< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

Category:Persecution of ethnic groups by fascist regimes

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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category has many of the problems of the recently deleted "Category:Persecution of ethnic groups by communist regimes", for one, there are many differences between the fascist regimes included here, from Nazi Germany, to Fascist Italy, to the Independent State of Croatia, and Imperial Japan. Another problem is that the nature of those persecutions is inconsistent, while there are examples where persecution was ethnic based, in others this is either unclear or tangetial, one example of this is the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, while Fascist Italy behaved very brutally in that war, ethnic motivation is rather unclear here, it seems more like a war of conquest no different than other European colonial powers fought in the past, similarly, another example is Italian war crimes, this article not only includes atrocities committed before the Fascists even took power, but also includes crimes which were not ethnically motivated, such as those in the Spanish Civil War. Lastly, in many cases (though not all), the link between the fascist nature of the regime and ethnic nature of persecution is no more than a trivial intersection. Based on the same rationale used to delete "Category:Persecution of ethnic groups by communist regimes", it would be appropriate to delete this category as well. -- 186.213.34.245 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2020 (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.

Category:Country data templates of other entities

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Category:Country data templates of other entities

Category:Hebrew punctuation

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. bibliomaniac15 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Hebrew punctuation to Category:Hebrew script templates, or rename to Category:Hebrew punctuation templates
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a single page, for which a dedicated category is not necessary, and I am not aware of other Hebrew punctuation templates. If kept, this should be renamed to avoid giving the impression that this is an article category about the topic of Hebrew punctuation. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd notice) -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2020 (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.

Category:Sport redirects

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as unused unless someone would like to fill this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (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.

Category:Health by city

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: keep. bibliomaniac15 19:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of these two categories is the same. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2020 (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.

Category:Independent Ireland MEPs

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. bibliomaniac15 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammar. The adjective "independent" is used her to describe the non-party status of the MEPs, but the current title places the adjective in the wrong place, making it appear that this category is for MEPs from "Independent Ireland" ... which is a different set of articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron, there are multiple constituencies, but per WP:PRECISION I don't think that the extra verbosity adds any benefit to readers, since the shorter form creates no ambiguity. THE European Parliament itself doesn't use such language. See e.g.
  1. List of MEPs for Ireland: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search/advanced?name=&groupCode=&countryCode=IE&constituency=&bodyType=ALL
  2. One of my MEPs: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28115/MAIREAD_MCGUINNESS/home
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 6 May 2020 (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.

Category:The Max Weinberg 7 members

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: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy
@Armbrust, a copy of the oppose at speedy would help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:  Done Armbrust The Homunculus 17:16, 3 May 2020 (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.

Category:Nurses from London

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of Category:English nurses. However not all nurses from London are English. Does this require a rename, or re-catrgoisation, or renaming the parent? Applies to sister categories, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to resolve this is to rename all the people-by-nationality categories to "people from CountryName" e.g.
That would be huge exercise, and it would also mean a slight change of scope, due to the quirks of nationality and citizenship laws. A child born in Zimbabwe and raised there by two German parents is legally German, but is not from Germany. A child born in Germany to two Zimbabwean parents is from Germany, but may not be legally German. And so on.
Commons uses "people of Foo" (e.g. Commons:Category:People of Ireland and Commons:Category:Politicians of Argentina), which is slightly fuzzier than "from".
I think that a change to the "people of" format would in principle be an improvement, but also that in practice it's not helpful, because implementing it would be an absolutely massive undertaking. It would involve renaming hundreds of thousands of categories, redesigning thousands of templates, and manually editing tens of thousands of pages to reflect the changes to those templates. I don't think that such a mammoth task would be a wise use of so much editors' time and energy, esp since every possible formulation brings its own fuzziness and aonmalies.
However, if anyone does want to pursue this issue, then it should be done by a heavily-advertised RFC ... and not by singling out one category at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we think there is a problem it's actually with the country categories, which claim to be based on nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, @Rathfelder; the country categories are fine. The naming of e.g. Category:Thailand and Category:Bolivia presents no problem.
The issue under discussion is that the people-by-nationality categories use a naming format which has a slightly different scope to the purely geographical basis of the categories for people-by-sub-national area. The gap is trivial in many cases, but more significant where the topic involves high levels of migration.
I meant the people-by-nationality categories. Most of them contain plenty of people who probably weren't citizens of the country. And for many countries they contain sub-categories relating to places which were not always in the country. But I think I agree that we have to live with these anomalies. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that much of the commentary here has over-sweated this issue. Per WP:CAT, the primary purpose of en.wp categories is for navigation. The categories have never set out to be a perfect Linnean classification system, and there are many many way in which they fail to meet that standard. I don't see any way in which resolving this minor anomaly would assist navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I agree with your comments that fixing this could be both a nightmare and a fool's errand - however, I do think this should be discussed given the WP:BLP issues. Perhaps even including a statement on the categories pages defining what "Fooish people" is understood to mean. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: A centralized would be preferable to ad hoc ones as each category comes up and the resolution will depend on who shows up that for 10 days' of discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlossuarez46: this is not a regular occurrence. There have been previous objections to the demonyms, but I don't recall any previous instance of the anomaly being raised at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 6 May 2020 (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.

Category:Raja Rao Award

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#Category:Raja Rao Award

Category:Grand Prix du Roman winners

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: nomination withdrawn. bibliomaniac15 19:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Prix du Roman winners
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Prix de Rome was a long running French scholarship to send students to Rome to study the arts. Since the program ran from 1663 to 1968, the exact form evolved from stipends to apprentice with great artists to more formal college tuition payments. While the articles tend to mention the award in the early life sections, the people in this category are notable for what they did later in life so it doesn't seem defining. The winners (many of them redlinks) are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
You know what, I think you're right and I described the wrong award and went through the winners of that award. (It was in good faith however because this category name doesn't match a main article name, have a header, or a main article.) Nonetheless, my observation about the articles still holds true: it is mentioned in passing in the body of the articles and doesn't seem defining. (Certainly rename to Category:Grand Prix du roman de l'Académie française winners if kept.) Tagging prior iVotes to ensure consensus: @Marcocapelle and BrownHairedGirl: RevelationDirect (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The correction of head article doesn't alter my assessment that the award is non-defining. I checked the new title on a sample of articles (as I did with the first title), and it's mostly mentioned low down the page. I see no sign of it being defining in the way that a Booker or Nobel would be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction! I had no doubt it was in good faith. I agree that the main article should be linked or placed in the category, and that "Académie française" should be in the name of the category. Place Clichy (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here, do you favor renaming the category to match the main article? RevelationDirect (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to that. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - please ping participants when this happens. Given you are at 2:2 after a week, you might not want to bother. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (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.

Category:Women Brewers

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. Definite consensus to rename, but the ultimate fate of the category may be a topic for another discussion. bibliomaniac15 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Women Brewers to Category:Women brewers
Nominator's rationale: Fuddle (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to CSD G6. Fuddle (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: You are correct: Thanks for correcting my "correction"! RevelationDirect (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent categories per User:Peterkingiron and WP:OCEGRS, as an unrelated intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that women brewers is itself an independent topic per WP:OCEGRS? Unless there is some, I inclined to support merging this into the subcategories--User:Namiba 19:05, 8 May 2020 (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.

Category:Association football central defenders

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: procedural close. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions was just closed against this proposal. It is inappropriate to raise the same propsal less than an hour of that close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Association football central defenders to Category:Association football centre-backs
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at WikiProject Football (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). The rationale for using hyphenation can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?. The use of "central defender" yields over 1 million results on Google, while "centre-back" almost 12 million. The use of "centre-back" is ubiquitous among the football community, "central defender" seems to be more of an American preference. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [1] 15:23, 20 April 2020: Nehme1499 creates the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions was opened by
  2. [2] 00:57, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 closes that discussion as "keep".
  3. [3] 00:58, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 list the categories at WP:CFDW#Retain, so that the bot will untag the categories.
  4. [4]: 01:17, 3 May 2020‎ JJMC89 bot III untags Category:Association football central defenders
  5. [5] 01:37, 3 May 2020‎ Nehme1499 retags the category for a new CFD
  6. [6] 01:39, 3 May 2020 Nehme1499 creates this new discussion.
In other words, Nehme1499 waited only 20 minutes after the closure of their failed nomination before trying again. (That's why the bot removed the new tag; Nehme1499 cted so fast that the entry hadn't even been removed from WP:CFDW#Retain).
In that new nomination, Nehme1499 didn't even mention the fact that there had been a previous nomination by them of exactly the same proposal had just been closed, let alone link to it ... never mind explain why they brought the same proposal back to CFD after only 20 minutes.
Nehme1499 did this with all three of the categories which they had previously nominated unsuccessfully. None of them mentioned the previous CFD, but all of them mentioned un-notified, poorly-attended discussions on a WikiProject talk page, with links obscured so that many editors missed them. And then Nehme1499 let the discussion for 24 hours without mentioning the previous discussion.
I don't recall ever seeing such blatant forum-shopping in my 14 years at CFD. I wanted to AGF that it was an error made through lack of competence, but Nehme1499's enthusiasm for link to the WikiProject discussions makes AGF unsustainable: Nehme1499 knew well the significance of linking to prev discussions when they thought those links might help their case, but omitted the links which would have exposed their attempt to WP:GAME the system. the ruse was spotted only 18 hours later[7] by GiantSnowman
This is outrageous, so I will now take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 4 May 2020 (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.

Category:Association football fullbacks

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: procedural close. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions was just closed against this proposal. It is inappropriate to raise the same propsal less than an hour of that close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Association football fullbacks to Category:Association football full-backs
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at WikiProject Football (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). The rationale for using hyphenation can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:02, 3 May 2020 (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.

Category:Association football wing halves

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: procedural close. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions was just closed against this proposal. It is inappropriate to raise the same propsal less than an hour of that close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Association football wing halves to Category:Association football wing-halves
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at WikiProject Football (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). The rationale for using hyphenation can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:02, 3 May 2020 (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.

Category:Universities and colleges in Belthangady taluka

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. bibliomaniac15 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Universities and colleges in Belthangady already exists. "Taluka" is not mentioned in any of the articles in the category. Fuddle (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belthangady apparently has a population of 7,635 and both members of the category are already in Category:Schools in Dakshina Kannada district. TSventon (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2020 (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.
More