Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 9

• Propose deleting Category:Sexual assaults in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category about "sexual assaults" which contains only a redirect to a sexual assault referral centre. Serves no purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per nom, without prejudice against re-creation if it can be populated by at least 5 WP:DEF items. NLeeuw (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:121st United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation as only contains a redirect and a subcat full of redirects. Serves no purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• {{United States Senate elections category}} puts Category:2028 United States Senate elections in this by default so otherwise it'd be a redlink category. I don't see how deletion would improve anything, especially as this category will eventually become more populated. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's actually no need for that category either, as it currently contains a single existing article and dozens of redirects which should not be categorised per WP:RCAT. AusLondonder (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, what's the point of not having a category here? All of those redirects will become full articles eventually. I'm not seeing how anyone benefits from deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't generally create categories before they're actually needed. Someone clicking on Category:2028 United States Senate elections is not going to find a sea of redirects all to the same article useful for navigation. It's effectively a WP:C2F case. AusLondonder (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still not convinced that deletion actually improves anything here. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is very premature. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per nom, without prejudice against re-creation when it can be populated with at least 5 items that are not redirects and have something substantial to say. Write these articles first. Also WP:CRYSTAL: although it is highly likely that the next U.S. general election will take place in early November 2028, it is possible for the U.S. general election not to take place in 2028. In special circumstances, Congress and States have the power (within certain limit) to move electoral dates or hold special elections on different dates, although elections cannot be suspended or delayed indefinitely (assuming the USA state apparatus will still function within its constitutional framework by then). At any rate, these elections are simply too far into the future to already grant them an elaborate category structure without substantial content. NLeeuw (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Defunct airlines of Réunion to Category:Defunct airlines of France

Nominator's rationale: Category contains a single page, unhelpful for navigation. Propose merge to Category:Defunct airlines of France. AusLondonder (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the other parent Category:Defunct airlines of Africa? Perspicax (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per above discussion. Suggest follow-up CfM for

Category:Defunct airlines of Mauritius (1P) and other underpopulated child cats of Category:Defunct airlines of Africa like Eritrea, South Sudan and Somalia.

Category:Defunct airlines of Europe: Faroe Islands‎ (1 P); Guernsey‎ (1 P); Belarus‎ (2 P); Montenegro‎ (1 P)

Category:Defunct airlines of Asia by country: East Timor‎ (2 P); Kuwait‎ (2 P); Mongolia‎ (2 P); Oman‎ (1 P); Syria‎ (1 P)

NLeeuw (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple merge to Category:Defunct airlines of France, Category:Defunct airlines of Africa and Category:Airlines of Overseas France. Consequently, delete Category:Defunct airlines of Overseas France and Category:Defunct companies of Overseas France as empty (see related Guadeloupe nomination below). – Fayenatic London 11:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per discussion above. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Defunct airlines of Guadeloupe to Category:Defunct airlines of France

Nominator's rationale: Category contains a single page, unhelpful for navigation. Propose merge to Category:Defunct airlines of France and Category:Defunct airlines of the Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Triple merge to Category:Defunct airlines of France, Category:Defunct airlines of the Caribbean and Category:Airlines of Overseas France. Consequently, delete Category:Defunct airlines of Overseas France and Category:Defunct companies of Overseas France as empty. – Fayenatic London 11:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per discussion above. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:User-specific file copyright templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:User custom license tags

Nominator's rationale: Single-member category for an unused userspace template. Merge it to Category:User custom license tags. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Herbert Sutcliffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for a single related article. WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Maki (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The main article, a template (that shouldn't even be categorized in a mainspace category) and two song articles are simply not enough to currently warrant an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and restructure per User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Also add a description of the category so it is clear what the category is about. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Maki (singer) songs to fit under the Songs by artist category scheme and remove the main article and template. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that. Pichpich (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and restructure per User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. – Fayenatic London 11:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Airliner bombings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT; the absolute number of airliner bombings is too small to warrant subdividing, it's unlikely to grow substantially in the future, and the country where a bombing took place is not a central defining characteristic. OCLOCATION dictates that countries of occurrence may be useful for dividing up huge and unwieldy categories, but this isn't one of them, and is unlikely to ever be. Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Nomination does not consider the effect of this deletion on Category:Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States where this will result in declining navigation abilities to get to quickly see those articles about IEDs involving aircraft in the United States. Hmains (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that. There are only about twenty listings in that category. Adding nine more should not make the category unwieldy, and since the articles are all named "<airline name> <flight number>", it's obvious which ones are airliner bombings. Carguychris (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably this is meant to merge Category:Airliner bombings in the United States to Category:Airliner bombings rather than delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Carguychris (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now, with the very uneven distribution between countries, a diffusion by country currently does not make too much sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a numbers game here. Categories are created to aid readers in their navigation to articles. Putting all the articles into Category:Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States with no subcat showing these are airliner bombing is not helpful, is not an improvement, is not moving forward. Airliner bombings here should be kept on an equal footing in Category:Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States with Category:Building bombings in the United States and Category:Car and truck bombings in the United States as they are without thinking about WP. Category:Airliner bombings in the United States articles are all named, as stated above "<airline name> <flight number>", it's obvious which ones are airliner bombings." Once merged, however, it is NOT at all obvious that these articles are about airliners being bombed. We only know this from the category name: Category:Airliner bombings in the United States and categories and their names are another important component of WP, not something to be tossed around and deleted freely. Hmains (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Hmains's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by missile shootdowns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category name seems self-contradictory or even oxymoronic, and inherently implies a cause. Shootdowns are typically intentional acts and not accidents; in the rare occurrences in which aircraft have been shot down under circumstances that may be truly accidental, considerable controversy typically exists, and blanket categorization implying a cause could be a violation of WP:NPOV. Carguychris (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "accidents and incidents " includes non-accidents. Please suggest an alternative name if you dislike it. Mason (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents already exists, so this branch of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents seems redundant. Suggest Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents involving surface-to-air missiles. (It is unclear whether the creator of this subcategory intended to restrict it to SAM shootdowns, but the only article currently in the category is a SAM shootdown, and I would argue that in air-to-air or fighter shootdowns, the weapon used is non-defining.) Carguychris (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carguychris: shouldn't this category be merged to Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents rather than deleted? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I did not make that clear in the original post. This CFD and the similarly named "fighter aircraft shootdowns" category effectively created a branch of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents that duplicates Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents. These incidents only need to be listed in one category tree, and the "shootdown incidents" tree existed first; these new "shootdowns" branches of the "accidents and incidents" tree are redundant and should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fighter aircraft shootdowns to Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents involving fighter aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Category name seems self-contradictory or even oxymoronic, and inherently implies a cause. Shootdowns are typically intentional acts and not accidents; in the rare occurrences in which aircraft have been shot down under circumstances that may be truly accidental, considerable controversy typically exists, and blanket categorization implying a cause could be a violation of WP:NPOV. Proposed category name is less subjective. Carguychris (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename. This is inconsistent with the rest of the category tree. Mason (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This CFD and the aforementioned "missile shootdown" category effectively created a branch of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents that duplicates Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents. These incidents only need to be listed in one category tree, and the "shootdown incidents" tree existed first; these new "shootdowns" branches of the "accidents and incidents" tree are redundant and should be deleted. Pardon my failure to mention that in the initial proposal. Carguychris (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Constituencies of the National Assembly of Botswana (historic) to Category:Former constituencies of Botswana
• Propose deleting merging Category:Defunct Botswana constituencies to the above

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent Category:Former constituencies. The "defunct" category duplicates the content. – Fayenatic London 13:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deleting "Category:Defunct Botswana constituencies" and oppose the proposal to rename "Category:Constituencies of the National Assembly of Botswana (historic) to Category:Former constituencies of Botswana", I think it serves as a good parent cat as is.

Aficionado538 (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed deletion to merger as Aficionado538 has added two more to the "Defunct" category. As for the name, no others in Category:Former constituencies append "(historic)", but some start with "Historic" rather than "Former". Can we compromise on Category:Historic constituencies of the National Assembly of Botswana? – Fayenatic London 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine. Aficionado538 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments are welcome on whether to also nominate the sub-cats for merging to both parents in each case. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Per nom's question, it certainly makes sense to upmerge the subcategories with 1 + 1 + 2 articles. The current scheme is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will add the subcategories to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historic Botswana constituencies in Gaborone to Category:Constituencies of the National Assembly of Botswana (historic) and Category:Botswana constituencies in Gaborone
• Propose merging Category:Historic Botswana constituencies in the Ngamiland District to Category:Constituencies of the National Assembly of Botswana (historic) and Category:Constituencies in the North-West District (Botswana)
• Propose merging Category:Historic Botswana constituencies in the North-East District to Category:Constituencies of the National Assembly of Botswana (historic) and Category:Constituencies in the North-East District (Botswana)

I have no opinion on whether this is a good idea or not. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, these aren't helpful for navigation, but dual merge, also to their other parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended the list, adding the other parents. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of KLF Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Single entry, limited scope. Veldsenk (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not treated as defining in that one article; mentioned in passing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & discussion above. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:LGBTQ-related suicides to Category:LGBTQ people who died by suicide

Nominator's rationale: The current title may be misleading implying that all those people died due to LGBTQ issues. Some of them, however, committed suicide for other reasons, such as Alexander McQueen. Proposed title would also be consistent with the Foo who died by suicide scheme: Category:College students who died by suicide‎, Category:People who died by suicide in prison custody‎, etc. Brandmeister^talk 08:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it would not surprise me if the category was originally meant to be about suicides due to LGBTQ issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People of Mexican side in the Texas Revolution to Category:Mexican people of the Texas Revolution

Nominator's rationale: The current name sounds awkward and is confusing/inconsistent Mason (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically both sides were Mexican people when the revolution started. Perhaps Category:Pro-Mexico people of the Texas Revolution? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't love the suggestion, but it is an improvement. Mason (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment both suggestions seem awkwardly worded and somewhat ambiguous ("Pro-Mexico people" could include, for example, Pope Gregory XVI). Suggest Category:Mexican Republic combatants in the Texas Revolution. Carguychris (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That is fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison: Thoughts on this name? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's pretty good. I think it should say "of" not "in" because the norm for wars/conflicts is "of". Mason (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, @HouseBlaster, agreed. Category:Mexican Republic combatants of the Texas Revolution it shall be. Will edit my initial post momentarily. Carguychris (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mason's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, "of" is used more often. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It depends.

1. If we want to include only regular military personnel of Mexico, then the name should be Mexican military personnel of the Texas Revolution (somewhat equivalent to sibling Category:Army of the Republic of Texas personnel killed in the Texas Revolution, except that not all of them were killed).
2. If we want to include regular military personnel AND irregular combatants, but exclude civilians, then Mexican Republic combatants of the Texas Revolution is the best option per Carguychris (& Mason).
3. If we want to include all civilian, regular and irregular participants, then Pro-Mexican people of the Texas Revolution is the best option per Category:Pro-Russian people of the Russo-Ukrainian War and Category:Pro-Ukrainian people of the Russo-Ukrainian War. NLeeuw (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like all articles in this category is military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, @Nederlandse Leeuw, I thought "combatants" would be better because I'm concerned that a standalone category for irregulars and militia would be extremely small and would probably wind up CfD'd. If we want to include regular military personnel AND irregular combatants, but exclude civilians, then Mexican Republic combatants of the Texas Revolution is the best option... Yes, that was my intent. Carguychris (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I support Option 2 Mexican Republic combatants as well (thus including irregulars, but excluding civilians like Pope Gregory XVI). Looks like we're heading for a consensus. NLeeuw (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good to me! Mason (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Southend-on-Sea (district) to Category:Southend-on-Sea

Nominator's rationale: As per discussion at AFD for County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, the boundaries for the city and district are the same. Eastbourne is good example of this which has one category for the whole town and district.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastbourne is not the same as it is completely unparished unlike Southend (and as noted below the district article was kept). Southend actually has 3 potential definitions that we could use namely the smallest being the part of the district which has "Southend-on-Sea" as the post town, the next smallest being the unparished area which roughly covers both Southend and Westcliff-on-Sea post towns namely excluding Leigh-on-Sea parish and the largest being the whole district. There is also Southend Urban Area but in 2021 the was urban areas/BUAs seems to have changed so it may not still exist. That said I'm not sure maintaining separate categories for the settlement/unparished area and district is helpful as categories are generally less granular than articles so it may well be better to just merge all into 1 category covering all definitions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But the parished area (leigh) falls within the wider Southend UA border. If anything Leigh should have its own category? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes Leigh probably should have its own category namely for the area covered by the parish. We have other parishes with categories, see Category:Civil parishes in Essex. All the other articles that are in the unparished area could go in the categories for the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The latter category is for the traditional town of Southend-on-Sea, not the wider district. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of somewhere like Colchester, where the boundaries of the district are outside the city boundaries I can understand having separate categories (Colchester (town) and Boroughof Colchester), but Southend District and city boundaries are the same. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As there isn't any evidence so far that the district and the town wouldn't be coterminous, we should just follow what happened in article space. A downmerge seems to be the obvious consequence. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Southend-on-Sea (district) to Category:People from Southend-on-Sea

Nominator's rationale: As per AFD at County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, the boundaries between City and district are the same. Also there are individual category pages for suburbs of Southend.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The latter category is for people from the traditional town of Southend-on-Sea, not the wider district, hence the subcats of the district category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is the traditional town of Southend? Read any history book and the town is seen as the whole not its parts after they were absorbed into the district. Also Colchester only has one category, People from Colchester, and then separate categories for the other localities in the district, which Southend does with People from Westcliff-on-Sea and People from Leigh on Sea already existing. Therefore a district category is not required.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could use Category:People Southend-on-Sea (district) as a Container category with People from Westcliff-on-Sea etc linked to that? And have a separate People from Southend-on-Sea- much like London has?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As there isn't any evidence so far that the district and the town wouldn't be coterminous, we should just follow what happened in article space. A downmerge seems to be the obvious consequence. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Department stores in Southend-On-Sea (town) to Category:Department stores of Southend-on-Sea

Nominator's rationale: Southend is now a city. As per afd on County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, there is no differentation between the city and district boundaries.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Its incorrectly capitalized so should be moved to Category:Department stores in Southend-on-Sea (town) if kept as is but it maybe can just go to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This should follow in line with the other two discussions on this and the next log page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Professorships in theology to Category:Professorships in divinity

Nominator's rationale: Overlaping underpopulated category Mason (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge per nom. Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that "divinity" is the older form and "theology" is more modern. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge up per nom. Side note, my anecdotal understanding is that "divinity" is the more ancient name for the discipline (reflected in degrees, professorships etc) and I was surprised not see this discussed at Theology § History of academic discipline. Divinity (academic discipline) exists but that section of the Theology article is a bit of a mess... but that's a discussion for elsewhere. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by auxiliary equipment failure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category name is excessively vague and therefore violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. There is little agreement in the aviation community as to what constitutes "auxiliary equipment". Carguychris (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest a merge target. Mason (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is difficult given the ambiguity of the current name. The sole current article in the category, TWA Flight 529, crashed due to an elevator failure. Perhaps Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving flight control failure? The underlying issue is the lack of a consistent, unambiguous definition for "auxiliary equipment". "Flight control" is considerably easier to define, but is also ambiguous to some degree. All that being said, I'm also concerned that creating myriad aircraft accident categories by cause may lead to WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:NARROWCAT concerns. Carguychris (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete. The default in a case like this is to merge it to the parent category(ies), in this case Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving engineering failures. If that is not an appropriate merge target in this case, I'd like to hear why not. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per Marco. Mason (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Religion in the Middle East to Category:Religion in West Asia
• Propose renaming Category:Religion in the Middle East by city to Category:Religion in West Asia by city
• Propose renaming Category:Christianity in the Middle East by city to Category:Christianity in West Asia by city
• Propose renaming Category:Jews and Judaism in the Middle East by city to Category:Jews and Judaism in West Asia by city
• Propose merging Category:Islam in the Middle East to Category:Islam in West Asia
• Propose renaming Category:Secularism in the Middle East to Category:Secularism in West Asia
• Propose renaming Category:Irreligion in the Middle East to Category:Irreligion in West Asia
• Propose merging Category:Jews and Judaism in the Middle East to Category:Jews and Judaism in West Asia
• Propose merging Category:Christianity in the Middle East to Category:Christianity in West Asia
• Propose merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Middle East to Category:Bahá'í Faith in West Asia
• Propose merging Category:Middle Eastern people by religion to Category:West Asian people by religion
• Propose merging Category:Middle Eastern Jews to Category:West Asian Jews
• Propose merging Category:Middle Eastern Muslims to Category:West Asian Muslims
• Propose renaming Category:Middle Eastern Islamists to Category:West Asian Islamists
• Propose merging Category:Middle Eastern Christians to Category:West Asian Christians
• Propose merging Category:Middle Eastern Bahá'ís to Category:West Asian Bahá'ís
• Propose renaming Category:Middle Eastern atheists to Category:West Asian atheists
• Propose renaming Category:Middle Eastern agnostics to Category:West Asian agnostics

Nominator's rationale: West Asia and the Middle East largely overlap, so we do not need both category trees. It is better to keep West Asia because it is consistent with other subcategories in Category:Religion in Asia by region. Sakakami (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge per nom and rename dependent on the merge direction. There is also this discussion which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose - The reason these categories "largely overlap" is entirely because the regions themselves "largely overlap". An incovenient fact, perhaps, but a reality that Wikipedia is bound to respect - and that our categories must reflect. (There are many other overlapping category trees that we maintain simply because they reflect aspects of the real world.) Furthermore, the term "Middle East" is well-known to the great majority of readers, who are unlikely to be familiar with the term "West Asia". Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Anomalous+0's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume that overlapping categories nearly always match with overlapping realities, so I can't see that as a reason for not applying WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Middle East is a more common name than West Asia. Andre🚐 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's response to the objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and reverse merge per the ridiculously one-sided Ngram of "Middle East" vs. "West Asia" vs. "Western Asia", and WP:OVERLAPCAT. Countries get dropped in either direction, so it makes the most sense to choose the direction that's least WP:ASTONISHing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - LTA sock removing "Middle East"/moving "Middle East" to "West Asia".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the West Asian categories to allow for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Religion in West Asia to Category:Religion in the Middle East
• Propose merging Category:Islam in West Asia to Category:Islam in the Middle East
• Propose merging Category:Jews and Judaism in West Asia to Category:Jews and Judaism in the Middle East
• Propose merging Category:Christianity in West Asia to Category:Christianity in the Middle East
• Propose merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in West Asia to Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Middle East
• Propose merging Category:West Asian people by religion to Category:Middle Eastern people by religion
• Propose merging Category:West Asian Jews to Category:Middle Eastern Jews
• Propose merging Category:West Asian Muslims to Category:Middle Eastern Muslims
• Propose merging Category:West Asian Christians to Category:Middle Eastern Christians
• Propose merging Category:West Asian Bahá'ís to Category:Middle Eastern Bahá'ís

  No opinion on whether this is a good idea or not. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reverse merge from West Asia to Middle East & support reverting/reversing all of nom's similar edits.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reverse merge from West Asia to Middle East, as the Caucasus is not generally considered part of the Middle East. Perhaps it makes best sense to keep both. Purge and restructure where appropriate to avoid duplication; places that have a Middle East parent don't need to be directly in a West Asia grandparent. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• With a reverse merge we can and should purge Caucasian countries. I do not regard this as an objection to merging per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Church of Sweden clergymen in Colonial North America to Category:American Lutheran clergy

Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely narrow. I think it should either be merged to 17th/18th century American Lutheran clergy or renamed to Church of Sweden clergy from the Thirteen Colonies Mason (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept then delete, because all articles are already in Category:17th-century American Lutheran clergy or Category:18th-century American Lutheran clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Church of Sweden clergy from the Thirteen Colonies; much better than my original. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If not merged/deleted, then rename as Creuzbourg suggested. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Creuzbourg and reparent accordingly. – Fayenatic London 12:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• My rationale for a separate, albeit small, category is that these clerics were paid for by the Swedish government, until U.S. independence. The background is found in the close connections between the Church of Sweden and the Church of England. Jesper Svedberg, the first bishop in charge of Swedish Lutheran clergy in America, saw the C of E as a sister church to the C of S. There are several more individuals that eventually can be added. The category is of importance for Swedish-American and Swedish history. Creuzbourg (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Depression-era gangstersto Category:Depression-era gangsters

Nominator's rationale: These are really overlapping categories. Does anyone have ideas for how to make these two categories more distinct, or perhaps combine them? For the record. Prohibition in the united states was from Jan 17, 1920 – Dec 5, 1933, whereas the great depression was from 1929 to 1939ish. Mason (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Merging in this way does not seem to be the answer, as it is not true that all Category:Depression-era gangsters also were active in the Depression era. Perhaps, someone can make a count of the actual overlap of articles, not just the time period overlaps. thanks Hmains (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is only four years of overlap but both are very short periods to categorize people by. So I support the merge in principle but then it should probably become Category:Gangsters of the interwar period. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't "interwar" lose the implication of "American" that both "Prohibition" and "Depression" have? Maybe it should be Category:American gangsters of the interwar period. jlwoodwa (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, you are completely right. The same thing also applies to the current Category:Depression-era gangsters. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What about Category:Prohibition and Great Depression gangsters? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Urdu-language women writers to Category:Urdu-language writers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between language, gender, and occupation, per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but disperse the articles between Category:Urdu-language writers from India and Category:Urdu-language writers from Pakistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose being a woman writer is WP:DEF. NLeeuw (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on NL's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's the not question. The intersection is gender with language and occupation. I don't think this meets the criteria for EGRS, and there are no other categories at this intersection. @Nederlandse Leeuw do you have evidence to the contrary that Urdu-language women writers meet the criteria at the intersection? Aka is the "combination [] itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic), as academically or culturally significant in its own right"? Mason (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About 49.300 results for "women urdu writers" in Google Scholar. Just to highlight a few:

• The Role of Female Writers in the Promotion of Popular Literature in Urdu.
• Women Reading/Women Writing: Anxiety and Āzādī in Twentieth Century Urdu Pulp Fiction
• Female Voices: Women Writers in Hyderabad at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: there has been a whole movement of female writers in Urdu, both of poetry and of prose
• Images of Women in Urdu Novels Written by Muslim Women: An Analysis from A Feminist Perspective
• Articulation, agency and embodiment in contemporary Pakistani Urdu poetry by women
• Urdu women's magazines in the early twentieth century
• Urban Women Rebels: Voices of Dissent in Urdu Popular Fiction
• Feminine or Patriarchal: Story of Adam and Eve in Urdu Novels by Women Writers

Etc.

Also plenty of Google Books, e.g.

• The Language They Chose: Women's Writing in Urdu Vol I: Fiction
• The Language They Chose: Women's Writing in Urdu Vol II: Non-Fiction
• Women's Writings from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh: The Worlds of Bangla and Urdu
• Parwaaz: A Selection of Urdu Short Stories by Women
• Portrayals of Women in Pakistan: An Analysis of Fahmīdah Riyāẓ’s Urdu Poetry

Etc.

So yes @Smasongarrison, I think I might have some evidence. Arguably, it's high time that this topic received its own stand-alone article. NLeeuw (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Indian women translators to Category:Indian translators and Category:Indian women linguists

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between nationality, gender, and genre of writing, per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree in principle, but I wonder about Category:Indian women linguists as a target: is every translator by definition a linguist? Also, merging to Category:Indian translators doesn't seem necessary since the articles are already in a century subcat of it. So perhaps simply delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcoapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing the target on the fact that it's typically a parent category, but I haven't thought deeply about whether translators are also defined as being linguists. Mason (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So then I suppose it can be deleted instead of merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep Mason (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Louisville Black Caps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Louisville White Sox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one category layer. Both are basically the same team but changed their names. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created these categories. The rationale for deletion may be sound but it would be useful to know what the post-deletion cleanup would look like. Is this an argument to have a single category name to cover both team names? Would this leave the players categories dangling? I just would like to know where this is going. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @StefenTower, the player categories are in Category:Negro league baseball players and Category:Baseball players in Kentucky by team. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'm aware of that but deleting removes them from the structure that goes up to Category:Baseball teams in Louisville, Kentucky which is under Category:Baseball in Louisville, Kentucky. A user traversing that structure might not run into the player categories. Thus, my !vote to Combine below. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, having the subcat in Category:Baseball players in Kentucky by team suffices in these cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Combine. As they are practically the same team, it would be useful to combine these into one category (e.g. Category:Louisville Black Caps and White Sox), and continue as a child of Category:Baseball teams in Louisville, Kentucky. Otherwise, the team articles would have to be added to that category, with the fallout of losing subcategories of the team's players under both names in that structure. A deletion wouldn't be catastrophic, but I think combining is more optimal. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The normal CFD jargon for "combine" is "merge". Is merging an acceptable alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't follow the combine proposal. If that is the way forward then the players categories should be combined too and we still do not need a parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, per WP:Baseball, if the team name changes then a new category is created for the new name. So player categories shouldn't be combined. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, but then parent categories should not be combined either I guess? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]