Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 10

: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 but purge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Film post-production to :Category:Film production

:Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for the vast majority of categories. It's not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as it has a lead article Post-production and IMHO is defining to sufficient articles as well as subcat {{c|Television and film post-production companies‎}}. I have also added {{cat|Dubbing (filmmaking)‎}}. Just purge it a little, e.g. 180-degree rule and Shot/reverse shot are choices during filming, not post, and are appropriately categorised in {{c|Film editing}}. – Fayenatic London 06:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and purge per Fayenatic london - jc37 12:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and gently purge Having once had a toe in this world, I think it is different from general film & technology. :Category:Television and film post-production companies should certainly be kept. Examples of articles for which it is not defining, please, and why? Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 in the updated nomination. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:1816 in Algeria to :Category:19th century in the Regency of Algiers and :Category:1816 in Africa

:* Propose deleting :Category:1810s in Algeria (added 11 Sept)

:Nominator's rationale: dual merge, isolated single-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::Support per nom Mason (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: it's not completely isolated, as there are categories from :Category:1830s in Algeria onwards. Nevertheless I have tagged the 1810s category for deletion and added it to the nom. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Yes, the number of articles increases with the colonization by France starting in 1830. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Barbary pirates to :Category:Barbary piracy

:Nominator's rationale: rename, for clarification that this category is not for biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Support, but I'd like to keep the child category disambiguated Barbary pirates (people)‎ to reduce potential confusion. Mason (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, as Barbary pirates is the main article and the only natural name. This proposal feels unnecessary to me; there are other categories where categories have subcats using "(people)" or other qualifiers; we do not disambiguate the head category in all such cases, and they just need occasional maintenance to diffuse the contents. But if this is carried, then leave a disambiguation category at the old page name. – Fayenatic London 06:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:British people of the Barbary Wars to :Category:People of the Barbary Wars

:Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• No objection, as the subcat is already in Navy subcats of the other parents :Category:British people by war and :Category:19th-century British people. – Fayenatic London 06:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Enpun}}

:Nominator's rationale: Not clear how this is a helpful redirect. Delete it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, there isn't a Enpun redirect either. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, as the category creator did not indicate the rationale for the redirect when creating it, and is now blocked. – Fayenatic London 06:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 all to :Category:Fictional characters who use magic. The consensus is rough, but a "no consensus, keep the status quo" outcome would please no one. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Fictional witches and wizards}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:XY redirect which should be deleted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::Keep :Category:Fictional witches and wizards, and instead Merge :Category:Fictional witches and :Category:Fictional wizards into :Category:Fictional witches and wizards. The distinction isn't always clear, not even by gender, as the term "witch" has been applied to males, and "wizard" to females. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Seems unnecessary; nobody will look at this first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly the categories can be merged, but while that has not happened (yet) the redirect is not meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• {{ping|AHI-3000}} this could have been a {{tl|category disambiguation}} page rather than having two contradictory redirects, but as there is no parent :Category:Witches and wizards, delete. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• UpMerge all (including :Category:Fictional druids and :Category:Fictional necromancers) to :Category:Fictional characters who use magic. As noted at Magician (fantasy), these titles or appellations are typically applied subjectively in fairy tales or by modern authors. These are better handled as lists so that such differences in tone, theme, and meaning can be explained - something not possible in merely adding them to categories. Feel free to "category redirect" them all.- jc37 12:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Upmerge all per Jc37. These terms are often used interchangeably, or each author has their own private definition. For example, in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, wizards are men, and, yes, witches are women, but they use different types of magic—a man who uses witch's magic is a warlock. And this is completely different from probably any other author's magic system, which in turn is completely different from another's. Discrete categories for witches/wizards/druids/sorcerers/etc. are not useful here. Cremastra (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Jc37 and Cremastra raise good points. I would add that druids (for example) in one universe might share little except the name with druids from another universe – running afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME. Which, in my opinion, leaves us with two good options (for ease of reference, I will stick with the druids example):
• #We could rename the categories to be more generic. For instance, while :Category:Fictional druids is problematic, :Category:Fictional characters who use nature magic is more objective and less SHARENAMEy.
• #We could upmerge them.
• Do others have thoughts on these ideas? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Some careful renaming could help, but I fear that "nature magic" (to continue your example) is too fuzzy and would lead to categorization fights down the road. Cremastra (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note that :Category:Fictional witches and :Category:Fictional wizards have not been tagged so far. I will do that now and I do not have any objections to the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• : I tagged druids and necromancers as well. As noted at necromancy the term is just Black magic (necro/black, mancy/magic) - "Black magic has traditionally referred to the use of supernatural powers or magic for evil and selfish purposes." - "evil" is actually listed as an example at WP:SUBJECTIVECAT... - jc37 04:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Superintendent ranks in police}}

:Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary small category, completely superfluous to :Category:Police ranks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::Support per nom. Mason (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Korean companies established in 1999 to :Category:South Korean companies established in 1999

:Nominator's rationale: Scope overlap, only one page in it, imprecise title (only page in it is South Korean company) seefooddiet (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Professional certifications in computer engineering to :Category:Information technology qualifications

:Nominator's rationale: narrow intersection that's not particularly defining for either page Mason (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Arabian slaves and freedmen to :Category:Arab slaves and freedmen

:Nominator's rationale: rename, as far as I know "Arabian" is used in conjunction with Arabian Peninsula and Arabian language, but in most other cases it is Arab. It should actually be slaves of Arabs rather than Arab slaves (e.g. a number of articles in sub:Category:Moroccan slaves are about Europeans) but that is a problem that probably applies to all :Category:Slaves by nationality subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support (as category creator) but use "freedmen" rather than "freedman" – that was probably a typo. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Thank you, I have corrected it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Organisation headquarters in the United Kingdom to :Category:Headquarters in the United Kingdom

:Nominator's rationale: Mason (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge, of what else than an organisation should they be headquarters of. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Organization headquarters to :Category:Headquarters

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Are there non organizational headquarters? Mason (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge, of what else than an organisation should they be headquarters of. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. No additional merge targets are applicable. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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: withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Amniotic sac to :Category:Body fluids

:Nominator's rationale: Do we really need a category for the amniotic sac? Mason (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – with 6 member articles and multiple parents, this seems useful. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Thanks for adding better parents! Mason (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::{{yo|Smasongarrison}} are you withdrawing your nomination? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::Sure! Mason (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fetal membranes to :Category:Embryology

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, there is only one subcategory in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, new category that does not seem useful. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 all. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:1384 establishments in Italy to :Category:14th century in Italy and :Category:Medieval history of Italy

:** Propose deleting :Category:1380s establishments in Italy

:** Propose deleting :Category:1384 in Italy

:** Propose deleting :Category:1380s in Italy

:Nominator's rationale: Isolated category where the only page doesn't really need this level of specificity for establisment (Witch trials in Italy aren't really established like this) Mason (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just delete, most witch trials took place in the early modern era rather than in the middle ages (which may be surprising). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment "(which may be surprising)." Why would that be surprising? Witch trials in the early modern period were a side-effect of the European wars of religion (16th century-18th century). I mostly view them as part of Martin Luther's legacy. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete along with parents (added to nomination). – Fayenatic London 17:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The main article mentions "a high-profile case in Milan in 1384" as the earliest witch trial. Dimadick (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Even if the page counts in the category; there's still only one page in here and the category is entirely isolated. Mason (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:* The article does not say it was the first and it seems unlikely that we can verify whether it was the first. Of course when a spin-off article about that particular trial can be written it will belong in :Category:1384 in Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Aragonese ambassadors to the Byzantine Empire to :Category:Ambassadors to the Byzantine Empire and :Category:Ambassadors of Aragon

:Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, and there are unlikely to be more anytime soon. Mason (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

----

: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.