Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21
February 21
Military units and formations established in YYYY
- Propose merging Category:Military units and formations established in 1294 (1) to Category:Military units and formations established in the 13th century and Category:Organizations established in the 1290s
- Propose merging Category:Military units and formations established in 1479 (1) to Category:Military units and formations established in the 15th century and Category:Organizations established in the 1470s
- Propose merging Category:Military units and formations established in 1485 (1) to Category:Military units and formations established in the 15th century and Category:Organizations established in the 1480s
- Propose deleting Category:Military units and formations established in the 1290s (1)
- Propose deleting Category:Military units and formations established in the 1470s (1)
- Propose deleting Category:Military units and formations established in the 1480s (1)
- Nominator's rationale: No need to diffuse by year before the 16th century. Not useful for navigation. WP:OCYEAR/WP:NARROW. The articles are already in "YYYY establishments in Foo" categories so no additional merging is needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge. Consensus has clearly changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have received an automatic advisory about this discussion - I believe I created the categories. I have no objection to these changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Eurovision Song Contest by country templates
- Nominator's rationale: Original name appears to have been worded in order to match other template categories with similar names; however linguistically it appears to be poorly worded. Suggesting a rename to make it sound more natural in English., and to match the structure of the templates being categorised. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Grk1011 (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:People from Yorba Linda, California, by occupation
- Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Also propose merging
- Category:People from Simi Valley, California, by occupation to Category:People from Simi Valley, California
- Category:People from Salinas, California, by occupation to Category:People from Salinas, California
- Category:People from San Dimas, California, by occupation to Category:People from San Dimas, California
- Category:People from San Gabriel, California, by occupation to Category:People from San Gabriel, California
- Category:People from San Juan Capistrano, California, by occupation to Category:People from San Juan Capistrano, California
- Category:People from Tustin, California, by occupation to Category:People from Tustin, California
- Category:People from Turlock, California, by occupation to Category:People from Turlock, California
- Category:People from Tulare, California, by occupation to Category:People from Tulare, California
- Category:People from Thousand Oaks, California, by occupation to Category:People from Thousand Oaks, California
- Category:People from Torrance, California, by occupation to Category:People from Torrance, California
- Category:People from Sunnyvale, California, by occupation to Category:People from Sunnyvale, California
- Category:People from Westlake Village, California, by occupation to Category:People from Westlake Village, California
- Category:People from Upland, California, by occupation to Category:People from Upland, California
- Category:People from Union City, California, by occupation to Category:People from Union City, California
- Category:People from Vacaville, California, by occupation to Category:People from Vacaville, California
- Category:People from Ventura, California, by occupation to Category:People from Ventura, California
- Category:People from Westminster, California, by occupation to Category:People from Westminster, California
- Category:People from Westlake Village, California, by occupation to Category:People from Westlake Village, California
- Category:People from West Covina, California, by occupation to Category:People from West Covina, California
- Category:People from Vista, California, by occupation to Category:People from Vista, California
- Category:People from Visalia, California, by occupation to Category:People from Visalia, California
- Category:People from Rialto, California, by occupation to Category:People from Rialto, California
- Category:People from Roseville, California, by occupation to Category:People from Roseville, California
All subcategories with three or less entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. What is to be done with the remaining ones at Category:People by populated place and occupation in California and the entirety of the tree? Does the main Westminster category go there or does the branch disappear? It should be a discussion at the parent level with Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision and occupation rather than at individual leaves within one specific category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The content of e.g. Category:People from Roseville, California, by occupation is still in Category:Sportspeople by populated place in California, it hasn't entirely disappeared. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. We do not need a "by occupation" subcategory for every "People from place" category. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Category::{{c|Wikipedia categories named after countries
- Propose deleting {{lc|:Wikipedia categories named after countries
- Nominator's rationale: The eponymous categories for countries are all placed in this "Wikipedia" category, but this cat is a direct member of Category:countries anyway, so it's not as if this method removes the eponymous cats from the main category tree or so. In which case there is no need to place a navel-gazing category in the middle of a regular category tree.
No need to merge though, every country category is already a member of the Category:Countries via the Category:Countries by continent branch as well. So deletion will suffice here. Fram (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, entirely duplicative. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hang on, this would remove the intermediate subcats from the eponcat tree. Relist adding them:
- Wikipedia categories named after associated states (6 C)
- Wikipedia categories named after colonies (190 C)
- Wikipedia categories named after dependent territories (65 C)
- Wikipedia categories named after dynasties (711 C)
- Wikipedia categories named after empires (106 C)
- Wikipedia categories named after former countries (706 C)
- Wikipedia categories named after states with limited recognition (10 C)
- – Fayenatic London 09:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Tarnowski (Rola)
- Propose deleting Category:Tarnowski (Rola) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, contains only one article, which is not helpful for navigation. If not deleted, rename to Category:Tarnowski (Rola) family or Category:Tarnowski family (Rola) per WP:C2C as per speedy nomination by User:Mike Selinker. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Internet television streaming services
- Propose merging Category:Internet television streaming services to Category:Streaming television
- Nominator's rationale: Both have the same target topic of streaming content over the internet. Greatder (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, this is a specific services subcategory of Category:Streaming television, so it is not synonymous. Whether or not a services subcategory is useful can still be debated. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle I feel like it is mostly a overlap. Can you point to a few service that will fit into one but not the other? Greatder (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The issue here is that Category:Streaming television encompasses a lot more than just "streaming television services" per se — it also encompasses things like web series, streaming devices, content producers, smart TV platforms, and a lot of other things that aren't services — so we don't want to just throw it all into one giant catchall category, we want to subcategorize it as specifically as possible in narrower groupings under the broad catchall. So this is an entirely appropriate subcategory of the proposed target rather than a duplication of it — the answer here would be to move articles out of streaming television into subcategories, where needed, rather than making the subcategories go away entirely. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment there are/have been steraming that are not on the internet. That set-top-box has been used for streaming services accessed in different manners -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Beginnings by decade 1-1499
- Propose merging Category:0s beginnings (2 C) to Category:0s
- Propose merging Category:10s beginnings (2 C) to Category:10s
- Propose merging Category:20s beginnings (2 C) to Category:20s
- Propose merging Category:30s beginnings (2 C) to Category:30s
- Propose merging Category:40s beginnings (2 C) to Category:40s
- Propose merging Category:50s beginnings (2 C) to Category:50s
- Propose merging Category:60s beginnings (2 C) to Category:60s
- Propose merging Category:70s beginnings (2 C) to Category:70s
- Propose merging Category:80s beginnings (2 C) to Category:80s
- Propose merging Category:90s beginnings (2 C) to Category:90s
- Propose merging Category:100s beginnings (2 C) to Category:100s
- Propose merging Category:110s beginnings (2 C) to Category:110s
- Propose merging Category:120s beginnings (2 C) to Category:120s
- Propose merging Category:130s beginnings (2 C) to Category:130s
- example of a partial manual merge
- Propose merging Category:880s beginnings (2 C, 1 P) to Category:880s and manually move article to Category:9th-century beginnings
- Propose merging Category:1470s beginnings (2 C) to Category:1470s
- Propose merging Category:1480s beginnings (2 C) to Category:1480s
- Propose merging Category:1490s beginnings (3 C, 2 P) to Category:1490s and manually move article to Category:15th-century beginnings
- Nominator's rationale: merge, and manually move articles, at least up to the year 1500 this is a redundant category layer, with very few exceptions there are only two subcategories (births and establishments). This is follow-up on this earlier discussion.
- Note to closer: the previous discussion also contains instructions on how to implement the merge properly.
- @Aidan721, LaundryPizza03, Fayenatic london, and Liz: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge like the year cats before them. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
House categories
- Propose renaming Category:Austria-Este to Category:House of Austria-Este
- Category:Babenberg to Category:House of Babenberg
- Category:Beauharnais to Category:House of Beauharnais
- Category:Beni Alfons to
Category:House of Beni Alfons— merge to Category:Astur-Leonese dynasty - Category:Boncompagni to Category:House of Boncompagni
- Category:Eltz to Category:House of Eltz
- Category:Hénin-Liétard to Category:House of Hénin-Liétard
- Category:Spoelberch to Category:House of Spoelberch
- Category:Thun und Hohenstein to Category:House of Thun und Hohenstein
- Category:Thurn und Taxis to Category:House of Thurn und Taxis
- Category:Van de Werve to Category:House van de Werve
- Category:Windisch-Graetz to Category:House of Windisch-Graetz
- Propose renaming Category:Austria-Este to Category:House of Austria-Este
- Nominator's rationale: We've been renaming categories in the category:Families tree to always have "family" or the equivalent in their names. One of these equivalents is "House of," which many categories in this tree have. Each of these is a House category and should have "House of" appended to the front, and any overwriting of redirects needed. The slight exception is House van de Werve's category, for which "van de" serves the purpose of the word "of." Mike Selinker (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, there is a considerable risk that these categories will one day be listed at WP:CFDS again and be renamed back, per WP:C2D. Trying to have the articles moved might be a better start. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:C2D. Article titles, and category names, should be concise and verifiable. I see no reason to artificially expand them, potentially to names that are not found in reliable sources, e.g. "House of Beni Alfons" = 0 reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- The latter is a good point, "house" probably duplicates "beni". It should be merged to Category:Astur-Leonese dynasty per Astur-Leonese dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed on that one. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. "House of x" is used for ruling dynasties and sovereign houses, normal noble familes are "x family" or so. Gryffindor (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump
- Nominator's rationale: I think that this category needs to be renamed to match the parent United States presidential visits, and possibly purged. SMasonGarrison 03:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Alt rename to Category:Lists of presidential trips made by Donald Trump ("trip" per article titles) and purge everything that is not a list. Adding articles about summits to categories of all individual participants is overcategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- The two other presidential subcategories of Category:United States presidential visits should follow the same decision made by this category. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I did some searching. I think we're just using whatever terms someone decided to use one day. I found this, and this, which suggests that the word we probably should be using is travel. Or this, and this, which suggests the root word should be visit. Or this and this and this, which uses the word trip. Or this, which uses visits and trips. I think we should lean towards whatever the US state department calls them ("Presidential visits abroad", per this), but curious as to what others think. - jc37 21:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- I can live with that too. The more important point is about restricting this to lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. If we do that , it would then be something like: Category:Lists of presidential visits abroad by Donald Trump. - jc37 06:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I can live with that too. The more important point is about restricting this to lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Marcocapelle's purge and rename. This should leave just the 6 list articles in the category. The lists include domestic and international visits. Restricting to international visits is too narrow in my opinion. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've tagged Category:Presidential travels of Barack Obama and Category:Presidential travels of Joe Biden, which should be given the same decision. The three should be recategorized under Category:Lists of United States presidential visits. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agree they should be treated the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've tagged Category:Presidential travels of Barack Obama and Category:Presidential travels of Joe Biden, which should be given the same decision. The three should be recategorized under Category:Lists of United States presidential visits. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Sports plays
- Propose renaming Category:Sports plays to Category:Sports incidents
- Nominator's rationale: This category does not contain Plays (theatrical dramas) but notable incidents in games of sport, and seems to be a North American usage. The subcats Category:Historic baseball plays and National Football League plays may be appropriate as local WP:ENGVAR, but this parent should use a name that will be understood more widely. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: if someone has a better target name than "incidents", then the American football subcats using "incidents" should be added to the nomination. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. It is not even certain that it is a case of ENGVAR: none of the articles in the baseball subcat has "play" in the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is what they're called in North America. See List of nicknamed Major League Baseball games and plays. Also, some of the articles in the baseball category use the word in their opening sentence, e.g. Joe Carter's 1993 World Series home run, Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run, Bill Buckner's 1986 World Series error. And no baseball fan mistakes it for a theatrical production. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also, now that I think of it, what about football set plays? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Split into Category:Sports plays and Category:Sports incidents. Plays involve the players during the game, incidents mostly involve spectators and referees/umpires, e.g. Jeffrey Maier incident. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- In order to allow the category to be expanded it should be renamed such that non-Americans understand it too, so I stand by my earlier vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: I would not object if you split the contents between "plays" (with explanation) and parent "incidents" afterwards. – Fayenatic London 09:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Just what do you over there label what we here call plays? I don't see any plays in Category:Sports-related accidents and incidents. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe "moments"? If you google football moments, results include best football moments, greatest moments, unforgettable moments etc. It works well as a video title, but could it stand as a category name??? Category:Sporting moments?
- Category:Sports-related accidents and incidents is an interesting find. It seems to be named after Category:Transport accidents and incidents with the same implications, e.g. crashes or attacks. I think it should end up with see-also links rather than a parent-child relationship with this group of categories. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- So they're not called "incidents"? Then why should the proposed name change make up new terminology? Do non-North American-specific sports generally not have preplanned plays like gridiron football? Off the top of my head, I can think of set piece (football); interestingly, the article says that an alternate name is "set play", which seems to be confirmed,[1][2] so where exactly is the confusion with theatrical plays? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Deputy governors of Nigeria
- Propose merging Category:Deputy governors of Nigeria to Category:State deputy governors of Nigeria
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of the target category. This should be merged such that it redirects to the target as well, I guess that is the status-quo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Reverse merge or merge per nom. I suppose that "state" is redundant. Probably "in" is better than "of". I will tag the target too. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle I think "of" is better because, for consistency's sake, we have for example Category:Federal ministers of Nigeria and every single subcat has an "of" before Nigeria and not an "in". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- With federal ministers, "of" is appropriate, because they are ministers of the whole country. In contrast, deputy (state) governors are the official of a state, not of the whole country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle I think "of" is better because, for consistency's sake, we have for example Category:Federal ministers of Nigeria and every single subcat has an "of" before Nigeria and not an "in". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment about "of" vs. "in"? Thoughts on the direction of the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge for now to Category:State deputy governors of Nigeria, consistent with Category:State governors of Nigeria. But a follow-up nomination including the latter and some of its sub-cats is in order, to rename using "in" and discuss whether to keep "State". Only a few within Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities by country use "in", esp. Category:Viceroys in Australia/ Canada, Regional leaders in China, Minister-presidents in Germany and Governors in South Africa, but they are correct to do so. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Burn survivors
- Propose deleting Category:Burn survivors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Special:GoToComment/c-Jc37-20250221034400-HouseBlaster-20250221032900. Pinging @Jc37: to make a substantive nomination and @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: for their thoughts. This follows Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8#Category:Fictional burn survivors. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Being a burn survivor is defining under EGRS. I see the previous CFD as being indifferent between fiction about burn survivors and fictional burn survivors. I think it's a reasonable question to consider, but I think it falls under WP:EGRSD SMasonGarrison 04:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a defining characteristic of quite a few articles and of the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - It's actually not, per wikt:burn: "A physical injury caused by heat, cold, electricity, radiation or caustic chemicals." What types of burns are we talking about? Chemical burns? Oil burns? Friction burns? steam burns? freeze burns? burns from explosions? gunpowder burns? radiation burns? And then are they first, second, or third degree burns? If kept, it needs a clear rename. - jc37 05:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly defining characteristic. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Conflicts in early years
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 107 BC (1) to Category:100s BC conflicts and Category:107 BC
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 680 (1) to Category:680s conflicts and Category:680
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 893 (2) to Category:890s conflicts and Category:893
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 963 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:963
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 964 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:964
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 965 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:965
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 966 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:966
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 967 (2) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:967
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 990 (1) to Category:990s conflicts and Category:990
- Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. The category tree is not fully established until the year 1000. Merge to the decade-level per WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Object. I don't see the benefit in reducing the level of detail here. More conflicts exist on other Wikipedias, at least for the 900s. The 107, 680 and 893 look a bit lonely but still, there is lot of history for the first millenium too. Pointless proposal. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Polish–Veletian War is the only article in the 963-966 categories and 1 of 2 in 967. That is in no way useful for navigation. Categorizing by decade is more than sufficient for the 1st millennium and before. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Object. I don't see the benefit in reducing the level of detail here. More conflicts exist on other Wikipedias, at least for the 900s. The 107, 680 and 893 look a bit lonely but still, there is lot of history for the first millenium too. Pointless proposal. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, this merely makes it very difficult to navigate to related articles. Note that all decade and year categories of the 10th century together contain less than 200 entries so diffusion by decade rather than by year makes perfect sense. Even not diffusing the century by decade at all would be no problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Merge. Decade categories are often better than years for conflicts, as many wars, sieges and campaigns took place over more than one calendar year. The end of a millennium is a sensible cut-off for small categories. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This does not help navigation at all, it merely makes it more difficult. Dimadick (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)