Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 26

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Single-writer short story collections to Category:Short story collections

Nominator's rationale: Short story collections is already single-writer (in contrast to anthologies). No difference here. Robina Fox (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator -- "Single-writer" is a defining characteristic of short story collection, so the category in question is a duplicate. As all the entries in Category:Single-writer short story collections are also in one or more subcats of Category:Short story collections, it would probably be better to just delete the duplicate category. I have noticed that sometimes anthologies are miscategorized as short story collections, which probably causes confusion, and this should be fixed too - more anthologies by year categories, for example. Robina Fox (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment -- We have a nom and a comment from her. Short stories are not a genre that I read, so that I am unable to comment, but perhaps Category:Short story collections should be emptied and converted to a dab-category, which would encourage articles either to go in anthologies or Category:Single-writer short story collections. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Category:Short story collections is a big category with lots of subcats and subsubcats. Renaming them all seems excessive. Best to keep it simple. I believe that if the anthology categories are available editors will use them. Robina Fox (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per further comments of nominator. There is no point in having two categories with the same scope. Also I would recommend to copy the header of Category:Single-writer short story collections to every subcategory Category:Short story collections in order to reduce confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection -- I would now support the last comment, provided we are sure that nothing will be left orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Footballers from Chuhuiv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has one entry, entire field of PEOPLE from this town is seven, completely unnecessary. Librarian from Liberia (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Rulers of Lochlann. ✗plicit 01:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lochlann to Category:Lochlann rulers

Nominator's rationale: rename, apart from the main article the category only contains biographies of rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lochlann does not seem to be a place but a Celtic name for Vikings. I am therefore not quite sure this nom works, but cannot offer an alternative. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair point. A merge to Category:Viking rulers is also an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt Merge to Category:Viking Age in Ireland. Lochlann is a place, Lochlannach is a person from that place or a raider in general.Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also fair, then it should become a dual merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be renamed, then the Gaelic demonym is "Lochlannaigh". That's a bit clunky for the English wiki so recommend "Rulers of Lochlann" instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) "Rulers of Lochlann" is fine too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Rulers of Lochlann. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buyid scholars to Category:Scholars under the Buyid dynasty
• Propose renaming Category:Buyid historians to Category:Historians under the Buyid dynasty

Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with parent Category:People under the Buyid dynasty. The current name suggests they were relatives of the Buyid emirs, which was not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- The precedent is Ottoman categories, where the same issue arises. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Massacres in Sri Lanka. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka to Category:Massacres in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: No other categories about "civilian massacres", whatever that means. I think the other categories we have about massacres in Sri Lanka also need a cleanup. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine personnel. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian Territorial defence battalions personnel to Category:Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine personnel

Nominator's rationale: The Ukrainian Territorial defence battalions do not exist anymore, the people of this category are a part of the Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not excellent but better. SignificantPBD (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Category:Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine) personnel would be better in line with the article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename to Category:Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine personnel or Category:Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine) personnel?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- A short headnote explaining that these are reserve forces would be helpful, Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, based on the current contents of the category. Presumably there are notable people who would be categorized as members of the 2014 volunteer battalions, but that category can be re-created when the need occurs. —Michael Z. 18:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Category:Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine personnel. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about betrayal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly vague topic that's too hard to verify or objectify. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this seems mostly to be about an ex-boy/girl-friend having ended a relationship for someone else, a too trivial theme in songs. Besides quite a few articles do not mention anything about the lyrics at all and I have seen no articles where a comment about the lyrics was accompanied by inline sourcing. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who aren't even afraid of the Categories Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians you know nearly nothing about (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale Inappropriate joke/nonsense user categories. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We have userboxes for that, if desired. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both Category:Wikipedians who aren't even afraid of the Categories Police and Category:Wikipedians you know nearly nothing about have been emptied. And for future reference, I would prefer "Categories Squad" or "Categories Task Force" over "Categories Police". It just sounds less military. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Games media to Category:Works about games

Nominator's rationale: What is games media? This category has no sensible parent categories (just C:Games and :Cpuzzles) is composed of one badly categorized article and two subcategories (gaming websites, contract bridge mass media) that don't share much in common. Merger to Works about games seems preferable to deletion and upmerging. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. I would also advise nominating the subCategory:Contract bridge mass media for rename to Category:Works about contract bridge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, that's not suitable for speedy renaming because of its other parent Category:Sports mass media by sport. – Fayenatic London 11:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ancient Roman studies. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Study of ancient Rome to Category:Ancient Rome studies

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENT, we title our articles "Foo studies", not "studies of Foo". The only other category in this style is Category:Study of video games which I just proposed for renaming as well. Note that GScholar confirms that Ancient Rome studies term is 2.5x more popular than "Study of ancient Rome" (680:280)/ _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support because this is the norm. See Category:Ancient Greece studies‎, Category:Pre-Columbian studies, Category:Medieval studies‎, etc. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As it provides slightly more idea. GenuineArt (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above.★Trekker (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest "Ancient Roman studies" instead—the adjectival form is more grammatical. We don't speak of "America history" or "England Literature" or "Ancient Greece Language" (even if we have "Ancient Greece studies" (*shivers*). P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Ancient Roman studies, as the topic is the Empire not the city. For example there is a Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename either way per WP:C2C, with a slight preference for Category:Ancient Roman studies per arguments just above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Study of video games to Category:Video game studies

Nominator's rationale: For WP:CONSISTENT reasons, such subfields are named Foo studies. We only have one other category named "Study of Foo", Category:Study of ancient Rome that I'll propose for renaming shortly. Gscholar confirms that "video game studies" are a thing (and I am surprised we don't have a main article for it, since game studies is a border concept also involving board games, RGS, chess and like). Also, GScholar confirms that the phrase "study of video games" is only half as popular as "video game studies" (1.5k hits to 3k hits; note that plural "video games studies" guves only ~0.5k hits...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support sounds more natural. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As it provides slightly more idea. GenuineArt (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom makes a convincing argument here, this is more consistent.--Mvqr (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename, but it should evidently be Category:Video game researchers rather than "games" – cf. Category:Video game studies, above this CFD. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Game researchers to Category:Video games researchers

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category and contents, this seems to be about scholars who researched video games. Arguably, scholars who study non-video games (board games, role-playing games, chess, etc.) should have a category as well, but I think renaming this one for now should at least lessen the confusion. This can be recreated later as a parent category. PS. I alo think games is more correct than game, scholar studies many games, not a game, although I don't have very strong feelings about plular vs singular use here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom makes a convincing argument here. Video games are distinct from other games, and distinct from Game theory, so a this is much more precise.--Mvqr (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match parent cat --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:St Paul family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The one article concerns the first and last baronet. By convention we do not have a peerage (or baronetage) article in such cases but a redirect to the one article. This is a purposeless category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. This closure should be treated as a WP:CSD#C1 deletion. ✗plicit 01:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gambling companies established in 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Item has contested speedy delete in history. We don't create categories for a single article. We can't keep the category on speculative ground that some more articles may come up in future. Chirota (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Gambling companies established in 2020s and merge siblings into decade categories. No annual category has the minimum population of 5 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The best way going forward is to nominate the entire tree for merging from year to decade (with dual merge, also keeping the articles in the tree of Category:Entertainment companies by year of establishment). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: for the record, the current categories are in Category:Gambling companies by year of establishment. – Fayenatic London 12:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• UNREPLY Soft delete per C1. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Railway stations in Samara Oblast. – Fayenatic London 12:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Railway stations in Samara, Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category later with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the content is already elsewhere in the tree of its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Railway stations in Samara Oblast, where Category:Samara Metro stations should go (not there now) if the city category is removed.--Mvqr (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes you are correct, it should be merged after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.