Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21
April 23 >

April 22

[edit]

Category:Films set in the Israeli Military Governorate

[edit]
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 to Category:Films set in the West Bank. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, West Bank is a more specific location of setting of the only article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source to prove the film only takes place in the West Bank and not in other territories of the entity? The IMG also has historic implications, which the wording WB does not contain. So, as this is neutral/defining/verifiable, Oppose. I cannot see the benefit that would be brought by making things less precise. Feel free to add the category about WB if the film is partly set there, though. -Mushy Yank. 13:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mushy Yank's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Little Women films

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per similar category names. RanDom 404 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cities in fiction

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 30#Cities in fiction

Category:Energy infrastructure closed in 1975

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Novel category freshly created for just one thing. We have no other "Energy infrastructure closed in YYYY" categories for any other year (as witness the fact that "by year of closing" also had to be freshly created just to parent 1975, and has no other contents), so this is hardly needed for just one thing -- but it's unlikely that there's any editorial will to actually start creating or populating such categories now, as they would likely already exist if they were actually wanted or needed. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Disney Channels Worldwide original programming

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 30#Category:Disney Channels Worldwide original programming

Category:Works based on children's literature

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only two subcategories, of which one subcategory does not even entirely belong here. No need to merge, both subcategories are already in the tree of Category:Works based on literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RanDom 404 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Landslide victories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. User:Namiba 14:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The exact threshold of a "landslide victory" is unclear. Consider also cleaning up the article Landslide victory by only including elections described in RS as landslide victories. -insert valid name here- (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no clear or objective definition of what constitutes a "landslide" election victory, as the term is quite routinely overused to mean almost any election victory the user wants to portray as such — I've even seen elections with modest victory margins of 52-48 or 51-49 described as "landslides", when they were obviously nothing of the sort. In my experience, it's typically used less as an objective description of the election itself, and more as an ideologically loaded assertion that the winner has a mandate and thus the opposition has to STFU and support anything the winner demands without comment or pushback. So inclusion in these categories comes down to matters of opinion, rather than clearly quantifiable fact. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Greco-Roman Trickster deities

[edit]
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 to Category:Trickster deities. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container of Greek and Roman tricksters with not enough contents to justify its need. Category:Trickster deities isn't otherwise subcategorised by culture. Also "trickster" in the title obviously doesn't need a capital so it should be speedy renamed if kept. Mclay1 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Veteran feminists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection, without a main page. Upmerge. SMasonGarrison 12:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Entertainers by populated place in Vermont

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Pakistani internists

[edit]
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 as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Pakistani medical doctors.

Also nominating for merging:

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:State funerals in Vatican City

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 30#Category:State funerals in Vatican City

Category:United States Anglican church stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep the category where it is, and update the description. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At world scale, the Anglican Communion comprises several Christian denominations, among others: the Category:Scottish Episcopal Church, the Category:Church of South India, etc. In particular, my nomination proposal is related to the Episcopal Church of the United States, specifically its church building-related stubs. Right now there are over 500 stubs. So, I am proposing the aforementioned renaming fron Category:United States Anglican church stubs to Category:Episcopal Church (United States) church stubs (itself a subcategory of Category:Anglican church stubs). Best, --Fadesga (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks for your suggestion. But there is yet another problem. The Anglican Church in North America (established 2009) split from the Episcopal Church of the United States (established much earlier, in 1821), so they are two separate church bodies; both are part, though, of the worldwide Anglican Communion. That is the real problem here: on the one side, a rather big denomination with over 500 stubs (all of them church buildings), and on the other side, a much smaller denomination with less than 40 stubs (of which, only 5 church stubs. Maybe this tiny church stub category should be put into yet another different category. And that is why I am asking for a category renaming. Best, --Fadesga (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two things. First, I will tag the category. Second, there seems to be consensus for a change in the category description, but what should the name of Category:United States Anglican church stubs be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marcocapelle. Do not forget: the US Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, and there are some split church bodies in the US that are "Anglican" but not "Episcopal". Fadesga (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:4th millennium

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination tag was removed by an IP only 4 days after nomination (9th April). Relisting since it was not tagged for full 7 days. May be closed even if no new comments are added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the most recent comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mythological -> in mythology

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Listing per request of Jc37. No opinion on the merits; I will let them give an actual rationale. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much to HouseBlaster for helping list these nominations : ) - jc37 04:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so the goal here is to remove usage of the word "mythological". As noted here, usage of Mythology has the issue that it is both legendary, and also can be considered religion. So with that in mind, the goal is to minimise the usage to those things which are "mythology as religion" - gods/deities; and archetypes - types of humans, animals, objects and geographic locations. But not named legendary people, peoples, or locations. And due to WP:OVERLAPCAT, grouping non-real-world creatures using the adjective "Legendary", which allows for the broader grouping. More distinction than this requires the use of a List, due to the Disadvantages of a category. Once this is all done, it should be easier to take a look at other such named categories. I'll copy/paste this to each of the related noms on this page. I separated them by type for easier discussions. - jc37 04:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As an option, could alternatively rename to "Category:Legendary X in mythology". - jc37 04:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a general comment to respond to various comments in the noms below. - There is a difference between "myth", "mythic", "mythological", "mythology", "in mythology", "of mythology", etc. And so are "Legendary", "Legend", "in legend", etc.
    That said, this nom was rushed (no one's fault but mine), and there were comments added even before I added what I wrote above. So rather than go through and explain and source the whys and wherefores of the noms and also how we need to follow Wikipedia policy, I think I'll withdraw this for now, and save everyone some time here. - jc37 08:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I have to say that I'm finding the logic here very difficult to understand. You seem to be arguing that the word "mythological" denotes something distinct from the word "mythology". But the word "mythology" is simply the adjectival form of "mythology", meaning that, by definiton, it simply describes something which belongs to or relates to mythology.
    You say that Mythology has the issue that it is both legendary, and also can be considered religion. I have to say I'm really not seeing the issue with this. I would say that the words "mythological" and "legendary" are relatively similar, and are probably interchangeable in a number of contexts; the main difference, in my view, is that "legendary" tends to denote things which are "closer" to history. For example, no one would describe Erebus as "legendary", while for a figure such as Musaeus of Athens the label seems more appropriate than "mythical". A look at the entries in the OCD that use the word "legendary" would seem to roughly align with this.
    As to Mythology [...] can be considered religion, as well as in some sources, [mythology] is synonymous with religion: can it, and is it? I'm not sure these statements make that much sense. Of course some myths are of greater religious significance than others – some may be closely linked with specific rituals, while others might be simple literary inventions – but this doesn't by any measure mean that mythology is religion. Perhaps what you meant is that Greek mythology (for instance) can be considered an aspect of ancient Greek religion? But I certainly don't see why any of this necessitates avoidance of the word "mythological" in favour of "mythology". – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Changes it from defining to non-defining by allowing in works tangentially related to the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not follow the rationale. Mythology (e.g. Greek, Norse and Hindu mythology) also contains named people, peoples and locations. It would be a quite random move to exclude these. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other than a stylistic change in the title, I don't see any actual impact on scope from this suggestion. Dimadick (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see the point. "Mythological" means "in mythology", so you won't remove any deities from any of the categories - they new names seem to cover exactly the same thing. Also, as zxcvbnm says, "in mythology" widens the scope as it can include non-mythological items. You're simply making the category use less rigorous. Cerberus, for example, is a mythological animal that is an animal in mythology, but a wolf is an animal found in mythology that is not a mythological animal (i.e., it exists). Sadly, jc37's alternative just makes for a more convoluted name meaning the same as the current name. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As others have pointed out, this broadens the scope of the listed categories. Grutness's example of Cerberus and a wolf effectively demonstrates this. This is also implied by the fact that a handful of the categories above are elements of their proposed renaming targets; for example, Category:Mythological forests and Category:Mythological plants are elements of Category:Forests in mythology and Category:Plants in mythology, respectively. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per other arguments above. Some "X in mythology" categories are worth having but not all and not instead of "Mythological X" categories. Mclay1 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "In mythology" is not meaningfully different than "mythological". And as correctly pointed out, "in mythology" widens the scope of articles that could be included, but in a non-defining manner. Deiadameian (talk) 8:23, 23 April 2025 (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:Mythological powers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominating on behalf of Jc37 per request; I will let them make a nomination statement. No opinion on the merits. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Renaming to X in Y-ian mythology

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nomination of behalf of Jc37 per request; I will let them add a proper rationale. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mythological stuff to legendary stuff

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nomination per request of Jc37; I'll let them write an actual rationale. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Myth and legend are different things, despite some people apparently taking 0 time to research the difference. Legends are often based on real events and are simply exaggerated over time, while myths have no evidence of their existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually not true. There are legends which may not be based upon anything at all. And Myths which do have evidence of their existence. And mythology is a grouping of stories, which for some helps comprise religion. And besides, we on Wikipedia should not be the ones to decide what may or may not be real. A story is a story. So limiting use of the word "mythology" to those things which require it. That which doesn't, are then "legendary". - jc37 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the evidence I posted in the other discussion from Britannica proving that legends generally have a factual basis, even if they are exaggerated or fictionalized. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this is too much at once. We need to evaluate these categories one by one. (See examples in the discussion below.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my response to the nominator's reasoning in the "Mythological foo" discussion. I'm unable to understand why they think the word "mythological" must be avoided. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This doesn't make sense. Many articles in these categories are from mythology. Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, etc. are all established terms and we can't redefine them as legends. And if the goal is to change the scope of the categories to exclude articles about mythology, then I don't understand that at all. Mclay1 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments in "Mythological foo" Grutness...wha? 15:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Myth" and "legend" mean different things; neither one necessarily means "fictional", but insofar as these categories all relate to mythology, this proposal makes no sense. "Mythological" has a distinct technical meaning; "legendary" does not. While its meaning is clearer when applied to creatures instead of people, creatures occurring in mythology are just as worthy of inclusion under that heading, and many legendary creatures don't appear in mythology, so "mythological" is still an important distinction. P Aculeius (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mythological -> legendary royalty

[edit]
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: WP:SNOW keep. Nominator withdrew, and plenty of well-founded opposition. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nomination per request of Jc37; I'll let them write a proper rationale. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technical definition of a "myth" is a traditional story used to explain something (the origin of the world, the nature of the gods, the purpose of a ritual or taboo, the ancient history of a people, etc.). That the story is part of their mythology doesn't make it untrue; in fact, it's teaching a form of "truth", whether the people or events described are historical or merely allegorical—something that often cannot be determined. There might be a historical basis for the myths, but that's not their essential "truth". P Aculeius (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Using "legendary" and renaming to use "people" instead of pluralizing

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listing per request of Jc37; I'll let them write a proper nomination. No opinion on the merits. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Myth and legend are not the same thing. No opinion on the "people" thing as I am not sure what the consensus/policy is there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Legendary" is ambiguous ("may not have existed" or "really impressive"?) in a way that "mythological" is not. We may wish to standardise on e.g. "Mythological Anatolians" vs "Mythological people from Anatolia", but that seems less important. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this is too much at once. We need to evaluate these categories one by one. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my response to the nominator's reasoning in the "Mythological foo" discussion. I'm unable to understand why they think the word "mythological" must be avoided. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The articles in these categories are almost entirely from Greek mythology so the nomination makes no sense. Mclay1 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both substituting "legendary" for "mythological" (strongly), and replacing plurals with "people". The use of "mythological" here is technical: of or relating to myth or mythology, not "fictional, imaginary". "Legendary" is more ambiguous, and better confined to individual persons, where my preference is still to avoid using it to imply that someone did not exist; rather I use it to indicate that the person is the subject of legend (not necessarily occurring in mythology), irrespective of historicity. The change to "people" just makes the titles wordier, and perhaps "fussier" for no reason; animals—aside from mythological beings such as fauns or centaurs—don't need to be distinguished from people. Objects aren't going to be referred to this way. "Locrians" is normally understood to describe people (perhaps including centaurs), not tables, wagons, cabbages, or boulders. There may be individual instances where "people" is helpful, but most of the time it's not. P Aculeius (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just because someone is legendary doesn't mean they're mythological, and vice versa. Brian Boru is legendary, but he's not mythological. There are myths about him, but he was a real person. Grutness...wha? 15:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose two different words with different meanings Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Hispanophobia and subcats

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 30#Category:Hispanophobia and subcats

Category:Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino American people

[edit]
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 to Category:Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Rename so that the title is shorter. There's no change in substance. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Bulgarian anesthesiologists

[edit]
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 as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Bulgarian physicians.

Also propose merging:

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:Films about Brazilian military dictatorship

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 30#Category:Films about Brazilian military dictatorship

Category:Communities developed by Dean Alvord

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, we don't typically categorize by developer. (Somehow my nom never escaped Twinkle 🤣 ) SMasonGarrison 00:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Slovenian immunologists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Slovenian physicians. Forgot to list this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_27#Category:Belizean_immunologists. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Warner Bros. Animation animated films

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "animation" can be dropped from the title since the studio is named "Warner Bros. Animation" it specifically would only produce films with animation. RanDom 404 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_22&oldid=1288040369"