Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8

• Propose deleting Category:Cape Verde–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing no main article and no articles at all. Subcategories already exist in sufficient category trees. Empty category is unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but if so then add "see also" links between the current sub-cats British expatriates in Cape Verde and Cape Verdean expatriates in the United Kingdom, as each is the converse of the other. On the other hand, if we delete or don't create these categories for all such combinations that have any content at all, then how would we know when there is sufficient to populate them? So I think we have to keep. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I acknowledge that some cousin categories contain even less, e.g. Algeria–Bahrain relations contains only one expats subcat. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories can be created when we have sufficient content for them, not in advance. AusLondonder (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @AusLondonder: you have not addressed my point that there is no easy way to see whether multiple content exists for a particular intersection of countries. These cases are unlike ordinary sub-catting, because they draw together categories that have no common parents where we could see by inspection that there is enough for a category. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see what your point is unfortunately. As I said, we don't create or keep categories in advance of content being available to fill them. The Category:British expatriates in Cape Verde already has suitable parent categories namely Category:British expatriates and Category:Expatriates in Cape Verde. AusLondonder (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1806 in Germany to Category:1806 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1806 establishments in Germany to Category:1806 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1806 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1806 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1807 in Germany to Category:1807 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1807 establishments in Germany to Category:1807 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1807 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1807 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1808 in Germany to Category:1808 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1808 establishments in Germany to Category:1808 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1808 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1808 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1809 in Germany to Category:1809 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1809 establishments in Germany to Category:1809 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1809 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1809 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1810 in Germany to Category:1810 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1810 establishments in Germany to Category:1810 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1810 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1810 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1811 in Germany to Category:1811 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1811 establishments in Germany to Category:1811 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1811 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1811 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1812 in Germany to Category:1812 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1812 establishments in Germany to Category:1812 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1812 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1812 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1813 in Germany to Category:1813 in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1813 establishments in Germany to Category:1813 establishments in the Confederation of the Rhine
• Propose renaming Category:1813 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1813 disestablishments in the Confederation of the Rhine

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, from 1806 to 1813 Germany was called Confederation of the Rhine but it did not include Austria and Prussia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If approved then redirect them all, to aid navigation. But I am not sure that precision is helpful for such short time spans. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting is a good idea. We already have Category:Confederation of the Rhine so the proposal is consistent with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Large nomination; allowing extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Confederation of the Rhine already contains all the nominated categories, so renaming will not change the parenting and, while technically correct, IMHO it would be unnecessary. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area to Category:Warner Robins, Georgia
• Propose merging Category:Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area to Category:Nashville metropolitan area
• Propose merging Category:Port St. Lucie, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area to Category:Port St. Lucie metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Highly overlapping categories, that aren't helpful for navigation ^SMason_Garrison 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, also because it does not seem we have a complete category tree by statistical areas. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merge of Category:Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area as the target category is for the town and the metropolitan area is larger. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge of the other two. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on UnitedStatesian's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the alternative for Warner is delete. ^SMason_Garrison 12:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Boxborough, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and a redirect, not useful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the category has been populated.--User:Namiba 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Namiba's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With 5 articles and a redirect to a different article, the category now has value, and the rationale no longer applies. – Fayenatic London 12:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chemical looping technologies to Category:Carbon capture and storage

Nominator's rationale: From previous discussions and new research (from article), these specific technologies look to be chemical processes meant to act as a method of carbon capture. @DMacks I would appreciate input regarding the chemistry side — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalBear (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was some pre-discussion on my talk page about procedural stuff. Pinging participants from the previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, DMacks, and Smasongarrison. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge somewhere, a two-article category isn't great for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur that it needs to be merged somewhere. ^SMason_Garrison 00:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur: If not there, back to the original general category suggestion of Category:Chemical Process, as it would still fit that broader category ChemicalBear (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment in the United States to Category:Anti-Zionism in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Purge as well as merge. This is a new category which duplicates another and also conflates Judaism and Israel. User:Namiba 16:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose, it belongs to a wider tree under Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment so it needs broader discussion. Substantively, it may be different in other parts of the world but where I live the term Zionism is completely outdated. So I would rather lean to a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose For the time being, I don't see mention of Judaism in either category. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, not a religious movement in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Novara Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Little more than a WP:PERFCAT. Association with individuals listed is undefined, see WP:OCASSOC. --woodensuperman 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if we removed those whose association is minimal, it would include three articles.--User:Namiba 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Family of William Jennings Bryan to Category:Bryan family (United States)

Nominator's rationale: William Jennings Bryan was one of many notable family members so I think centering him is not the best way forward. It is Category:Bryan family (William Jennings Bryan family) in Wikimedia Commons. User:Namiba 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are other categories on Wikipedia named like you're proposing? ^SMason_Garrison 00:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some. See Category:Eliot family (United States) and Category:Morton family (United States).--User:Namiba 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This appears to be a fairly common formulation for categories relating to relatives or other topics concerning famous individuals, such as presidents of the United States, industrialists, etc. The proposed alternative, "Bryan family", would tend to attract unrelated persons named "Bryan" unless formulated as in Wikimedia Commons. However, that formulation seems rather pedantic—though it may well have a good reason for being so in that case, since there are probably quite a lot of photographs relating to William Jennings Bryan and his family, and it might be the product of a merger between related categories. There is no compelling reason why the corresponding category at Wikipedia needs to use the same formulation, though it may be advantageous to link the categories. The current title here is clear, concise, and logical. Let's keep it where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:20th-century French male classical pianists to Category:French male classical pianists and Category:20th-century French classical pianists and Category:20th-century French male pianists
• Propose merging Category:21st-century French women classical pianists to Category:French women classical pianists and Category:21st-century French classical pianists and Category:21st-century French women pianists
• Propose merging Category:21st-century French male classical pianists to Category:French male classical pianists and Category:21st-century French classical pianists and Category:21st-century French male pianists
• Propose merging Category:21st-century British women classical pianists to Category:British women classical pianists and Category:21st-century British classical pianists and Category:21st-century British women pianists
• Propose merging Category:20th-century German male classical pianists to Category:German male classical pianists and Category:20th-century German classical pianists and Category:20th-century German male pianists
• Propose merging Category:21st-century German male classical pianists to Category:German male classical pianists and Category:21st-century German male pianists

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse at the 5-way intersection of nationality, gender, century, instrument, and genre, especially since there isn't a FOOian-century male classical pianists or FOOian-century women classical pianists parent. ^SMason_Garrison 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I think that the last category should also be merged to Category:21st-century German classical pianists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! My apologies for missing some.^SMason_Garrison 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Even though these are 5-way intersections, 151 members means that Category:20th-century French male classical pianists is not a narrow intersection. I think this nomination needs to be expanded with the French & British C18 and C19 siblings, and those missing from C20 i.e. Category:20th-century French women classical pianists and Category:20th-century British women classical pianists. The C18 ones within Category:18th-century classical pianists are certainly WP:OCNARROW, so perhaps only those should be merged. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pleuronectiformes to Category:Pleuronectoidei

Nominator's rationale: The flatfish are now considered to be a subgroup of Carangiformes by recent sources (including Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes, which the fish wikiproject has decided to follow). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Template:Pleuronectiformes-stub to Template:Pleuronectoidei-stub

Nominator's rationale: See post above for justification. And the stub category should be moved to Category:Pleuronectoidei stubs. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional space units and formations to Category:Fictional military organizations

Nominator's rationale: Only has one actual space unit, Starfleet. The others are just fiction that happens to contain a space organization, but this fails WP:NONDEF. Depending on whether one might consider Starfleet "military", it could just be moved to Category:Fictional government agencies or Category:Fictional organizations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and merge, per nom, and the works should be removed (also if not merged). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Category:Fuji TV

• Propose merging Category:Fictional astronomical objects to Category:Fictional astronomical locations

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be somewhat redundant, no real evidence we need a category for objects specifically as it is hardly populated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This would reverse the split for which I found consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Category:Fiction about astronomical locations; courtesy ping to the nominator of that CFD, LaundryPizza03. Nom appears to be made in good faith, as the current subcats are within the other parent Category:Fiction about astronomical objects via another route. However, other contents (see [1]) had previously been removed by Jontesta and other editors: Star Trek star redirects Beta Magellan and Beta Renner (which I accept are non-notable), the neutron star Dragon's Egg, Krypton's sun Rao (comics), and the asteroid base Demons Run. I have reinstated the latter three (one article and two redirects), plus another redirect 2008 NQ17, after which the category is again more worthwhile. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There is only one article about a fictional astronomical object here. I supported the previous CFD for the rename, but the split was unnecessary and excessive. Jontesta (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Jontesta has removed the article Dragon's Egg again, since that article is in a more specific category for works of fiction; I have therefore added a redirect Dragon's Egg (neutron star) instead. This slightly weakens the case for retention. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Replying with more information, there are hundreds of articles about sci-fi novels/games/movies, but they belong in Category:Fiction about stars. I strongly disagree with duplicating those novels into redirects to justify a category without real articles. But I let the redirects stand until we decide if this category is necessary. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, a category with mainly redirects isn't helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]