of which can be intuited from the ordinary meaning of the words alone. It doesn't refer to any kind of film that doesn't make noise—potentially including camera film or still photos, and excluding motion pictures that are accompanied by music or sound effects other than voice tracks. Rather, "silent film" refers to a specific type or period of motion pictures before the development of voice tracks beginning in 1928 (or with voices deliberately omitted afterward). That's why it's not hyphenated, and why hyphenating it here looks wrong—an argument for it being hyphenated would thus depend on the need to prevent ambiguity, but hyphenating it has no effect on the meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see your point. You may be right. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:04, 16 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:Ascute

[edit]
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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The genus Ascute has just two species: A. asconoides and A. uteoides. I don't think this is enough to justify a genus-level category. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:25, 9 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:2025 natural disasters in Europe

[edit]
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) 10:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:2024 disasters in Europe, "YYYY natural disasters in place" is not a standard tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:06, 9 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:2024 natural disasters in Europe

[edit]
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) 10:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:2024 disasters in Europe, "YYYY natural disasters in place" is not a standard tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:06, 9 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:Transnistria Wikipedians

[edit]
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) 10:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless - only a userbox and no parents. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 9 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:Molossia Wikipedians

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per the actual wording of the userbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:08, 9 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:James Bond organisations

[edit]
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:James Bond. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. It is highly improbable that this will ever have enough quality articles to be a good category (and it is inappropriate it to flood it with redirects). The one article is already categorized. Jontesta (talk) 20:03, 9 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:Works

[edit]
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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why does there need to be a separate category for this anyway? Works and creative works are literally the same thing. Just because you have a large number of interwiki links doesn't mean you can make this category on this wiki. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 17:42, 9 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:Legal families of Australia

[edit]
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:Jurist families and add all contents to Category:Australian families HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an odd triple intersection without a "Legal families" parent. But "Legal families" is also problematic, since a Legal family is a grouping of laws. I picked this title for a rename but would be open to other ideas. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WaggersTALK 15:46, 9 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:Model for Still Lifestyle

[edit]
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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is blank. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:29, 9 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:1900 in women's golf

[edit]
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) 10:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article in 1900. The article is already in Category:Golf at the 1900 Summer Olympics which is under Category:1900 in golf and is in Category:Women's events at the 1900 Summer Olympics which is under Category:1900 in women's sport. Thus, no merging is necessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:26, 9 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:1860 in golf

[edit]
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) 10:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 golf events each year in the 1860s-1890s. Merge up to the decade-level. The articles are already in the Category:YEAR in sports tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:23, 9 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.

Palestine

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Palestine

Category:Data visualization and Category:Information visualization

[edit]
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/rename as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main articles were merged in 2022 into Data and information visualization. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:49, 9 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)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 21#Category:Visualization (research)

Category:2110s in film

[edit]
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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated poorly populated category far in the future. Move article 100 Years (film) to Category:2110s works. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 9 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:2114 works

[edit]
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:2110s and Category:22nd-century works. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, too far away in the future for this level of detail, there isn't even a Category:2114 nor is that needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_1#2100s_and_2110s. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Delete? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:45, 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:Deaths from medical malpractice

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Deaths from medical malpractice


Category:Role-playing games by genre or theme

[edit]
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) 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See discussion/analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme and related discussions just below this nomination. No prejduce for creation of Category:Role-playing games by genre. Relevant wikidata entry: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8672917 (only en wiki has "or"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable to me SMasonGarrison 00:06, 10 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:Board games by genre or theme

[edit]
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) 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See discussion/analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme and related discussions just below this nomination. No prejduce for creation of Category:Board games by genre. Relevant wikidata entry: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8303517 (only en wiki has "or"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable to me SMasonGarrison 00:06, 10 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:Games by genre or theme

[edit]
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) 10:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Longer analysis can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme. Short version is:
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:Video games by theme

[edit]
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) 10:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Longer analysis can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme. See also related Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_4#Category:Novels_by_theme (conveniently relisted just below). This should be a reasonably uncontroversial tweak from inexisting Category:Themes tree to existing Category:Topics tree. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster Could you append to this one two child subcategories for renaming:
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable to me SMasonGarrison 00:07, 10 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:Novels by theme

[edit]
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) 10:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See longer explanation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme. This is the least controversial (if anything is). It is subcat to Category:Fiction books by topic, there is no Category:Themes or 'by themes' anywhere except in few instances I pointed out in the linked analysis; all themes should be rename to topics since we have a cat tree for topics, not themes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear consensus for a change; though a reminder that subcategories are currently outside the scope of this discussion. (If you want to discuss them, please tag 'em.) Should the change be in the form of deleting or merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster I think we want to merge them. As for subcategories, I am not sure how to tag them properly - could you do it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Which categories do you want me to tag? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster I think the four by theme that I just named above, in response to Marco. But note I am not sure how to rename these four. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to tag the subcategories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:  Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 9 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:Winners of Eurovision Young Musicians

[edit]
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:Eurovision Young Musicians winners. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with related categories (e.g. Category:Eurovision Song Contest winners, Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners, Category:Melodifestivalen winners) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realized that if I relisted the associated contestants category, then this one should also be relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 9 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:Diplomatic missions in Santiago, Chile

[edit]
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: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1 entry. Also propose merging with Category:Buildings and structures in Santiago, Chile LibStar (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:41, 9 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_9&oldid=1271604076"