Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 25

• Propose splitting Category:Fictional Greeks from the Ottoman Empire to Category:Fictional Greek people and Category:Fictional people from the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. This category only has one person in it, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, although I am a bit hesitant about the Category:Fictional people from the Ottoman Empire merge target. From what I read in the article, the story seems entirely unrelated to the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Political organisations based in the Republic of Artsakh to Category:Politics of the Republic of Artsakh and Category:Organisations based in the Republic of Artsakh

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues to Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBTQ issues

Nominator's rationale: Per the recent renames following WP:CONSUB and WP:C2D per LGBTQ. This one is a user category, so I thought it would make sense to have a separate discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I can't see a reason to name this category differently than in mainspace. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tourist attractions in Salem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: IS empty. The one entry was not relevant, so was deleted Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category has been emptied. You know, Isoceles-sai, you can tag empty categories CSD C1 and that won't entail a week-long (or longer) discussion. There is really no point of having a discussion about an empty category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Category is added in multiple articles which is relevant to the category. So no need to delete the category. MVDR Enthusiast (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Looks like the Category was under construction. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Tourist attractions in Salem, Tamil Nadu, aligning with parent and sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: There is already a category of Category:Tourist attractions in Salem district and most of the entries added to the new category are a copy paste from the old category. Most of it is located in Salem district rather than the town/city itself and has been deleted. Weak keep as there are still a few entries relevant to it and I have added it as a subcategory to the original category. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If kept, it should be moved over to Category:Tourist attractions in Salem, Tamil Nadu to both align with its parent and sibling categories, and to avoid confusion for other Salems, such as Salem, Massachusetts. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Public holidays in the Republic of Artsakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, but move Artsakh Revival Day directly under Category:Culture of the Republic of Artsakh. Apart from this one article they are general Armenian public holidays. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nazis from outside Germany to Category:Nazis by nationality

Nominator's rationale: We don't tend to name categories by who is not in them. This is effectively Nazis by nationality, so we out to treat it that way Mason (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional giant planets to Category:Fictional planets

Nominator's rationale: With only 2 planets so far, there does not appear to be a need for such overly-precise categorization. The idea of a "giant" planet seems to be an unclear and subjective metric as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 48th legislature to Category:Members of the 48th Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 49th legislature to Category:Members of the 49th Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 50th legislature to Category:Members of the 50th Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 51st legislature to Category:Members of the 51st Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 52nd legislature to Category:Members of the 52nd Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 53rd legislature to Category:Members of the 53rd Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 54th legislature to Category:Members of the 54th Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 55th legislature to Category:Members of the 55th Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian deputies of the 56th legislature to Category:Members of the 56th Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)

Nominator's rationale: Belgium has a bicameral legislature. These categories are intended for members of the Chamber of Representatives, the lower chamber. There are separate categories for members of the Senate, the upper chamber. Using the term "legislature" in the category makes it ambiguous.Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Members of the Chamber of Representatives (Belgium), this is massive overcategorization. Have a look at e.g. Daniel Bacquelaine. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In accordance with WP:DIFFUSE, legislator categories are often sub-categorised by term in order to prevent the parent category from becoming overpopulated. This can result in long serving legislators being included in several categories e.g. Jeremy Corbyn is included in 11 categories, Angela Merkel is included in 8 categories.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Then better diffuse them by century, similar to what we do with politicians in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would that help overpopulation? We already have several hundred articles on English Wikipedia for Belgian MPs and this could potentially increase to more than 3,000 articles. Assuming an even distribution, that's 2,250 20th century members and 750 21st century members.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus. I am not seeing objections to the proposed rename, if there is no consensus to merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't have 3000 articles and it may take dozens of years before we have that number, or maybe never. The problem that the articles are massively overcategorized is a problem of now. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have picked an extreme example to illustrate your point but the fact is most MPs are only listed in a few categories and not over categorised. And you have ignored my comment from 17 September as to why its okay to have over categorisation in major countries like UK and Germany, but not smaller countries. If the categories are merged we will end up with a category that has several hundred articles immediately and that overpopulation will only continue to worsen.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from the State of Palestine to Category:Palestinian people

Nominator's rationale: My previous proposal to disambiguate was closed due to a lack of consensus, with some reasonable arguments referencing the millions of Palestinians in the diaspora who are not from the State of Palestine. Therefore, I propose a merge. No other country makes a distinction similar to that between Category:French people and Category:People from France. Sakakami (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My first instinct was to oppose, but after seeing which subcategories are in each of these two categories (with a considerable amount of overlap) I rather tend to support. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Procedurally oppose. The last discussion was closed yesterday. And none of the contributors were pinged. Mason (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Web-julio, @Namiba pinging all contributors to the previous discussion. Sakakami (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose. But I agree with Marco that it needs purging. Web-julio (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a completely different proposal than Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Palestinian people. Sakakami (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were completely different, why did you literally cite it as the rationale for this proposal? Mason (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In a way, this proposal is the opposite of the September 9 proposal to disambiguate Category:Palestinian people. Here, I am suggesting a merge into Category:Palestinian people. Do you have any substantial feedback on the content of the proposal, rather than just a procedural opposition? Sakakami (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If kept, purge? Still no consensus to keep or merge, however.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, purge for sure, in order to reduce the overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:20th-century disestablishments in East Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:20th-century establishments in East Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:20th-century disestablishments in West Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:20th-century establishments in West Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Disestablishments in East Germany by decade because the entire history of East Germany stayed within the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment it does seem redundant, but maybe it is simply for formal reasons, Category:20th-century disestablishments in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• No, there is no formal reason, Category:20th-century disestablishments in Czechoslovakia does not exist either. At most we may keep them aa redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: By the way, what would you suggest about confusing forking of category:20th-century disestablishments in West Germany vs. category:20th-century disestablishments in Germany?

  For example, compare Category:1950 disestablishments in Germany and Category:1950 disestablishments in West Germany. Or maybe I miss something. --Altenmann >talk 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Maybe it is West Berlin? --Altenmann >talk 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is odd indeed. I would expect Germany to contain two subcategories, East and West. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added three siblings one day later. The West German categories weren't even part of the tree of West Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing objections to deletion, but there is a good deal of discussion here. In other words: if you object to deletion (regardless of if you have already participated or not), please speak up :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:SpaceX astronauts to Category:SpaceX-flown astronauts or something similar, per discussion on the Category talk:SpaceX astronauts.

Nominator's rationale: Prior to September 2024, all astronauts listed in Category:SpaceX astronauts had simply flown on a SpaceX capsule launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Now, with the completion of the recent private spaceflight mission Polaris Dawn, two SpaceX employees—Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon—have been astronauts (while employed by SpaceX) on this recent commercial spaceflight. It would be confusing to categorize the two of them as merely the sense of astronauts who have flown on SpaceX equipment, as they are also SpaceX employees, and are categorized in Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. (more emplyees are planned to fly on future spaceflights). N2e (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the current tree Astronauts by space program > SpaceX astronauts > SpaceX employee astronauts makes sense. If anything, Category:SpaceX employee astronauts (2) is unnecessary since 1) it is simply an overlap of Category:SpaceX people (21) & Category:SpaceX astronauts (38), and 2) is not (yet) needed for diffusing either of its parents, but that can be overlooked if it grows quickly enough.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Naval mines by type to Category:Naval mines

Nominator's rationale: I don't see why we need to isolate naval mines from the core category. This doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. If kept, at least rename to Category:Types of naval mines since this is not a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Naval mines of Finland to Category:Naval mines
• Propose merging Category:Naval mines of the United Kingdom to Category:Naval mines
• Propose merging Category:Naval mines by country to Category:Naval mines

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this category. Its currently isolated, and two of the child categories are underpopulated Category:Naval mines of Finland‎ (1) Category:Naval mines of the United Kingdom‎ (1) Mason (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Elite 11 participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a high school football competition. It is a non-defining characteristic User:Namiba 20:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A list of participants on the main article (Elite 11) exists, making this a defining category. It being limited to high school players shouldn't be the only argument for deletion as it is a national competition by invite only. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking part in this competition is a minor part of any player's career. It would definitely not be suitable for an introduction and sources do not consistently refer to it. Per WP:NONDEF, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (regardless of whether it is currently mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining; if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining."--User:Namiba

• Delete, trivial characteristic of anyone's career. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 10 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) 03:19, 17 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) 00:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former objects to Category:Former entities

Nominator's rationale: Would it be correct to call these "former objects"? After all, a mine being shut down doesn't make it disappear, and being smashed into a million pieces doesn't remove something from existence. I don't think this category makes that much sense, and is heavily overlapping either way, so it should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning support, the content of the category is a hodgepodge. But the target already has 50+ subcategories, I wish we could find some way of structuring it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as a somewhat helpful diffusion of the parent. I have diffused a few other sub-cats of that parent but it is indeed a mixture. Category:Former business entities (or similar) could hold Defunct brands, Former corporate subsidiaries by company, Former dual-listed companies, Former government-owned companies, Former joint ventures, Defunct companies, Defunct record labels. Category:People by former status might be useful for biography categories, but I only noticed Former members of organizations, Former billionaires and Former slaves that would go there. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I created Category:Former business entities. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some of the items in former objects probably should not be there. a mine is not an object, its a geographical or even geological feature, not an object. its a structure of sorts. however, i still stand by this as my effort to create broader and broader categories up to the most basic categories on WP. maybe cull some categories out of it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The possible problems with the mine example aside, I agree with the nomination insofar as these here do not stop being objects as such, but they are no longer the type of object they once were. So the category makes sense in this regard. I can't think of a better title which describes this 100% accurately and remains concise at the same time, so I would tend to keep it as a helpful organizational tier as described by Fayenatic london. Category:People by former status likewise seems a good idea to have. Daranios (talk) 08:43, 14 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) 03:21, 17 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) 00:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Daranios: @Fayenatic london: @Marcocapelle: Would renaming to Category:Destroyed objects be sufficient to you? It reinforces the fact that they technically "exist" but are not in their former shape or form. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It would not fit periodicals or supernovae. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately that would also not fit Category:Former landfills and similar cases. If this was purely a container category, I guess renaming it to Category:Objects by former type would be a correct designation... Daranios (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios: sorry, I wouldn't consider that an improvement either. That name suggests to me that it's for objects that have changed from one type to another. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: Yeah, probably. I was looking for an analogous phrasing to the Category:People by former status you suggested. Maybe you can think of anything? Daranios (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity alumni to Category:Saint Paul Seminary alumni

Nominator's rationale: The seminary no longer uses the School of Divinity title in its name or branding and has not for the past several years.~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tag the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Toxic enzymes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category isn't very helpful with only one page in it. Mason (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not meaningfully different from Category:Protein toxins and can be merged/redirected into that. ― Synpath 11:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related: while updating Category:Protein toxins with Botulinum toxin I found Category:Biological toxin weapons - a bizarrely named, small category with mostly protein toxins within it. I removed the small molecule toxins from it and think it should be merged to Category:Protein toxins. ― Synpath 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]