Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RFC on yyyy in Foo

I've filed an edit request to change the background colour of {{tl|CfD top}} from {{color box|bff9fc|bff9fc}} to {{color box|caf0f2|caf0f2}} (or at least something similar). {{u|SWinxy}} asked that I establish consensus or at least notify users here.

{{color box|bff9fc|bff9fc}} is a lovely colour, but en masse it is somewhat... gaudy (if not "eye-searing"). Here's how a collapsed discussion currently looks:

Here's how it would look with the proposed colour change:

:(I come from WP:TPER.) The color has also struck me as quite gaudy, though this change is quite minor. There was a bold attempt at a lighter shade in 2007, as can be seen at /Log/2007 September 12. This won't update any previous closes, since the template is subst'ed. SilverLocust 💬 22:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea, per se, but if we're going to change it, I would prefer that we change it to a named web colour and not to a numeric code. - jc37 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

:And while we're at it, following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color as well. - jc37 22:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

:Well, if we're on web colours, which I agree would make sense; {{color box|Lavender|Lavender}} , {{colour box|LightCyan|LightCyan}} and {{colour box|Azure|Azure}} are probably the best options in keeping with a pale-blue theme. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

::Well, if we're only looking at those choices, I think the Azure would be too pale. It needs to show it's closed. And I think the Lavendar seems more violet than blue.

::Besides {{color box|LightCyan|LightCyan}} I suppose there's also {{color box|PaleTurquoise|PaleTurquoise}}, {{color box|PowderBlue|PowderBlue}}, {{color box|LightBlue|LightBlue}}, {{color box|SkyBlue|SkyBlue}}. The PaleTurquoise seems closest to your second closed example above. Though I'm not sure the small boxes show us clarity/contrast well enough. - jc37 00:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Good point about the small boxes. Of your suggestions above; LightBlue and SkyBlue seem too dark. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

{{userbox

| border-c = Black

| id =

| id-c = Azure

| info = This is an example of text (Azure)

| info-c = Azure

| info-fc = black

| info-s = 12

| info-op = text-align:center;

}}

{{userbox

| border-c = Black

| id =

| id-c = LightCyan

| info = This is an example of text (LightCyan)

| info-c = LightCyan

| info-fc = black

| info-s = 12

| info-op = text-align:center;

}}

{{userbox

| border-c = Black

| id =

| id-c = PaleTurquoise

| info = This is an example of text (PaleTurquoise)

| info-c = PaleTurquoise

| info-fc = black

| info-s = 12

| info-op = text-align:center;

}}

{{userbox

| border-c = Black

| id =

| id-c = PowderBlue

| info = This is an example of text (PowderBlue)

| info-c = PowderBlue

| info-fc = black

| info-s = 12

| info-op = text-align:center;

}}

{{userbox

| border-c = Black

| id =

| id-c = LightBlue

| info = This is an example of text (LightBlue)

| info-c = LightBlue

| info-fc = black

| info-s = 12

| info-op = text-align:center;

}}

{{userbox

| border-c = Black

| id =

| id-c = SkyBlue

| info = This is an example of text (SkyBlue)

| info-c = SkyBlue

| info-fc = black

| info-s = 12

| info-op = text-align:center;

}}

{{userbox

| border-c = Black

| id =

| id-c = Lavender

| info = This is an example of text (Lavender)

| info-c = Lavender

| info-fc = black

| info-s = 12

| info-op = text-align:center;

}}

I have a feeling that these colours will appear differently depending on the screen/screen type. I have little doubt that the current colours likely look ok on a CRT, but we're now in a world of flat screens, laptops, tablets and phones, among other things. - jc37 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

:I like Lavender – it is slightly purple, but I see that as a feature rather than a bug (though I am certainly biased as it is my second favorite color, after pink. {{color box|HotPink|HotPink}}, anyone?). Azure and LightCyan are a close seconds. All of the choices above are [https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/contrast-enhanced.html W3C AAA-compliant] for black text (including HotPink!). HouseBlaster^talk 03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

::Support any color that is W3C AAA-compliant and works with dark mode. Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

----

This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to {{color box|LightCyan|LightCyan}}? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this:

Courtesy pings to some CfD regulars as well as participants in the above discussion: {{yo|AHI-3000|Cremastra|Fayenatic london|Jc37|LaundryPizza03|Marcocapelle|Pppery|Qwerfjkl|SilverLocust|Smasongarrison|SWinxy|ToadetteEdit|Ymblanter|Zxcvbnm|p=.}} HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the current colour. The first proposal caf0f2 strikes me as a bit grubby, less pleasing on the eye. LightCyan is cleaner than that, on all of my devices, and I could live with it. However, it has this disadvantage: because dark mode has no effect on browser pages (or project/category pages in the Wikipedia app), I occasionally invert the colours on my tablet (triple-click on iPads), and in that presentation LightCyan, Azure and Lavender are almost indistinguishable from white, whereas the current bff9fc and caf0f2 are clearly distinct. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• :So would PaleTurquoise be closer to what you would be looking for? - jc37 01:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• :: Well, PaleTurquoise is dark enough that it shows up (as lighter) on an inverted-colour iPad. But in normal viewing, I find that blue links stand out less clearly against it than they the do against the current bff9fc. I would therefore prefer to stay put. Of course, if there's a majority in favour of change, I'll live with it; it's not a big deal to me. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• :::I'd like to see it a named colour rather than merely a value. But otherwise, as long as it meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility (and your concerns), than I'm pretty much fine any-which-way. - jc37 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

:Cremastra, this could probably do for some reconsideration with the upcoming dark mode changes. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

::Ah, yes, dark mode. Dark mode will affect the colours of all the XfD boxes, so what I'd suggest, if possible, is to have the colours be hsla (with transparency) rather than RGB so that it just tints the background. Cremastra (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

:For contrast compliance against the Vector 2022 link color: Only the current color, Azure and LightCyan reach AA compliance. I think LightCyan looks nicest in light mode, and it stands out against other XfD headers, but not as well as the current color. However, as a dark-mode editor, I find current to stand out best in dark mode.

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of AfD top (F3F9FF)| info-c = #F3F9FF| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of AfD top (F2F4FD, vector2022)| info-c = #F2F4FD| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of FfD top (F3F9FF)| info-c = #F3F9FF| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of TfD top (E3F9DF)| info-c = #E3F9DF| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of RfD top (FFEEDD)| info-c = #FFEEDD| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of RfD top (FDF2D5, vector2022)| info-c = #FDF2D5| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of MfD top (E3D2FB)| info-c = #E3D2FB| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of RM top (EEFFEE)| info-c = #EEFFEE| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of RM top (E0F2EB, vector2022)| info-c = #E0F2EB| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of DRV top (F2DFCE)| info-c = #F2DFCE| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of MRV top (E2FFE2)| info-c = #E2FFE2| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of CfD top (BFF9FC)| info-c = #BFF9FC| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of CfD top (F0FFFF, proposed)| info-c = #F0FFFF| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:{{userbox|border-c = Black| id = | id-c = Azure| info = This is an example of CfD top (E0FFFF, proposed)| info-c = #E0FFFF| info-fc = black| info-s = 12| info-op = text-align:center;}}

:
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There's a bit of a dispute here about whether a category such as :Category:Newspaper people by newspaper in New York City should be included in :Category:Journalists from New York City and the same with alumni of universities and schools and so on. Only the categories, not the articles/people, mind you. My view is that this helps in navigation. Others differ and its even led to heated exchanges. I thought I should bring this here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:Can you link to the discussion? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

::Here, here, and here are the main ones. My role is VERY recent, I would add. It only came to my attention a week or so ago by complete chance. I think it should be settled amicably rather than be brought up every few weeks in heated exchanges. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Like much of CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Just to get the ball rolling here: @Marcocapelle, @HouseBlaster, @Ymblanter, @Pppery, @Fayenatic london, @LaundryPizza03, and @Smasongarrison. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks @Omnis Scientia! I really really appreciate you taking the lead. My view is similar to Omnis, that I think we should include these categories in the People from Foo. It makes it easier to implement policy for pages. However, as you will have gathered from my conversations with @Alansohn and @Lost in Quebec, others disagree. I'd rather not add much to the conversation because I'd much rather defer to consensus. Mason (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've always been happy with the idea that alumni and sports team categories should be parented by a location category. This does not mean that every single alumnus/player is otherwise from the place, as WP:SUBCAT allows for some exceptions. At the extreme we have categories such as {{c|Manchester United F.C. players}} where perhaps only a minority were otherwise "from Manchester", but I would allow even that one in {{c|Footballers from Manchester}} because they regularly played at Old Trafford while that was their club. It's clear from the category names that the connection is only partial, but IMHO it's sufficient and useful to put that parenting in place consistently. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• {{ping|Omnis Scientia|Smasongarrison|Fayenatic london}} I also agree and would rather expand this to bishops. "Bishops of x" should be put under "people from x" too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Adding occupation categories by location only harms navigation. Whether you went to school, college or university in Foo, you worked at a job for a company located in Foo or are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Burials_at_Fairview_Cemetery_(Fairview,_New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1239826822 buried in Foo], you are not from Foo by any relevant definition. Blending connections based on education, occupation or inhumation into those based on habitation would mean the loss of a meaningful and defining distinction based on people being born or residing in that place. Alansohn (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• :But how does parenting the category harm navigation? The "loss of a meaningful and defining distinction based on people being born or residing in that place" seems to be such a narrow definition. Should bishops of FOO be removed from the city they serve? That seems inconsistent with the core feature of defining. Mason (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• :If :Category:People from New Dorp, Staten Island (which includes people actually from New York City) and :Category:Photographers from the Bronx (again, from New York City) are lumped together with :Category:Columbia University School of General Studies alumni (can be from anywhere, and not necessarily from New York City), :Category:Burials at Calvary Cemetery (Queens) (no reassume to assume a New York City connection), :Category:The New York Times journalists (who can be from anywhere in the New York City area or beyond) and :Category:New York Yankees players (who can be from around the world) are all mixed up into the parent :Category:People from New York City, then we have lost a vital and defining distinction between those people who are genuinely from New York City, and those whose only connection is that they happened to have gone to school, had a job or were buried in New York City. I don't have an immediate position on bishops, but I'm not sure that even if there is a case for including bishops that that argument would apply to anyone with a connection to a place. If there are exceptions, they should be extremely limited and made by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::Again, you are conflating categories with individual pages. The category: The New York Times journalists is clearly defined by being journalists for the New York Times. They don't need to be resides of the place. Can you please explain how the CATEGORY is harmed. Mason (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::It is harmed because there are persons in that category not from NYC.Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::Why is that harmful? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::::And how is that harm worse than the benefit to category navigation? I would think the benefit of adding the category to the tree makes it so that you can easily remove people who shouldn't be in the Journalists from FOO category. Mason (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• This one doesn't make sense, because some of these newspapers have remote offices outside of NYC. I don't see how this would be problematic in general, as long as it is accurate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• :I have to agree with those who say the journalist situation does not work. One can be a journalist writing for the k Times and never set foot in New York (city or state) in your entire life. Hell, foreign correspondents might never even set foot in the United States. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::I agree that people shouldn't be added to the journalists from FOO category if they're never been affiliated. But does the category itself require it? Mason (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• :You can work in one place and live somewhere totally different. In a tightly packed urban area, they do I'd bet large sums of money on. Ever heard of the LIRR? It takes people from NYC out to their Suffolk and Nassau County homes by the thousands every working day. BTW the NP criteria[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Notable_people] says born, or lived in. Not worked, died, buried. Journalists for the NYT wouldn't qualify for a List of New York City people article just on the basis of where they work. Then why does a NYT journalists category page have 'People from New York City' on it. Doesn't that sound contradictory?Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::@Lost in Quebec Please stop reverting. You've never addressed the concerns raised here. Mason (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::I've replied here twice. You don't like the answers. Working somewhere or going to college doesn't automatically make the person from there. How many editors do you need to be told that by? Alan Sohn, Johnpacklambert, blueboar, LaundryPizza. Not to mention this[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Notable_people] which you have been reminded of on multiple occasions.Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Mohouidae is a monogeneric animal family. We have :Category:Mohouidae for the family and :Category:Mohoua for the sole genus. We would not have separate articles for the family and the genus, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Monotypic taxa, so I don't know why we have two categories. I can't find guidance specifically for categorising monotypic taxa. Are these candidates for merging, and would it be an up merge to the family or a down merge to the genus (as we do for articles)? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:The answer was apparently yes, upmerge – per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 28#Category:Mohouidae. Nurg (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Please help me to rename three categories:

From

:Category:Artists of Dagestan, :Category:Sculptors of Dagestan, :Category:Ceramists of Dagestan

To

:Category:Artists from Dagestan, :Category:Sculptors from Dagestan, :Category:Ceramists from Dagestan

Thank you.

Boxes12 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:Boxes12, you can use my script :User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD for group nominations. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In 2021, various Mexico chronology categories before 1821 were merged to New Spain, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_4#More_pre-indepdendence_"Mexico"_categories and the next one below it. However, others remain, including decade parents {{c|1790s in Mexico|1790s}}, {{c|1800s in Mexico|1800s}} and {{c|1810s in Mexico}}. Mexico was only one of many territories within New Spain, so should the mergers be reversed rather than carried on? It seems a shame to leave gaps in :Category:Decades in Mexico etc. :Category:1800s in New Spain has other geographical subcats e.g. for East/West Indies. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Earlier this year, :Category:Incest in Greek mythology was deleted; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_6#Category:Incest_in_Greek_mythology] I disagreed with its deletion at the time, and think it would be useful to restore the category. Upon asking the discussion closer, they suggested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&oldid=1256929661#Category:Incest_in_Greek_mythology] I bring the matter up here, and ping the editors involved in that discussion. I gave my reasoning in favour of keeping it in the CfD discussion (that it's defining for figures such as Menephron, Myrrha, Byblis, etc.), but would be happy to elaborate. Note that since that discussion, :Category:Mythological people involved in incest has been created, which seems to include the figures from the deleted category, so, if we restore Category:Incest in Greek mythology, it should probably be a subcat of that category (though I think "Incest in Greek mythology" would probably still be the best title), as well as a subcat of :Category:Greek mythology or :Category:Characters in Greek mythology.

Pings: {{ping|Pppery}}, {{ping|Omnis Scientia}}, {{ping|Marcocapelle}}, {{ping|Zxcvbnm}}, {{ping|Aidan721}}

– Michael Aurel (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

: Have nothing to say here - my nomination was largely procedural as the deletion of the parent which I executed called the merits of the subcat into doubt. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

::Fair enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Have nothing to say more than in the previous discussion. If anything it is a defining characteristic of the storyline rather than of the character. A category with myths about incest would be fine (if it doesn't already exist). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• {{reply|Marcocapelle}} Apologies, I missed this response. I understand that there are plenty of instances in which incest occurs as part of a myth, and is of no real significance to the mythological figures involved; by the modern notion of incest (which isn't necessarily the same as was that of the ancient Greeks), just about every major deity was incestuous. However, there are a number of cases (eg. Menephron, Byblis, etc.) where every author who mentions the figure mentions them as part of a story where they engage in incest, and where incest is the central theme. In these cases, how could incest not be a defining characteristic of the figure (and not just the individual tales)? In theory a category for "myths about incest" would be fine, but our articles are almost always on mythological figures, not individual myths. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• I agree, but I think Incest in mythology would be more inclusive than Incest in Greek mythology. Deiadameian (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

I noticed the speedy deletion tag placed on the categories :Category:American people of South Indian descent and :Category:American people of North Indian descent. I would like to strongly advocate for retaining these categories, as I believe they are important for accurately representing the diversity within the Indian-American community and for enriching the broader Wikipedia platform.

1. Acknowledging Regional Diversity in the Indian Diaspora

India’s diversity is not just limited to language, religion, or cuisine but extends deeply into regional identities. South Indians (e.g., Tamils, Kannadigas, Telugus, and Malayalis) and North Indians (e.g., Punjabis, Gujaratis, and Marathis) have distinct histories, cultural practices, and contributions that persist even in the diaspora. By recognizing these distinctions, these categories allow Wikipedia to represent this diversity more accurately.

For example, South Indian Americans have a particularly strong presence in fields like classical arts (e.g., Carnatic music and Bharatanatyam), software engineering, and medicine. In contrast, North Indian Americans are prominently involved in areas like Bollywood-inspired media, cuisine, and business. These distinct contributions enrich American society in unique ways, and deleting these categories risks flattening these nuanced identities.

2. Enhancing Research and Accessibility

These categories are critical for researchers, students, and curious readers who are trying to better understand the contributions and experiences of regional Indian communities in the U.S. Currently, someone interested in exploring, say, Tamil Americans or Punjabi Americans, would find it easier to access relevant articles through these subcategories. Without them, such granular searches would become unnecessarily complicated.

For instance, Wikipedia often creates subcategories for ethnic groups to improve accessibility, such as :Category:American people of Basque descent or :Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent. These help users navigate related articles more efficiently while acknowledging the intersection of identities. Applying this same logic to Indian-American subcategories is both fair and consistent with Wikipedia’s categorization practices.

3. Supporting Representation and Identity

Many Indian Americans identify strongly with their regional heritage, even generations after immigration. For example, South Indians might celebrate festivals like Pongal or Onam and maintain linguistic ties to Tamil or Kannada, while North Indians might celebrate Lohri or Diwali and have linguistic ties to Hindi or Punjabi. By categorizing individuals based on these regional backgrounds, Wikipedia validates and reflects these identities, which are an integral part of the diasporic experience.

4. Highlighting Genetic and Anthropological Differences

From an anthropological perspective, South Indians and North Indians also exhibit distinct genetic lineages due to historical migrations and geographical separation. Studies of Indian populations reveal that genetic differences exist, with South Indian populations often linked more closely to Dravidian ancestry, while North Indians show a greater influence from Indo-Aryan migrations and Central Asian lineages

5. Consistency with Wikipedia's Categorization Practices

Wikipedia already recognizes and utilizes subcategories for various ethnic and regional identities. For example:

:Category:American people of Irish descent

:Category:American people of Scandinavian descent

:Category:American people of Flemish descent

These categories highlight the contributions of specific subgroups within larger ethnic or racial identities. The categories for South Indian and North Indian Americans are no different; they are an acknowledgment of distinct cultural groups within the broader Indian-American community. Deleting these would set a precedent for erasing similar distinctions in other ethnic groups, which could diminish Wikipedia’s ability to represent diversity effectively.

6. Capturing the Complexity of Diasporic Identities

The Indian-American community is not a monolithic entity. Its diversity is mirrored in the diaspora, where regional distinctions play a significant role in community organization, cultural events, and professional associations. For instance, South Indian Americans often organize cultural festivals around classical music and dance, while North Indian Americans may focus on Bollywood or Punjabi bhangra events. These categories help capture this complexity, offering a more detailed picture of the diaspora.

7. Avoiding Oversimplification

Without these categories, Indian Americans may be unfairly grouped under broader labels, losing the rich regional specificity that defines their experiences. Simplifying such identities undermines the depth and richness of the Indian-American story, making Wikipedia less inclusive and less representative of the nuanced reality of this group. SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:The categories are currently empty, and we can not retain them if they remain empty. If you or someone else would populate the categories, it would be a different story. Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

::I would need your help on this SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I left a long message on this editor's User talk page and pointed out that we already have many existing categories that are part of :Category:American people of Indian descent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks Liz. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Not that extensive. See my analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme, with some renaming suggestions. Please comment there, to keep the discussion centralized in one place. I'll propose some CfDs in a while once I confirm the consensus. Only a few categories are affected, fortunately. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Another problem I've identified concerns the tree :Category:Fiction about outer space and :Category:Works set in outer space (different from :Category:Works about outer space); main clulprit asre some entries in :Category:Fiction about the Solar System.

Two have been duplicated and obviously need merger:

:Category:Fiction set on the Moon

:Category:Works set on the Moon

:Category:Fiction set on Mars

:Category:Works set on Mars

Most others are in "Fiction set on..." (ex. :Category:Fiction set on Venus, :Category:Fiction set on Jupiter, so merge should go there.

For a broader issue, the question of whether these should be called 'works' or 'fiction' needs to be considered. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: I am leaning towards renaming Fiction set on Foo planet to Work set on Foo planet, since the best tree with 'set' is :Category:Works set in outer space, child to :Category:Works by region of setting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Further comment: I can see the difference between :Category:Works set in outer space and :Category:Works about outer space. Fiction is set in outer space, but not fiction is about outer space. The difference between :Category:Fiction about outer space and :Category:Works about outer space concerns the fact that fiction is narrower then works (which includes non-fiction). For a while I thought that in that case, :Category:Fiction about outer space and :Category:Works set in outer space would be conceptually the same, but I realized that a non-fiction book about astronauts would belong to Works set in and about outer space, but would not be fiction.

So after thinking it more, I think all these categories have the right to exist.

Few notes on current structure and relationship:

• :Category:Fiction about outer space is a subcategory to :Category:Works about outer space (which seems fine)
• :Category:Works set in outer space is a subcategory to :Category:Fiction about outer space, with an added category for :Category:Works by region of setting, which in turn is a child of :Category:Works by setting and Categories by regions.

The parent categories that seem relevant, for consideration:

• :Category:Works about outer space is under: :Category:Works about regions, which is under :Category:Works by topic
• :Category:Fiction about outer space is under: :Category:Works about outer space (ok), as well as :Category:Fiction about science (possibly wrong, outer space is a place, not a science - I have removed it), :Category:Works by setting and :Category:Fiction by topic (ok).

Ok, so the parent categories are ok. But then coming back to Fiction set on Fooland and Works set on Fooland, actually, both theoretically are valid (fiction being a subset of Works), but presumably vast majority of works in question here are 'fiction', not 'works', since no human has yet went beyond Moon. Nonetheless a work depicting life of real astronauts on the Moon would be in 'works' but not 'fiction' (and most works now and in the near future would be under fiction...).

Pinging creators (User:Fences and windows. User:Kanghuitari).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Given that, I've started CfDs for mergers of the Mars/Moon fiction/works, but already withdrawn the Moon one. I've also made Fiction set on Fooplanet a subcat to Works set on Fooplanet, as all Fiction is Works but not vice versa (works consists of fiction and non-fiction). If anyone can add examples of non-fiction to relevant categories (Works) it would be helpful in showing they can be saved (I am sure there is non-fiction about Moon astronauts, not sure what can be found about Mars - something about robotic exploration?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Last question. Given that I've established the conceptual difference between these categories, can we justify creation and keeping of Works on real Fooplanets, parent to Fiction on real Fooplanets, even if they'd be just empty (holding subcategories)? Ex. :Category:Fiction set on Venus should be, logically, a subcat to :Category:Works set on Venus, but obviously there will no non-fiction works set in Venus for some time (barring some freak book discussing exploration of Venus). Note that works about Venus, the planet, can happily exists under :Category:Works about Venus (which does not exist, but should, under :Category:Works about outer space and as example, parent to :Category:Paintings of Venus (planet). If there are no objections, I'll create the missing works set on... and works about... in the near future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::I haven't looked recently into the specific cats you note above, but thought that I'd merely note that many many category trees were "fiction/fictional" before everyone settled on having prepending "Works". So there are likely more than a few legacy trees/categorizations that need to be re-aligned, which may not have been yet. - jc37 15:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. With few exceptions, most fiction isn't about the place it is set in. I'm honestly not a big fan of the "Fiction about" category tree when it involves place because these cats are in most cases confusing topic with setting. As a result, often works get sorted into these categories which don't belong there. Is a science fiction novel such as the Mars trilogy or The Martian Chronicles "about Mars"? No. They are set there, but they aren't principally about the planet. They are about the central characters in that story, and the narrative arc of the plot (none of which is centrally about Mars). More broadly, the authors are using the characters in that setting to explore themes about humanity/society, the nature of truth, and various moral and ethical issues as it relates to the consequences of science and technology. These novels are about that, not the planet. The authors could have theoretically set the same stories on Venus or Uranus or any other planet other than Earth and it wouldn't have made a difference to the overall tale and its themes and central message. In contrast a non-fiction book about the real planet of Mars is truly about Mars. I'd like to see all of the "Fiction about place" cats deprecated and switched over to Works by setting category system. Obviously non-place topics like "Fiction about friendship" or something like that is ok; although in general the "Fiction about foo" category tree is highly subjective and prone to fan-cruft over categorization. I've seen people do things like take a James Bond movie with a five minute skiing chase scene and sort that movie into a "Films about skiing" category for example, or a 3 hour long film with a five minute flash back scene to American Civil War, sort it into a Films about the American Civil War (even if it's not about that overall). I find the whole Fiction about category tree annoying for this reason. At least the Works by setting category tree is clearly definable.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I disagree with you, if only to say that - while it may be about other things as well - the Martian Chronicles is assuredly about Mars. - jc37 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::@TompaDompa...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::And this just illuminates the subjectivity of the topical category tree where some editors will perceive a place as a central topic and others won't. This is why I prefer the setting categories. They are less subjective.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@4meter4 I get your point, but setting can be ambiguous too - some works have multiple settings. How many pages or % of the text needs to take place in a given setting to warrant a category? I mean, it's all fuzzy. I just looked at one of my fav shows, Babylon 5, which has :Category:Fiction set around Epsilon Eridani - technically correct, but the location is pretty inconsequential to the show (maybe ~3 or so eps out of ~120 concern that planet, and it could be any other random planet). I did remove 'fiction about wormholes' from it (this is not very relevant to the show, unlike DS9). Left 'Television series about extraterrestrial life' and 'Fictional space stations' because that's more central. Maybe we need a category for works set on fictional space stations... shrug. Anyway, going back to 'about Mars', we have to consider that A), non-fiction works about Mars certainly are 'about' and not 'set on' and B) A notable work of fiction that could be said to be "about Mars" but not "set on Mars" is "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells. While the novel deals extensively with Martians and their invasion of Earth, the events take place entirely on Earth, not on Mars. The story explores themes of extraterrestrial life, imperialism, and human survival, making it deeply tied to the concept of Mars as a symbol of the alien and the other, even though it does not use Mars as its setting. Similarly, Ray Bradbury’s "The Martian Chronicles" might also fit this description, as much of the book is about humanity’s perception of Mars, their colonization of the planet, and their projections of hopes, fears, and failures onto it. While some stories in the collection are set on Mars, others take place on Earth, exploring Mars as a concept rather than a physical location. (Disclaimer: B was written by ChatGPT, answering a question 'which work of fiction could be said to be 'about Mars' but would not be 'set on Mars'?' but I think the AI makes a valid point; for another example that makes sense it gave Stranger in a Strange Land - "The novel reflects on Mars through the lens of cultural and philosophical differences, rather than a literal exploration of the planet." which I find a fair argument as well). So I remain of the opinion that both 'about' and 'set on' trees can and should coexist, even if some boundaries will be blurry, and some overlap will occur. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's true. Issues with setting cats can arise as well (particularly when a setting only occurs in a fleeting portion of a work). I will point out though that setting is never inconsequential in fiction as it is one of the seven defining features of all fiction (see https://prowritingaid.com/elements-of-fiction) as taught in literature courses in universities and public schools everywhere. I can agree with your analysis on those works on the Mars cats. It may be that the current category structure should mainly be left alone, but with some individual pages sorted more appropriately as needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@4meter4 I lean to that conclusion as well. At first I thought we have some pointless redundancy in need of merging, but now I think the system is fine, other then missing some connecting categories which can lead to some confusion (the initial reason I made this post and delved into this is that I am creating some similar cats on pl wiki and was confused that :Category:Works set on Mars was on en wiki but :Category:Works set on Venus wasn't, and when a colleague connected the latter to :Category:Fiction set on Venus my initial thought was "seems identical, we need mergers/renames" (then I changed my mind after rethinking this, per explanation above). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That makes sense.4meter4 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I can't figure out why the CfD for :Category:Works set on the Moon was withdrawn by someone other than the nominator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Marcocapelle}} The above remark was about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Category:Works_set_on_the_Moon. Everyone else: the one for Mars is immediately above it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::* {{ping|LaundryPizza03}} nom said in the last paragraph that they were withdrawing the proposal. But if they and/or other editors would like to pursue this CfD discussion I will of course happily reopen/relist the discussion. Just let me know if this is the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@LaundryPizza03 See my explanation at CfD. TL;DR After rethinking this, I came to the conclusion that both works and fiction categories are fine, with works being a parent for fiction and non-fiction. It is just much more common to find fiction about some outer space location than non-fiction, so some of the works article will be just holding a fiction subcategory (note: this is for 'set on', not 'about'; as in, we can find plenty of works about Venus, and some fiction set on Venus, but unlikely to find notable works about non-fiction set on Venus - i.e. exploration of Venus; and more so about less famous locations like Jupiter or Neptune, some of which have been barely explored at all...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what the solution to this problem is, but the murder categories consistently have errors in the way articles are sorted. I started going through :Category:1997 murders in the United States and fixing issues and stopped after multiple issues kept cropping up. In just spot checking other murder cats, these issues are systemic across the category tree. Some repeating issues:

:*1. Serial killer/murderer biography pages are placed in murder category pages meant for articles about the event of a murder. For example killer Marvin Gabrion has :Category:1997 murders in the United States as a category. I don't think that is a correct way to use this cat which should contain only event pages. A person is not an event.

:*2. Murder victim biography pages are placed in cats targeted at events. Often this reflects a titling error of the page itself per policy at WP:VICTIM/ Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) where article titles should be focused on the event and not be named for the person. Obviously people known for something other than their murder wouldn't fall under that policy but the question is how to we categorize say Murder of Sheila Bellush (an event page) versus Louis A. McCall Sr. (a victim who was notable for something other than her murder). Do we treat bio pages the same as event pages when it comes to cats?

:*3.Murder cats often include pages that legally are not murders. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) has a clear flow chart. Our cats should probably mirror this but they don't. As a result, killings/homicides without convictions often get put in murder cats which is a no no under the flow chart. Technically its not a murder until a conviction in a court of law is made ruling it a murder. There are many murder cats full of unsolved homicides or untried killings erroneously labeled murders because they never went to court. This is a consistent problem, and I'm not really sure how to prevent/police this issue effectively.

These may not be the only issues in this area. But they are the ones I kept finding. In general wikipedia does a poor job at monitoring category and titling practices in this content area, and doesn't enforce WP:VICTIM and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) as consistently as it could. It would be helpful if we set up our category tree to help support/encourage those policies.4meter4 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:@4meter4 I would recommend having this conversation at the relevant Wikiproject, which is OK amounts of active WP:CRIMEPROJ since you will get more voices chiming in. But while we're here,

:Despite constant arguing about it, WP:DEATHS is not a guideline or policy, and all attempts to make it so have failed. It has no backbone and is loosely supported as a best practice sort of thing. So to make our categories reflect it would be not supported - it is also literally impossible, because murder, homicide, killing, all have different definitions in every jurisdiction. What kind of murder? We do not need this needless granularity, even our legal categories for the actual legal stage of the process has this issue where it is actually kind of inaccurate because it can't account for the differences in every single country's legal system. Any attempt to fix this would become wildly complicated to a degree that would violate one of our other category guidelines

:With the event/person category thing, it is unavoidable to some degree. The events are clearly part of the biography, so I don't see any problem with including it in the categories. It would be far more confusing to not have them - as long as the events are clearly addressed in the article I see no problem with tagging it so. With the victims it is the same way, This has always been a problem, since the topics are so overlapping and we have a very onerous notability scheme on how to cover it. But as someone who has been editing in this field for a while I do not believe it to be a solvable solution and that any proposed one will likely make things worse. If there's a clear perp/victim/event category delineation I often move the relevant categories to the redirects that they apply to. I sympathize with your annoyance with the issue though.. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::For some of these issues, moving the categories to the relevant redirect solves the issue (like birthdays defining personal details that kind of thing, or criminal things). Otherwise it gets finicky. I would advise this be done instead of removing the categories wholesale as they are useful for navigation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::: Outside input is preferable in this case. I'm not impressed with the editors in that project, as they tend to systemically ignore policies as part of routine behavior and have a poor track record at consistently implementing article structures. It's created a horrible mess encyclopedia wide of inconsistent implementation of article categorization and article titling often not compliant with WP:VICTIM. I do think the regular CFD participants are scrupulous in enforcing category policy, and are better equipped to handle this. There's some basic consistent problems in Wikipedia:Defining in this area. And that is a CFD issue not a WikiProject issue.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, whenever I have tried to ask, I find I get no response, and when it comes to murder categories I have quite recently found the idea that "the regular CFD participants are scrupulous in enforcing category policy" to not be the case (or, well, they mostly just don't contribute). So best of luck in finding outside opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We have too many 'Foo war fiction' that are ambigious. Ex. :Category:World War II fiction can mean fiction about WW2 (as intended) but also fiction created during WW2. This unfortunately affects numerous categories with many subcategories. Looking at the top :Category:Fiction by war, there are a few instances of "Foowar in fiction", ex. :Category:Cuban Revolution in fiction, but no "Fiction about foowar", despite the parent category tree being 'about' (:Category:Fiction about conflicts). Should we try to rename everything to 'about'? :Category:Cuban Revolution in fiction->:Category:Fiction about Cuban Revolution, :Category:World War II fiction->:Category:Fiction about World War II? (I think we should, but checking here before starting a discussion). @HouseBlaster - would it be possible for you to create a mass nomination of affected subcategories? We are looking at few dozens if not 100+... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:It would be possible; if you give me a list of categories to tag I can do that. You can also use massXFD to do it yourself, if you wish. (I am also happy to do it on your behalf :D) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::@HouseBlaster Thanks. If you don't mind using the tool, I'll indeed list the entries here (and I'll try to use the tool first for some smaller noms). Is it enough for me to give you a list of subcategories, or would you like the new names as well? I.e.

::* Algerian War fiction

::* American Civil War fiction

::* American Revolutionary War in fiction

::* Angolan Civil War in fiction

::or

::* Algerian War fiction -> Fiction about the Algerian War

::* American Civil War fiction -> Fiction the about American Civil War

::* American Revolutionary War in fiction -> Fiction about the American Revolutionary War

::* Angolan Civil War in fiction -> Fiction about the Angolan Civil War

::If there is any other formatting you'd prefer, let me know. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The new names would be ideal, if possible. That format works fine, Piotrus :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Piotrus most of the examples need an additional "the", e.g. "Fiction about the Algerian War", "Fiction about World War II" is an exception. TSventon (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@TSventon Thanks for the tip, will do. No other exceptions? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Piotrus The only other exception I can see is "Fiction about World War I". "British Empire war fiction" and "People's Republic of China war fiction" are not about individual wars. TSventon (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

After observing a large volume of CfD's for monotypic taxa, I've concluded that we will need a new speedy merge criterion for monotypic taxa ot the next higher level. This would apply to any taxon which has one subtaxon at the next lower level (including fossil species) — for example, a genus with one species like Pseudoryzomys; but not those with one extant and some fossil species, such as Acinonyx. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Large nominations in the speedy section make it harder to notice other nominations. It might be better if we split large nominations into a /large sections so other nominations aren't lost in the mix. Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This may be obvious, but how do we handle splitting category A into new or existing categories B and C? I am interested in starting a CfD discussion to split :Category:Neo-Norman architecture into :Category:Romanesque Revival architecture and :Category:French provincial architecture (and potentially :Category:Regionalist architecture in France). Something like a category disambiguation page might be useful, if not possible. I want to understand the options before starting discussions here and at Commons. I have explained the detail here, but I am asking about the mechanics rather than the architectural terms. TSventon (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:TSventon, I'm not sure I understand your confusion. For nominating the category, Twinkle can handle splits for CfD - you would detail in the nomination which members go into which categories. For implementing it, it's as simple as moving the category members to their new categories and delete (or dabify) the nominated category. Am I misunderstanding what you're asking? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Qwerfjkl}} I want to know what a dabified category looks like, so I can decide whether it is appropriate in this case. TSventon (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::TSventon, see Special:RandomInCategory/Category:Disambiguation categories e.g. :Category:Apple. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, I looked for that information and for some reason didn't find it. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Any way to move all categories (and subcats) of :Category:National Football League (don't move this one as the parent cat) to NFL without me manually tagging each one as there's close to 100? There is consensus at WT:NFL. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Dissident93, you can use User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD for mass tagging categories. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::Exactly what I was looking for, thanks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I recently got a few pages of suburbs around Wahroonga changed. Schestos made the RM, but it was effectively me, as I asked Schestos for help. The category should moved from :Category: Wahroonga, New South Wales to :Category:Wahroonga. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Servite et contribuere, I believe standard procedure is to list the category at WP:CFDS (per WP:C2D). — Qwerfjkltalk 08:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::How do I do that? Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Servite et contribuere, either manually, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here, or using Twinkle. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::QwerfjklI read the instructions. Do I basically just type it in on the talk page? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Servite et contribuere, not quite. If you're unsure, I recommend you use Twinkle, as I said. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Qwerfjkl I meant to say I read the instructions. I don’t know how to use

::::::twinkle unfortunately Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Servite et contribuere, that's what the page Twinkle is for. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Pppery}} Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions seems to be broken. I'm only seeing the text "This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot. #invoke:XfD old". -- Beland (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

: It's exceeding the WP:PEIS limit because there are too many discussions. This will fix itself when some are closed. You can use the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions instead in the mean time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Aha, that makes sense. If we already have the other list that works more reliably, maybe we should just decommission this one and save the server load and navigational complexity? -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::: I've found it convenient to read all of the discussion in one page rather than having to click a link in the past, so I think both have their uses. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::That's fair. Would it be possible to have it link to the backup page in case it's down, with an explanation as to why? (It doesn't need to be hidden when the page is working if it just says at the bottom of the page something like "If this page is empty, too many discussions are open....") -- Beland (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: I'm not convinced investing time making an already undesirable state (over a 100 discussions pending closure, some dating back two months or more) slightly less undesirable is worth it, but if you want to do it go ahead I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::If too many discussions are open, we'd want to facilitate more people closing discussions, and smoother navigation helps just a little bit, so I've gone ahead and done that. -- Beland (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I closed a bunch of discussions, and I now suspect the size overflow is being caused not by an unusual number of open discussions, but by the fact that several are mass nominations with hundreds or thousands of categories listed. -- Beland (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Yeah, that would do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The category :Category:Video games scored by Fabian Del Priore should be removed. This is because "Fabien Del Priore" is a non-notable person, previously deleted from Wikipedia (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Del_Priore). Please help me get this incoherent category removed. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FD1C:68CD:8DB8:EAC0 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the "Silivri Prison" is still considered the de facto name for this penitentiary by the general public, Turkish Ministry of Justice changed its name to Marmara Prison in 2022.{{Cite web |title=Adalet Bakanlığı açıkladı: Silivri Cezaevi'nin ismi değişti |trans-title=Ministry of Justice announced: Silivri Prison's name has changed |url=https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/son-dakika-adalet-bakanligi-acikladi-silivri-cezaevinin-ismi-degisti-1977510 |access-date=2025-04-03 |website=cumhuriyet.com.tr |language=tr}} I think the category needs to be renamed to "Inmates of Marmara Prison" with an updated description to reflect this change. BactrianCamelCase (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist}}

Ok, so we've been doing this piecemeal, and I find that I've even been contradicting myself in usage (lol). I think we need to standardize these to make this simpler and clearer, and honestly, so we don't constantly have repeat nominations of these.

So here's my suggestion on how to stadardize usage of: fiction/fictional; folklore/folkloric; legend/legendary; myth/mythology/mythological.

a.) fiction

These creatures are elements within a work of fiction.

The adjective "fictional" describes the creature, not the work. So the article rabbit would not be in Category:Fictional creatures in animation. But Bugs Bunny might. (Or more likely, in a subcat.)

So, do not use "creatures in fiction". That could be any creature, not just fictional (not real) creatures. That usage of "...in fiction" should typically only be used with an adjective, such as genres, like "fantasy fiction", or crime fiction".

Usage: fictional [adjective] creatures [in [work of fiction]/[type of fiction]/folklore/mythology] example: Category:fictional sea creatures in The Little Mermaid

To illustrate the difference, a category called: Category:Sea creatures in The Little Mermaid could include articles such as flounder or crab, while the example above might instead have Sebastian (The Little Mermaid).

b.) folklore

folklore describes the work type (instead of fiction). It does not describe the creature. Usage: [adjective] creatures in [adjective] folklore example: Category:Sea creatures in African folklore

"folkloric" should never be used.

c.) legend

legend could describe a story, but for our usage all stories of legend are folklore, and so all such creatures should be merged in that direction (per overlapcat). Usage is therefore that of b, above.

That said, the word legendary is a useful adjective to differentiate/disambiguate legendary creatures from fictional ones or from real ones.

Usage: Legendary [adjective] creatures [in [work of fiction]/[type of fiction]/folklore/mythology]

example: Category: Legendary sea creatures in Greek mythology

And just like "fictional" (noted above), "legendary" describes the creature, not the story.

d.) mythology

We need to be careful about mythology, because in some sources it is synonymous with legend/folklore, and in some sources, it is synonymous with religion. Also, in general it is a group of (semi-related) stories, rather than a stand-alone story.

And not all creatures of folklore/legend are creatures from mythology. For example, Natural History (Pliny) lists creatures that could be considered folklore/legendary, but would not be considered mythological. This is an important distiction to remember.

So for all of these reasons, for usage of "mythology", we need to be strict. The source needs to state that the creature in question is from an established mythology, not merely "from myth" or legend or folklore of the region. We shouldn't use "myth", as that is ambiguous as to whether it means legend or part of a mythology.

I welome everyone's thoughts on all of this. - jc37 12:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)