Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 30: Difference between revisions

Nominator’s rationale: redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 23:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge an unneeded Category layer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination fails to state why the category is redundant. As a way of comparison, if we had a merge nomination for 2 categories where both categories in question were listing sparkling, radiant, lustrous metals, such that one was named Category:Bright metals and the second, the merge-to, category was named Category:Shinny metals, then the redundancy would be obvious. However, this is not the case with this nomination; this nomination fails to state the reason why the nominator perceives redundancy. My vote is Keep at least until clarification is provided. Mercy11 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mercy11’s arguments. Yarfpr (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now, the current setup is not helpful for navigation. The merge will shorten the route through the category tree without leading to overpopulated categories elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Dordt Defenders football players to Category:Dordt University alumni and Category:College football players in Iowa
• Merge Category:Dordt Defenders football coaches to Category:College football coaches in Iowa and Category:Dordt University
• Delete Category:Dordt Defenders football
• Nominator’s rationale There are at most 18 articles under Category:Dordt University. There are 4 articles in the faculty category, 12 in the alumni category, 0 directly in the football one, 1 in the players, and 2 in the coaches. Plus an article on Dordt University. The Dordt Defenders do not have an article or Category, and Dordt Defenders football lacks an article. These mergings and deletions will give us 13 articles in the alumni category and 3 in the main article, while also placing the articles in the football players in Iowa and football coaches in Iowa. This will move us away from too small categories that hinder navigation. If we had an article Dordt defenders football, I would want to merge the category to Category:College football in Iowa, as well as Dordt University, but we do not so these mergings are keeping the players and coaches categories under those trees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: There is a notice on this category that since there is no article Medomsley Juniors F.C., this category shouldn’t exist. I thought folks at CFD would know what to do with it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: All these categories appear to be for identical purposes. All of the entries are for the PRC not any other form of China. Per WP:Commonname, we don’t use formal names of countries. Categories like these with the formal names are overcat and are unnecessary subcats. One category can suffice.

Plus, a separate Category:Taiwan stubs exists that does not intersect with this PRC cat and entries in China stubs category and its sub cats are all related to China as there is nothing to disambiguate. We don’t have a Republic of China category for stubs for the period of 1912-1949 or ROC in Taiwan from 1949 onward. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are upmerges of one-member categories.

Nominator’s rationale: It only has one article, so it doesn’t help navigation, and the creator of the category seems to be fine with it being upmerged. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: It only has one article, specifically Ropsacitinib, which is already in Category:Pyrazoles and should not be put in Category:Heterocyclic compounds with 2 rings because it has two additional rings for a total of four rings, so Category:Pyrazines is the only parent category that it should be upmerged to. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: There are 2 issues with these categories:

1. It is debatable and far from obvious that former colonial status is a defining factor for bilateral relations.
2. They seem to lead to endless discussions on whether each country was more or less a colony of another.

Maybe we should have all of them, or none at all. Previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4. Place Clichy (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Relations of Turkey and its former colonies (a recreated category that fails WP:CAT#V, WP:CAT#N and WP:CAT#D). M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles on these relations can discuss how colonization effects thongs. This is the type of thing with lots of nuances that can be discussed in bi-lateral relatioms articles. The amount of India that was under French control or Portugues control for example was very small. This is not defining really in those cases. This is a subject not well covered by cstegories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and its former colonies because there are residual impacts of this. For example, a quick look at Commonwealth realm (specifically the section Republican referendums) indicates that there are still former colonies debating whether or not to keep the British monarchy as also their own, so there definitely are at least some residual effects. Americans at the time calling the War of 1812 “the “Second War for Independence”^[1] is another example of lasting impacts. I think that we should decide these on a case-by-case basis, so I won’t comment on any of the others, but I think that at least Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and its former colonies should be kept. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of the UK, Category:United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations precisely serves the purpose you describe, and is less prone to personal POV. Place Clichy (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Compared to Category:Former colonies, there is no clear navigational benefit to intermediate-level categories between the “Bilateral relations of $COUNTRY1” and “$COUNTRY1–$COUNTRY2 relations”. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Similar to others within People by occupation, e.g. People in sports. An alternative would be “People in business occupations”, but I don’t think the extra word is necessary here. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)categories.[reply]

• Question what is the difference between People in Business and Businesspeople? What is an example of a person or profession that would belong in the former and not in the later? Right now I think we should just merge this category to its child Category Category:Businesspeople and move the other child Categories there and adjust parenting of the category as needed. This is what I support unless people can come up with clear examples of things that go in the proposed target but do not go in businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A look at Category:People involved in business shows that several child categories are Category:Business commentators, Category:Business educators, Category:Business and financial journalists, and Business theorists, which do not count as businesspeople, and there are some other child categories where an argument could be made either way. Also, Category:Small Business Administration personnel (and any analogous categories for other countries) probably should be a subcategory, so I might add it as one. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Several child categories are Category:Business commentators, Category:Business educators, Category:Business and financial journalists, and Business theorists, which would not be described as “people in business” but do count as “people involved in business”. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative Category:People in business occupations or maybe even Category:People in business-related occupations. This would be clearer than the current name and also clearer than Category:People in business. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: expand scope of category and populate. The current scope is very narrow. After renaming, the four files currently in Category:Self-portraits can be moved to here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: It is unclear if this category refers to the practice of anthropomorphizing animals, or the characters themselves. IMO, the category should be moved to a new title denoting “characters”, and then another category be created to serve as its new parent category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm and Marcocapelle: If we need a category for works about anthropomorphic animals, shouldn’t it be titled Category:Works about anthropomorphic animals instead of Category:Anthropomorphism of animals?

Wikipedia has a Category:Works about robots, for example. Jarble (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not for works about them, just the concept of them. It would include articles such as: Talking animals in fiction, Bambi effect, Nature fakers controversy, Pet humanization, etc. I also think the concept in general would make a viable broad concept article, even if one doesn’t exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: containerize, people are depicted on many and very different paintings, so it is not a defining characteristic that articles have in common. Articles directly in the categories can be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what does “containerize” mean in this context? The term is not used elsewhere in this page. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comtainerize means to make something a container Category. Container categories do not hold articles. The classic example is Category:Writers by nationality. We either but someone in American writers, Togolese writers, New Zealqnd writers, Writers from Georgia (country), etc. Or we place them in Category:Writers if their nationality lacks enough writers to justify a by nationality category. We do not place writers in writers by nationality. Another example is Category:Deaths in Sweden. We have decided the place of death by itself is not defining. So just because you know someone died in Sweden does not mean you place them in that category. You only place them in deaths in Sweden if we have a category intersecting specific method/cause of death with Sweden, so we have gor example Category:Suicides in Sweden. When we containerize a category we use it only to group categories and not directly to group articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging to Category:Portraits is not necessary, the subcategory is in that tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Category:Paintings of Book of Genesis people, Category:Paintings of Book of Exodus people and Category:Paintings of Book of Daniel people have all recently either been upmerged or renamed to Category:Paintings based on the Book of Genesis, Category:Paintings based on the Book of Exodus and Category:Paintings based on the Book of Daniel, respectively, citing WP:NARROWCAT. See the discussions at User talk:Ymblanter § “Paintings of Book of Daniel people”/”Paintings based on the Book of Daniel” and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 5 § Paintings of Book of Foo people. Ham II (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Both these categories appear to be for identical purposes. All of the entries are for the PRC not any other form of China. Per WP:Commonname, we don’t use formal names of countries. Categories like these with the formal names are overcat and are unnecessary subcats. One category can suffice.

Plus, a separate Category:Taiwan stubs exists that does not intersect with this PRC cat and entries in China stubs category and its sub cats are all related to China as there is nothing to disambiguate. We don’t have a Republic of China category for stubs for the period of 1912-1949 or ROC in Taiwan from 1949 onward. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: All of them except for Template:Maestri di cappella at Saint Mark’s Basilica are a navigational box for a single musician. ~2025-37420-62 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Used for multiple ethnic groups. Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]