Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 21

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< July 20
July 22 >

July 21

edit

Burials by country

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 21 July 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:European families

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This way it better fits the larger category tree. Full disclosure: I have been changing the parenting and contents a bit to make it fit, just before nominating it for renaming. It already was almost a containercat, except 2 articles and 1 category that hadn't been properly diffused. The renaming is the last step to make the category's purpose and scope unambiguous, but because of these recent changes, I can't speedy it. NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 21 July 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:Scottish deaths at the Battle of Pinkie

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 18#Category:Scottish deaths at the Battle of Falkirk. SMasonGarrison 20:08, 21 July 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:Sabaneta, Barinas

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: Soft delete * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. No need to merge, because the article is already in Category:Municipalities of Barinas (state). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:16, 21 July 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.
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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The collection of the National Gallery (Norway) entered the National Museum of Norway in 2022; the categories should be for the current ___location, not the previous one.
Category:Collection of the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design (an alternative name for the current museum) also exists, with one article: Paus collection. That category should be merged into Category:Collection of the National Museum of Norway if this CfR is successful. Ham II (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 21 July 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.

Ku Klux Klan members

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 Category:American Ku Klux Klan members convicted of murder; no consensus to take any other action. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the discussion at the last CFD: almost all KKK members are American. Not enough aren't to diffuse by nationality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus to mer the American category, but no consensus yet for the Canadian one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both of the other categories. Even though this is a subject I have always paid attention to, I was unaware there were Canadian KKK members, and I'm sure I'm not alone. There are six articles in that one, which is enough to warrant a subcat. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 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:Tax farmers of Siam

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:Tax farmers. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that we should broaden this category to not be limited to Siam SMasonGarrison 01:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The RM closed in favor of moving the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:10, 21 July 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:Liechtenstein hoteliers

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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Category:Liechtenstein innkeepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the only populated category in this entire tree SMasonGarrison 02:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to upmerging for the time being. TheBritinator (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: @Smasongarrison & @Marcocapelle, please note that Category:Liechtenstein hoteliers and Category:Liechtenstein restaurateurs are now populated by two and one entries respectively. TheBritinator (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please populate categories when you create them. SMasonGarrison 23:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have now done. TheBritinator (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you should populate them WHEN you make them. SMasonGarrison 20:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but that isn't relevant now. TheBritinator (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:09, 21 July 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:Turn of a century

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 August 6#Category:Turn of a century

Category:Electoral disputes in Ghana

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category newly created for just one thing. There is no Category:Electoral disputes parent tree for this to be a part of, and no "Electoral disputes in [Country]" siblings for any other country -- and nothing exists at the obvious alternate wording possibilities of "Election disputes" or "Disputed elections" either -- so if we're not otherwise categorizing elections on this basis on a comprehensive basis in every country across the board, then Ghana doesn't have a special need of this for just one thing. Bearcat (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:36, 21 July 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:Founders of cities in New Spain

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: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moving to full due to oppose at speedy SMasonGarrison 19:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From speedy
SMasonGarrison 19:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, the current title is more accurate as this mostly involves conquistadores. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal of this nom was only to harmonize the names. This one is an outlier. I also have doubts whether the nationality is defining, as NLeeuw details below. I think that's worthy of its own CFD. Would you rather it be purged and then renamed? SMasonGarrison 20:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current category tree Category:City founders has only 2 types of child categories: fictional and mythological founders on the one hand, and historical ones on the other; the latter are all categorised by nationality, not by the ___location of the city they founded. If we presume that nationality is WP:DEFINING for a city founder, then this nomination only makes sense.
The alternative offered by John Pack Lambert is interesting, but cannot be used to oppose the entire category tree, unless we first all agree that nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for a city founder, but the ___location where they founded the city is defining for that city founder. Those are two separate questions. Moreover, how does he imagine the category tree? The ___location of the city needs to defining somehow as well, so... Category:Populated places by establishment > Populated places established in New Spain > Category:Founders of cities in New Spain? I don't think the middle one makes much sense. The cities will stay put in the ___location where they were founded of course, so I wouldn't make that a new, redundant category tree. But I'm open to hearing arguments. NLeeuw (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that JPL makes a good analogy with mayors of populated places-- that the ___location of the city is defining, not the nationality of the founder. (I'm also not sure that he's allowed to participate in speedy under his editing restrictions.) SMasonGarrison 20:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"unless we first all agree that nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for a city founder, but the ___location where they founded the city is defining for that city founder."
Nationality doesn't have to be non-defining, because we can have more than one category per article. But the place that they found clearly seems to me to be defining. Imagine creating a category: Founders of American colonies, it could plausibly contain both Peter Stuyvesant and Roger Williams. We probably wouldn't want categories based solely on national origin at all, e.g. "Dutch founders of colonies," but rather "Founders of Dutch Colonies" or "Dutch colony founders."
Similarly, we'd conceptualize Alexander Hamilton as a founder of the United States, even though he was born in Saint Kitts and Nevis. We probably wouldn't recategorize him as "Founders of countries from Saint Kitts and Nevis." Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So should we be renaming all of these as Founders of populated places in FOO? SMasonGarrison 20:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current title is accurate for this category per JPL even if it means the title is non-standard. Open to other discussions about sibling cats, but not sure what my !votes would be without looking at them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:32, 21 July 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:Chief Presidential Secretaries (South Korea)

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, however this category is empty and has been so for more than a week so delete as empty after that. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: think not proper noun; also no name collision so disambig fmt not necessary I think? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How come that this fabulous category which is listed for renaming actually is empty? -- Just N. (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the time of nomination the articles Kwon Hyuk-ki and Ha Jung-woo (computer scientist) (since dratified) were in the category. Because the nomination was not opened with the rationale of C1, I will leave the discussion open for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete because it serves no purpose now anyway. Even if the draftified articles are improved and republished, 2 pages does not a category make. Come back when we've got at least 5 to populate the thing with. NLeeuw (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think when a category that is nominated for over a week is empty, this discussion can be safely closed as a deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 24 July 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.

A-Bomb crews

edit
Nominator's rationale: Just trying to sort out the grammatical issues properly. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "Crews that dropped" would refer to each crew collectively, whereas here "crew," short for "aircrew" is being used to refer to the members of the aircrews individually. Like in some of the examples given in the OED:
  • "It has been quite impossible for many young married pilots and aircrew to make proper provision for their dependents."
  • "The squadron was commissioned in 2001 to train aircrew and engineers in every aspect of the Navy's new Merlin helicopter." Jahaza (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below for my rejoinder ("Competing definitions") to this very selective use of material from the OED. Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then why not propose an alternative name that's less clunky, instead of opposing? It's clear that this name isn't easy to parse as is. SMasonGarrison 23:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I decided against adding further clunkiness to the name with "Members of crews...", which is readily inferred and understood. However, I would have no problem with using the term "aircrews" if other editors find that preferable. Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You can't see the grammatical issues with the name you chose? Seriously?? There's no way the name can be left as it is: the singular "Crew" is problematic, and both the gerund "dropping" and the preposition "of" are totally unacceptable. I honestly thought maybe you were just over-tired or something when you came up with it, and would surely discern the problems when it was brought to your attention, so I wanted to get your input on my proposed rename (or the slight variants I alluded to). Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki aircrew. Jahaza (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that just doesn't parse well. And it would also have the effect of broadening the category to include aircrews who were involved in ancillary support activities beyond actually dropping the bombs. However, like I said above, I would be fine with renaming to Category:Aircrews that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal renaming to Category:Aircrews that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Just N. (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Necrothesp, but that is a load of self-contradictory, un-parsable verbiage. How can the singular term "Aircrew" possibly be "the plural for individual members". Good grief. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing of the sort. You just haven't read it properly. "Aircrew" is both a singular and plural noun referring to individuals ("he was aircrew", "they were aircrew") and also a singular noun referring to the entire crew ("the aircrew of the Lancaster was led by the pilot"). "Aircrews" is the plural noun for the entire crew ("twelve aircrews flew the mission"). This is standard English. Good grief! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Competing definitions
edit
  • Okay everybody, please follow me here. - The real problem here is that there are two competing definitions of the term "aircrew". I'm afraid User:Jahaza did not help things by selectively sharing only the 2nd of those definitions. The standard definition and usage, (which is the only one given in multiple online dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster), is in complete accord with the primary definition given by
  • The Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.), which says: aircrew, noun (plural aircrews); 1. the crew staffing an aircraft: "they were a young and inexperienced aircrew". Only def #2 says it refers to "a member of an aircrew".
  • The Collins Dictionary says that aircrew is a collective noun that refers to "the people who operate an aircraft". The definition given at Wiktionary is "A group of two or more trained individuals, formed as a team that operates an aircraft."
Moreover, our own article United States aircrew badges refers repeatedly and consistently to "aircrew members" (eg. "the enlisted aircrew members", "personnel who serve as aircrew members", etc.)
Fortunately, the solution to this ridiculous mess is simple. Even under User:Jahaza's preferred definition - wherein "aircrew" is a singular term - the proper name for the category needs to be pluralized. So, strangely enough, I think we can all live with the very name that I have already proposed: Category:Aircrews that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cheers, Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl:: Can you please re-list this CFD? And while you're at it, could you also relist this other CFD for Black British psychologists and psychotherapists. Thanx! Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalous+0, for what it's worth, asking someone to relist a discussion (rather than have a look at it) is akin to asking them to close it in a particular way, which is why editors involved in the discussion can't relist it. So, please don't do that. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, Qwerfjkl. How on earth was asking you to re-list the discussion "akin to asking you to close it in a particular way"? I mean, re-listing is quite distinct from closing a CFD - pretty much the opposite, in fact. I went to you precisely because you were NOT involved, and you had already re-listed it once. That was 3 full weeks ago - so it's clearly overdue for re-listing at this point. I certainly would not have asked for your help if I had any reason to believe it was inappropriate. (And yes, I read the guidance for re-listing, which is a bit fuzzy if you ask me.)
In any event, if you aren't willing to take care of it yourself, I would greatly appreciate it if you would at least ask another admin to deal with this CFD and the other one I mentioned.
@Qwerfjkl:: Thanks, hopefully. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalous+0, it says clearly on WP:RELIST: Editor qualifications to relist a discussion are the same as required to close a discussion. It then points to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions: Non-admin closers are accountable to the policies at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:UNINVOLVED. Being asked to do a certain action violates that. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerfjkl, it seems to me that you've misconstrued the guidance that you've quoted from, which is entirely focused on "Editor qualifications" for closing (or relisting) an XFD. The issue here is NOT about your qualifications to re-list a discussion. That was never in doubt, given the many times you have taken on the task of re-listing other CFDs. But just to be clear: A) As I indicated above, I thought you were an admin; B) I went to you because you were NOT involved in the discussion; and C) You had previously re-listed this very CFD. All in all, you seemed to be the right person to ask for help.
More importantly, though, asking someone to Re-list a CFD for further discussion is NOT THE SAME thing as asking them to terminate, i.e. Close, a discussion. Quite the opposite. As it says at WP:RELIST:
"If, at the end of the initial seven-day period: ... the participants in the discussion might be nearing a § Consensus; it may be appropriate to relist the discussion instead of closing, in order to allow for the possibility that further discussion might lead to a discernible consensus."
Again, it's been more than 3 weeks, so this CFD is already way overdue for re-listing. Especially in light of the very thorough case I made for renaming in the last substantive comment I posted, there is indeed good reason to believe that we will reach agreement/concensus here. And this poor Category certainly cannot be left as is without renaming - it's crying out to be re-listed and renamed! Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not follow that a new point has been made. It is still the case that "crew" (singular) contains "crew members" (plural), right? Earlier I suggested to have "crew members" in the category name but that does not get any support. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you didn't follow... The point I was trying to make is that, amazingly enough, under either of the competing definitions, the name I've proposed works just fine. I know it's kind of hard to wrap your head around that, but if you take a deep breath and look at how it parses under each definition, it actually works for both. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmh. Weird. That must have happened when I got logged out, which I only discovered a while later. Thx for letting me know though. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison::Hi, I thought you might want to have another look at this bedraggled discussion... Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting after a talk page notice, but I can't see that "Aircrews" would be correct -- since the category contains individual people, not entire crews. Necrothesp is, despite the rather unkind reply they got, completely right -- "crew" is a mass noun like "staff" or "clergy". "Clergy of the Church of England" would be a list of individual priests; "Clergies" would be a list of groups of priests (if not in fact meaningless). "[Air]crew that dropped" would be fine, in my book. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, and good grief. How can you possibly say that Necrothesp is "completely right"? He/she claimed that "Aircrew is the plural for individual members of such crews." It is nothing of the sort. Under either of the competing definitions, the word "aircrew" is a singular term, for which the plural is "aircrews". However, Necrothesp was actually on target when they said that "Aircrews is the plural for the entire crew of an aircraft." And there were, indeed, two aircrews involved in dropping those bombs - the crew of the Enola Gay and the crew of the Bock's Car, the two B-29s that actually dropped the bombs. Since there were, in fact, two aircrews, that word definitely needs to be pluralized.
Also, I'm afraid you made a bit of a mistake in declaring that "crew" is a mass noun. In fact, as I pointed out above, it is considered to be a collective noun, which is actually rather different, though the two are often conflated. ("Clergy" is indeed a mass noun.) The closest analagous term is the word "team", which is well-understood to be a collective noun. In fact, a number of the online dictionaries I mentioned above gave definitions for "aircrew" that referred to it as a "team" - which is, of course, a singular term that is regularly pluralized.
Like I said above, I know it's kind of hard to wrap your head around, but if you take a deep breath and look at how it parses under each definition, it accomodates and actually works for both. In short, I still believe that the rename I've proposed is the best solution to this vexing problem - one that people on both "sides" of this debate should be happy with. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being counter-pedantic, "collective noun" and "mass noun" are almost the same thing, but not quite -- a collective noun is countable ("a group of people -> "I saw two groups of people"), but a mass noun isn't necessarily ("The restaurant has enough staff" but not "we need more staffs in the restaurant"). However, the distinction is pretty meaningless, since most collective nouns can be used countably to mean a set of people forming a coherent group ("the ship has two different crews: one for day, one for night"). I certainly can't see that anyone else shares your impression that "aircrews" is the correct term for multiple individual people who crew aeroplanes, rather than multiple sets (crews) of people.
At any rate, I'd draw your attention to WP:BLUDGEONING -- you've replied to just about every comment in this discussion with substantially the same points. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. I was forced to explain things in slightly different ways, over and over, because I wasn't getting substantive, coherent responses to my remarks. That's hardly my fault - and it's not "bludgeoning". Sheesh, give me a break.
More importantly, you completely ignored the crucial fact that there are two competing definitions of the term "aircrew", which complicated things immensely, and which I was hoping to find a way to reconcile in the naming of the category.
I think it's also worth noting that you didn't bother to respond to the very interesting remarks posted by User:EulerianTrail, along with my response. All the same, I hope you will take the time to respond to that discussion, which I think is very close to bearing fruit, as I will be posting further remarks there shortly. Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename proposal
edit
Oh my goodness, you've just opened up another whole discussion, User:EulerianTrail. I greatly appreciate your giving this a serious effort, and you've raised an interesting issue. So let me ask you, under your strict criteria for which crew members actually dropped the bombs, would anybody aside from the bombardiers on the two B-29s fit that description? Would even the pilots and co-pilots qualify? My sense is that the general understanding of the phrase "aircrewmen (or aircrew members) who dropped the bombs" would indeed include those other crew members that you mentioned.
At any rate, you're clearly in accord with me in employing the term "aircrew" in its standard definition and usage. On the other hand, renaming with the formulation you came up with - "Aircrewmen involved in the atomic bombings" - would have the effect of broadening the category to include aircrew members of a number of the other aircraft that were involved in ancillary support activities beyond actually dropping the bombs. So we would need to decide whether we want to include those people as well, if any were notable enough to have their own articles.
In any event, although I still think my proposal does the job decently - and would also have the benefit of encompassing that 2nd definition - your suggestion caused me to rack my brain for a whole other way to rename this category. So here's what I came up with: Category:Crew members of the B-29s that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which is a lot wordier than my preferred choice, Category:Aircrews that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Okay, I guess I'll leave it there. Let's get this poor category renamed, people. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The category already includes people of the other aircrafts. As such if we only want to include the aircrews of Bockscar and Enola Gay then we have to remove Bernard Waldman, Frederick C. Bock, and Claude Eatherly, who were on neither plane when they dropped the atom bombs, from the category. They were on Necessary Evil (aircraft), The Great Artiste, and Straight Flush respectively. Which were aircrafts the observed weather or the impact of the bombs and were on the missions but did not drop the bombs. I think this category is better to be members of Special Mission 13 and Special Mission 16. EulerianTrail (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am ever so glad that you found the time to go through all of those articles, EulerianTrail. I think you've moved us much closer to resolving this. We clearly do need to broaden the category to explicitly include those other aircrew members that you identified.
In fact, I think all we need now is a slight change to the name you already proposed, Category:Aircrewmen involved in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because the term "Aircrewmen" is slightly problematic. For one thing, Merriam-Webster defines it as follows: "aircrewman; noun: a member of an aircrew often as distinguished from the pilot or other officers". In addition, "Aircrewman" is a specific designation in both the US & British navies. As the article Naval aircrewman points out, "Naval Aircrewman (NAC) is an enlisted general rating of the US Navy."
Therefore, I think we should simply modify your proposal and rename to Category:Aircrew members involved in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What do you think? Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unnecessary, as explained above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally necessary, as I just explained. Again, the usage of "aircrew" that you are still insisting on is based on a secondary definition of the term, which is used far less commonly than the standard definition and isn't even mentioned in most dictionaries - as I laid out in some detail above. (I was really hoping to find a way to reword the name so as to reconcile the two usages, but alas, I'm giving up on that.)
Meanwhile, you've completely ignored the fact that the discussion has moved on to the need to broaden the category so as to include aircrew members in the aircraft that did not actually "drop the bombs". Anomalous+0 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge dictionary defines aircrewmen as "all the people, including the pilot, who work on an aircraft to fly it or to take care of the passengers" which does not include passengers. Since "aircrew", "aircrews", "crew", and "crews" seem to not have a complete agreement, but aircrewmen seems to avoid this controversial issue of plural usage especially when we are talking about several planes. I would also like to point out that the statement on the navies is a bit silly because it is Naval Aircrewman who are enlisted not just any aircrewman. An aircrewman is just a person working on a plane (note that all but one person is enlisted and that one person is still acting in a military role in weapon design/research). To include passengers who were not managing the plane we can adjust the name to be Category:Aircrewmen and passengers involved in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki EulerianTrail (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This category does get very complicated counting the variety of people on these two missions and the number of aircrafts involved. Alternatively, we could split the category into two categories: Category:Aircrewmen and passengers involved in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Category:Aircrewmen and passengers involved in the atomic bombings of Nagasaki. Another thing to consider is that everyone on the planes were working, so the 'passengers' could be considered aircrewmen. EulerianTrail (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your further thoughts on this, EulerianTrail. I was hoping you would respond directly regarding the alternate rename I offered, Category:Aircrew members involved in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is a slight variation of your alternate rename proposal. As I explained above, the term "Aircrewmen" is problematic, because it has differing meanings and usages. That's why I decided to use the term "Aircrew members", which neatly eliminates those semantic issues. (And as I pointed out previously, the article United States aircrew badges refers repeatedly to "aircrew members".)
I think the wording that the two of us have jointly formulated achieves the desired objective with clarity, simplicity and elegance. So taking all of this into consideration, do you have any particular objection to using the term "Aircrew members"? Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Seeing as you created the Category, I would like to know what you think of this formulation. In a previous comment, you lamented the lack of support for the term "crew members", which is now a key part of the name under consideration.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was about crew or crews and I suggested using "crew members" as this nicely circumvents that problem, so by all means go for it. Other changes that you have now proposed are changing "crew" to "aircrew" and changing "dropping" to "involved in" and I do not have a clear opinion on the latter two changes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and facilities of the University of Montana

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per standard at Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by university or college. User:Namiba 14:18, 21 July 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:Title pop

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be a tracking category for no real reason. Neither the category page, the template doc or the template code explains what should be done with pages here or why they are tracked. Unless there is an actual reason, there is no point in this. if this is kept, the category name needs to be renamed to something that isn't obscure. Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tracking category with an unclear purpose, seems to just be transclusions of Template:Infobox comic book title, Template:Infobox comics set and title, and Template:Infobox comics team and title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be similar to the nomination of Category:Character pop recently. – numbermaniac 10:52, 21 July 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.

English football league seasons

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 August 2#English football league seasons

Category:Expatriates from the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza in France

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now this category is extremely underpopulated SMasonGarrison 01:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two redundant nominations for the same category have been merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:24, 21 July 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:1889 disestablishments in Washington, D.C.

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: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of these categories has 2 pages, and the others only have 1 each. Per WP:OCYEAR, I suggest merging to the decade categories for now. – numbermaniac 07:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all Small categories are useful for navigation. A decade category just makes articles difficult to locate, and events in a single city merged to a category about a large country is ridiculous. Who could locate the relevant articles in that kind of a category?Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Small categories like these aren't useful for navigation at all. You click on one from an article expecting to see more related articles, and there aren't any. Merging them in the decade category means the articles are grouped together and easier to find. – numbermaniac 15:40, 24 July 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:Russian scholars of Roman history

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationele: aligning with parent Category:Historians of ancient Rome. This was opposed at WP:CFDS Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 21 July 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:17th-century Portuguese women painters

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: triple merge. Categorization of Josefa de Óbidos can be further discussed at Talk:Josefa de Óbidos. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: isolated, underpopulated category upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 04:02, 21 July 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:Germanic tribal confederacies

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. Underpopulated category. SMasonGarrison 02:57, 21 July 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:Sarah Jane Smith audio plays

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category that only has one entry, and no others. Little to no navigational use, as the only entry here can be covered by the "Audio plays based on Doctor Who" category Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 21 July 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_July_21&oldid=1308112132"