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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Black slave owners in the United States to Category:African-American slave owners

Nominator's rationale: C2C was opposed because the main page name is Black slave owners in the United States. It think we should rename it to reflect that slaveowner categories use nationality, not country Mason (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle and Gonnym: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Mason (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, we normally categorize by ethnicity rather than by skin color. The article should be moved too, I guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2023 (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) HouseBlaster^talk 13:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fagiano Okayama Next (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the main article and a subcategory. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this ping was for @Aidan721 Mason (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 19:09, 24 November 2023 (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 and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters by sexual orientation to Category:Fictional LGBT characters
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional LGBT men
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional LGBT women

Nominator's rationale: merge, simplification of the category tree such that fictional gay men, lesbians and bisexuals can be found directly under Category:Fictional LGBT characters as one would expect. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all Including all subcategories of the male and female categories to Category:Fictional LGBT characters and its subcategories. Categorizing by gender feels unnecessary, even potentially insulting given the context. I simply think that only one category is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand you correctly, you propose to also upmerge Category:Fictional bisexual men, Category:Fictional bisexual women, Category:Fictional transgender men, and Category:Fictional transgender women. I would be neutral about bisexuals and would oppose transgenders, so I suggest you nominate these in a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2023 (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:Fictional superhumans by ability. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate other superpowers to Category:Fictional superhumans by ability

Nominator's rationale: Pointless extra category layer, merge per WP:NARROWCAT. An alternative target is Category:Fictional characters who use magic (isn't copying powers in itself a form of magic? Is negating magic, magic in itself?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. And this isn't even necessarily a magic power. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I disagree about the proposal to merge to the magic category, but agree with Marcocapelle that this layer is too small. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:32, 1 December 2023 (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: No consensus There's slightly more support than opposition for two different incompatible merges here (one of which is labeled "restructure"), which prevents either from having sufficient consensus to implement despite 6 weeks of discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors to Category:Women from the Holy Roman Empire and Category:Royalty of the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. per nom Mason (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pretty sure there used to be articles in this category when I made it.★Trekker (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @StarTrekker: I suspect those articles have all been subcategorized into the fairly rich category tree under the one subcategory referenced by Marcocapelle. BD2412 T 18:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. That category has "Holy Roman Empresses" as a parent category, but it doesn't take into account that not all wives of men who became Holy Roman Emperors were empresses.★Trekker (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restructure. This contains one subcategory that contain further subcategories (such as Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors by person) that should really be direct subcategories of this category. BD2412 T 18:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or restructure?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) I see the merit of restructuring. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, to clarify, you suggest moving the subcategories of the sole subcategory up a level? Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors by person should be merged to Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors. I see no reason to keep it as a separate tree. I gather that the "Wives of" category is a subcategory of a Category:Holy Roman Empresses, and I don't know if there is some distinction where there are wives of Holy Roman Emperors who were not therefore Empresses, or Empresses who were not wives of Emperors, but that can be hashed out. BD2412 T 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, Okay, I think the best way to carry this nomination forward would be to close this one as procedural close and then start a new nomination for that. Do you have any problems with that? Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we ask Smasongarrison what they think? Perhaps we can resolve this in the current discussion. BD2412 T 17:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with doing that. Mason (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors by person to allow it to be merged as a result of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, we can merge Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors and Category:Holy Roman Empresses, IMHO it doesn't particularly matter which. However we should keep Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors by person as an important part of a larger category structure, as a category of Category:Wives by person. PatGallacher (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2023 (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:Fictional martial artists by type. In my capacity as an individual editor, I will manually move Voldo and M. Bison from Category:Fictional Asian martial arts practitioners into Category:Fictional male martial artists as after a merge they would be in a container category. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional Asian martial arts practitioners to Category:Fictional martial artists
• Propose merging Category:Fictional European martial arts practitioners to Category:Fictional martial artists
• Propose merging Category:Fictional South American martial arts practitioners to Category:Fictional martial artists

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer of overcategorization made by a blocked user. Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If these categories get merged, shouldn't they be moved to Category:Fictional martial artists by type instead? AHI-3000 (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems very reasonable. The subcategories should be there anyway, regardless whether the merge goes ahead or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, shouldn't it also be merged to Category:Fictional Asian people etc.? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Don't merge to fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality, since that is distinct from the origin of the type of martial arts they practice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, Category:Fictional martial artists by type is the better target for obvious reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge per nom. Mason (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2023 (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 with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated.. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional machete fighters to Category:Fictional knife-fighters

Nominator's rationale: Obvious WP:SMALLCAT situation, with the potential for expansion slim. I'm not really sure it would even fall under "swordfighters" so I am only proposing a merge to one of the parent categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now without objection to recreation of the category when more articles are created. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2023 (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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers by franchise to Category:Fictional psychics by franchise
• Propose renaming Category:DC Comics characters who have mental powers to Category:DC Comics psychics
• Propose renaming Category:Marvel Comics characters who have mental powers to Category:Marvel Comics psychics
• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers by medium to Category:Fictional psychics by medium
• Propose renaming Category:Anime and manga characters who have mental powers to Category: Anime and manga psychics
• Propose renaming Category:Comics characters who have mental powers to Category: Comics characters who are psychics
• Propose renaming Category:Video game characters who have mental powers to Category:Video game characters who are psychics

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 12#Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers. I have tried to match the target names to their contents or siblings. Suggestions for better names are welcome. – Fayenatic London 15:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename AHI-3000 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: if these renames are not approved, then reverse the direction of the previous merge, i.e. rename and redirect Category:Fictional psychics to Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. I am not really sure about the naming of the last few categories but they should absolutely be renamed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per nom. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 23 November 2023 (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: keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ornamental grass

Nominator's rationale: This is a clear cut case of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as pretty much every grass is used by someone, somewhere as an ornamental grass. Brand new category added today. I have already contacted the creator. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: the category contains a number of taxa (Acorus gramineus and Carex spp.) which are not grasses. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed the category because the creator added it to Equisetum hyemale, which is not even a flowering plant. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I copied the discussion from my page, I don’t know how to transfer it into a template.

• I am not outraged. It was simply the first one that came to my attention. I have previously nominated Category:Blue flowers for deletion, not because I was looking for something to delete, but because it came to my attention and it looked like a problem.

  I completely disagree that the intersection of "Ornamental plants" and "Herbaceous plant" = Ornamental grasses. Not all herbaceous plants are grasses. Herb =/= grass.

  Also, I don't know what you are used to, but I consider it rude for you to copy in the comment I made on your talk page here. Speak for yourself and make it clear when you are quoting someone. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornamental_grass#Classifications : "Along with true grasses (Poaceae), several other families of grass-like plants are typically marketed as ornamental grasses."

  Equisetum hyemale — ornamental grass from the point of view of landscape design.

  Equisetum hyemale — is solding in garden centers as an ornamental grass. Afanasovich (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because something is marketed or has been classified as something does not mean that it should categorized that way in Wikipedia. We don't have a Category:Housewares even though it is quite common for retailers to classify goods that way. In addition there is a double meaning with grass, which botanically is just Poaceae. This is just like Category:Blue flowers, the criteria for inclusion are subjective and therefore it should not exist. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The color of a flower is a visual characteristic that is important for images, not for an encyclopedia article. That's why Category:Blue flowers exists on Wikimedia Commons, which deals with images.

  Encyclopedic articles about plant taxa largely contain a Use section. So horticulture is a significant criterion for classifying an article about plants, and not just classification according to Wikispecies. If only a botanical, geobotanical and taxonomic description is essential for plants, then it may be worth eliminating the Use section. But I suspect that among Wikipedia users there are no less gardeners than scientific botanists. Afanasovich (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lavateraguy Carex spp. are classified as Ornamental grasses by the RHS, ProvenWinners — too.

  I understand perfectly well that this is not a grass from the point of view of taxon classification, but still, ornamental plants are an area of horticulture, not botanical classification. And what kind of authorities are needed here? I can look for other manufacturers of planting materials or societies of gardeners and associations of landscape designers. Afanasovich (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, this is a major horticultural category. Readers use it. Consider the similar Category:Plants used in bonsai. Are they bad and deserve to be deleted because moronic lay people don't understand the purity of taxonomy? The nominator should withdraw this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I added a template around the quote so it would be easier to read. Mason (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's not subjective if it's limited to plants described as ornamental in WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is clearly a concept in horticulture, as seen on the mentioned Royal Horticultural Society page and presumably a large number of other sources. Whether it should be a category is not the same decision. I'm somewhat leaning toward the view that being an ornamental grass is WP:NONDEFINING and thus not a very good category. (I would not say it is too subjective to be a category, as there would appear to be gardening books and the like which meet WP:RS and would give sufficient clarity). Kingdon (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is a horticulture and landscape design concept, and there are authorities and eccyclopedias in this industry.

  For example:

  Rick Darke. The Encyclopedia of Grasses for Livable Landscapes;

  Roger Grounds. Choosing and Using These Ornamental Plants in the Garden

  Piet Oudolf. Planting the Natural Garden

  Beth Chatto. The Dry Garden

  Gertrude Jekyll and Tom Stuart-Smith did not determine by divination on a crystal ball or in the astral state whether the grass was decorative or not. The cultivar must be stable, not self-seeding, not have creeping rhizomes, be aesthetically attractive, and not destroy other cultivated plants and other qualities. Afanasovich (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (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: redirect to Category:Accounting standards. Despite the procedural irregularities (which nom is advised to avoid in the future), consensus is in favor of the actions they took. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Financial reporting standards to Category:Accounting standards

Nominator's rationale: They are synonymous as financial reporting is part of the accounting process and the end product of accounting are financial statements.
American Accounting Association (AAA) defined accounting as "the process of identifying, measuring and communicating economic information to permit informed judgments and decisions by users of the information." The difference between the two terms is purely nominal. Pre-2001, the standards issued by IASC are called "International Accounting Standards" (IAS). Post-2001, the standards issued by the succeeding IASB are entitled "International Financial Reporting Standards" (IFRS). Seanetienne (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, so merge and redirect. 15:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Category has been emptied by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I removed Category:International Financial Reporting Standards as a sub-cat. The fact that Category:Accounting Standards has all this category's content but not vice versa further proves my point that this cat is redundant. Seanetienne (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, Seanetienne, since this category is empty, this discussion on a Merge is moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Liz for your explanation. I made this proposal because my previous attempt was reverted for being discussed. With evacuation being another route I feel safe now to proceed further work. Seanetienne (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (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/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ninja Warrior (franchise) contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:American Ninja Warrior contestants to Category:Contestants on American game shows
• Propose merging Category:Australian Ninja Warrior contestants to Category:Contestants on Australian game shows
• Propose merging Category:Ninja Warrior UK contestants to Category:Contestants on British game shows
• Propose merging Category:Sasuke (TV series) contestants to Category:Contestants on Japanese game shows

Nominator's rationale: Clearly fails WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 13:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Marcocapelle: do you have a merge target in mind for Category:Ninja Warrior (franchise) contestants? HouseBlaster^talk 13:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @HouseBlaster: no, after the four subcategories are merged the parent category will be empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2023 (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) HouseBlaster^talk 13:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rugby union players' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Rugby league players wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Following discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 11#Category:Wives and girlfriends of association football players, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Category:Gaelic footballers' wives and girlfriends, and a few others at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 3 it seems clear that consensus is against these categories, so the below should follow suit. --woodensuperman 11:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, trivial characteristic, mostly only mentioned in passing. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2023 (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:Western film series navigational boxes with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated.. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Neo-Western film series navigational boxes to Category:Western film series navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for now, without objection to recreation of the category when more navboxes are created. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: nom's rationale given for merging is WP:SMALLCAT, which is deprecated (no longer backed by community consensus) as of Oct 2023. But I would also raise the issue that unlike some other potential subgenres, the neo-Western subgenre is different enough from its parent category to warrant subcategorization. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Butlerblog: the category is not helpful for easy navigation though. The parent category also contains only a few navboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a matter of opinion with which I happen to disagree; otherwise, I would not have opposed. I actually find it helpful as a subcat. Further, and to reiterate, the nom is based on a deprecated guideline. It is no longer backed by community consensus and was demoted to WP:HISTORICAL with no replacement (meaning, it was not superseded by another/new guideline). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 23:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for now. per Marcocapelle.Mason (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2023 (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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with immortality to Category:Fictional immortals

Nominator's rationale: Shift to a more defining name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and also propose renaming these subcategories:

Category:Comics characters with immortality to Category:Fictional immortals in comics

Category:DC Comics characters with immortality to Category:DC Comics immortals

Category:Marvel Comics characters with immortality to Category:Marvel Comics immortals

AHI-3000 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose this either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The meaning is identical, but a shortened title is better. Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging secondary nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support shorter is better since it does not change the meaning. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fictional … in comics" sounds redundant, so I suggest either Category:Immortals in comics or (better?) Category:Comics characters who are immortal. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, "fictional" is redundant in combination with "in comics". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are Non-fiction comics out there, not many but they do exist. It's not in fact redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, fair point, but in combination with immortals I can't imagine any non-fiction here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Biologically immortal species do exist. While it may be a stretch that there would be a comic about, say, Blanding's turtle or Naked mole-rats, it's still something that could conceivably exist. Being an immortal is not an entirely fictional power, just one that humans do not have. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Biological immortality isn't immortality at all, in the sense we normally understand the concept of immortality. It is just a lack of ageing symptoms. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I have seen many "immortals" in fiction who have been killed by other people, even if they do not naturally age or die. (For example, most stories where someone ventures out to kill a god). Immortal does not automatically mean invulnerable or omnipotent. I would indeed call a character immortal even if they were only so from a biological sense in a totally non-magical story. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 24 November 2023 (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:Haitian emigrants to the United States. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Haitian emigrants to insular areas of the United States to Category:Haitian emigrants to the United States

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now as this category doesn't help with navigation. Mason (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 23 November 2023 (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: keep. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Massacres committed by Latter Day Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Misuse of PROD; concern was:

There really doesn't need a category signaling out a religion like this, especially when there isn't any similar pages for other faiths like Catholicism and Islam. It just reeks of someone having an ax to grind
— User:Randomuser335S 2023-11-23 03:53:29

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary I would argue that Catholic and Muslim and similar sibling categories would be very welcome. Unfortunately, too much violence in history was committed by religious groups. Some of these categories already exist, although less explicit, e.g. Category:Anti-Muslim violence in India. If the nominated category is not kept, it should at least be merged rather than deleted, in order for the articlesto stay in the tree of religious violence and in the tree of Latter Day Saints. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good points, but the odd thing about that category was that the user who created it also made the "Native American massacres committed by Latter Day Saints" sub category. My problem with that is that have been far more incidents of Native American massacre and abuse incidents from perpetrators of other dominations, like the Californian Genocide, the Spanish mass killings of the Tainos, the King Philips war massacres, etc., and yet they don't have a specific category for them. This might be a very clumsy analogue, but it came across to me that they were fussing about their car's back window scratched while ignoring the burning engine. Incidents involving the LDS church are just a drop in the bucket in the history of European colonization of the Americas, while the category's creator is trying to make like it's an entire ocean.

  The person has also made several hardline claims in one of the linked pages (the Akiens massacre to be more specific) that more then a little off putting to me. For some context, the Akiens massacre was an incident when 6 Californian travelers were detained by Mormon militiamen during the "Utah War" standoff with the federal army, and were later murdered in unclear and suspicious circumstances. The person pushed the notion that the killings were directly ordered by the Brigham LDS president and territory of Utah governor. Although I've fleetingly heard of this incident before, I've never read of anything of that being reaffirmed as an undisputed fact by credible sources.

  They citied some sources to back their edits, but unfortunately those were mostly rare, out of print, books and subscription walled academic sites, and thus were almost completely inaccessible to me. Given how the Akiens incident has been over shadowed by the much more well known Mountain Meadows Massacre and has been mostly buried in the depths of time, it was a bit difficult finding anything beyond a handful of mormon dissident forums and the occasional apologist website.

  Going on a side tangent, the history of the LDS church can be quite frustrating to research. It is a very niche topic in the mainstream world, and tends to be dominated by two bitterly competing schools of thought. One is its' adherents trying to protect the church's reputation at all costs, while the other are the critics campaigning to subversive every LDS narrative. Both sides don't have any qualms with twisting the records to their own ends, and thus the truth is often garbled in the crossfire.

  Overall, the user has a clear point of view they are trying to promote, which in my opinion goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Randomuser335S (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the suggestions of Randomuser335S I have up-merged the "Category:Massacres of Native Americans by Latter Day Saints‎" into the main "Category:Massacres committed by Latter Day Saints" as it's already a smaller category without the Native American subcategory. Additionally, I have improved the Aiken massacre article stub with better citations and wording for improved verifiability, NPOV, and citation access and modernity. Thank you for bringing those areas for improvement to my attention. Feel free to make improvements to it as well. Please refer to that specific article's talk page for further suggestions as this thread should focus on the discussion of the broader category.

  For future Wikipedia improvements on the topic of massacres I would love to see Randomuser335S create the articles and subcategories on incidents of Native American massacres and abuse incidents from perpetrators of other denominations. I think that would be a very valuable addition to Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for spearheading that effort. I think them not currently existing is more an argument for the importance of them being created rather than showing that the reliably sourced and documented murders of hundreds of innocent people at the hands of Mormon groups are a mere "window scratch" I'm "fussing" over. I think those people's lives mattered enough for Wikipedia even if Randomuser335S considers them just "a drop in a bucket".

  In summary, I don't think "Category:Massacres committed by FARC" or "Category:Massacres committed by the Tigray Defense Forces" should be deleted or considered insignificant either, and those exist at the same category level. I would argue that "Category:Massacres committed by Latter Day Saints" is a useful navigation category given the number of documented instances, and that a future "Category:Massacres committed by Roman Catholics" and similar categories as proposed by Randomuser335S would be valuable additions. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who worked on the Battle at Fort Utah page, I think it's fair to have a category about violence perpetrated by Latter Day Saints. I am not trying to diminish or excuse the violence against indigenous peoples, but the reason that the page is called Battle at Fort Utah instead of Massacre at Fort Utah is because the Timpanogos were able to fight back. While I would think that bows vs. guns would be called a massacre, the consensus I found in the literature was that it was a "battle." So because there is a technical definition of "massacre," I wonder if the category would be more useful with a slightly changed name. Also, I work in the BYU library and I'm happy to help spot-check sources. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2023 (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 both to Category:Formerly open-source or free software, without prejudice against a speedy rename if the list gets renamed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license to Category:Formerly free software

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a WP:OVERLAPCAT with no reason to exist separately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Formerly open-source or free software, per List of formerly open-source or free software. - jc37 15:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37: I disagree, as open-source already implies the software is free. I think the list should instead be moved to List of formerly free software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Name of the article: Free and open-source software. I'm not an expert in these things, but my understanding isthat there's a difference between free software and free-to-license software. See also: Open-source software#Free software and Comparison of free and open-source software licenses. - jc37 19:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the cat, but I'm now not sure it was a good idea. I seem to remember also creating a cat for Category:Permissively-licensed software converted to a copyleft license (e.g. Friendica), and vice-versa, Category:Copyleft software converted to a permissive license (e.g. Mycroft AI). We have Category:Free software by license and Category:Software by license; I'd like to also cat it by license transition (Category:Software by license transitions).

We have Category:Formerly free software and Category:Formerly proprietary software. I'm with jc37 on the ambiguous meaning of "free". Software can be "free" but proprietary (using it does not cost money), and "open-source" but proprietary and not free (you can see the source code, but copying it is illegal and using it may cost money). I'd prefer using unambiguous categories of license: copyleft, permissive, and proprietary is the main division.

But we already have a Wikipedia-cat definition of "free" software, given at Category:Free software. So we can subcategorize "free" into copyleft and permissive licenses.

So... I suggest we merge and subdivide. We subdivide the huge Category:Formerly proprietary software into Category:Proprietary software converted to a permissive license and Category:Proprietary software converted to a copyleft license. Likewise, Category:Formerly free software and Category:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license could be merged and have subcats Category:Copyleft software converted to a proprietary license and Category:Permissively-licensed software converted to a proprietary license,

HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intellectual property has been notified. They or a similar project may know more about this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both per jc37. Qwerfjkltalk 22:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Formerly free software to allow it to be renamed as a result of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:44, 23 November 2023 (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: Reverse merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Greek Orthodox Christians from Lebanon to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Lebanon

Nominator's rationale: merge, the vast majority of Lebanese Eastern Orthodox Christians is "Greek Orthodox", it is foolish to have them dispersed among two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge or keep. It is defining enough for Greek Orthodox people to be left in the Greek Orthodox category tree, especially parents Category:Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and Category:Greek Orthodoxy by country. I recon that content is spread kinda arbitrarilly between the two. A downmerge could help, but I don't feel strongly about it. Place Clichy (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "I recon that content is spread kinda arbitrarilly between the two." That is exactly my point. A downmerge may be inaccurate in case there is incidentally one or two non-Greek Orthodox people among them, so I prefer upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's actually unlikely, besides the occasional error (I found an article for a contemporary Oriental Orthodox in the Eastern Orthodox category). (Eastern) Orthodox Churches are territorial, and present-day Lebanon belongs to the territory of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch since the earliest Christian times. Despite the fact that the terms Greek, Orthodox and Greek Orthodox have slipped in meaning with time, Christians there are Greek, in the sense that they use Greek texts for liturgy, since the Septuagint and the Gospel were written in that language, and continuously. If there are other Orthodox Christians there, e.g. Russian Orthodox, they wouldn't be from Lebanon. I wouldn't say the same for e.g. church buildings or monasteries, because you sometimes have foreign churches, but that's the case for people. I'm browsing the category right now to see if there's an exception. Place Clichy (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 13:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At least some sort of merging needs to happen, either as nominated or reverse. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Lebanon to allow for a reverse merge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:34, 23 November 2023 (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.