Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 9



Category:Prospect Peremohy

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Prospect Peremohy to Category:Prospect Beresteiskyi
 * Nominator's rationale: This street in Kyiv, Ukraine was renamed to Prospect Beresteiskyi today by the Kyiv city council. I renamed the article on Prospect Beresteiskyi already. I think this is not a controversial renaming since, outside Ukraine, this is not a world wide known driveway... Nevertheless I could not requests for speedy renaming since the Wikipedia article on Prospect Beresteiskyi is only named this way for a few hours when I made this nomination.... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support WP:C2D.
 * C2D does not apply in this case, as nominator acknowledged. (This is just a procedural comment.) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ancient Rhodian philosophers
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 17%23Category:Ancient Rhodian philosophers

Category:Presocratic philosophical literature

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: dual merge Category:Presocratic philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Presocratic philosophy, and Category:Classical Greek philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Classical Greek philosophy; no consensus on Category:Hellenistic philosophical literature or Category:Ancient Roman philosophical literature. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination. The merits may become clearer now that William Allen Simpson has created Category:Classical Latin philosophical literature. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Presocratic philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature
 * Propose merging Category:Classical Greek philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature
 * Propose merging Category:Hellenistic philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature
 * Propose splitting Category:Ancient Roman philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Classical Latin philosophical literature
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * WP:SMALLCAT for hellenistic and presocratic, unlikely to ever have more than a few entries. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Change name of Ancient Roman to "Classical Latin" and categorize by language instead per WP:DEFINING, move greek works to Ancient Greek &#32;- car chasm (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Only the first of these categories was tagged. Now tagging the others. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merging the first three per WP:SMALLCAT but purge De rerum natura (thus is ancient Roman, not ancient Greek). Oppose splitting the 4th unless is evidence is provided that Greek- and Latin-language ancient Roman philosophy are substantially different from each other (e.g. different philosophical schools). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * revised below Support all — with caveats by Marcocapelle — split the 4th because it should be better by language than by era.
 * Support 1-3 Keep Roman, but it should be purged of texts written in Greek. Possibly we may need a separate category for Category:Greek philosophical literature of the Roman Empire, but this should not include (save as a subcat or see also item) Christian literature of either language.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have "Roman". Few of these were denizens of the city of Rome, so the category would be deleted. Why the heck would we segregate literature by content from Greek and Latin? Are you arguing that those are "pagan literature"?
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - These are each part of trees: Category:Presocratic philosophy, Category:Classical Greek philosophy, Category:Hellenistic philosophy, Category:Ancient Roman philosophy. I'm looking at the source articles and am thinking we maybe are being a bit hasty here. Ancient Roman philosophy, for example notes that this literature was written in Latin and Greek.  It all looks like a cleanup is in order, though. And I think they each could use at least a link to the source articles for clarity to hopefully help prevent future mis-categorization. - jc37 17:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So it should be a dual merge, also to Category:Presocratic philosophy, Category:Classical Greek philosophy etc., respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Purge and Dual merge might help. But as noted there are too many incompatible parents. Obviously, anything "Ancient Roman" isn't "Hellenistic"; those are terminologically and temporally separate. So it should never have been in both trees.
 * Ok, so it would appear that the top 3 are split out separately because of Category:Eras of ancient Greek philosophy and its subcats. These nominated ones are just an intersection of those and Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature. Seems that "Eras" and Category:Ancient Greek philosophers by era. were created by the same person in 2016 - apparently to intentionally do this intersection. (Here are their category creations - looks like an interest in philosophy). So I don't know. If we merge these are we enhancing or reducing navigation? These kinda are looking like the Smallcat exception. But I'm not sure because this is such an interwoven bunch of categories. I've been looking at the topic article names too (X-location philosophy) and thinking some group renames for better accuracy and standardization might be in order. Which, I suppose, would make this a much bigger project than just these three cats lol. - jc37 04:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've written elsewhere, we have been trying to get rid of "era" and "by era". Passing editors don't seem to read the category documentation and consider the exact years. They don't show up in HotCat or Cat-A-Lot. There are also "by period", which is not exactly the same thing as an era in the literature. This was an attempt at a small group rename and merge. If not successful, then the next step is an even smaller nomination. Large nominations nearly always fail.
 * I agree about pruning the "by era" trees. I just am not seeing how this can be "lifted out" very neatly. If you say you have a plan where it can, I'm all ears and would probably support it  lol - jc37 06:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Presocratic philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Presocratic philosophy
 * Propose merging Category:Classical Greek philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Classical Greek philosophy
 * Propose splitting Category:Ancient Roman philosophical literature to Category:Ancient Greek philosophical literature and Category:Classical Latin philosophical literature

William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving "Hellenistic" for future, per.
 * purged De rerum natura into Category:Classical Latin philosophical literature, per
 * Merge/split per William Allen Simpson. — Qwerfjkl  talk  22:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Critics of Marxism

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: purge. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting critics of marxism
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OPINIONCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, potentially includes both marxists, anti-marxists, etc. and is usually not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep but purge, it is defining for some of the articles e.g. Raymond Aron. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Defining and also useful for navigation. On the point above about "potentially includes both marxists, anti-marxists", indeed it does, as to criticize something is a quite different function from offering uncritical support or opposition to it. Moonraker (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Varsity FC players

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Varsity FC players to Category:Nautsa’mawt FC players
 * Nominator's rationale: The club recently changed its name from "Varsity FC" to "Nautsa’mawt FC".[1 ][2 ] — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be Category:Nautsa'mawt FC players per MOS:CURLY? Or is there an exception for whichever language this is that I'm unaware of? QuietHere (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The name is written in the Halkomelem language, in which the typographic apostrophe is sometimes used as a substitute for a glottal stop in writing. See . — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it's the latter. Thanks for letting me know! Your proposal has my support. QuietHere (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy support. This is common convention when a sports team changes their name. RedPatch (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support to match parent article name. GiantSnowman 19:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I've seen the news, too, and I definitely back this decision. Oltrepier (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

to Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations to Category:Munich U-Bahn stations to Category:Nuremberg U-Bahn stations to Category:Brescia Metro stations to Category:Catania Metro stations to Category:Genoa Metro stations to Category:Naples Metro stations to Category:Amsterdam Metro stations to Category:Rotterdam Metro stations to Category:Palma Metro stations to Category:Seville Metro stations to Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations to Category:Munich U-Bahn stations to Category:Nuremberg U-Bahn stations to Category:Brescia Metro stations to Category:Catania Metro stations to Category:Genoa Metro stations to Category:Naples Metro stations to Category:Amsterdam Metro stations to Category:Rotterdam Metro stations to Category:Palma Metro stations to Category:Seville Metro stations
 * The result of the discussion was: Delete/upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl  talk  19:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located above ground by country
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located above ground in canada
 * Propose upmerge edmonton light rail transit stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting toronto transit commission stations located underground
 * Propose deleting toronto subway stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting u-bahn stations in germany located above ground
 * Propose deleting berlin u-bahn stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting hamburg u-bahn stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge munich u-bahn stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge nuremberg u-bahn stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located above ground in italy
 * Propose upmerge brescia metro stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge catania metro stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge genoa metro stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting milan metro stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge naples metro stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting rome metro stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located above ground in the netherlands
 * Propose upmerge amsterdam metro stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge rotterdam metro stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located above ground in spain
 * Propose deleting barcelona metro stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting bilbao metro stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting madrid metro stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge palma metro stations located above ground
 * Propose upmerge seville metro stations located above ground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located underground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located underground by country
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located underground in canada
 * Propose upmerge edmonton light rail transit stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge edmonton light rail transit stations located underground
 * Propose deleting toronto subway stations located underground
 * Propose deleting u-bahn stations in germany located underground
 * Propose deleting berlin u-bahn stations located underground
 * Propose deleting hamburg u-bahn stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge munich u-bahn stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge nuremberg u-bahn stations located underground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located underground in italy
 * Propose upmerge brescia metro stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge catania metro stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge genoa metro stations located underground
 * Propose deleting milan metro stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge naples metro stations located underground
 * Propose deleting rome metro stations located underground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located underground in the netherlands
 * Propose upmerge amsterdam metro stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge rotterdam metro stations located underground
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit stations located underground in spain
 * Propose deleting barcelona metro stations located underground
 * Propose deleting bilbao metro stations located underground
 * Propose deleting madrid metro stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge palma metro stations located underground
 * Propose upmerge seville metro stations located underground


 * Nominator's rationale: Very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEFINING. While stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion.


 * Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground is a misnomer. If above ground, then not underground.
 * Category:Underground rapid transit stations located underground is unsurprisingly redundant.


 * Delete where already categorized by line. Upmerge where the stations are not already in another subcategory.


 * Final batch after recent:


 * 1) Deleted Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2
 * 2) Deleted Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 11
 * 3) Deleted Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 12
 * 4) Deleted Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 23
 * 5) Deleted Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 31
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete per abundant precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's rationale of WP:CATDEFINING. And also since "Underground rapid transit stations located above ground" is self-contradictory: how can an underground station be above ground? I believe what is actually trying to be communicated is that there are rapid transit that some might classify as "underground" that have some stations which are above ground. But I suspect very strongly that attempting to clearly delineate which systems are "underground" or not, not to mention which stations on those systems are "underground" or not, is impossible. Just thinking of Metro Vancouver's SkyTrain, I can think of at least two stations that are not entirely above ground, even though parts of them are. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I think the issue of whether a station is above-ground or underground can be handled on Wikidata, as well as in the articles about the stations themselves. However, whether a rapid transit station is above-ground or underground isn't a defining characteristic, unlike its location, which is almost always defining.In response to @Joeyconnick, the categories probably were named that way to harmonize with (which is not a subject of this CFD). That category is itself a mess because not all rapid transit systems are underground, it only includes select rapid transit systems, and  and its subcategories already exist. However, I'll leave that conundrum for another CFD. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historians of ancient Rome

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Historians of ancient Rome to Category:Historians of the Roman Empire
 * Nominator's rationale: These two categories have similar scope and should probably be merged; the latter name is more consistent with the names of similar categories (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ancient Rome "encompasses the Roman Kingdom (753–509 BC), Roman Republic (509–27 BC) and Roman Empire (27 BC–476 AD)". –Aidan721 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the first include people studying pre-Empire Rome, and the latter include those studying the Eastern Roman Empire after the West's collapse? And aren't those separate categories? Perhaps I'm completey mistaken but they sound like they're covering different things that just have significant, but far from majority, overlap. QuietHere (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on Aidan721 basically answering my question exactly above (we wrote our comments at the same time so I didn't see theirs 'til after mine was posted), . QuietHere (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , Wouldn't your comments suggest a merge to the first category (historians of ancient Rome), as Category:Historians of the Byzantine Empire already exists and shouldn't be duplicated? Alternately, the scopes could be made non-overlapping by splitting to Category:Historians of the Roman Kingdom and Category:Historians of the Roman Republic while keeping the empire category (scoped to exclude Byzantium). However, this would only be appropriate if the distinction between these is defining for individual modern historians. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge as nominated, per above, but no objection to a reverse merge. If both are kept, only historians should be kept in Category:Historians of the Roman Empire who specialize in the Empire period, i.e. some articles should be moved from Category:Historians of the Roman Empire to Category:Historians of ancient Rome. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge — tagged target — recent trend has been merging Roman Republic and Roman Empire into Ancient Roman categories. Hard to find a Classics scholar who only studies Empire. Unable (in categorization discussions) to agree on a specific chronological boundary, as the Romans reached different places at different times. Only 2 in Category:Historians of the Roman Empire study late antiquity, not enough for a category.
 * reverse merge OK?
 * Withdrawing my vote. This reverse merge may be a better option as has been explained, or maybe it's not, but this is more over my head than I realized at first and I'd rather just step out of the way and let y'all handle this. QuietHere (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, only 2 historians for late antiquity does not make an Empire category meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support the reverse merge. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coin Coin albums

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Coin Coin albums to Category:Matana Roberts albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Without any other extant album articles at this time, Category:Matana Roberts albums exists solely to contain this category which serves essentially the same purpose. And even if the artist had more album articles, I don't see a purpose in separating this series from the rest except to put these in Category:Concept albums by artist, a category on the verge of being removed itself. QuietHere (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge — Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 has closed manual merge, so this is timely.
 * Question: shouldn't this be merged to Category:Concept albums too? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @William Allen Simpson @Marcocapelle the point I'm making is that none of these albums' articles say they're concept albums so they shouldn't be in that category at all, just in Category:Matana Roberts albums, unless the articles are updated with new info. QuietHere (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Reading the articles, learned something about Coincoin, and even moved the main article (as had been previously discussed) to match its infobox and references. They aren't about Coincoin, they are named as a tribute. They don't have the same performers, or any unifying concept at all. They certainly aren't Creol. (Also, you don't need to hand make the @ labels, using Ping or U works well.)


 * Merge I created the category and half of the Coin Coin articles; the nom's rationale is sound. I labelled the albums as conceptual from my own notions and inferences, but I shouldn't have without sourcing basis (although this cite does attribute chapter 1 as a concept album). — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 18:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.