From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 20
June 22 >

June 21

Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Its not an award that can be won, its an achievement which is earned. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
To respond to each of your points:
  • For the three players you identified, the fact that they won a triple crown is noted in the lead of all of their articles. It's also mentioned in the New York Times obituaries for Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams. (Sandy Koufax, obviously, does not yet have an obituary.) I think those are pretty good signs that it's a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
  • Categories and lists are not in conflict with one another, and it's great to have both.
  • I agree that this isn't an award, which makes WP:OCAWARD irrelevant to this discussion. I don't know why you mentioned it in the first place.
Hope that clears things up. - Eureka Lott 22:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I would still say its not their defining characteristic. As for the list, I think its better only because of the recent inclusion of NgL statistics. I am aware of the "Categories and list are not in conflict rule" but, in this case, the circumstances have changed slightly.
Either way, thank you for giving your reasons. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador alumni

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks the requisite sourcing and the main article for the category has been deleted. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:National Roads in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: In South Africa, a National Road is a road that is the responsibility of SANRAL while a National Route is a road that has the letter N in its designation, as stated in the National routes (South Africa) article. Looking at what the main article for the category is, I propose a change (simply change Roads to routes). GeographicAccountant ( talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Crime action films

Nominator's rationale: Hybrid genre term that is not in common usage (unlike lets say, action comedy or even action thriller). Searching for it on google, gives one imdb list, then several lists for one genre or the other. Per the action film article, "Action films often interface with other genres. Yvonne Tasker wrote that films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances." Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: I'd include the sub-categories within this general category again, but I suppose that is implied in this process. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also nominating the following:

Does this do the job @ Marcocapelle:? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - large enough and common-enough to be kept. Netflix has a " Crime Action & Adventure Movies" category. Amazon has a " Best Sellers in Crime Action Fiction" category. The category structure is well-maintained & populated: ~400 pages, all of which contain crime.action|action.crime. Also, it sounds like nom might want to rename to "action-crime", which, if there's consensus for, would be preferable to deletion.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    An anonymous sorting algorithm on netflix is not really a way to seriously categorize genre, same for the Amazon section which also appears to be sorting novels, not films. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres before responding if possible. From academic points of view, categorizing genres by hybrids is not really useful on understanding what they are about and when they are applied by fans, journalists, historians etc., the terms are used vaguely and with various connotations to what the genre means. This is why having them categorized like this is not helpful. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    "I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres": you mean the part you added 3 hours before basing this CfD off of it?   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    This was a section added months ago, i've re-vised it on reading the source in question, which was selectively using what was sourced. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all: Action films are synonymous with violence, and crime films are not complete without that. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning support, I can't really imagine crime films without action. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As said above, we don't really need a hybrid form of this per Crime action film. There is no set definition of hybrid genres and trying to view films as these hybrids is basically a fools errand. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 01:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is often the case that film genres are crossed over as catgeories that are not actually reflective of legitimate and verifiable sub-genres (such as "romantic comedy" or "horror comedy", for example). So is that the case here? I randomly plucked out some of the films in the category and the genre of "crime action" doesn't appear defining for any of them. The genre for Heat (1995 film) is sourced to Rotten Tomatoes which lists the genre as "crime, drama". The "crime action" genre for The Batman (film) is not supported by sources, and whilst Allmovie lists several genres (include crime and action) it does not list the sub-genre of "crime action", unlike Pretty Woman which lists Romance, Comedy and the combination "Romantic Comedy". The genre for The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) is also sourced to Allmovie (inaccurately I might add), and whilst it does not list "crime action" it does list "crime thriller". In these cases the presence of the article in the category appears to be the product of editorial synthesis, unsupported by sources i.e. it may be possible to source "action" or "crime" but "crime action" or "action crime" is not in itself sourced. Are any supporters of the category able to provide reliable source evidence for the films in this category belonging a sub-genre of "crime-action"? It may be possible to locate sources that substantiate the existence of the genre, but membership of a category also needs to satisfy WP:CATDEF too.
Betty Logan ( talk) 01:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Existing genre that deserves a category. I completely disagree with the idea that crime films should always include action! Just because a film contains a murder does not make it an action film (nor a crime action film, for that matter). See:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199587261.001.0001/acref-9780199587261-e-0165#:~:text=An%20extremely%20wide%2Dranging%20group,central%20element%20of%20their%20plots.
As for films defined as CA or C-A films, at random:
https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/film/the-roundup-a-womanless-riskless-ruthless-rush/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/06/398_356945.html
https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-195 (mentioning Rush Hour as a c-a franchise), for example. A GB search shows various results for crime/action, which sometimes indicate it's a new genre: The hybrid nature – and commercial success – of the Bourne films is characteristic of a new style of crime film, the crime/action [1] but plenty with either "crime action films"(or film/movie) or "crime-action films". A note defining the genre as an hybrid could be added on the category page. (Have a look at the category in other languages).- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The term is without a doubt used in common place, but there is no solid definition for it, as the case for most hybrid genres. Why bother separating them? What does it add? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Furthermore, I can google the term and find people using it, but reading the actual article on action films it states very clearly that these types of terms are used with different values and meaning. There is no solid definition of these hybrid genres. Your Sarah Casey sources only emphasizes that yes, hybrid genres exist, but reading the wiki article, most films past the 90s are hybrids and there is no common meaning with this. As there are none, it fails WP:CATDEF. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN  978-1-136-58182-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This is a distinctive genre in its own right. Dimadick ( talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Everyone keeps saying this but nobody has offered any proof outside brief mentions of it. Why vote keep if nobody can describe these elements outside vague hybrids? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notifying WP:ORN for feedback...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete poor rationale provided by keep votes and poor definition of category.
Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no particular pressing need to separate this subgenre, as opposed to simply putting pages in both the "crime" and "action" film categories. It is rather common for crime to happen in action films, simply as a matter of course, making the definition of this subgenre vague at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose as nomination has not adequately accounted for potential issues arising from mass deletion. I looked at Category:Canadian crime action films, the obvious intersection between this batch and my own personal area of expertise, and randomly spotchecked the film Buying Time — but it's in no other "Country genre films" categories at all, which means simply deleting said category without upmerging its contents somewhere would yank that film completely out of the Category:Canadian films by genre tree altogether. And again, that's just the very first film I spotchecked, which means that there are guaranteed to be dozens of other films that will be stranded right out of necessary category trees if these categories are simply deleted without careful surgical replacement and/or transplantation.
    I'm not at all wedded to the need for "crime action" as a genre-intersection category specifically, but just mass-deleting the whole tree at once is a recipe for a total stinkin' trainwreck — so getting rid of it would have to be done as mergers, not as simple deletions, to ensure that films aren't being pulled out of necessary parent trees in the process. Bearcat ( talk) 12:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians

Nominator's rationale: These battles concern a specific subgroup of Qarmatians, namely those of the Qarmatian 'republic' of Bahrayn under the al-Jannabi family. This was the main Qarmatian group, but by no means the only one, and at any rate it should be distinguished. Other "Qarmatian" battles, like the Battle of Hama (even though the Qarmatian label is debatable here), are not included. Constantine ✍ 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Minor question: why Bahrayn instead of Bahrain? Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Because that is the most common transliteration in the literature. It also does not refer to the modern state of Bahrain, but the whole region of Eastern Arabia (historical Bahrayn/Bahrain). Constantine ✍ 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nom just created parent Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn 4 minutes before proposing to rename this child category. But the grandparent is Category:Qarmatians, and the main article is Qarmatians. Google-Booksing "Qarmatian state of Bahrayn" yields only 5 results. "Bahrain" is evidently the WP:COMMONNAME, there is no apparent need for this renaming, nor for the redundant new layer Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn created by nom. I suggest reverting to the situation of 3 June 2024. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Nom has actually worked on this topic and may be suggesting this move because of this knowledge, not just because of a flight of fancy. Qarmatianism is a broader phenomenon than the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn, hence the two should be kept separate, with the Qarmatians remaining as the overarching parent category/article. There ideally should be a different, dedicated parent article for the state, like ru:Карматское государство, but one thing at a time. Constantine ✍ 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Are there "Battles involving the Qarmatians" that DON'T involve Bahrayn? Because if there aren't, I'm not sure this change is necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Good point. Main article Qarmatians has an Infobox former country and an Infobox war faction, both of which provide exactly the same beginning and end dates of 899–1077.
    It also claims that it all started with Bahrain and ended with Bahrain (or Bahrayn if you will):
    • Start: Eventually, from Qatar, he captured Bahrain's capital Hajr and al-Hasa in 899, which he made the capital of his state...
    • End: According to the maritime historian Dionisius A. Agius, the Qarmatians finally disappeared in 1067, after they lost their fleet at Bahrain Island and were expelled from Hasa near the Arabian coast by the chief of Banu, Murra ibn Amir.
    1067 may be a typo, as the rest of the article insists on 1077, referring to Overthrow of the Qarmatians, which is dated to 1058–1077.
    Finally, the example of Battle of Hama is so ambiguous as to what the "Qarmatians" have to do with it (which is discussed at length in the article itself, with good sources), that it cannot count as evidence for non-Bahraini "Qarmatians".
    In short, there seems to be no difference. NLeeuw ( talk) 20:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    But the Battle of Hama is counted as a Qarmatian battle by primary sources, and will be found as such even in some modern literature. And no, the Qarmatians != Bahrayn, no matter what the article currently claims. Bahrayn was the only successful Qarmatian state, but Qarmatianism is broader than that, with adherents across the Middle East, of lesser prominence due to the lack of state power, but still following their own doctrines and with their own histories. Constantine ✍ 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As said, the Battle of Hama is questionable, as other primary sources contradict it, and many modern scholars do not think it involved Qarmatians (read Battle of Hama#Background). Have you got examples of battles other than Hama that supposedly involved non-Bahraini Qarmatians? NLeeuw ( talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Sorry, wrong CfD)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Wesean National Leaders

Nominator's rationale: This counts as a WP:HOAX. Nothing called "Wesea" actually exists. It is an aspiration for certain separatist political movements. Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, indeed. That is why I didn't use WP:G3 as my rationale. The issue is deeper than just being an empty category. But even G3 should be good enough, for now. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Legendary creatures

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, largely overlapping categories. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it, but all contents here seem to fall outside of the realm of serious modern biology. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At the moment, "Legendary" sits above "Folklore" and "Mythological creatures" - rather a lot of the contents of the first two should probably be moved to the last. As a matter of English meaning, I don't think "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it" is at all true. "legendary" suggests to me a literary source(s) somewhere quite early on, & I think there is a distinction, if a rather vague one. Johnbod ( talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • At the moment "legendary" sits above, but the hierarchy could just as well be reversed because there isn't a clear distinction. The fact that the above two editors disagree on what Legendary means illustrates the confusion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    While I'm not necessarily opposed to merging related folklore/legend/mythology categories together, I don't know which goes where. AHI-3000 ( talk) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I assume a redirect would be needed after merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A redirect certainly seems helpful, especially if we agree a merger is a good idea, but are in doubt about the best target. One way or the other, readers and editors will thus find their way. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Legends are a distinct type of folklore, and place their narratives within human history. Dimadick ( talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge Per nom so that the original single category for this is restored, for the most part the contents of the category have nothing to do with being from folklore, and it's an WP:OVERLAPCAT anyway with folklore falling under the purview of legends. The article itself is Legendary creature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 01:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Either Keep, or do the following: Rename Category:Mythological creatures to Category:Creatures in myth and legend, and Rename Category:Folklore creatures to Category:Creatures in folklore. Then selectively Split Category:Legendary creatures to each of those renamed categories. I think I said this in a previous discussion on CfD, but the Myth/Legend/Folklore distinction is a bit fluid in the sources. I think for our purposes, if we use Folklore as the overall term, and then have a separate "in myth and legend" (or "in myths and legends", if preferred), then I think that should resolve most things, and help a bit more to guide editors away from applying WP:OR. But we need to be careful about Myth, especially in regards to people and creatures, because belief and religion can be involved there. - jc37 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Romans from Africa

Nominator's rationale: rename, many of these people were not Romans. Aligning this with e.g. Category:Roman-era people by ethnicity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more explicit support/opposition to various potential names for the categories would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Violence in the Palestinian territories

Nominator's rationale: merge, all four articles in the category are about events after the establishment of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom.
NLeeuw ( talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @@ Marcocapelle: Do you think no category is needed for the broader Palestinian territories and the events before the state establishment? -- Mhhossein talk 06:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Possibly. Which articles are you thinking of in particular? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No special case at the moment, but there should be cases of violence ocurring in the Palestinian territories before the state establishment? -- Mhhossein talk 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's a good point. The State of Palestine didn't exist until 1988, while Palestinian territories have existed since 1967 (or 1949), depending on definition. VR (Please ping on reply) 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian commercial artists

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining type of artist. Notably there is not a parent category of commercial artists as far as I can find. Mason ( talk) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Commercial artists create their art for mass duplication: advertising, souvenirs etc. Not like portraitists etc. Doug butler ( talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, it is almost impossible to differentiate notable artists by "commercial" as so many made a living out of it. If not merged, better rename it to something related to the kind of art. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's no parent category, and for the most part merchants aren't defined by whether they sold flour or not. Mason ( talk) 03:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep In Australia millers commonly purchase the grain, mill it, and sell the flour, adding value. So they're millers by trade, not merchants. Doug butler ( talk) 03:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Mayoralties of municipalities in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Category whose name is a bit confusing and not accurately descriptive of its contents. The contents here are subpages where a political figure (usually a person who went on from the mayoralty to hold much more prominent national offices, and thus has a very, very long biographical article that needed to have stuff chunked out from it for size management) has had a "Mayoralty of [Person]" article created as a spinoff from their base biography -- but that means that the defining characteristic here is "mayoralties of individual people", not "mayoralties of municipalities" (which could be too easily confused with a redundant duplication of Category:Mayors of places in the United States, and thus potentially have stuff misfiled in it by editors who weren't paying attention to the actual contents of the categories.)
So it should likely be renamed to make its intentions clearer. Bearcat ( talk) 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Symplectic topology

Nominator's rationale: In mathematics, "symplectic geometry" and "symplectic topology" are often (though not universally) understood to be two terms meaning the same thing, usually depending on the author's preference and feelings about how "geometric" the subject is. For examples of this usage, see this SE answer and the fact that Symplectic topology is a redirect to Symplectic geometry. The category Category:Symplectic topology seems to be a duplicate of Category:Symplectic geometry. The latter page claims that there is a difference, as "Topological aspects are often categorized as Category:Symplectic topology". However, I don't think this is how most people use the word. Indeed, looking at the pages, it is hard to believe there is much, if any, adherence to this (very subjective) rule! For example, it seems hard to believe that Symplectic basis and Darboux's theorem are "geometric" but Gromov–Witten invariant and Symplectomorphism are "topological". And most things in both categories seem like they could just as well go into either one! The relevant policies are WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I propose merging these categories under the more common term "symplectic geometry" and having the category page for "symplectic topology" be a redirect. This is my first time using CfD, so please forgive any mistakes I make. I am not sure if I am supposed to add the subst:Cfm template to the category that is being merged to as well as the category being merged from. Mathwriter2718 ( talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge The topological aspects are so important in this field that the main articles are the same. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. If symplectomorphism would be better in Category:Symplectic geometry, which seems a reasonable remark, re-categorise it. Unless Category:Symplectic topology ends up empty, which I think shouldn't happen here, the case for a merge is weak. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think I have any intuition about whether symplectomorphism is "topological" or "geometric". I think it's arbitrary which one it goes into. One might think a page like Floer homology is "topological", because it is homology, but one might think that Floer homology captures geometric data. Whether this is true depends on whether you think symplectic manifolds and symplectomorphism are "geometric". In the end, I just think there's enough ambiguity there to make all of nearly all of these classifications subjective or overlapping. Can you tell us more of your reasoning? Are there a lot of pages that you think obviously belong under only one of the two categories? Mathwriter2718 ( talk) 11:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Organisations based in Northeast India

Nominator's rationale: Category:Organisations based in India not subcategorized this way. Gjs238 ( talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There is already diffusion by state. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Saadi Shirazi

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Only the writer and work of theirs in the category. Unhelpful for navigation when there are only two pages like this Mason ( talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Fox Sports 1 people

Nominator's rationale: These personalities are known for appearing on Fox Sports properties more generally, not necessarily Fox Sports 1. Let'srun ( talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't know about others but I only tried to include people who appear on FS1 shows in the category. Expanding this to include all Fox Sports people is fine but you'd need to go through all the Fox Sports content that isn't on FS1 (such as NFL on Fox, WWE SmackDown, Soccer on Fox Sports, etc.) Soulbust ( talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I said that to say that maybe both categories can exist? As Fox Sports has quite a lot of properties, and the FS1 list wouldn't be small either if it only included individuals who are FS1 personnel - for example Nick Wright or Colin Cowherd. It appears Erin Andrews is in the FS1 category currently, though she would be in the Fox Sports category only, along with anyone else from NFL on Fox (and of course Fox Sports' other shows). Meanwhile, someone like Joel Klatt could fit in both. Soulbust ( talk) 05:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Meitei goddesses

Nominator's rationale: I haven't listed all of the child categories of this, but the problem is not the parent category. The problem is that the parent category contains a massive 39 largely-overlapping categories for just 24 actual articles. I suggest that every child of this category should be merged back to the parent. PepperBeast (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Pepperbeast: I listed them all. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support There is an evident large overlap in the roles of deities in Meitei mythology. For example, Kounu appears in 24 of the 39 categories. Also merge to respective deities by type, such as Category:Abundance goddesses. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Hie, Creator of many of the Categories here. To explain why so many categories were created. I actually created all the "in Meitei mythology" to basically UNCLOUT other categories. Apparently ALL the deities of Meitei mythology are Deities of Everything-and-Its-Neighbour and one of the creator of pages put each and every one (or close to it) in dozens of categories for basically almost every god and goddess. I don't know anything about Meitei Mythology, so I can't tell which god really belong in a category or not (apparently basically all goddesses or close to it are Goddess of Abundance, Beauty, Arts, Fertility, Love and lust, Peace, Magic, among other things...) Though some divinities in each Pantheon can have lots of domains (like Apollo in greek mythology, Sucellos in the celt one), and I can't tell which really belong in each category or not. Still, I note that most don't have anything in the description or a reference that would justify many of the various categories listed (I think one of the rational seems to be that if a goddess is beautiful then she's deemed a goddess of Beauty, Fertility as well as Love and lust, any divinity that is not a warrior is automatically pushed into God/Goddess of Peace and basically all divinities are Fortune ones just by existing, unless linked to something unfortunate...) This caused a bit of a strange situation in the various categories, as for exemple if you went to Category:Abundance goddesses to have a look at the goddesses of this domain, half the goddesses (17 out of 34) were the Meitei Goddesses alone, the other half for ALL the other Pantheons in the world put together... Same with the other categories, 20 out of the 44 pages in Category:Beauty goddesses were the Meitei goddesses, 19 out of the 47 pages of Category:Fortune goddesses, etc. Though when so many categories in a pagebelongs to just one other pantheon, usually creating a child page is preferable. -- Zeynel ( talk) 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The consequence of this is that a lot of purging is needed. That can happen simultaneously with the merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category contents were changed without clear explanation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I don't know if it matters but the categories that were emptied after this CFD discussion was opened are:
Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs

Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.

– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Mason ( talk) 01:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Three functions: Owner, publisher and editor. Often separated, for instance politicians may be newspaper owners but not publisher or editor. Influence without responsibility. Pastoralists may inherit a loss-making paper and subsidise its continued operation. Doug butler ( talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There are no other categories in this tree that make that distinction. Further, I'm pretty sure that there's a cfd that closed on similar newpaper owners, if I'm recalling. Mason ( talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, in many articles in both categories it is unclear whether they are about proprietors or about publishers without ownership. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts  talk 05:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Auto racing teams

Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories were speedily renamed to their current names from the proposed names in May 2023. Discussions at the Formula One WikiProject and the Motorsport WikiProject resolved that these speedy renames should be reversed because, unlike many other sporting teams, auto racing teams may compete all over the world and their national identity is defined by their racing licence and is not necessarily related to the location of their base of operations. Consider the current Formula One World Champions: Red Bull Racing - they are universally recognised as an Austrian team (they use an Austrian racing licence and when they win a race, the Austrian national anthem is played) but their base of operations is in England. The category rename in May 2023 moved the article from the accurate Category:Austrian auto racing teams to the inaccurate Category:Auto racing teams in Austria. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: because I don't want to close a 44-category CfD as "unopposed".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts  talk 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate

Nominator's rationale: 2 P. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Just delete. Whether someone was a "vassal" or not can be quite arbitrary, and neither of the parent cats really applies: these princes of Armenia were not "people from the Umayyad Caliphate" or part of its government. At most, they were part of its foreign relations. As the catdesc indicates, these were not 'caliphal-appointed governors', and therefore not part of the internal governance. NLeeuw ( talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Vassal rulers are easily distinguished by the fact that they bore princely rather than gubernatorial titles and were usually hereditary and at least somewhat autonomous. They are also clearly designated as such by modern scholarship. Armenia was very much part of the Umayyad Caliphate, just as much as the Khanate of Khiva was of the Russian Empire or the various Indian princes were of the British Raj. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, princes aren't necessarily vassals and it is not very clear from these articles that the subjects were in fact vassals. The articles are already in appropriate Armenian and monarchs categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Precisely, princes are not necessarily vassals; which means that they need to be distinguished when they are not, in fact, sovereign rulers, but rule at the mercy of an imperial power. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts  talk 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Cplakidas: rule of the Umayyad Caliphate in Armenia was not firmly established in this period and Ashot II Bagratuni is mostly notable for fighting against the Umayyad Caliphate. I really don't think you can call them vassals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that having Ashot II in the category is probably not correct. But 'firm rule' is not a prerequisite of vassalage, indeed it is precisely because states can't or don't want to bother to establish firm rule that they establish vassal relationships (if we don't focus only on the European feudal vassal-liege relationship). The title of prince of princes could only be claimed by the backing of an imperial power, whether Byzantium or the Umayyads, from whose hands these Armenian rulers received their title, by definition becoming vassals of the imperial power. Some Armenian princes were able to exercise more or less autonomy, or shift from one patron to the other, exploiting temporary changes in the balance of power. That does not change the fact that they had a subordinate political relationship to an empire. Indeed this is no different to the exactly identical relationship they had with the Abbasid Caliphate, only that by that time Arab suzerainty was far more solidified than under the Umayyads. Constantine ✍ 12:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Christian universalists by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Per this conversation, "Universalism" is not a denomination. I am bringing this to CfD per Smasongarrison's suggestion to confirm that others agree that this revision by Neddyseagoon is inappropriate and should be undone. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
For the record, my request was to get feedback on whether universalism should be parented by denomination or placed in the main category as a philosophy/theory. I never said that the revision from 2016 was inappropriate, I said that was a stable edit. I don't have a strong opinion, on the parent category, but I did want others to weigh in about how it should be categorized. Mason ( talk) 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Sorry if I misrepresented you. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Revert the re-parenting per nom. Universalism is a theological concept with advocates and opponents but it is not a denomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks

Nominator's rationale: merge, the Sixteen Kingdoms contains partially parallel and mostly very short-living kingdoms, typically a few decades. No need to categorize Buddhist monks by each of them separately. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Scottish women embroiderers

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection between the type of textile artist and gender. Mason ( talk) 03:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne

Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:BLP ( Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim., therefore also WP:NONDEFINING). Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list.
Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Associated TfD was closed as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Whitewashing in film

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro ( talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: as I am not sure what you mean by “tangential” as all of the categorised films has an element of whitewashing that is discussed in Whitewashing in film article or mentioned in the film page itself using reliable sources. Take the film Khartoum (film), with blackface white actors which is discussed in the “Reception” section. It does not get more direct than that.
FuzzyMagma ( talk) 09:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Perhaps should have worded that nomination better. What I meant was with categories such as these, the expectation is that there will be articles dedicated to the topic not articles mostly about films which only contain an element of the said cat.
I am coming at this from a recent discussion about a similar topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country. Gotitbro ( talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
but that is not the policy you have cited and the example you have cited is irrelevant as I said, these instances of whitewashing are discussed using reliable sources.
This is more like your personal preference and expectations which is not supported by policies. A Cat need to be a characteristic of the subject as described in reliable sources see WP:CATDEF. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Marcocapelle, are you suggesting a category that would include only documentaries on the topic of whitewashing? Dimadick ( talk) 14:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Purge articles that do not currently mention whitewashing in film, but keep as a valid and useful subcat of Category:Casting controversies in film. I checked a few members, and they each had a paragraph that specifically covered this topic. However, I removed Argo (2012 film) where there had been a consensus on the talk page to remove such a paragraph, but the categories had been left on the article until now. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as long as the articles mention whitewashing. Race-related controversies in film and Casting controversies in film are similar and don't appear to have been contested. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To me the big concern is that the category looks like an assertion in Wikivoice that the film in question (I suppose not all the articles are about individual films, but let's just consider that case for the moment) engaged in whitewashing. To assert that in Wikivoice, it should be the consensus of sources, not just the opinion of someone who can be reliably sourced. Maybe rename to clarify? -- Trovatore ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Defunct Catholic schools in Louisville, Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one page in here, and no other city (or state) level categories in Defunct Catholic schools in the United States Mason ( talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split as proposed. This seems eminently reasonable, and I have no idea why I saw the necessity for this category nearly 18 years ago. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh wait, there probably used to be more entries at some point that ended up being deleted. That's my guess. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's probably what happened. There's definitely been changes to how notability for schools should be handled, so its totally reasonable that it made sense at the time. Mason ( talk) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_21&oldid=1230827754"