Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27
June 29 >

June 28[edit]

X by region in France[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#X by Y in Z. Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whirly-Girls[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the name is not what these women are referred to but only the name of the organization. Note that these articles are already in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Hence only single merge. Alternative suggestion: keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think renaming to Women Helicopter pilots is suitable and appropriate. There is currently a lack of categories on Wikipedia to suitably identify/locate topics/persons related to women's aviation. The current categories make it difficult to find these aviation pioneers, which are few and worthy of inclusion in a category as it is a defining characteristic. This is why I developed the category in the first place. Thank you for the measured discussion here. Nayyn (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there are categories for female aviators, gyro and rotor pilots have different certifications compared to fixed wing pilots and thus it is a unique and defining category. There are comparatively few women who are helicopter pilots overall, and a category specifically for helicopters is particularly useful addition to Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:USEFUL [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument Nayyn (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional illeists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Category:Fictional illeists then undeleted out of process. Still seems non-defining. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't fit, as it was undeleted via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion rather than recreated. --HPfan4 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still support deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FC Nizhny Novgorod seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To comply with the club name change EpicAdventurer (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Given Fox Television Animation is a former name/entity of what is currently 20th Television Animation since 2020, I propose splitting up this category to differentiate the two eras of this studio's works. All of its productions from 1999 until 2020 should remain here, while any works made since the 2020 rebrand, I propose be moved to a new Category:Television series by 20th Television Animation. For series made under both, both cats ought to be present. The category as it is can be misleading with the cat name using the former "Fox" brand despite the description using the rebranded one under Disney. An example that supports this, as noted in the prior RfD here, is that we have separate cats at "Category:20th Century Fox films" and "Category:20th Century Studios films". That RfD suggested a split rather than a rename as initially proposed last November, but was closed with no consensus as no one else responded. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories per WP:NARROWCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former high schools in Tokyo[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. No need to diffuse highschools within a specific populated place and status (Defunct vs current; note that one of the targets is currently being speedy renamed from Category:Former high schools in Japan) Mason (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tokyo is equivalent to a prefecture, not a city, in a manner like a U.S. state. I'm not sure if this would make the category more viable, or if there should still be a split? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 3 June 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) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autistic LGBT people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a the recreation of Category:LGBT people on the autism spectrum, which was deleted per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Category:People_on_the_autism_spectrum as a non-defining intersection. The overall topic is notable, but individuals as the intersection of a specific disability and sexual orientation/identity doesn't really meet the higher bar of WP:egrs. I encourage the category creator to see if the category was previously created before they make more intersections with LGBT and disability. See for a similar ongoing argument for Lesbians with disabilities Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26#Category:Lesbians_with_disabilities Mason (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but disperse in the tree of Category:People on the autism spectrum in the first place. I am not sure about the proposed merge target because I do not know if autism is generally considered to be a disability. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep I disagree that only identity+action are more defining than identity+identity, in fact I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT muderers (which one thing has nothing to do with each other, but since they are religioculturally/traditionally seen as sinful, then we have these guidelines). And as EGRS notes, When making a new category, be sure there is substantial existing research on that category of people specific to the occupation in relation to their sexual orientation. while making it unclear about identity+identity instead of occupation. And as you linked, the topic justifies it as notable. Actually, I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT with disability. --MikutoH talk! 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    also, isn't it the nominator responsible for searching old deletions to support their arguments? Because I found no previous deletions and decided to create, in my perception for the first time, the category. If I saw that it was deleted before, I would rethink it before creating it. but since that's not the case, I don't understand why you mentioned this fact. or do you mean that previous deletions justify recreation? --MikutoH talk! 00:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you're right, I accidentally ignored the link. --MikutoH talk! 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion had small quorum with two voting, IP nominated multiple categories in the same bascket. --MikutoH talk! 23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Repilies/Questions: What do you @MikutoH mean by identity+action versus identity+identity? Because the requirement for intersections is the same per WP:EGRS. The bar is set high to avoid tokenization and stereotypes. Most of the categories that meet the threshold for egrs is indentity+occupation. It's a much higher bar to cover three way intersections: being LGBT, being disabled, and the specific kind of disability. It isn't about what you find to be defining. It's what scholarly sources say is defining. We are also running afoul of final rung. Mason (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talkibg about this sentence: a person's actions are more important than, for example, their race or sexual orientation.. And Wikipedia:Consensus can change. --MikutoH talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you ignored the studies in the article you linked. --MikutoH talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks for clearing that up. I don't disagree with you. I think that the intersection of two identities can be defining, but it does require a heavier bar. And, I just don't think that there's enough literature to support the intersection right now. What I've seen in the literature is descriptive that people are more likely to have both identities than by chance alone. But there are a lot of descriptions like that, such as men who's name start with L are more likely to be lawyers. (Ok not that extreme, but it takes more than just the fact the intersection exists). Mason (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Disability, and WikiProject Autism have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I think this intersection does qualify as defining for the purposes of EGRSD (in part because it is a notable intersection that I think several reliable sources discuss the incidence of and connection between in-depth), though my opposition is weak purely because I'm concerned maybe there's some nuance of the guideline I'm not understanding here. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually been thinking about this a little... what in EGRSD implies a higher bar than the intersection being notable/encyclopedic? Is there someone who could explain that higher bar in a way that makes it clear where the guideline does not? In particular, I don't see anything that suggests a higher bar, and the section's prose even ends with "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?" (Which. It can. The nom says as much.) I'm considering changing my !vote to a non-weak oppose, but I wanted to see if anyone can make me see something in EGRSD that I'm not picking up on. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's the quote from egrs, with two underlines.@Purplewowies
      >Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics) with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless that combination is 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. The mere fact that such people happen to exist is not a valid criterion for determining the legitimacy of a category.
      It effectively says that the intersection needs to be defining as a topic, as opposed to some categories that are just used to diffuse a larger category, like 1901 events etc or people from Georgia. The fact that such people exist isn't enough, which is effectively the argument I'm making. The literature says that these people exist and do at higher rates, which could and does support a page existing, but it doesn't mean that there's a body of academic literature that the intersection of two identities is defining above and beyond that two identities by themselves. Mason (talk) 21:28, 14 June 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) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom but, @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, I would say it should be manually merged with Category:LGBT people and Category:People on the autism spectrum. I don't think autism is a disability per se. I can be considered as such in severe cases but not everyone would agree that it is in all cases. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I tend to take a broader definition of disability to explicitly include autism and other (equally lovely) flavors of neurodivergence, but you're right that not a universal opinion (It probably stems from my default of wanting more folks on my team 🤣).
@Omnis Scientia Would you be willing to do the manual merge to determine which folks should be added to the intersection (lgbt+disability)? I think it would be helpful to have someone who has a less universalist approach make the decisions. I'm happy to help with the rest. Mason (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I understand that perfectly! Its a good thing to be inclusive. And sure, I would be willing to manually merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Much appreciated as alwaysMason (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), it is unclear how these two categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. I think that converts from FOO is supposed to model other religion converts categories. I'd be interested in anyone from the religion/athesist categories chiming in in case we're missing something. Mason (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of an overarching category sceme with a certain logic. Former Fooians can become converts to some other religion, e.g. Barism.
  • But if the new religion or lack thereof of the former Fooians cannot be determined, we cannot diffuse them to a subcategory called converts to Barism from Fooism.
  • Or, it may be that a former atheist or agnostic has embraced some form of theism, but not converted to a specific institutionalised or traditional form of it. Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism is a containercat that currently only allows us to diffuse former atheists and agnostics as converts to Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. But of course, those are far from the only options on the 'market', so to speak.
I think this indeterminacy, as well as lack of options to diffuse to, is what requires these categories to remain separate. (Honestly, I understand where the idea to merge them comes from, and I had to think for quite some time before figuring out why I had a hunch that it might not be a good idea, and writing this down haha). NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A good example of a former Fooian whose current religion or lack thereof cannot be determined is Wesley Snipes. Raised as a Christian, converted to Islam, then left Islam, and we don't know what he considers himself these days. The default assumption may be that he is therefore an atheist or agnostic these days, but no RS says that, so such a conclusion is OR.
Similarly, there has been quite a lot of controversy around Antony Flew, a life-long atheist who appears to have embraced some form of theism just before he died and co-wrote a book titled There Is A God with a Christian. That Christian co-author has claimed that Flew converted to Christian theism just before he died, and that the book is "evidence" of Flew's wholehearted, sincere embrace of the Christian religion. Meanwhile, several atheists came out and called foul play, alleging that the co-author put words in Flew's mounth in order to construct a deathbed conversion story that is really convenient for propaganda purposes, and that Flew seems to have not embraced Christianity specifically, but a more general vague theism. Who can say? Flew is not there anymore now to explain. That's why he is in Category:Former atheists and agnostics, but not in Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, as his religious views just prior to his death cannot be precisely determined, and thus diffused. NLeeuw (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or widen the scope of the merge. The category Category:People by former religion has quite a few categories in it, including this one, of people by former religions or former non-religion. If we merge this one it would make sense to merge all of them. However, I feel like both categories are useful, as "Convert" categories show what they converted too, while the "Former" categories (which include the Converts as a subcat) are for those where the conversion "destination," for lack of a better word, is unknown. Relinus (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting categories like Category:Converts to Christianity, or Category:Converts to Islam, etc. all have many subcategories named "Converts to ____ from ___" which include the subcategories of Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism, namely Category:Converts to Buddhism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, Category:Converts to Hinduism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism, and Category:Converts to Judaism from atheism or agnosticism‎. It's not clear how this would be dealt with in the merge proposal. Relinus (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. You explain some of what I was trying to say better than I could. NLeeuw (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the logic. Of course there are people who do not fit a "converts to" subcategory deeper in the tree. But how does it matter whether these people are in a general "converts" category or in a general "former" category? They are both general categories. In terms of widening the scope of the nomination, I am definitely planning to follow up with sibling categories if this goes ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the discussion is on merging the convert/former categories into one category even though they are both needed for the reasons stated above, namely that, as you say, "there are people who do not fit a 'converts to' subcategory deeper in the tree" but who would still fit into the "former" category. Since every religion/non-religion has both a "former" category and a "convert" subcategory, removing one or both for only atheism/agnosticism doesn't make sense. You would need to do the same for all religions, ie. merging Category:Converts from Buddhism and Category:Former Buddhists, etc. (That was what I meant by widening the scope of the merge, however, I would actually oppose that too, since it doesn't make sense either.) Relinus (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Relinus: until your bracket we seem to agree. I already mentioned I will do a follow-up nomination for all religions if this goes ahead. I do not understand why within the brackets you suddenly jump to a different conclusion. Why doesn't that make sense either? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Greece[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. Central Greece (region) is the modern administrative region (Περιφέρεια perifereia) established in 1987. Central Greece (geographic region) is the historic geographical region (γεωγραφικό διαμέρισμα geografiko diamerisma) abolished in 1987. I have WP:BOLDly renamed Central Greece (an WP:UNSOURCED article) to Central Greece (geographic region), and turned Central Greece into a DP, hoping to clarify the situation. Splitting the category is the next logical step. Child categories can be renamed if so desired per WP:C2C once this split is approved. NLeeuw (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is too simplistic a solution for a complex problem. I'll illustrate the problem with maps:
If we want this category to be only about the modern administrative region (perifereia) of Central Greece, it's not just about removing Attica, it is also removing parts of Western Greece, removing the northeast coast of the Pelopponese (or not?), removing Kythira (or not?), but adding Skyros (or not?), and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 10:11, 1 June 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) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I nominated grandchild Category:Battles in Central Greece for renaming to Category:Military history of Central Greece. Under my current splitting proposal, that renaming proposal remains unaffected. But if we want to avoid the Lorraine problem, as in previous "Battles in" discussions, it might have to be renamed to Category:Military history of Central Greece (region) later on. My splitting proposal was designed mostly to solve that potential Lorraine problem ahead of time, but I guess it doesn't really matter, as we can always C2C it later. NLeeuw (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Body horror video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be entirely original research, not a thing whatsoever in video games, or in horror video games. User has been warned repeated for adding, and now creating, incorrect categories. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup It apparently is a thing in video games, there are plenty of sources that describe games as body horror, such as this one and this one. Body horror also has its own parent article. I'm not really aware of what bad categories this user made, but either way, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and that alone isn't a reason to delete a viable category. Any games that sources don't describe as body horror should be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to keeping/cleanup AHI-3000 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involving countries[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wars involving former countries and similarly-named categories of non-state actors (e.g. Category:Battles involving peoples, Category:Wars involving peoples; supranational organisations like Category:Peacekeeping missions and operations involving the United Nations; rebel groups like Category:Military operations involving the al-Nusra Front; alliances like Category:Wars involving NATO and Category:Military operations involving the Warsaw Pact, etc.), and to avoid confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". Follow-up to preliminary discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Involving former countries or by former country involved, where it was found best to let go of the "by country involved" formula as the de facto standard. NLeeuw (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: courtesy ping for follow-up discussion. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about reopening and notifications
  • Comment As nominator I would have appreciated it if I had been notified that this CfR had been reopened, and why, and that it would have been relisted. I only discovered this now: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#NAC requests 8–14 June 2024. I personally don't like this naming convention - Category:Wars involving countries seems ridiculous to me (doesn't every war involve a country). But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. This indeed seems far too late to make this point when consensus had already been achieved. The rationale I provided explains that lots of wars do not involve countries as the only belligerents, and sometimes none at all. These belligerents are known as non-state actors: rebel groups, peoples, alliances, etc. That one personally finds this ridiculous when the rationale has explicitly explained how this is possible is pretty much an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT argument (they even downright say I personally don't like this), and reopening a closed CfR for this reason alone, not notifying the nom and other participants and not relisting it, and two of the admins who were involved in the decision to reopen it participating in the CfR and then !voting against it (thus overturning the unanimous support that the proposal had enjoyed so far), is quite an odd turn of events. I wouldn't mind reopening a discussion for good reasons, but the !voting of admins involved in the decision to reopen it is rather suggestive of something happening out of process (I don't know the exact protocols for this, but I'll try to find it). I hope the situation can be clarified soon. NLeeuw (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not reopen this discussion, nor even ask the closer to reopen it. I just refused to use my own admin tools to implement a result I found ridiculous, expecting some other admin to just push the button. Fayenatic london asked the original closer to reopen, and they agreed. There's nothing wrong with that process. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not, but I do object to the two of you !voting in this discussion after convincing @HouseBlaster to reopen it.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, admins should either:
    1. participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges, especially if they have already cast a !vote, because once they do, they should maintain their role as a regular editor for the rest of the discussion; or
    2. be neutral in the discussion, including the !voting, and merely ensure that the process is being followed according to established procedure, making use of their admin privileges if necessary. This includes relisting, closing, and implementing the result if this requires special admin actions (deletion, renaming, merging, splitting). It may also include more regular actions that regular editors could also perform, such as asking the nominator or other participants for clarification of what they mean, or tagging/pinging relevant users for relevant notifications, or other comments for the understanding of participants (e.g. pointing to precedents, previous or simultaneous discussions, or pointing out that a certain user is a sock that had been blocked, and striking their !vote as invalid per WP:SOCKSTRIKE). As far as I am aware, requesting to reopen a discussion at NAC requests at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working is also an admin action that no regular editor can perform. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)). As soon as an admin takes an admin action, they should maintain that neutral role of ensuring that the discussion proceeds as it should, until it is closed and implemented.[reply]
    So if an admin requests a reopening, that means their role on the CfD is that of an admin, and they should maintain that role for the rest of the CfD. If an admin !votes, they should maintain the role of a regular editor for the rest of the CfD. If an admin does both things, they are mixing up the two roles they can take. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there, so this is not an "admin action", and roles are not mixed up in such a case. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)).[reply]
    Again, correct me if I'm wrong (Edit: I partially was . NLeeuw (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)), but this is how I have understood how admins are supposed to operate at CfD. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any policy, guideline, instruction or help page which formally explains how this should work (please link me to it if it does exist!), so my understanding is mostly based on my experiences here at CFD since February 2023. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: There may be some exceptions to what I have described above. For example, I've seen it happen that a CfD was relisted twice by a admin, but there was still very little participation (nobody else had !voted on the proposal yet). Then that admin cast a !vote, and another admin closed the discussion in which the !vote of the first admin proved to be decisive. Is that an issue? I don't think so. Relisting the discussion as an admin and then stepping down from that role and partipating as a regular editor by !voting does not seem to be a problem, as the relisting would not necessarily influence the direction of the discussion. If this change of role helps resolve an otherwise inactive, dormant discussion, that helps Wikipedia move forward.
    The other way around is more dubious. If an admin casts a !vote first, and then later relists the discussion, that might be an implicit "advertising" of their own !vote to other participants.
    Again, this is just what I've seen, and what makes sense to me. I don't know if this is officially approved and agreed procedure written down somewhere, or just convention based on custom / precedent, but never formally written down anywhere. Please correct me if I'm wrong; we could all benefit from clarification. NLeeuw (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLeeuw I apologise for not notifying you of the reopening. I will also ping the other participants Marcocapelle and LaundryPizza03 as a courtesy. Apart from that I don't think there has been any poor practice here. Any user can request a closer to reopen a discussion, e.g. to present fresh arguments. As it happens, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working can be edited by anybody; I accept that only admins and non-admin closers are likely to visit it, but it doesn't really matter where the request for reopening takes place; it would most often be done on the closer's user talk page, but could be e.g. on a parent category talk page or on a main article's talk page. As for the admin role, Pppery and I cannot close this now that I have participated with a !vote, but I see no conflict re the reopening. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, I think we have situation 1 here, admins who "participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges". Admin privileges are e.g. the possibility to delete pages and to block accounts, those are not applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you are right, also based on Fayenatic's explanation that the request to reopen may be submitted by any editor. So that did not happen out of process; the process just isn't clear (at least not to me), because it appears not to be written down anywhere for all to see (and find). I've posed some questions below to try and clarify some things to address similar issues in the future. NLeeuw (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic london Thanks for that explanation and apology, I accept it.
    I'd like to say and ask a few more things that are not intended to influence the result of this discussion, but only to help clarify CfD (including CfR, CfM, CfS etc.) procedures in general. Because I did not know that anyone could request reopening a discussion at that subsection of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. Honestly, I browsed through dozens of policy, guideline, convention, instruction, procedure and talk pages, but almost all content about reopening discussions is about deleted articles. E.g. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should generally apply to category discussions, but its contents don't really explicitly cover scenarios involving categories, let alone CfRs.
    Can reopenings be requested for just any reason? to present fresh arguments seems odd; if consensus has been established and the discussion has been closed, why should any individual person be able to challenge the result on the basis of "fresh arguments"? WP:CLOSECHALLENGE generally suggests that closures can only be overturned for procedural reasons, not in order to continue the discussion itself with on-topic arguments. At least, I see no such scenarios under Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, which seems to apply to all category discussions (but correct me if I'm wrong).
    The only possible way I see is (A).3 if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. This is quite a vague stipulation to unpack, but here I go:
    • Was there an "early closure"? WP:CFDAI states Normally, only close discussions if they have been open to participation for more than a week. It was open for 12.5 days (without relisting) before HouseBlaster closed it. So no, this wasn't an "early closure", it was relatively late. Pppery acknowledges this, implying it may be "too late" to reopen: But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. (Not sure if relisting is required after 7 days without apparent consensus? But that's a minor side-issue).
    • Were there "multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion"? I guess Pppery and FL together are "multiple" editors, so yes, though only barely. Note that @Ymblanter said: It seems to be consensus though, I will wait a bit and process. So only one editor would not have been enough.
    • To make a technical grammatical argument, perhaps the two clauses of the sentence are independent of each other, and the "early closure" part does not apply to the second clause? In that case, the second clause can be read as if [...] a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion[, c]losures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review[.] In that case it doesn't matter how far too late Pppery was, just what a compelling new perspective he has brought forth. But who is to judge what is "compelling"? And what kind of "perspective"? I note that this appears to have nothing to do with procedural objections such as outlined elsewhere under "Challenge other closures", or under "Challenging a deletion", or under "Challenging a move", all of which are procedural. Apparently it can be a fresh on-topic argument, even long after a regular closure. Might this not lead to arbitrary decisions to reopen discussions based on a single editor's request, thus overturning an already-established consensus? (Ymblanter). Unless I'm wrong, perhaps this stipulation should be clarified or modified to rule out anyone coming along with a "compelling new perspective" that is accepted by an admin for non-procedural reasons?
    NLeeuw (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: TL;DR version: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS: I'm gathering that "changing a closure" can include three actions: (A) rewording the closure, (B) reopening the discussion without review, or (C) reopening the discussion following a closure review. Does it also include the possibility or requirement to relist the discussion if reopened? Compare Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a move 2. ...the RM should be reopened and relisted. In this case, neither relisting nor tagging/pinging (initially) took place; it's not required, but perhaps we should make that a rule, just like relisting can be a requirement in an RM that is reopened under scenario (2)? That way, past participants, who may have seen that the discussion was closed (as I did), and were not aware it had been reopened afterwards (as I only found out 2 days later when I happened to check it), can be informed passively (by relisting) or actively (by tagging/pinging) of its reopening, as a matter of courtesy. (I appreciate the fact that Fayenatic london still pinged the other two participants today). NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the actual nomination at hand (as well as the alt)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion about procedures should be moved and held somewhere else than CfD, that's fine with me. What would be the best venue? NLeeuw (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic, can I ask you for some further explanation/rationale? You said: I find nothing wrong with the phrase "by former country involved". Ok, but that's not an argument in itself. Is there anything wrong with the proposal? If there is, what? If not, then one might as well not !vote, or !vote weak support, or !vote neutral. Moreover, why is there a need to add "involved" to catnames which currently do not have that word? You propose we should, but do not explain why. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NLeeuw I am persuaded by Pppery's argument agains the proposal. The proposed name is bad because it's meaningless in English, and omits "by" which indicates that it's a container category (with or without a template). I do not accept your rationale as I think it would be improbable to confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". "Involved" should be added consistently per the precedents linked above, to indicate participants rather than locations. I support the rationale I've recently initiated a push for adding the word "involved" to the latter type of catnames to avoid confusion with "battles *in* Fooland" (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Battles by country and WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN) by, er, NLeeuw. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does a containercat need the word by in the catname? Wikipedia:Container category doesn't say anything about that. If we take a look at a random sample of 500 categories which transclude Template:Container category, only 312 of them (62.4%) have the word by in the catname. Are you suggesting that the other 188 catnames (37.6%) are all bad because it's meaningless in English? Or maybe the word by is not necessary in containercat catnames after all? NLeeuw (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Naval battles involving pirates is a good comparison? It could work both ways.
  • I assume we agree there is nothing linguistically wrong with this catname. It's not necessary to rename this to Naval battles by pirates involved, because the catname is clear as it is. It's not a containercat, and perhaps it shouldn't be a containercat, because we might be hard-pressed to put all items currently in it into subcategories.
  • On the other hand, does this catname not demonstrate that there is nothing "linguistically" wrong with catnames such as Wars involving countries and Battles involving countries? I do understand that there is a risk of people placing articles directly into Category:Wars involving countries if we decide to rename as proposed, but every once in a while we will just diffuse that to the appropriate subcategory, as we do with all containercats containing articles. NLeeuw (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Battles involving pirates" or "Battles involving NATO" are fine. It's just "involving countries" that fails to convey that it is for subcats by country involved.
    • The May 22 discussion was explicitly only about former countries, and you argued that "involving former countries" was sufficiently clear. I would not strongly oppose that name for a container category, although I prefer to keep names consistent within a hierarchy. However, this nomination fails by trying to apply your preference in that nomination to categories by country, not just by former country.
    • As for using "by" on containers: Category:Battles is a top-level container, like e.g. Category:Dancers, so it doesn't use "by" in its name. However, most of its hierarchy is sorted by parameter using six intermediate container categories, all of which use "by" for clarity – except for one that is currently nominated. – Fayenatic London 12:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, I didn't know how those top-level containers worked and that "by" is not required for them. Is that the case for all those 188 catnames without "by"? Then perhaps my objection is mistaken. NLeeuw (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Youth activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should just merge these two categories, they're both extremely similar with the defining feature being that the activist is notable for being young. Mason (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Child activists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge, which should also come with renaming all subcategories from "child" to "youth". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reverse merge would conflict though with all of the Fooian children categories. Mason (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging, in either direction - I've slightly reworded for greater clarity the head note for Category:Child activists to read as follows: "This category is for individuals who were notable as activists during childhood, i.e. before the age of 15." Whereas the head note for Category:Youth activists refers to the age range of 15 to 24 years, which conforms with the definition of "youth" that was adopted by the United Nations. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Fanoflionking[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:UCFD/I#Personal userspace categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rulers of Chiang Mai[edit]

Nominator's rationale: per article Kingdom of Chiang Mai. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll need to think this over, but right now I'm leaning toward oppose as there's no consensus in history-writing on the English-language term used to refer to such rulers, though rulers is commonly used. On a related note, I notice you've attempted a reorganization to match the category's scope with that of the Kingdom of Chiang Mai article, which I'm not sure was optimal. As raised at Talk:Lan Na, there was not a separate "Kingdom of Chiang Mai", rather the article just covers the a period in Lan Na's history when it was under suzerainty of Bangkok, so it's probably the articles that need to be re-structured. But the categories can be updated again when and if that does happen. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 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) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with scents[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Removed three entries where this was non-defining, leaving just the two films and the general topic (which isn't itself a film so maybe shouldn't be in here as an entry; perhaps {{catseealso}} would've made more sense). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:34, 27 May 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) 16:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to deletion. Erik makes a fine point about the association being loose. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category. Asperger's syndrome is no longer an official diagnosis so there shouldn't be a category suggesting it is either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the categories should be merged. Jarble (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it mildly licentious (maybe?) to request a merge of this Category, when the two main articles that are the subject matter of this proposal, namely Asperger syndrome and Autism, are currently being Considered for Merger with no unanimous clear consensus reached against the adoption of said merge proposal.
However, if I am wrong (entirely possible) and this proposal is not precipitate in view of the on-going discussion mentioned further above, then I Oppose, since not all countries have adopted ICD-11, and it continues to be an official diagnosis in some jurisdictions. There is also the possibility that some people might, for whatever personal reasons, identify more with the Asperger’s label than they do with Autism. We should not be taking away a notably significant and not-yet-historic diagnosis because of ICD-11. -Konanen (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Konanen, I didn't know about the merger and I would be against it myself since the scope of articles and categories are very different. Categories have a more stricter rules. From everything on the matter, Asperger's is no longer an official diagnosis. I wouldn't have taken the step if I wasn't sure. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Can you (or anyone else) please share what the rules on categories are? I have no idea where to find them, and I really enjoy not spewing nonsense, which I cannot do if I do not know the rules. Thank you in advance! –Konanen (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Konanen, hey there. You can read the rules at WP:CFD. Being completely honest, its fair complicated and I don't fully understand it myself. Still figuring it out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syndromes with autism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "Syndromic autism" is much more commonly used than "Syndromes with autism". For example, on Google Scholar, "Syndromes with autism" OR "Syndrome with autism" yields about 516 results[1], whereas "Syndromic autism" gives about 3,470 results[2]. Additionally, renaming this category would also make it correspond to Syndromic autism article. Digressivo (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion? (I am not seeing opposition to the rename if this category continues to exist, so if there are no further comments I would expect this to be closed as rename with no consensus on whether the category should exist.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion given that what Marco has written. Mason (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Autism is not just a slightly higher prevalence; it is a significant and clinically relevant feature of these syndromes, affecting more than a third or even more than half of the patients in some cases. Digressivo (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old roads in Morocco[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, poorly populated category and other countries don't have this sort of category either. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Marcocapelle. My thought when creating this category was to populate it with articles about road systems in Morocco at various historical periods. Even if other geographical areas or countries don't have such a category, that's not a sufficient ground, in my opinion, to merge it or delete it. Perhaps we should consider creating more such categories for other countries or regions, if they can be populated with available topics. In fact, I think topics related to history of traffic and roads still need a lot of coverage. Ideophagous (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secularism in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I know that technically these are different regions, but... these categories overlap so healvy I think we should merge them. Mason (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but purge the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If Moroccan and Tunisian sub-categories are to be purged due to this merger, then I would oppose it, because the perceived and projected cultural ties among the Arab world are notable enough to warrant grouping all of these topics into that category.---Konanen (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories hints at being part of a movement in the Arab world. The content is very specifically related to these two countries only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, I do not understand your point:
      1) Point of clarification: do subcategories and pages within the Secularism category have to reference specific concerted movements, or is any topic related to Secularism within the named geographic region (whichever that may be) sufficient to merit inclusion into the category?
      2) Morocco and Tunisia are, by definition, part of the Arab world. Any movements existing in these countries are therefore logically movements within the Arab world, so unless I have lost all of my abilities to read and understand, I do not think your comment makes sense.
      Clarification would be appreciated! –Konanen (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I appreciate the categories may have heavy overlap, but I do not see why the Arab World, as a geographical and political area/unit, should be of lesser importance than, say, Category:Secularism in England while nobody suggests merging it into Category:Secularism in the United Kingdom, or merging that one into Category:Secularism in Europe.
    @Marcocapelle suggests that, if the merger goes through, Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories should be purged. That would be a disservice to the bigger picture, since all countries of the Arab world have significant influence over each other’s political movements, see for example the lead at Arab Spring. Marcocapelle’s requirement to make a case that "secularism in the Arab world" is an encyclopedic topic seems to me to be iniquitous, as well. But never let it be said that I would not try to source proof of definingness of the subject matter [3][4][5][6].
    However, if a merger is considered absolutely necessary, then I suggest renaming Category:Secularism in the Middle East to Category:Secularism in the Middle East and North Africa, modelled after Democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you. –Konanen (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question/Comment: Asking for evidence to support something being defining is not "iniquitous", that's a reasonable bar. But what I'm struggling with is why we need both Secularism in the Middle East and Secularism in the Arab world. Are they distinct enough to warrant two categories? I think that merging in reverse would also be fine. Mason (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mason: Yes, because the Arab World is a reasonably well-defined geocultural area, while the Middle East, which is a more loosely-defined geopolitical region, comprises—per the WP article—five non-Arab World countries, and moreover lacks 6 to 9 (depending on the count) countries considered as belonging to the Arab World. In other words, there are roughly 18 countries making up the Middle East, 13 of which are part of the Arab World, while the minimum count of the latter comprises 19 countries (maximum: 22 countries).
    It may be useful for some users to limit their browsing of the topic to only Arabic-speaking countries, as their political developments are usually heavily influenced by one another, and correlations within them would be of greater interest, which is not the case for non-Arab World Middle Eastern countries, which has a contested/varying definition. –Konanen (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking if Arab world and the middle east are distinct. I'm asking if the intersection with secularism for each is distinct. Mason (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. @Konanen, I would say the term "Arab world" is the more loosely defined region of the two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, I think we can create a Category:Secularism in North Africa to represent the second half MENA countries and add any related article there. Just a thought. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good solution Mason (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this already exists, Morocco just wasn't in there yet. I have added it now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The Arab world is not more loosely defined. It's the member states of the Arab League. Charles Essie (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Arab League is just that: a league. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian police chiefs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Inline with article names. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games featuring Bugs Bunny[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games featuring Daffy Duck[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan translation of video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Although this category's name was copied from the article Fan trasnlation of video games, this category lists individual games that were fan-translated. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence of an unofficial version is a trivial characteristic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games featuring Sylvester the Cat[edit]

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. Only three games here are actually defined by Sylvester. ★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games featuring the Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, for English speaking readers of Wikipedia the term Central Asia is more familiar than Western Regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is in effect a "former nationality" category. The article Western Regions refers to a historical period (up to 8th century CE) as well as a geographical range. All the current member pages are from that period, and renaming to "Central Asia" would lose this. "Western Regions" is named with reference to China, and its significance for Buddhism seems to be that Buddhist monks from this region took their texts into China during that period. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex plurisexual people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are too small, merging would make them bigger together. --MikutoH talk! 23:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Needless disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dean bass guitars[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1-article category. Merge to Category:Electric bass guitars by manufacturer Gjs238 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centuries in Podgorica[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redcar and Cleveland geography stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 27 stubs, below the usual threshold of 60. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Permadeath games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with similar category names in "Video games by gameplay element". Also because I recently created a separate category for permadeath role-playing games. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Insufficiently disambiguated from Category:Permadeath role-playing games. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? (I don't see any opposition to the rename, if the category is to be kept.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_28&oldid=1231805571"