Contents
- 1 Today's discussions and up to 7 days old
- 2 8 to 14 days old
- 2.1 March 19
- 2.1.1 Biological toxin weapons
- 2.1.2 Books about environmentalism
- 2.1.3 Category:Medieval Iraqi people
- 2.1.4 Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory
- 2.1.5 Category:POV (TV series) films
- 2.1.6 Category:Films by medium
- 2.1.7 Category:Professional wrestling rosters
- 2.1.8 Category:Germanic countries and territories
- 2.1.9 Category:Foundation members of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society
- 2.1.10 Category:Railway accident locations in Western Australia
- 2.1.11 Category:Public health education
- 2.1.12 Category:Asian-American novels
- 2.1.13 Category:Kidnapping in Islamism
- 2.1.14 Category:Expatriates by country of residence
- 2.1.15 Category:Multi-touch mobile phones
- 2.1.16 Category:Kansas Sports Hall of Fame
- 2.1.17 Category:Web shells
- 2.1.18 Category:Eddie Murphy
- 2.1.19 Category:Greta Garbo
- 2.2 March 18
- 2.2.1 Category:Six Russian strategic weapons unveiled on 2018
- 2.2.2 Category:Vikrant-class aircraft carriers
- 2.2.3 Category:Mythological Greek characters
- 2.2.4 Category:Painting and the environment
- 2.2.5 Category:Cerebus the Aardvark
- 2.2.6 Category:Best-selling singles worldwide (by year)
- 2.2.7 Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups
- 2.2.8 Category:Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame inductees
- 2.3 March 17
- 2.3.1 Category:Associate wardens of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary
- 2.3.2 Category:Houses in San Clemente, California
- 2.3.3 Category:Upcoming films by language
- 2.3.4 Category:Pages with graphs
- 2.3.5 Category:Christchurch mosque shootings
- 2.3.6 Category:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman
- 2.3.7 People of the Umayyad Caliphate
- 2.3.8 Category:Recipients of the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins
- 2.3.9 Category:Artsakh
- 2.3.10 Category:Indo-Pacific fauna
- 2.3.11 Category:Caucasian muhajirs
- 2.3.12 Category:Medieval Persia
- 2.3.13 Category:Weekly events
- 2.4 March 16
- 2.4.1 Scottish islands
- 2.4.2 Category:Tea Tree oils
- 2.4.3 Category:Nepalese Masculine given names
- 2.4.4 Category:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire
- 2.4.5 People by country of descent and occupation
- 2.4.6 Category:Religion in Morocco by city
- 2.4.7 Category:Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank
- 2.4.8 Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje
- 2.5 March 15
- 2.6 March 14
- 2.7 March 13
- 2.1 March 19
- 3 15 to 21 days old
- 3.1 March 12
- 3.2 March 11
- 3.2.1 Category:Greta Garbo
- 3.2.2 Category:Sarah Michelle Gellar
- 3.2.3 Category:Gary Cooper
- 3.2.4 Category:Kim Basinger
- 3.2.5 Category:Eddie Murphy
- 3.2.6 Category:John Ritter
- 3.2.7 Category:Don Murray (actor)
- 3.2.8 Category:Seasons in Macedonian football
- 3.2.9 Fictional trans people
- 3.2.10 Category:Anti-pornography movements
- 3.2.11 Scandinavian royalty
- 3.2.12 Category:Right-Wing Militia
- 3.2.13 Category:Caucus
- 3.2.14 Category:List of DAV schools in India
- 3.2.15 Category:Amazon oil
- 3.2.16 Category:Recipients of the Carlsberg Architectural Prize
- 3.3 March 10
- 3.3.1 Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (W-League) players
- 3.3.2 Category:Independent Eastern Orthodox denominations
- 3.3.3 Category:NHS hospital trusts
- 3.3.4 Churches
- 3.3.5 Category:Environmental radio
- 3.3.6 Category:John Gottman
- 3.3.7 Category:Subsystem
- 3.3.8 Category:New Christians
- 3.3.9 Category:Wikipedia character-substitution templates
- 3.3.10 Category:México Indígena
- 3.3.11 Category:American political women
- 3.3.12 Christian socialists
- 3.3.13 Province of Rome
- 3.3.14 1 and 2 article church categories in New York (state)
- 3.3.15 Category:Smith-Wintemberg Award recipients
- 3.4 March 9
- 3.4.1 Category:Oxoanions and subcategories
- 3.4.2 Category:Fictional mentors and godparents
- 3.4.3 Category:Kenyan superheroes
- 3.4.4 Category:Place names
- 3.4.5 Category:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C.
- 3.4.6 Category:Books by Indian authors
- 3.4.7 Buildings and structures by city
- 3.4.8 Category:Anchovies
- 3.4.9 Category:Thiomersal controversy
- 3.4.10 Category:WikiPathways
- 3.4.11 Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68)
- 3.4.12 Category:Slovenian Chetniks
- 3.4.13 Category:Montenegrin Chetniks
- 3.4.14 Category:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire
- 3.4.15 Category:Estonian animation directors
- 3.4.16 UKBot
- 3.4.17 Category:Explosives engineering and bomb disposal in fiction
- 3.4.18 Category:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
- 3.4.19 Category:Recipients of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980
- 3.4.20 Category:Ingersoll Rand
- 3.5 March 8
- 3.6 March 7
- 3.7 March 6
Today's discussions and up to 7 days old
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions
8 to 14 days old
March 19
Biological toxin weapons
- 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: procedural close. Not a CFD issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Anthrax toxin should be removed from Category:Biological_toxin_weapons
- Nominator's rationale: There is no evidence that any person or nation-state has ever successfully weaponized anthrax toxin (lethal toxin and/or edema toxin) or even attempted to weaponize it. The categorization is simply asserted with no citation. (Gene Godbold (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC))
- Procedural Close @Gene Godbold: The CFD discussions here are really for if you want to change/delete the overall category. If you want to add/remove individual articles from categories, you can WP:BB and just do it. If you think it might be controversial, you can also start a conversation on the article or WikiProject talk page. Good luck! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2019 (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.
Books about environmentalism
- 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/renameper nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Environmentalism books to Category:Books about environmentalism
- Propose merging Category:Environmentalist books to Category:Books about environmentalism
- Nominator's rationale: We have TWO categories with nearly identical names - neither of which is properly named. Category:Books about environmentalism would encompass the entire subject area. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2019 (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:Medieval Iraqi people
- Propose merge Category:Medieval Iraqi people to Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose rename Category:Medieval Iraqi astrologers to Category:Astrologers of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose rename Category:Medieval Iraqi astronomers to Category:Astronomers of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose rename Category:Medieval Iraqi geographers to Category:Geographers of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose merge Category:Medieval Iraqi Jews to Category:Jews of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose rename Category:Medieval Jewish physicians of Iraq to Category:Jewish physicians of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose rename Category:Medieval Iraqi mathematicians to Category:Mathematicians of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose rename Category:Medieval Iraqi physicians to Category:Physicians of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Propose rename Category:Medieval Iraqi writers to Category:Writers of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, Iraqi people is anachronistic in the Middle Ages, until halfway the 13th century Iraq was part of the Abbasid Caliphate. This nomination is related to this other discussion. Note: a few articles are not about people of the Abbasid Caliphate, either because they are pre-Abbasid (before 750) or post-Abbasid (after 1250), in that case they may instead be added e.g. to an Arab category. So if agreed this requires a manual merge/rename (@closing admin: in that case please add this to WP:CFDWM). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support the principle but I am not sure that "of" is the right proposition, perhaps "under", The caliphs were a ruling dynasty, not a nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting pings: @Marcocapelle and @Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- As nominator I'll happily go along with either "of" or "under", but note that in this other discussion none of the discussants commented that "of" might be wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Meanwhile in the other discussion the issue of the right preposition has become subject of debate as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory
- Propose deleting Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Territory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1838 in Oregon Territory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1830s in Oregon Territory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The Oregon Territory was not created until 1848. The Oregon Country categories for these should be used instead. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Aboutmovies: Deleting is something else than renaming. If you want to rename these categories you should clearly indicate what you propose as the new names, in the format:
- Propose renaming Category:xxx to Category:yyy".
- - Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I thought we already had the Oregon Country cats set up, and we do, but apparently not back into the 1830s. So, we just replace Territory with "Country": Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Country; Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country; Category:1838 in Oregon Territory to Category:1838 in Oregon Country; Category:1830s in Oregon Territory to Category:1830s in Oregon Country.
- Merge all to Category:1830s in Oregon Country. There is very little scope for creating, let alone fully populating the rest. I am neutral about Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree on merging with Peterkingiron per WP:SMALLCAT, although I think the target should be Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country, while Category:1830s in Oregon Country would not even be needed. However, the full implementation of this idea is beyond the scope of this nomination: it would consist of a merge of Category:1832 establishments in Oregon Country, Category:1839 establishments in Oregon Country and Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting pings: @Aboutmovies, Marcocapelle, Jmabel, and Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- My view is as above. I consider that the annual categories are unlikely to get enough content to merit creation/retention. Perhaps when this is closed the 1832 and 1839 items can be nominated for merger, if that is the consensus. If so, perhaps we need them also to be merged to 183x in US territories or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Peterkingiron: The question is rather, do you agree with merging to Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country instead of to Category:1830s in Oregon Country since this all about establishments? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:POV (TV series) films
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:POV (TV series) films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:POV (TV series) films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING category. Consists of independent films that later showed as part of this stream. They were not produced for the stream. --woodensuperman 09:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Satisfies WP:NONDEFINING because it is common practice to note what networks (and in this case, which documentary series of a network) which the film premiered - both in the home country and internationally. -- Netoholic @ 09:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- No it isn't common practice at all. We never do that. Star Trek: Discovery airs on Netflix worldwide, but it is a CBS show and only categorised as such. Only films that are specifically produced by/for a network (or "stream" in this case) would satisfy WP:NONDEFINING. --woodensuperman
- You're pulling a debatable example out exactly because its a streaming series. Downton Abbey is categorized in both Category:ITV television dramas and Category:PBS network shows. This isn't controversial or unusual in the least, especially with PBS programs which pull from both sides of the pond. -- Netoholic @ 10:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- PBS were instrumental in the production of Downton Abbey, so that is defining. If they weren't then it shouldn't be categorised as a PBS show. --woodensuperman 10:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I should also point out that until you removed it just recently, one of our most popular and highly-edited articles Doctor Who has been categorized in Category:PBS network shows since 2007. -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- PBS were instrumental in the production of Downton Abbey, so that is defining. If they weren't then it shouldn't be categorised as a PBS show. --woodensuperman 10:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're pulling a debatable example out exactly because its a streaming series. Downton Abbey is categorized in both Category:ITV television dramas and Category:PBS network shows. This isn't controversial or unusual in the least, especially with PBS programs which pull from both sides of the pond. -- Netoholic @ 10:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- We do not find it controversial to put an article for a documentary in a category for an award it was selected for. We also do the same for any film festivals it is selected for. So why would we not categorize it for a TV series it was selected for? These are all defining characteristics of a film. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Because proportionately very few films/programmes get nominated for awards or selected for festivals, compared to the number of foreign markets they may be screened in. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- No it isn't common practice at all. We never do that. Star Trek: Discovery airs on Netflix worldwide, but it is a CBS show and only categorised as such. Only films that are specifically produced by/for a network (or "stream" in this case) would satisfy WP:NONDEFINING. --woodensuperman
- Support - If every programme shown in a secondary market was categorised as such, said categories would swamp their respective pages. This is especially the case where documentaries shown as part of one series in their home country are shown in different series in other countries. We can take the example of Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam. When first shown in the UK, it was in BBC2's Arena series, which at the time was mainly composed of in-house BBC productions. It would be entirely inappropriate to categorise Dear America as a BBC programme, simply because they bought it and screen in within one of their own series. The same applies to documentaries shown in POV in the United States. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nick Cooper (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- A show/film should only be included in a network or channel category if that was where it premiered. Second screening, syndication or any other type of secondary screening, should not have that item included in a category. That said, this seems like a different scenario, in that this is a TV series that each film consists of an "episode" of that series. --Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting pings: @Woodensuperman, Netoholic, Nick Cooper, and Gonnym. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 20 March 2019 (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:Films by medium
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Films by medium ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Films by medium ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: In a nutshell, this category is utterly nonsensical. The medium here has already been specified: FILM. I've already seen to it that the 2 subcats are in Category:Films by type, so no further work is required. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, useless category. – Fayenatic London 12:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete CN1 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Pichpich (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2019 (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:Professional wrestling rosters
- 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:Lists of professional wrestling personnel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Professional wrestling rosters to Category:Professional wrestling personnel
- Nominator's rationale: Changing name of category to match the pages within in. All were recently made consistent and category should match. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Alt Rename/Support ((ping|Galatz)) Maybe Category:Lists of professional wrestling personnel would be better to match the main article ((List of professional wrestling personnel) and since they're all lists. Also support original proposal as better than the current name though.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Based on this alternate suggestion I researched categories dealing with lists, and I agree, this alternate appears to be more of the norm. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support rename - Category:List of Professional wrestling Personnel makes a lot of sense here. These articles are rarely actual articles, just lists. I do have an issue with a lot of them existing as non-notable but that's another conversation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: RevelationDirect's suggestion would broaden the scope of the category; it's currently personnel by professional wrestling promotion, but the suggested name would also include e.g. lists by country. That may still be a good idea. Currently, it ought to be a sub-cat of Category:Professional wrestling promotions, but it isn't, and shouldn't become one if it is given that new name. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting pings: @Galatz, RevelationDirect, Lee Vilenski, and Fayenatic london --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Order of Preference In order of preference, I would prefer my suggested rename (Category:Lists of professional wrestling personnel) then the original nom of Category:Professional wrestling personnel. Also open to an alternative rename if one reaches consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2019 (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:Germanic countries and territories
- Propose deleting Category:Germanic countries and territories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Germanic empires ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Germanic culture by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Germanic countries and territories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, "Germanic" is not a defining characteristic of e.g. Austria or Denmark, nor was it a defining characteristic of e.g. the British Empire or the Swedish Empire, nor is it a defining characteristic of the culture of these countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Per the sources cited at Germanic peoples: Post-migration ethnogeneses, i'm inclined towards Strong keep on all counts. Nominator has for a long time sought to erase catogories concerning Germanic peoples (which the nominator tellingly graces with scare quotes), including Category:Germanic peoples itself.[1]. The nominations above fit the same old pattern.
- Germanic countries and territories - Germanic heritage is the defining characteristic, according to scholarly sources, of several European countries. One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups by James Minahan states: "The Germans are an ancient ethnic group, the basic stock in the composition of the peoples of Germany, Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland, northern Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, north and central France, lowland Scotland, and England."[2] Minahan classifies Denmark and Austria (and several other countries) as Germanic nations.[3]
- The category is consistent with Category:Austroasiatic countries and territories, Category:Romance countries and territories, Category:Slavic countries and territories, Category:Finno-Ugric countries and territories, Category:Sino-Tibetan countries and territories etc. It would be a better idea to nominate Category:Administrative territorial entities by language rather than singling out only the Germanic category for deletion.
- Category:Germanic empires - The British empire was the empire of the English people, who are defined as a Germanic people.[4][5] The Swedish Empire was the empire of the Swedes, who are defined as a Germanic people.[6][7][8] The Holy Roman Empire, which was an empire composed of various Germanic peoples, including Dutch people, Frisians, Germans (Saxons, Franks, Bavarians, Swabians etc.), literally called itself the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation). Germanic heritage is clearly a defining characteristic for these empires.
- Category:Germanic culture by country - As already stated and cited, Austrians/Austria, Swedes/Sweden and several other peoples/countries, are defined as Germanic countries/peoples by scholarly sources.[9][10]
- There is no denial that British or Austrian or Swedish people are Germanic-speaking peoples, the critical point is that e.g. the British Empire is not defined as a Germanic Empire. Please check WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- As the claim by the nominator regarding defining characteristics is contradicted by scholarly sources, the suggested deletions cannot possibly be a benefit to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is a confusing comment because this nomination is not about Category:Germanic peoples. Let's for example take Austria. This country is not defined as a Germanic country in [11] or in [12] or in [13] or in [14]. An oppose vote should contain links in which Austria is defined as a Germanic country in a description of Austria (rather than in a description of Germanic). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- The nomination is about Category:Germanic countries and territories, Germanic empires and Category:Germanic culture by country. Each of these nominations were responded to separately in the comment above. Your argument from silence based on a selected group of sources is weak. The World Factbook and the Encyclopædia Britannica generally do not mention the ethnolingustic affiliation of countries. By your reasoning, one might as well delete Category:Austroasiatic countries and territories, Category:Bantu countries and territories, Category:Finno-Ugric countries and territories, Category:Romance countries and territories, Category:Sino-Tibetan countries and territories, Category:Slavic countries and territories, Category:Turkic countries and territories and other categories contained at Category:Administrative territorial entities by language rather than singling out Germanic catogories for deletion. Austria is defined as a Germanic country in a large number of scholarly sources.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] A similar abundance of sources can be found for the other countries contained in the categories. Krakkos (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- The sources that you cite mention Germanic not in the lede of the description of Austria, therefore is not a defining characteristic. Please note that we do not categorize by just any characteristic. About Bantu countries etc., while that is an WP:OSE argument, it is likely that you are right that the same may apply to other ethnolinguistic groups. I will dig into that further. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Collier's Encyclopedia states in its lead that "Austria is a Germanic country".[24] Please do dig. If being a "Bantu country" is a defining characteristic of South Africa, then being a Germanic country is surely a defining characteristic of Iceland. Krakkos (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- It was merely mentioned in a subsection, not as a defining characteristic of the country. Besides it wouldn't surprise me if Bantu country is not a defining characteristic of South Africa either. (What about the Koisan?) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (it's overcategorization to categorize countries under peoples) and if not deleted purge of most/all subcategories as there's no way that every article in Category:Geography of Sweden belongs in a Germanic category (and this sort of categorization often causes category loops). DexDor (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Aleksandr Grigoryev, Blomsterhagens, RainbowSilver2ndBackup, Brandmeister, User:Peterkingiron and User:Greyshark09, who have participated in earlier related discussions. Krakkos (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep "Germanic countries" - Google Scholar gives 3520 results for the term "germanic countries". That's good enough for me. Blomsterhagens (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Same here RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion is not about notability but about definingness, i.e. whether this characteristic usually appears as one of the key characteristics of a country. It doesn't. Please check WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - It is evident that we do have WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that is not the guideline to keep it. We also do not have Category:Semitic countries or Category:Semitic Empires. However, it looks somewhat useful categorization on cultural grounds to me. Maybe more opinions are required to get it clear.GreyShark (dibra) 07:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Germanic empires and Category:Germanic culture by country as WP:NONDEF. For Category:Germanic countries and territories this does look defining in my opinion, so I'd favor keeping that category alone. Brandmeistertalk 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- This has survived for years as a LINGUISTIC category, but of course it is User:Krakkos who came along one day and decided to make it ETHNIC. If kept it should be returned to the old definition. No big objection then. Is there no end to the harm this editor does? Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- A linguistic category, Category:Germanic-speaking countries and territories, already exists. That category is not identical to Category:Germanic countries and territories. Ireland, Scotland and Wales are classified as Germanic-speaking countries, but are nevertheless Celtic countries, rather than Germanic countries. Krakkos (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Which neatly shows the nonsense involved in any ethnic classification on this scale (look at the genetic studies, and indeed the histories of the countries). So delete the countries one, as not needed, and the empires one. The other is a twig on a larger, & probably diseased, tree, & the whole tree should be taken in one go. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete countries and territories. What about countries with overlapping histories? Switzerland's simultaneously Germanic and Romance. France speaks a Romance language, but its indigenous people are Germanic. Many countries speak English despite having only a small percentage of people of English, German, etc. descent (consider Demographics of Jamaica#Ethnic groups or Demographics of Hong Kong for a couple of extreme examples), and the English-speaking USA has a massive percentage of individuals (including me) who are partly descended from Germanic people and partly from non-Germanic. Keep culture; you nominated a meta-category but not the subcategories, which makes no sense unless you're doing a trial nomination and planning to nominate the subcategories later. Unsure about empires. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Foundation members of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To match with the category tree. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:OCASSOC. There are some learned societies where membership can be defining, but membership to this organization just takes a donation at this link and having to mail the donation when the group first started doesn't seem any more defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect: This category seems to be restricted to the founding members, not all members. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- To elaborate on my vague comment, I don't find being an initial member to be more defining enough than a current member to merit a category. All these articles are already well categorized in the Australian Environmentalist/Conservationist categories and most are in the United Tasmania Group/Tasmanian Green categories. (Some of the article are also not-so-well categorized loose in the parent category Category:Tasmanian Wilderness Society and also in the next parent category, Category:The Wilderness Society (Australia)). RevelationDirect (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2019 (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:Railway accident locations in Western Australia
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Railway accident locations in Western Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Railway accident locations in Western Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category serve no purpose and is a case of over categorisation. There is no such category for any other state or country. Does not fit in category tree. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Some weird hybrid of WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCLOCATION. Not defining in either case. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2019 (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:Public health education
- Propose merging Category:Public health education to Category:Health education
- Nominator's rationale: Main article is Health education, though it is very USA biased. We may need a separate category for healthcare education, or something like, for the education of healthcare staff. Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- do not change no reason whatsoever provided as to why a change should be made. Public health education is a perfectly legitimate topic for a category: providing the public with education about health. Hmains (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The category's scope seems to overlap with Category:Health promotion which is also about informing the general public about health issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- In most of the world Public health education is called Health education. That is why there is an article about one but not the other. Health promotion overlaps, but is distinct. And some of the articles need to be moved from one to the other. Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, Health education is really about education of the general public. In that case support. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - For starters, the term "Public health education" is stunningly ambiguous. Is it "Public / health education" (i.e. educating the public about health) OR is it "Public health / education" (i.e. education about public health)?? So that has to go, no matter what.
- But then there's the issue of overlapping contents. It's not just the 3 categories that have been mentioned here. After looking over the contents, I was thinking that we might want to create or rename to Category:Public health campaigns. Well guess what? We've already got Category:Health campaigns, which also overlaps with the other 3 categories. <sigh> I really think we need to sort this out more comprehensively before we decide how to proceed. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we should delay one (obvious) merger because perhaps more merging is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Health campaigns can, just about, be distinguished from Health education. Campaigns are generally related to some particular medical condition, or sometimes to some specific threat to health such as a pollution problem. Health education is generally about keeping people healthy in a wider sense. But it is all a bit fussy and I wouldn't object to merging all three if we can come up with a suitable title. Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Public health in UK is run by local authorities and health by NHS. These are related, but not identical subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- The management of public health in England has changed several times, but I dont see how that is relevant. This is a global category. We are supposed to follow the name of the main article. There isnt an article on Public health education. Providing the public with education about health is, in the business, referred to as health education. It is generally provided by public health staff. They also do health promotion and run health campaigns. I'm not sure that it's helpful to try to distinguish the three. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Categorisation in this area is impeded by the unhelpful appropriation by medical businesses of the broader term health, of which medicine is in reality only a small subset. Sadly, much that polluted terminology has been adopted for en.wp categories, leading to a lot of confusion.
- Public health is a distinct topic. It differs from medicine by its focus on population groups rather than in individuals, and by its embrace of the whole range of non-individualised factors which influence health: housing, poverty, environment, pollution, diet, etc. Losing the distinction would be a great disservice to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with BrownHairedGirl's point, but I dont see this proposal as part of the issue which concerns her. Neither Category:Public health education nor Category:Health education are concerned with medicine in any direct way. They are two names for the same thing. I dont see any health education which is not public health education. The article is Health education because that is what it is called by public health practitioners. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rathfelder, medical training is a form of health education.
- Training sanitary engineers is a form of health education.
- Training food industrial food safety is a form of health education.
- Educating public health inspectors is a form of health education.
- Etc.
- And none of those is Public health education. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I dont think that is what the article Health education says. Though it is a very poor article, it is reasonably clear in its definition of the field. There is a distinction between education and training for professionals, leading to qualifications and education of the public, leading to behaviour change. There is clearly a relation between the two but the training you list is not generally described as health education.[1] Rathfelder (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with BrownHairedGirl's point, but I dont see this proposal as part of the issue which concerns her. Neither Category:Public health education nor Category:Health education are concerned with medicine in any direct way. They are two names for the same thing. I dont see any health education which is not public health education. The article is Health education because that is what it is called by public health practitioners. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Asian-American novels
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Asian-American novels to Category:Novels by Asian-American authors
- Category:Chinese-American novels to Category:Novels by Chinese-American authors
- Category:Filipino-American novels to Category:Novels by Filipino-American authors
- Category:Indian-American novels to Category:Novels by Indian-American authors
- Category:Japanese-American novels to Category:Novels by Japanese-American authors
- Category:Korean-American novels to Category:Novels by Korean-American authors
- Category:Pakistani-American novels to Category:Novels by Pakistani-American authors
- Category:Vietnamese-American novels to Category:Novels by Vietnamese-American authors
- Nominator's rationale: Asian-American authors rather than books. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Rename to make sure it is clear. Although I have my doubts about all of these being actual things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC- Oppose. I notice that these categories are currently subcategories of, say, Category:Pakistani-American culture through Category:Pakistani-American literature. What troubles me with the nomination is that it implies that we would then have Pakistani/Japanese/Filipino-American authors, which I do not think would be right. We currently only have only descent categories, many of which are borderline according to WP:OCEGRS. If someone is Pakistani-American and writes books, do they necessarily convey a Pakistani-American theme? Can they not be about computing, crime, love, life and everything, and does this make them part of Hyphen-American culture? Similarly, do you need to be Italian to open an Italian-American restaurant? I don't think so. The scope of these categories are not the same, and novels are better classified by theme or sub-genre (or not at all) than by perceived ethnicity of the author. Place Clichy (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Place Clichy has an excellent point. We might even consider renaming the categories in an entirely differently direction, to e.g. Category:Novels about Asian-American culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the solution suggested by User:Marcocapelle. This solution may then be extended to the rest of Category:American novels by ethnic background, probably in a new nomination citing this one as reference if it is successful. Also note mother Category:Novels about race and ethnicity: the topic here is clearly the theme of the novel and not the ascendancy of the author. Place Clichy (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- @HandsomeFella and Johnpacklambert: what is your opinion about the latter part of the discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. The articles in the respective categories may need some checking to verify that the proposed theme is really the context. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support the rename to culture, but with a clear review to make sure all the works belong at the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, while there is a Culture of Asian Americans, there are sub-cultures of the different ethnicities which make up the pan-ethnic Asian American definition, given the different histories of the different Asian American ethnicities.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Manual split (with partial overlap) between "Novels by X authors" and "Novels about X culture". We have two different parent categories with very different purposes. I think both the Category:American novels by ethnic background and Category:Novels about race and ethnicity trees have encyclopedic merit. There is substantial academic writing about the stylistic differences between writers of different races and ethnicities, even when they are writing on topics unrelated to race and ethnicity. That clearly passes WP:OCEGRS. I would not want to get rid of a perfectly valid set of categories that allows exploration of such a topic just because we have a separate partially-but-not-completely-overlapping useful category. I don't see WP:OVERLAPCAT as an issue here, given the diversity of topics that authors from any given ethnicity may write on. Pinging earlier participants to consider this possibility. @HandsomeFella, Johnpacklambert, Place Clichy, Marcocapelle, and RightCowLeftCoast: ~ Rob13Talk 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- 'Comment: That's absolutely a possibility. We need to go through the articles manually anyway. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not convinced of the merit of categorizing of novels of ethnic authors together if they do not contain a strong ethnic theme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps if the author is notable enough, they should have a category for their novels (especially if they have at least a have dozen notable novels), and that category can be subcategorized under Novels by x ethnicity authors. Just my 2 cents.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not convinced of the merit of categorizing of novels of ethnic authors together if they do not contain a strong ethnic theme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- 'Comment: That's absolutely a possibility. We need to go through the articles manually anyway. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Another comment, a notable novel may be written by an individual who is of an Asian American ethnicity, but that does not mean that that novel is about the culture which that author is a member of.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural comment, request for closure of the discussion posted on the administrators noticeboard. 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - this is the format used throughout Category:American novels: "novels by American writers" (and Category:British novels etc). Oculi (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those are by-nationality categories. In this discussion it is about ethnicity, that is something else. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- If an American author of Pakistani heritage writes a novel about Pakistan or people of Pakistani heritage in US, it might fall within the category, but if it is a novel about US in which the author's heritage or descent is insignificant, then the book/author should merely be categorised as American. I am not qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Kidnapping in Islamism
- 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:Islamism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Kidnapping in Islamism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Kidnapping in Islamism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Serves no purpose, only impedes navigation. This issue was discussed at CFD 5 years ago, but the closer and some editors seem not to have grasped the fact that the subcat Category:Kidnappings by Islamists does the job very nicely on its own without this superfluous category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Islamism, so that the sub-cat is not removed from that parent. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (or merge as proposed by Fayenatic london). Category:Kidnappings by Islamists is all we need. Pichpich (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2019 (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:Expatriates by country of residence
- Nominator's rationale: In our article on expatriate (immigrant just redirects to immigration) it is noted those two terms are pretty much synonyms. Those are duplicate logical trees, and many biographies are tagged with one, the other, or both, pretty randomly. If someone is an 'Expatriates in Fooland' they are at the same time 'immigrant to Fooland'. We cannot be certain how long they will stay there. I will note that one could argue that expatriate is temporary and immigrant, a permanent status of change, but let's remember categories are for defining characteristics. Living for a few years (months? weeks?) in another country is unlikely to be defining in the long run. Some articles about sportspeople are tagged as expatriates in Fooland after an individual has just signed a contract moving there; there are some sportspeople who worked in several countries, each for few months - are we supposed to categorize people each time they move for few months? Mr. X was an expat in a dozen countries? Is this relevant? Not that sportspeople are the only type of a biography that is affected. We should just have one category for people living in another country (and immigrant is a more popular term that covers both temporary and permanent cases). Let me repeat: recording people's living location, which can be just a few month long, should not be a defining characteristic that is categorized. PS. There's also a technical issue as the number of notable expats in given subcategory is not stable and can occasionally reach zero (as for example someone classified as a temporary expat dies, is reclassified as a permanent immigrant, and what if this empties the category? Will it be deleted?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - expatriate and immigrant are not synonymous; the first is temporary (eg sportspeople and diplomats) and the second is permanent. Eg Ronaldo has not emigrated to Italy and applied for Italian citizenship as far as I know. I share some of the noms concerns about expatriate subcats but this merge is not the answer. Oculi (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, this nomination is pointless. It would remove only one container category, whilst leaving in place the parent Category:Expatriates, the sibling Category:Expatriates by nationality, and several hundred subcategories. That just impedes naviagtion without recategorisng a single biography.
- Substantively, I agree with per Oculi. The boundary can be fuzzy, but the concepts are distinct: expatriates are temporary migrants, while immigrants are permanent migrants.
- Also the nominator's rationale is self-contradictory: complaining that all expats are really immigrants, and then complaining that some people are categorised as expats despite not spending long in the destination country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't the real difference that expatriates are rich and immigrants are poor? The UK expats in Spain seem to have gone their permanently, but, at least in the UK, they are not referred to as emigrants. I would, however agree that temporary residence in a country, as is common with footballers and diplomats, is not defining and that those ex-pat subcategories, of which there are hundreds, should be deleted. NB I suspect many are generated by templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rathfelder, that rich=expat/poor=immigrant formulation does seem to be the case in current English political debates about human migration. But I am not sure that the current state of English politics is much of a guide to anything other than the current state of English politics.
- On WP:DEFININGness, it seems to me that which country a diplomat served in is one of the most defining attributes of their career. It is way more significant than their places of education or the honours which British diplomats collect routinely whenever they pass "Go".
- As to sportspeople, the definingness is more varied. In some cases it is a central issue, where as in others it is quite trivial. I have done a lot of work on expat sportspeople categories, and I don't recall a single case of one of the categories being populated by a template. However neatly all of the "Fooian expatriate sportspeople in somewhere" cats are formed by {{Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar cat}}, which I created to reduce errors and to help the removal of the flood of expat sportspeople from the parent non-sporting cats which they overwhelmed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I havent done any work on these categories since you created the template, and I dont have strong views about this, other than a worry that we are in the process of creating 40,000 categories. But the distinction between immigrants and expatriates is entirely subjective. Many people move to another country thinking they will go home and dont, others go thinking they are moving permanently but do go home. Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't the real difference that expatriates are rich and immigrants are poor? The UK expats in Spain seem to have gone their permanently, but, at least in the UK, they are not referred to as emigrants. I would, however agree that temporary residence in a country, as is common with footballers and diplomats, is not defining and that those ex-pat subcategories, of which there are hundreds, should be deleted. NB I suspect many are generated by templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - expatriates and immigrants are two rather different things, namely that immigrants are more permanent and sometimes take up citizenship and expatriates are usually temporary residents for work and almost never take up citizenship. Not only that but if this category is deleted or moved something will have to be done with the hundreds of categories contained here. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can only tell if migration is temporary at the end of it. And our biographical articles very rarely say anything about the nationality or citizenship status of migrants. I quite agree that this whole area is a bit of a mess. Only the diplomats and footballers can clearly be seen as expatriates. Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Multi-touch mobile phones
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Multi-touch mobile phones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Multi-touch mobile phones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Practically all mobile phones manufactured in the last 10 years feature multi-touch. The category is doomed to incompleteness without a hope. uKER (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2019 (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:Kansas Sports Hall of Fame
- 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. The lone keep vote didn't address the WP:SMALLCAT issue.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Kansas Sports Hall of Fame
- Nominator's rationale: Per either WP:SMALLCAT or WP:OCAWARD
- Today the category only has one article, Kansas Sports Hall of Fame. It's not clear if the category intended to be a museum article (in which there's no room for growth) or an award category (in which case it's non-defining). The athletes are already listed here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Background In the past, we've deleted similar US state-level sports halls of fame categories here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep -- The main article says it is a museum. The consensus reached some years ago was that if a "Hall of Fame" is a physical museum we should allow existence. If not it is an award, where no category is allowed. The normal format is for inductees to be categorised - rename and repurpose? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Wichita was about to evict the group from their stand-alone museum location when a local businessperson stepped up to by letting them move a few of their exhibits to a wedding/reception hall he owned (source). It looks like they're now located at the edge of a dining hall or dance floor (see pictures here). In addition to my concerns about such a standard not following WP:OCAWARD, I also see a maintence issue as we delete and recreate categories based on whether a minor league ballpark or city hall let these small museums use their lobby to show off a couple physical display cases. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2019 (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:Web shells
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Web shells ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Web shells ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, and lacking amount of significance between those two. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2019 (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:Eddie Murphy
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Eddie Murphy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Eddie Murphy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep because it's a natural container for the fairly well-developed subcategory Category:Works by Eddie Murphy and it also includes the filmography and Portal links. Pichpich (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Pichpich logic and my argument below on GG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep - per Pichpich. I'm not a big fan of these biographical categories but it seems to work in this instance. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2019 (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:Greta Garbo
- Propose deleting Category:Greta Garbo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Greta Garbo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT; WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Such categories are useful containers. How else can one navigate from article about GG to Category:Cultural depictions of Greta Garbo? Or right now, this category lists movies she played in, until a category for such movies is created, there's no place to upmerge them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The real question is whether there should be a subcat for "Films starring Greta Garbo". AFAIK there are no such categories; there is a long-standing concensus against categories of that general sort. But perhaps a case can be made that some super-stars are so exceptional that their presence is defining for any movie they appear in. Just throwin' that out for possible discussion. In the likely event that we don't move in that direction, all of the films should be removed from this category. (Note: the bio article does include a complete filmography.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Categories such as Category:John Wayne films were all deleted at cfd long ago; eg this in 2007. I personally think the star of a film is defining; whether this extends to all 5 in Ocean's Eleven is moot. (One always says the early Bond movies starred Connery ... it would be in the first few words of any review of Dr. No (film). Yet the film is categorised by 1 director, 2 producers, 3 screenplays and no actors.) Oculi (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:PERFCAT, there should be no category for films she starred in. --woodensuperman 16:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am aware of WP:PERFCAT, which seems to contradict the fact that some films are defined by their star(s). Oculi (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- The question that comes up with actor's defining films/TV is who counts as a star? For instance, Humphrey Bogart defined the Maltese Falcon but not the Caine Mutiny according to me but others might have other perspectives. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am aware of WP:PERFCAT, which seems to contradict the fact that some films are defined by their star(s). Oculi (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a useful container category plus it might make sense to spin-off a Garbo filmography article from the main article. Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete/Purge if Kept The loose articles in this category would be fine to list in a filmography article, but the category should be purged if kept per WP:OCASSOC. I don't see the category as aiding navigation and favor outright deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Down merge to Category:Cultural depictions of Greta Garbo. The Images cat can go in that too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
March 18
Category:Six Russian strategic weapons unveiled on 2018
- 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: upmerge to Category:Post–Cold War weapons of Russia (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The Six in the title is unnecessary and not found elsewhere, and would need to be changed anyway if the category changed size. Danski454 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge to parent Category:Post–Cold War weapons of Russia. Unduly specific, even without the 'six'. Oculi (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge - the date of unveiling is not WP:DEFINING, it's just WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. There's an argument that the date of entry into service is important enough to be worth a category, but "post-Cold war" is sufficient - the date of unveiling is less signficant than the service date. Le Deluge (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge to parent Category:Post–Cold War weapons of Russia, per Oculi. That set is not big enough to be broken up by year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Why does the category say "on 2018"? That's not correct usage anyway, shouldn't it be "during 2018" or "in 2018"?... Concur with above rationales. Shearonink (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2019 (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:Vikrant-class aircraft carriers
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Vikrant-class aircraft carriers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Vikrant-class aircraft carriers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: INS Vikrant is a unique ship and is not part of a class. The class page has now been merged to the ship page. There is no point in keeping a category for a single page. —Gazoth (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2019 (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 Greek characters
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Mythological Greek characters to Category:Characters in Greek mythology
- Nominator's rationale: Two categories that describe the same thing. Dotoilage (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support They seem to have the same scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just be careful. I agree that there's no real need to retain separate categories, since Greeks won't generally show up in non-Greek mythologies. However, Roman mythology may be an exception; if Troy be considered Greek, the Aeneid may well have mythological Greek characters who don't show up in Greek mythology. Entellus, for example, was a Greek figure who (judging by his article) only appears in Roman mythology; if he were in this category, it wouldn't be good to merge him to "Characters in Greek mythology". When this is closed as "merge", it would be wise for someone to run a search of the contents and mark articles for review if they have the string
aene
orvirgil
anywhere, and then to merge those articles only if it can be manually confirmed that they aren't unique to Roman mythology. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- Comment"since Greeks won't generally show up in non-Greek mythologies." Wrong. The Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies feature several figures from Greek mythology, as supposed ancestors of Thor. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support but with the word of caution just given. The Aeneid is essentially a work of fiction to provide Rome with a foundation myth epic. Greek myth is properly described as myth. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Dimadick, I should have been clearer; I meant that non-Greeks won't often be original to non-Greek myths. Borrowing figures from elsewhere is quite different from creating them, and as long as you come from Greek mythology, you can be a character in Greek mythology whether or not you're also a character in another mythology too. (For example, Wade of the Helsingas makes a quick appearance in Tolkien in a passing reference to Eärendil, but that doesn't mean he's not a character from Germanic mythology.) My concern regarding Virgil is of no basis in this particular case; someone ran a search of the contents for those strings, I've manually reviewed them, and all of them were borrowed by Virgil from Greek sources. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2019 (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:Painting and the environment
- 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:Environmental impact of paint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Painting and the environment to Category:Paint and the environment
- Nominator's rationale: The cat creator (a banned editor) clearly just chose the wrong word: all of the articles are about paint, NOT "painting". Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good spot, but let's rename to Category:Environmental impact of paint, more consistent within Category:Environmental impact by source. That could be done speedily under WP:C2D per the lead article Environmental impact of paint. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt rename to Category:Environmental impact of paint per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename per last two contributions to match the main article. Painting tends to refer to artwork. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2019 (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:Cerebus the Aardvark
- Propose deleting Category:Cerebus the Aardvark ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Cerebus the Aardvark ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Some individual articles may need to be upmerged but for the most part, they are all categorized correctly already. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- my view is "one franchise: one category". We have a subcat for a series of novels. Spinoffs from that could go into the novels category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Best-selling singles worldwide (by year)
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Best-selling singles worldwide (by year) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Best-selling singles worldwide (by year) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION - WP:TOPTEN Le Deluge (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete A case where a list is better than a category, which exists at List of best-selling singles#IFPI best-selling singles worldwide by year. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - This task should be done by a list article. If there are multiple lists, we might allow a category covering them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2019 (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:Child sexual abuse in religious groups
- Option A:
- Option B:
- Nominator's rationale: I propose recasting these categories either as broader "X and Y" topic-intersection categories (Option A) or as narrower "sexual abuse scandals" set categories (Option B), with a preference for "scandals" over "cases" to align with Category:Religious scandals and also because "cases" suggests the articles are always about legal cases, which they are not. As for the subcategories, I propose they follow the parent category's naming convention, moving away from the ambiguous Fooian ..., where it is not clear what the word is modifying—e.g. abuse cases related to Christian sex, cases related to sex abuse by Christians, cases related to sex abuse of Christians, etc. (Pinging 2 categories' creator, User:Monochrome Monitor; the other creators are either blocked or inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I am purposely omitting Category:Catholic sex abuse cases to avoid discussion of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church". There can be a separate discussion for that category once this one is settled. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question Why are you proposing narrowing the scope from sexual abuse to child sexual abuse? It would help if you'd provide a little more detail on that issue. Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Marcocapelle identifies the reason below. The articles appear to be about instances of child sexual abuse, and all of the categories are subcategories of Category:Child sexual abuse. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support either A or B. The articles in these categories are in fact about child sexual abuse and in addition the parent category is already called "Child sexual abuse in religious groups". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support for option B as this option is more specific to the actual subject matter. Option A seems a tad to general of a title choice for me although that's just my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Prefer B - "A" might imply that the religion condones sexual abuse, whereas all of these ones condemn it, at least in theory. As we have recently learnt, practice where sinful humans are involved falls below the ideal. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame inductees
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OVERLAPCAT
- Today the category only has one article, Bill O'Donnell, but it certainly could be populated to avoid WP:SMALLCAT. Rather, the problem is that Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame is a relatively obscure award for people who have achieved fame more broadly. Generally these articles are already more precisely categorized within the Category:Sportspeople from Nova Scotia tree. I listified the one article plus a bunch of others I found here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Background In the past, we've deleted similar US state-level sports halls of fame categories here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. These people are notable for their achievements, not for being given a "hall of fame" award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, yada yada.... I'm running out of new things to say about these categories. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment/Proposal: Rather than cleaning up these messes after the fact, I think we should give serious consideration to requiring pre-approval for all new awards categories. If I'm not mistaken, that's how it works with stub categories, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- The award categories is one of the few subject trees where I see more categories that hinder navigation than ones that benefit it. Not sure what the appetitite is for such a restriction or how it would technically work. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable achievement....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- DElete -- a typical OCAWARD case. I think we have occasionally kept "Hall of Fame" categories, where the hall is an actual museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2019 (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.
March 17
Category:Associate wardens of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary
- 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). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: We don't have any associate-warden categories for other US prisons, and there are no associate- or assistant- or other less-than-full administrator categories for any country in the Category:Prison administrators tree. Moreover, Category:American prison wardens includes associate wardens and other less-than-full positions. With a few minutes of searching in the category's articles, I found Big Boss Man (wrestler), a former corrections officer in Georgia (more likely a guard than any kind of warden), Arthur M. Dollison (associate warden of Alcatraz), and One Man Gang (prison guard in Louisiana). Clearly the rest of this tree doesn't distinguish between full wardens and not-full wardens, so why should Alcatraz? A merged category wouldn't be too large — there are only ten articles between the two categories. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge -- The headnote of the target should (if necessary) be amended to say that it includes associate wardens. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2019 (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:Houses in San Clemente, California
- 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 Category:Houses in San Clemente, California to Category:Buildings and structures in San Clemente, California and Category:Houses in Orange County, California. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. Also merge into Category:Houses in Orange County, California. TM 20:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2019 (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:Upcoming films by language
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#Category:Upcoming films by language
Category:Pages with graphs
- 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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Pages with graphs to Category:Pages using the Graph extension
- Propose renaming Category:Pages with maps to Category:Pages using the Kartographer extension
- Nominator's rationale: Current category names are inaccurate: Template:OSM Location map, for instance, populates Category:Pages with graphs despite producing a map rather than a graph, and Template:Graph:Map produces a map using the Graph extension, thereby populating Category:Pages with graphs but not Category:Pages with maps (and all of this is defined by the software, so it can't be changed). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename. The current names make it sound like the categories are meant to hold tens or hundreds of thousands of articles, including Cartesian coordinate system and Vienna, Illinois. If we're using a tracking category for a specific technical function, it needs to be named in such a way that people won't think that it belongs on articles where that technical function isn't occurring. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (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:Christchurch mosque shootings
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Christchurch mosque shootings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Christchurch mosque shootings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Other than the obvious main article for the category, the only article in the category has been nominated for deletion. Unnecessary category created because of WP:Recentism. wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep AfD for additional article seems to be moving towards keep. No need to hastily delete this in the meantime. AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Regardless whether Atta Elayyan will be kept or not, WP:SMALLCAT still applies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per Michael Bednarak. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:SMALLCAT. Schwede66 08:02, 24 March 2019 (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:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman
- 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 without prejudice against a fresh wider nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only in very rare cases (e.g. Val Lewton, David O. Selznick, Powell and Pressburger) do producers put their own distinctive mark on films. Moviegoers didn't go to see a movie because it was a Zeidman production, nor did critics pay much, if any, attention, so WP:NONDEFINING applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose- there is the extensive Category:Films by American producers and the nom does not explain why Zeidman is particularly egregious. Oculi (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is a test case. IMO, most of that category should be cleaned out. A filmography in each producer's article is quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, change to: "would support wider nom". I find eg One Direction: This Is Us apparently produced by a multitude, one of whom gets a category: Category:Films produced by Simon Cowell. Oculi (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nonsensical nomination. What do "critics" have to do with Wikipedia categories? Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Or fans. Umm, who does that leave? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- The point is that this is the only kind of criticism that should be given significant weight, and the only kind of criticism that belongs in "Criticism" sections. These are the professional reviewers, whose opinions matter much more than random individual fans or a bunch of them (if that were the case, how would we know when they stopped being random individuals and became a critical mass?), and articles should be written with their opinions in mind. Producers seem to be rather minor overall (unless they're putting on Springtime for Hitler), but I don't know a lot about this field, so I won't advocate keep or delete. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- "the only kind of criticism that belongs in "Criticism" sections" But criticism sections are largely irrelevant to the categorization of any film. Most film-related categories reflect either elements of a film's plot ("set in country X", "set in year X") or the film's production (Film shot in city/state/country X, "produced by company X", "distributed by company X). Critics neither offer the information needed, nor are reliable sources for it. The Aesthetics-related value of a film is their domain. Dimadick (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2019 (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.
People of the Umayyad Caliphate
- Rename Category:Umayyad generals to Category:Generals of the Umayyad Caliphate
- Rename Category:Umayyad governors to Category:Governors of the Umayyad Caliphate
- Rename Category:Umayyad scholars to Category:Scholars of the Umayyad Caliphate
- Rename Category:Umayyad-period poets to Category:Poets of the Umayyad Caliphate
- Nominator's rationale: rename in order to reduce ambiguity: "Umayyad people" may either refer to people of the Umayyad dynasty (more likely so) or to people of the Umayyad Caliphate (as intended in the above categories). The nomination also brings the category names in line with the parent Category:People of the Umayyad Caliphate. A similar case is Category:People of the Ottoman Empire and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. —Al Ameer (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support as with Abbasid; also any other cognate categories. Umayyad refers to the dynasty not its subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment in the similar discussion about people of the Abbasid Caliphate there is opposition especially against renaming the scholars category, that opposition applies likewise here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The "of country" format is broken, and the no consensus outcome of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 28#People_from_the_Ottoman_Empire has left us with numerous absurdities, such as Category:Painters of the Ottoman Empire which contains painters who were from the Ottoman Empire, but the title describes people from anywhere who made paintings of that Empire.
- Same in this case, e.g. Category:Umayyad scholars describes people of the Umayyad Caliphate who were scholars, but Category:Scholars of the Umayyad Caliphate describes people of any era who studied the Umayyad Caliphate.
- Sadly, the uncritical support of a flawed proposal at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 13#Ottoman_people has cascaded into many other similar categories, replicating the same basic problem across many hundreds of categories.my mass nomination at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 28#People_from_the_Ottoman_Empire was closed as no consensus despite the opposes including non-arguments sch as
they're grand as the are
andnominator has not laid out why the Ottoman Empire should be different
, even tho the nomination laid out a large list of problems) and "reluctant oppose" which noted the "absurd results" of the "of the Ottoman Empire" naming format. - It's sad to see that the proposer of this broken naming convention is proposing it yet again, as if the flaws of the "of Foo Empire" format had never been noted before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Especially for the sake of scholars it makes sense to avoid "of" (for the other categories it is less of an issue). As nominator I am equally fine with "from" and once suggested "under". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, "under" implies managerial or hierachical control which is not always the case. It probably applies to generals, but less so the scholars and poets (or maybe not at all).
- "From" is indeed less problematic.
- I think we need an RFC on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins
- 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 both. The contents of each category is listed on the talk page: at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Recipients_of_the_Order_of_Bernardo_O'Higgins and WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Grand_Crosses_of_the_Order_of_Bernardo_O'Higgins--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- When foreign leaders or even diplomats visit Chile, or vice versa, one of these awards is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. First Lady Maria Cavaco Silva of Portugal and Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands are not defined by this award. If you want to see the clutter these categories create at the article level, just look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. I listified the contents of the category here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, yes and yes again - I've seen all too many hyper-cluttered articles like the one you linked. Kudos for taking on this thankless job! Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2019 (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:Artsakh
- Propose deleting Category:Artsakh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Artsakh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The page Artsakh itself is a dab, with two primary meanings - the republic and the Armenian name of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. For the republic we have Category:Republic of Artsakh, while this particular category is actually about the region under its Armenian name which violates WP:NPOV. For the name of the region there's already neutral Category:Nagorno-Karabakh. Brandmeistertalk 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, while Artsakh has been a province, a kingdom and a republic in the course of times (and thus has three wp articles rather than one), it has always been roughly the same region. The province and the kingdom existed long before the (Russian) name Nagorno-Karabakh was invented. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Marco but remove the Republic article from the scope definition. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep but it should essentially be a container, with subcats and their main articles only. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or rename or convert to a category dab page. We normally try to make category names at least as unambiguous as article titles so it doesn't make sense to have a category with the same name as an (article space) dab page. DexDor (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- It should be an index page rather than a dab page. This is not about different regions using the same name, but about one region with different articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- The maps on the articles show they are about different geographical areas (albeit in the same region of the world). Artsakh currently is a dab - and if it was changed to a SIA (especially a dab-like SIA) (assuming that's what you mean by "an index page") then that would still indicate that it's an ambiguous name (no primary topic) and an hence unsuitable name for a category. DexDor (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- The republic consists of a much smaller area, true, but the same applies to Hungary and Austria which are much smaller than before 1918 while we still have categories for Hungary and Austria including their history before 1918. It would have been more convincing if we would have had an overview article about the geographic history of Artsakh in the course of ages, but having a main article is not a mandatory requirement for having a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't really a matter of geography/history; it's a matter of wp categorization - it doesn't make sense for Category:Foobar to be a category (not a redirect) whilst Foobar is a dab page (or dab-like SIA). Either "Artsakh" is ambiguous (in which case it shouldn't be the title of a category) or it has a primary meaning (in which case there shouldn't be a dab page at that location). Are there any other such cases? DexDor (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, assuming there's enough content to warrant more than one category. (If there's just one category, it should be a {{category redirect}}.) The situation here is basically the same as Category:Macedonia; if a category for the region is warranted, it should have a disambiguated title, comparable to Category:Macedonia (region). Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is a workable compromise. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Indo-Pacific fauna
- 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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Indo-Pacific fauna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Indo-Pacific crustaceans
- Propose deleting Category:Indo-Pacific fauna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: In enwp we normally categorize things in the seas/oceans using non-overlapping categories for the Indian Ocean, Pacific etc (see Category:Biota by sea or ocean, Category:Volcanism by ocean and many others). These categories nominated for deletion are for animals found in a region that overlaps part of the Indian Ocean and part of the Pacific (which is an unnecessary complication to the category structure). How is a person creating a new article about, for example, a fish species found off Madagascar, supposed to know that it should go in this category (as well as the Indian Ocean category)? Note: Until recently these categories were putting a Hawaii category under an Indian Ocean category .
- If not deleted then these categories should be renamed because in enwp fauna-by-location categories are normally named "Fauna of Foo" (e.g. "Fauna of Africa" not "African Fauna"). DexDor (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary layer. Odd that Category:Fauna of the Indian Ocean and Category:Crustaceans of the Indian Ocean are not subcats. Oculi (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indo-pacific does not (afaics) cover the whole of the Indian Ocean. DexDor (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep
- - Every species listed in the category has a range of presence +/- equivalent to the Indo-Pacific natural region... therefore what is the advantage in splitting it into two separate categories. (i.e. "Indian" & "Pacific")?
- - The "Fauna of the Indian Ocean" cat. not being eligible as a sub-category of the "Indo-Pacific fauna" cat. has nothing to do with whether or not the latter should be maintained, either. --Couiros22 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, we should keep to one regional classification. The current classification separates the Indian Ocean from the Pacific. If another type of classification (e.g. including Indo-Pacific) would become more common, we should abandon the whole current classification and implement the new classification. But I do not think that we are in that stage yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2019 (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:Caucasian muhajirs
- 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: foo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Caucasian muhajirs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Caucasian muhajirs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, in many articles the term "muhajir" is not even mentioned. Note that Muhajir (Caucasus) is a redirect to Circassian genocide but it is also not very clear how the articles in this category are related to the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (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:Medieval Persia
- Propose renaming Category:Medieval Persia to Category:Medieval Iran
- Nominator's rationale: rename, there was no medieval kingdom or empire called Persia. Various dynasties ruled various parts of what currently is Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- Persia was the English name for the area. This is probably ultimately a reflection of the English having studied ancient Greek. The country was also not called Iran at the time, so that the use of that name is anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- With respect to the latter, Category:Middle Ages by country diffuses medieval history by current countries, so Iran is certainly acceptable. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Mostly, but not entirely. I understand how splitting Category:Medieval Holy Roman Empire would be a problem, but we also have Category:Medieval Great Britain rather than the (more appropriately spelt) Category:Mediaeval United Kingdom. We also have Category:Ottoman Empire, Category:Byzantine Empire, and Category:Al-Andalus as subcategories of Category:Middle Ages by country. I note too that Category:Medieval Israel is a subcategory of Category:Medieval Palestine, which - if we were entirely following current countries - might cause something of a political problem. I would agree, however, that unless we want to split the category into a dizzying array of Rashiduns, Umayyads, Abbasids, Paduspanids, Samanids, etc, using the modern name of Iran might be the most appropriate. So that's a support after a tl;dr. Grutness...wha? 11:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Name of Iran, the terms Iran and Persia describe the same geographic area. Persia is attested since the 5th century BC, and Iran since the 3rd century AD. However, "Persia" is mostly an exonym, while Iran is an endonym. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, as Peterkingiron said, "Persia" is just the English term for the area. The only thing that needs to be looked at here is English usage. A quick glance at google books establishes that "Medieval Persia" is perfectly common. Nor is it outdated, being the title of a 2105 monograph published with Routledge. "Medieval Iran" is a valid synonym, but apparently a slightly less common one. There is no reason to use the deletion process to go out of our way and replace a mainstream term with a slightly less common but acceptable synonym. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- As per nomination, Persia is not the medieval English term for the area. Instead, Iranian intermezzo, Samanid Empire and dynasties ruling various parts of Iran (see e.g. Saffarid dynasty) are the English terms. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Please use the standard English term used for this time period. Otherwise we'd be forced to abandon the use of "Danzig" for all of history, rather than just post-1945, or we'd have to rename Category:Zaire to something like "Congo under Mobuto". Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- The point is that there has never been a medieval kingdom or empire that was called Persia or Iran in any language including English, nor was there a medieval kingdom or empire of which the area slightly resembled what we later have been calling Persia or Iran. Some of them (e.g. Ak Koyunlu) were not even ruled by Iranian people, but by Turkic people. Persia or Iran as a country by itself did not emerge any earlier than in the Early Modern period under the Safavid dynasty. Not surprisingly the source mentioned by User:Dbachmann covers the whole Early Modern period as well. Both Persia and Iran are anachronistic in the Middle Ages, and the only reason for renaming the category is the fact that we allow current (anachronistic) country names in the tree of Category:Middle Ages by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- For one thing, it depends how you define "medieval". Can it include as early as 636, or are you restricting it to the time period after the death of the last Zoroastrian king in 651? Unless "medieval" only includes the Islamic period, you have to account for the concept of Sassanid Persia. Also, if you're only looking at the Islamic period, it's important to explain why "Persia" is appropriate for classical times and late antiquity, and why it's appropriate for the early twentieth century, but not for a significant time period in the middle. And finally, as noted above, this need not be linked to 21st-century political boundaries or the late antique "ancestors" of those boundaries; the point is that the region is known as "Persia", regardless of who controlled what countryside. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Persia not Iran pre-1935, when the Shah said use "Iran". That is the term used in English, regardless of what was used in the country. We don't use "Deutschland", "España", "Italia", etc. just because the people of Germany, Spain, and Italy call their countries by those names. This is an English language site and in times before 1935, in English, the country is called Persia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Weekly events
- 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. At first glance, this was a close call with no consensus ... but the existence of Category:Recurring events with subcats for other time periods including the recently kept Category:Daily events (see CFD 2019 February 17) means that there would need to be some persuasive reason to make weekly events an exception, and those arguments were not clearly made, let alone clearly endorsed. So the result has to be keep.
However, there is some dispute about what the scope of the category should be, and that may need further discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Weekly events ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Weekly events ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles about things that happen weekly, but only a few things have actually been filed here at all: a subcategory for club nights, a protest, a public ceremony and a political debating process. This is not a useful or defining point of commonality between these four things, but populating it out would make it indiscriminate and unmaintainable as Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles about things that occur weekly. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the parent is Category:Recurring events which is broken down by periodicity i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, annually, biennial etc. I actually don't think there are thousands of articles about weekly events, most just wouldn't warrant an article, more likely just a section of another article. Tim! (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have re-added weekly newspapers and magazines which were removed by the nominator prior to the nomination. Tim! (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep having thousands of articles in a category (and its subcategories) is certainly not a reason for deletion. Unlike the daily events category (which has issues I'm not sure are solvable - is Breakfast a daily event?), this one certainly seems reasonable to maintain. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT. None of the subcategories belong here: Category:Club nights and Category:Observances by weekday do not belong here because they are not weekly (e.g. Bang Face is monthly), Category:Weekly journals, Category:Weekly magazines and Category:Weekly newspapers do not belong here because they are not events. Also article Church service does not belong here, there are more than enough churches where you have daily services. So that leaves three articles with virtually no commonality with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. It's reasonable to include content closely related to weekly events in a category of this sort; it's for concepts related to weekly events, not a closed list of specific events. That being resolved, the category becomes appropriate, even if it weren't appropriate before. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting comment. Note that WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Category:Daily_events was closed as "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 15 March 2019 (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.
March 16
Scottish islands
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Populated places in Skye to Category:Populated places on Skye
- Category:Buildings and structures in Skye to Category:Buildings and structures on Skye
- Category:Brochs in Skye to Category:Brochs on Skye
- Category:Castles in Skye to Category:Castles on Skye
- Category:Villages in Harris, Outer Hebrides to Category:Villages on Harris, Outer Hebrides
- Category:Buildings and structures in the Isle of Lewis to Category:Buildings and structures on the Isle of Lewis
- Category:Villages in Islay to Category:Villages on Islay
- Category:Whisky distilleries in Islay to Category:Whisky distilleries on Islay
- Category:Villages in the Isle of Arran to Category:Villages on the Isle of Arran
- Category:Burials in Iona to Category:Burials on Iona
- Category:Villages in Unst to Category:Villages on Unst
- Category:Villages in Whalsay to Category:Villages on Whalsay
- Category:Villages in Yell, Shetland to Category:Villages on Yell, Shetland
- Nominator's rationale: Like the categories of Category:Isle of Wight using "on" rather than "in" is more grammatically correct and natural. Maybe Category:Brochs in Skye, Category:Castles in Skye, Category:Whisky distilleries in Islay and Category:Burials in Iona should instead use "of" eg Category:Brochs of Skye. Note that I also think that the article Skye should be moved to Isle of Skye per the OS but that probably won't happen and renames of "Skye" to "Isle of Skye" can happen later if possible, while the renames of "in Skye" to "on Skye" happening now and if a move of the main article (or main category) later happens we can then rename "on Skye" to "on the Isle of Skye". The Commons category is at Commons:Category:Populated places on the Isle of Skye with the main category at Commons:Category:Isle of Skye (which I renamed from simply "Skye" last year) and I will change "in" to "on" accordingly as a result of this discussion. Note that most other Scottish islands don't have separate categories for settlements though. Out of Category:Villages on Scottish islands more than half use "on" not "in" such as Category:Villages on Jura, Scotland. There was discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Category:Villages in Mull where "on" was agreed and more recently at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 15#Category:Lewis where I suggested using "on" but there was no discussion on that and that was mainly over using "Lewis" or "Isle of Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. There was a previous discussion about this which chose to retain the "in" convention for consistency. Category page area navigational device, not the text of a featured article, and grammatical perfection in category titles can be the enemy of good navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Which previous discussion are you talking about? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Sorry, I wish I could recall. I'd have posted the link if I could remember it. I will do some burrowing now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Sorry, no luck finding it. AFAICR, at the time I preferred "on", but the consensus was for "in".
- @Crouch, Swale: Sorry, I wish I could recall. I'd have posted the link if I could remember it. I will do some burrowing now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Which previous discussion are you talking about? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway, has WP:SCOTLAND been notified? Scottish editors would be best placed to advise on local usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands. Indeed if all islands used "in" the that would be fine but if some use "in" and some use "on" (ignoring large ones and states per below) then its more confusing for navigation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway, has WP:SCOTLAND been notified? Scottish editors would be best placed to advise on local usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Island | Area km2 |
Approx population |
---|---|---|
Lewis and Harris | 2180 | 21000 |
Skye | 10000 | 1650 |
Zanzibar | 2500 | 1300000 |
Longyearbyen | 30000 | 2100 |
Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego | 48000 | 133100 |
Jersey | 118km | 100000 |
Lolland | 1243km | 62600 |
Zealand | 7031 | 2300000 |
Bornholm | 227 | 40000 |
Gotland | 3200 | 58600 |
Sardinia | 24100 | 1650000 |
- @Crouch, Swale: thanks for that notification.
- I agree that consistency is better for navigation (and for editorial categorisation), but:
- your proposal would still leave us using a different format for different geographical entities, which is not consistent
- Your suggested criteria of "ignoring large ones and states" is also problematic, because it is fuzzy in both respects. By
states
, do you mean sovereign states? Or do you include non-sovereign entities, and if so which ones? There are many well-founded definitions which could be used.Large
is also a fuzzy concept, and could be defined by area or by population. Look at the table to the right of a few examples I dug out. How do you propose to apply consistent principle across that set?
- I think that before categories are renamed, this needs a lot more thought and a lot more comparison across wider sets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: By "state" I was meaning a first order diversion of a country such as US state (like California), an English county (like Cornwall) or a French department (like Essonne). But this would of course include countries (ie sovereign states to). For England, Scotland and Wales this would mean that all islands (apart from Anglesey due to as noted it containing other islands) use "on" not "in". I'm less sure how it would work with other countries but I'd note that there is Category:Churches in Lolland and Category:Lakes of Zealand and most others do indeed use "in" but some (like Sardinia) are also administrative divisions and include other areas. For "large" I would only include Great Britain its self for England, Scotland and Wales. So yes consistency is desired here but in terms of the Scottish islands as noted more of Category:Villages on Scottish islands use "on" than "in" so its even more confusing to have some using "on" (like Jura) and some using "in" (like Islay). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: thanks for that reply, but it all gets a bit theological, doesn't it?
- It seems that Ynys Môn isn't an island cos it's joined to a much smaller isle by a 200-year-old causeway whereas Lewis and Harris is an island because despite being almost chopped in two, its causeway is natural. Lolland is an island and its not a govt unit, but its categorised as if it was an island, and so on.
- AFAICS, any attempt to devise some set of rules to replace the ad-hoccery is going to get v complex. Why put readers and editors through such a rigmarole? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Anglesey is the "parent" island to Holy Island so if we took that view then Holy Island (not Anglesey) would no longer be an island (Haswell-Smith doesn't list the Isle of Skye as an island due to the Skye Bridge connecting it to the mainland) but Middle Mouse is clearly not part of Anglesey anyway. Lewis and Harris indeed is and island (and not Harris and the Island of Lewis, despite the name) but as noted "on" can also apply to other landforms so we might have a category like "Snow on Ben Nevis" anyway (presumably only on Commons). Lolland is indeed not a govt unit, that is the Lolland Municipality (my mistake). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The setup in other countries was the best that I could find based on searches and existing category structure, as noted using "on" seems to be the long-standing setup for the Isle of Wight. As noted I'm fine with us using "in" for all islands but we have a mixture of both for Scotland which is even more confusing. Perhaps "in" v "on" also falls under WP:ENGVAR which would allow us to have different setups for different countries but I agree that that indeed would be confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: By "state" I was meaning a first order diversion of a country such as US state (like California), an English county (like Cornwall) or a French department (like Essonne). But this would of course include countries (ie sovereign states to). For England, Scotland and Wales this would mean that all islands (apart from Anglesey due to as noted it containing other islands) use "on" not "in". I'm less sure how it would work with other countries but I'd note that there is Category:Churches in Lolland and Category:Lakes of Zealand and most others do indeed use "in" but some (like Sardinia) are also administrative divisions and include other areas. For "large" I would only include Great Britain its self for England, Scotland and Wales. So yes consistency is desired here but in terms of the Scottish islands as noted more of Category:Villages on Scottish islands use "on" than "in" so its even more confusing to have some using "on" (like Jura) and some using "in" (like Islay). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Using "on" seems to make more sense. If the primary concern is consistency, we need to establish consistent usage first; it's easy to find lots of islands using "in" and lots of islands using "on". For example, all relevant subcategories of Category:Crete use "in", while the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Hawaii by island all use "on". After checking a bunch of island and island-group categories, I believe that we tend to use "in" when the island matches a jurisdiction (e.g. Category:Greenland) and "on" when it doesn't (e.g. Category:Long Island). But if we're making an argument based on consistency, we either need to formalise what appears to be the current situation, or we need to establish a different standard instead. Until we start to establish a standard, we'll have to go with what seems best, and "on" seems better than "in" here. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Greenland is also so large (like Great Britain) that most people would say "in" instead of "on". While these are major islands they aren't large enough that things on them would naturally be referred to as "in". Also none of these are states or equivalent of such as Tasmania (which has Category:Localities in Tasmania), Isle of Wight (which has Category:Villages on the Isle of Wight) and Anglesey (which has Category:Villages in Anglesey but the administrative unit is actually "Isle of Anglesey" and like Tasmania including Flinders Island and many others it also contains Holy Island and several others). Some are (or at least were) civil parishes such as Jura which also includes the islands of Colonsay and Scarba and if a category for Jura parish (as opposed to just island) existed (which it probably shouldn't since Scottish CPs don't appear to have much current status) we might have "Villages in Jura, Scotland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - seems to be the majority usage in Category:Villages in the Inner Hebrides. One would say 'village on the Isle of Skye'. 'Portree is on the Isle of Skye', not 'in' or 'of' or 'upon'. Oculi (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support" "on" is much better than "in" for a single island. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question about burials Being buried "on" an island sounds like a mausoleum; in ordinary cases, I'd be inclined to use buried "in" an island because one's underground, i.e. in the island. Same with geological features and other manmade subsurface features, e.g. "francium deposits in Skye" or "Cold War nuclear shelters in Skye". Do others share my opinion? Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree buried "on" does seem odd indeed, though buried "in" doesn't sound much better, there is Category:Burials in the Isle of Wight (of which the county only consists of the island + The Needles) so I'd be inclined to keep Category:Burials in Iona as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I actually think "buried on" is completely normal English if one is buried on an island. There are countless examples of it. Same with Nyttend's other examples. I would see the use of "in" as being exceptionally strange. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Necrothesp. "buried on the Isle of Skye" gets 39 hits, whereas "buried in the Isle of Skye" gets 0. Oculi (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- "villages in the Isle of Skye" only seems to get 4 results, while villages on the Isle of Skye gets about 22,100. By contrast "villages in Suffolk" gets about 82,500 while "villages on Suffolk" gets about 423. "villages in Great Britain" gets about 329,000 while "villages on Great Britain" gets 0! This is decisive in which terms are preferred but I'm surprised even still that "villages in Great Britain" gets 0. "villages in Tasmania" gets about 42,000 while "villages on Tasmania" only gets 2. By contrast Long Island is much less clear with "villages in Long Island" gets about 46,200 with "villages on Long Island" getting about 17,000 (note that we have List of villages on Long Island). Note that by area, Great Britain is 9th, Tasmania is 26th, Long Island is 149th and the Isle of Skye is 234th. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Necrothesp. "buried on the Isle of Skye" gets 39 hits, whereas "buried in the Isle of Skye" gets 0. Oculi (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I actually think "buried on" is completely normal English if one is buried on an island. There are countless examples of it. Same with Nyttend's other examples. I would see the use of "in" as being exceptionally strange. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree buried "on" does seem odd indeed, though buried "in" doesn't sound much better, there is Category:Burials in the Isle of Wight (of which the county only consists of the island + The Needles) so I'd be inclined to keep Category:Burials in Iona as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Completely logical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose all. Whilst "on" is sometimes used colloquially in connection with island place names, "in" is more common and formal usage in Scotland. Note also that of the above, not all are islands anyway. Lewis is the northern portion of a large island; Harris is the southern portion of that island plus several other islands, at least two of them inhabited; Skye would generally be understood to include a number of surrounding islands in addition to the main island. This usage may be connected to the fact that these places are thought of as geopolitical entities, not just islands: Harris is a parish, Lewis a group of districts, Skye the island part of the Skye and Lochalsh committee area and so on. I note that this usage is not restricted to Scotland either; we have for example Category:Populated places in Anglesey and its subcategories. --Deskford (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Tea Tree oils
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Tea Tree oils ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Tea Tree oils ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with one article. Per Tea tree oil it seems there are no other tea tree oils. Brandmeistertalk 17:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per WP:SMALLCAT, unless other categories can be found. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2019 (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:Nepalese Masculine given names
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Nepalese Masculine given names to Category:Nepalese masculine given names
- Nominator's rationale: Obvious typo. All other "X masculine given names" categories in this branch use sentence case. GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Support Per WP:C2A Typographic and spelling fixes and WP:C2C Consistency with established category tree names. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Move - per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2019 (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:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire
- Propose deleting Category:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize articles by what they are not about. There is no need to merge, all articles are in the tree of Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire already. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question: where are they within Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire? Are they all within Category:Christianity in the Ottoman Empire and Category:Jews and Judaism in the Ottoman Empire?
- That, or a few articles are directly in Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could this be useful and acceptable if renamed to Category:Religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire as a sub-cat of Category:Minorities and Category:Islam and other religions? – Fayenatic London 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire would split in Category:Religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire and Category:Islam in the Ottoman Empire. How helpful is that? It would just be an extra layer before reaching Christianity and Judaism. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep with no objection to renaming if appropriate. This is a major matter of law throughout several centuries of Ottoman history (see millet system), with separate legal codes for each major religious group. The fact that there were significant legal differences between Muslims and non-Muslims (much greater than the legal differences among Druze, Christians, Jews, etc.) is enough to warrant keeping this. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Millet (Ottoman Empire) is one of the few articles that does not refer to Christianity or Judaism specifically and is directly located in Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire. While it was very important in itself, there aren't a lot of different wp articles about it to warrant a separate category. If kept though, the category should be renamed to Category:Millet (Ottoman Empire) per this article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I'm not talking about that article; I'm talking about the system that's the subject of the article. The legal distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims (to which the millet system was intimately connected) was a core feature of law and society in the Ottoman Empire; I'm no expert, so don't trust me implicitly, but I can't think of any other legal divisions that cut across all sectors of society throughout the empire's history and that affected every person's legal status in basically the whole history of the empire. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Distribute among the subcategories of Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire. General articles such as millet covering multiple religions/denominations can go into the parent. I am doubtful whether even a general "Christianity" category should be kept, since each denomination was dealt with as a separate millet. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The few articles that are not already in a subcategory of Category:Religion in the Ottoman Empire, i.e. those that deal with the Ottoman or Muslim minority system as a whole, are better found elsewhere, such as Category:Ottoman society and Category:Taxation in the Ottoman Empire. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, but possibly rename. There are good reasons why we generally avoid "not X" categories, but this is one the instances where a negative category is very much WP:Defining. In a state so closely bound to a single religion, being not of that religion is an attribute which dominates life and career, and failure to categorise on that basis would be a misapplication of the principle behind WP:OCMISC.
- I'm not familiar enough with Ottoman terminology to suggest an alternative name, but it would be nice avoid "non-muslim". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: In fact the opposite is true: in the Early Modern period the Ottoman Empire accepted minority religions by law while European countries officially or even factually accepted only one religion. For categorization the question is: do we have the Religion category split in three religions at once (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) or first split in two (Muslim, non-Muslim) and then again split in two (Jewish, Christian); for navigation the former is much more efficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, point taken about the European model of official religions. So there may be other countries which raise similar issues: early modern Spain seems like a prime example, and 15th/16th-century England might have been if it was more stable about which brand of Christianity it upheld until the early 18th century when it gave up debating toleration vs comprehension and began to adopt both.
- However, the Ottomans were unusual in that while having a very clear official religion, they also ruled over very significant populations of other religions. As you rightly note, the Ottomans accommodated these minority religions rather than persecuting them, but my limited understanding is that they had a sort of tolerated-steer status: a sort of second-class freedom with limits.
- So it seems to me that the single-layer split is more efficient if there is no significant collection of topics belong in all on the non-muslim categories. But if we have a group of topics which are common to all the non-muslim faiths, then navigation will be more efficient if we group those common topics together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
People by country of descent and occupation
- (group 1)
- Propose deleting Category:People by country of descent and occupation
- Propose deleting Category:People of Brazilian descent by occupation
- Propose deleting Category:People of Chinese descent by occupation
- Propose deleting Category:People of Indian descent by occupation
- Propose deleting Category:People of Iranian descent by occupation
- Propose deleting Category:People of Japanese descent by occupation
- (group 2)
- Propose merging Category:American academics of Chinese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
- Propose merging Category:American academics of Indian descent to Category:American people of Indian descent
- Propose merging Category:American academics of Japanese descent to Category:American people of Japanese descent
- Propose merging Category:American actors of Thai descent to Category:American people of Thai descent
- Propose merging Category:American artists of Chinese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
- Propose merging Category:American artists of Indian descent to Category:American people of Indian descent
- Propose merging Category:American artists of Japanese descent to Category:American people of Japanese descent
- Propose merging Category:American artists of Korean descent to Category:American people of Korean descent
- Propose merging Category:American male artists of Indian descent to Category:American people of Indian descent
- Propose merging Category:American male politicians of Indian descent to Category:American people of Indian descent
- (group 3)
- Propose merging Category:American actresses of Chinese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent and Category:American actresses
- Propose merging Category:American actresses of Indian descent to Category:American people of Indian descent and Category:American actresses
- Propose merging Category:American actresses of Japanese descent to Category:American people of Japanese descent and Category:American actresses
- Propose merging Category:American actresses of Korean descent to Category:American people of Korean descent and Category:American actresses
- Propose merging Category:American architects of Chinese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent and Category:American architects
- Propose merging Category:American autobiographers of Chinese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent and Category:American autobiographers
- Propose merging Category:American autobiographers of Japanese descent to Category:American people of Japanese descent and Category:American autobiographers
- group 4 (withdrawn)
- Propose merging Category:American journalists of Chinese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent and Category:American journalists
- Propose merging Category:American journalists of Indian descent to Category:American people of Indian descent and Category:American journalists
- Propose merging Category:American journalists of Japanese descent to Category:American people of Japanese descent and Category:American journalists
- Propose merging Category:American journalists of Korean descent to Category:American people of Korean descent and Category:American journalists
- Propose merging Category:American journalists of Vietnamese descent to Category:American people of Vietnamese descent and Category:American journalists
- Nominator's rationale: delete the tree as a trivial intersection between unrelated characteristics. The nomination consists of three groups:
- deletion of container categories;
- merging to a descent category only, in case all articles are also somewhere else in the tree of the occupational category;
- merging to a descent category and an occupation category, in case it is uncertain whether all articles are also somewhere else in the tree of the occupational category.
- This nomination is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. @Bearcat, Simonm223, Fayenatic london, Carlossuarez46, and Peterkingiron: pinging participants to this earlier discussion. About implementation of the merge (relevant for the closing administrator of the discussion), check here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- It should be noted that there was additional discussion of this matter (which you initiated) here : Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Intersection of descent and occupation. The participants in that discussion should probably also be notified of this (re)proposal. — Myasuda (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is plain stupid of me: I completely forgot that I already initiated this proposal before while it was still left on my to-do list. But rather than withdrawing this nomination, I think it is better to discuss the oppose arguments of the previous time (see below). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- It should be noted that there was additional discussion of this matter (which you initiated) here : Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Intersection of descent and occupation. The participants in that discussion should probably also be notified of this (re)proposal. — Myasuda (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Oculi, Rjensen, Myasuda, Paul 012, Liz, Inter&anthro, Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, My very best wishes, Namiba, Creuzbourg, Hmains, Necrothesp, FieldMarine, RightCowLeftCoast, DexDor, Place Clichy, Elekhh, RightCowLeftCoast, Hmains, Myasuda, Dimadick, Namangwari, Nyttend, AmericanPolitics579, and Zanhe: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
These were the main oppose arguments of the previous discussion:
- We should make an exception for journalists.
- Reply: Fair enough, then I'll withdraw journalists for now and we can discuss them separately later. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Race and ethnicity are important.
- Reply: While I do not quite agree about that anyway, it is important to realize that the nomination is not about race and ethnicity as such, but about the intersection of descent and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- We should make an exception for people in Asia of Chinese descent.
- Reply: Fair enough, then I'll withdraw them for now and we can discuss them separately later. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The subcats of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation have not been nominated.
- Reply: The reason is that Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation is not part of the tree of Category:People by country of descent and occupation which is the tree that has been nominated. I'll be happy to nominate Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation too if this discussion leads somewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- This proposal will lead to more category clutter.
- Reply: It will lead to at most one category more in an article, and often (in case of a single merge) it does not lead to an increase at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Marcocapelle: The only situation in which any of these can lead to an increase in the number of categories is where the category has been implemented to ghettoise people, contrary to WP:EGRS. If the category has been applied correctly, then there will be no increase in the number of categories, because an article will not have been removed from "Cat:Fooian politicians" just because it is also in "Cat:Fooian politicians of Something descent"--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply: It will lead to at most one category more in an article, and often (in case of a single merge) it does not lead to an increase at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- In addition it is important to realize that there is strong bias here: Category:People by country of descent and occupation mainly deals with East and South Asian descent, while Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation mainly splits between African American ethnicity and, again, East and South Asian descent. There is, for example, no Category:German people of French descent by occupation or vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, no stop, full stop, no. Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation is an important categorization, which is useful to those who want to see the prevalence of occupations done by notable Asian Americans. If that is the case within this area of study, surely it is relevant in other ethnic study fields. Also why only single out Chinese descent and not the many other Asian nationalities and ethnicities? Why only single out journalist, and not other as notable occupations?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The sub-topics of Asian Americans in certain occupations have become relevant to have their own sub-articles to the parent article, such as Asian Americans in arts and entertainment, Asian Americans in government and politics, Military history of Asian Americans, Asian Americans in science and technology, etc. Also nice to see no recognition of Southeast Asian Americans in the listing above. Just because there is not a category of German people of Turkish descent by occupation (there is one kinda Category:German politicians of Turkish descent, and also Category:German Jews by occupation), doesn't mean that there cannot be or should not be per WP:WIP and WP:NOTPAPER.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are also other countries which have the categories about certain minority populations and those who are notable within that community and the occupation they worked in, such as for Australia, United Kingdom, and Canada (who could use a category Canadian people by ethnicity and occupation). If this is the case, for these nations, there could be the need in other nations.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Shouldn't Category:American politicians of Chinese descent, etc. be upmerged to Category:American politicians of Asian descent and renamed to Category:Asian-American politicians? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, because while categorized in the same racial category by the Office of Budget Management, which is utilized by the United States Census Bureau, each Asian American ethnicity has its own immigration and cultural history as it relates to the United States, create unique and different backgrounds, which have impacted the prevalence of certain Asian American ethnicities to enter certain fields of occupation.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also generally when spelling Asian American, it is more common not to hyphenate.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, including journalists. Perhaps someone else wants to study German-Americans in certain occupations, or other white Americans in certain occupations, or Turks with certain occupations in Germany. What difference is there? There's no fundamental connexion between race and occupation, so these should be treated the same. Note that certain white American ethnicities are far more likely to enter certain fields (e.g. farming on the Great Plains) than non-whites, but it would be rather silly to have a category for "American farmers of Norwegian descent" even if we had several biographies of them. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I agree with RightCowLeftCoast. Let's keep a valuable aid to users. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support. For some individuals, it is arguable that the intersection of occupation and descent is relevant. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is a classic irrelevant intersection, and in many cases the scent is far enough back that it is not a defining characteristic of the person. Any attempt to constrain the use of these categories to cases where the intersection is of genuine relevance are doomed to fail, because a) most editors will note existence of category and add without checking any restrictions, and b) assessments of relevance are fuzzy and subjective, leading to instability and even edit-wars.
- So overall, these categories do way more harm than good. They complicate the category structure, and divide categories by an attribute which in most cases is of little relevance.
- Bearing in mind the comments above about the social history of discriminatory exclusion in some occupations, and clustering for other reasons, I think we should support the efforts of editors who want to document this ... but do so by listifying each of these categories to the talk page before deletion. That will facilitate the creation of lists and/or substantive articles the intersections between ethnicity and occupation, where there is evidence that the intersection is actually a notable encyclopedic topic and not just original research by en.wp editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with RightCowLeftCoast. For people belonging to majority ethnic groups in their countries, ethnicity is usually not that important, but for people who belong to ethnic minorities, ethnicity is absolutely a defining category. That's why we don't need categories like American politicians of European descent, or Chinese politicians of Han descent, but we do need American politicians of Asian descent and African-American politicians. -Zanhe (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zanhe, this discussion is not about whether to categorise people by descent. It is about whether to categorise them by the intersection of descent and occupation.
- We have a long-established and stable guideline about this: WP:EGRS, which says"Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one."
- Do you have evidence of categories in this set which meet those criteria? Take for example Category:British politicians of Japanese descent, Category:American sportspeople of Thai descent and Category:French politicians of Iranian descent. Where's the evidence that a substantial and encyclopedic head article can be created? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Your interpretation of the guideline is overly narrow, IMO. The same guideline also says: "an "(ethnicity) politicians" category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context. There is no significant or notable difference in context between being a German American politician and a Swedish American politician. But an American politician of Native American descent is a different context from an American politician of European background. Thus, Category:Native American politicians is valid, but Category:German American politicians and Category:Swedish American politicians should not exist. The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that politicians of that ethnic background happen to exist." Which is exactly my point. -Zanhe (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zanhe That does not in any way contradict my point. The guideline is very clear at the head of that section that you need to provide evidence of this, rather than simply assert it as a blanket get-out clause.
- Look for example at one of the categs I selected, Category:British politicians of Japanese descent: it contains former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith. Are you seriously suggesting that the birth nationality of IDS's maternal great-grandmothers has placed him a
different context
from other Tory politicians? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)- Iain Duncan Smith is not a representative case as he's hardly Japanese. Remove him from the category if you want, but it's no reason to delete the cat itself. Consider Alan Mak (politician), for example. His election in 2015 caused quite a stir in Chinese-language media worldwide, which normally couldn't care less about British local politics. Most media coverage of him emphasizes his identity as a British politician of Chinese descent, making it undoubtedly a defining category. -Zanhe (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that IDSis
hardly Japanese
is irrelevant. He is of Japanese descent, which is what this category captures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that IDSis
- Iain Duncan Smith is not a representative case as he's hardly Japanese. Remove him from the category if you want, but it's no reason to delete the cat itself. Consider Alan Mak (politician), for example. His election in 2015 caused quite a stir in Chinese-language media worldwide, which normally couldn't care less about British local politics. Most media coverage of him emphasizes his identity as a British politician of Chinese descent, making it undoubtedly a defining category. -Zanhe (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Your interpretation of the guideline is overly narrow, IMO. The same guideline also says: "an "(ethnicity) politicians" category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context. There is no significant or notable difference in context between being a German American politician and a Swedish American politician. But an American politician of Native American descent is a different context from an American politician of European background. Thus, Category:Native American politicians is valid, but Category:German American politicians and Category:Swedish American politicians should not exist. The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that politicians of that ethnic background happen to exist." Which is exactly my point. -Zanhe (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep selectively and upmerge the rest -- If there are enough articles to make a useful category (typically at least 5) we should keep it. Cases where ethnic descent is a minor factor (e.g. several generations back) should be removed by purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Get rid of the lot. I see no reason why any of the categories have been withdrawn. People's descent is important, but an intersection with their occupation is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm here because I'm researching scientists of different ethnicities to highlight on social media for an American regional science museum. These categories have been extremely helpful for finding interesting people who are not already mainstream but deserve attention, especially on particular heritage days. Without these categories the task would be incredibly time consuming. In fact, it probably wouldn't get done at all. For our visitors, seeing diverse representations in science, especially those working today, is a powerful inspiring thing and these categories help. H0n0r (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @H0n0r. The category system is designed for navigation, and cannot directly accommodate every type of specialist research. However, it can always be examined for such specialist needs by tools such as Petscan.
For example, here is a search for Novelist from Texas of German descent, and here is Wisconsin politicians of Swedish descent.
And, closer to your line of work, here's Scientists from New Jersey of Irish descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)- Use of such tools is too obscure to serve as an argument against these categories. Sure, these tools exist, but most people that use wikipedia are not aware of them—Myasuda (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I just wanted to give a real-world example of how these cats are currently used. H0n0r (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- With all due respect, if you are "researching" scientists in connection with their ethnicity, perceived or real, them Wikipedia categories are a very bad place to do such "research". You'll get false attributions of ethnicity and obvious omissions aplenty. Place Clichy (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously, the poster was just using categories as a starting point for such research. Any researcher would follow-up and validate his / her datapoints.—Myasuda (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow Place Clichy. That was unnecessary.H0n0r (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @H0n0r. The category system is designed for navigation, and cannot directly accommodate every type of specialist research. However, it can always be examined for such specialist needs by tools such as Petscan.
- Strong support. While in some cases the intersection of ethnicity and occupation is a meaningful topic, this is rarely the case with mere descent. The start of this discussion shows that 1°) descent categories have been used as a proxy for ethnicity, which is wrong and should be deleted, and 2°) that their mere presence serves as an invitation to add non-defining or trivial categories to biographical articles irrelevant of the importance of these characteristics in this biography. The above example of Iain Duncan Smith both being a British politician and having a Japanese great-grandmother tells a lot (if ever we find a reliable source defining IDS as a "British politician of Japanese descent" with a connection established between the two, I'll offer you a digital ale). About the proxy for ethnicity issue, see for instance how "Asian descent" is used as proxy in Category:Members of the United States Congress by ethnic or national origin, which only has four subcategories: African-American members, Hispanic and Latino American members, Native American members and... Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. The WP:GHETTO guideline is also a good read on the issue:
For instance, if you cannot create "Category:Gay politicians from Germany" without ghettoizing people from Category:German politicians, then it may be more appropriate to eliminate the more specific category and simply retain Category:Gay politicians and Category:German politicians as two distinct categories...
(the example says gay, but the logic is the same for ethnic/descent categories). Place Clichy (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC) - Upmerge This has gone to crazy. The descent categories are just not applied in a reasonable way that these intersections make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no easy answer to this, so I suggest a pragmatic approach where we set a higher than usual numerical bar - say 10 articles to justify a category. Or we consider evidence that a particular intersection of occupation and ethnicity is defining. In the areas I am familiar with I would say that Asian doctor is a significant category. There are organisations for British doctors of Asian origin. But I am not aware of any similar organisations for British doctors of African or Chinese origin, although there are plenty of such doctors.Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose (for politicians) Delete for some others. It has been widely written about and discussed that (especially for former European colonial) countries that individuals of European descent make up a disproportional amount of the political body. See here: 1 and 2, for sources that describe the disproportional large amount of politicians of European descent there are in Brazil. This is a good reason why categories such as Category:Brazilian politicians of Japanese descent and Category:Brazilian politicians of indigenous peoples descent should be kept. In addition in Europe and elsewhere there are beginning to be a rise in ethnic immigrant political parties such as Denk (political party) in the Netherlands. However, I cannot extend this logic to other categories, for example I think such categories such as Category:American theatre directors of Japanese descent or Category:American autobiographers of Chinese descent seem a bit overly trivial for me. In short I agree with Rathfelder's above sentiment that there probably is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support This is over sub-categorization and has to be stopped somewhere. After all, they all are Americans now, so what's the point of this over-classification based on nationalities. Some basic categories should be kept like: Asian American politicians, African-American politicians, Indian American politicians because they are visible communities in the USA, otherwise, all should be up-merged. Descent cats are enough and serve the purpose well. Störm (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose These categories provide utility to general users, as pointed out by RightCowLeftCoast and H0n0r. Arguments about pointless intersections can be adequately addressed by selective purging and deletion as suggested by Peterkingiron and Rathfelder. —Myasuda (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support being of Fooish descent is not defining and presumably has little to no effect on how one does one's occupation. If WP takes the position that some small distant amount of bloodline (assuming one's parentage is exactly as is told to them) effects how people do their job I'd like to see reliable sources showing that and such a theory probably undermines all anti-discrimination legislation worldwide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Religion in Morocco by city
- 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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Religion in Morocco by city ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Religion in Casablanca ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Religion in Morocco by city ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete as redundant category layers, they both contain only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Both Since there are not any direct articles, this isn't aiding navigation and growth potential seems limited. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (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:Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank
- Propose Deleting Category:Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank
- Propose Deleting Category:Directors of the Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and, for the subcategory, WP:PERFCAT
- No conceptual obection to the parent category but we only have the main article, Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank. For the subcategory, there is also just 1 article (Alberto Bacó Bagué) and Mr. Bagué has held a large number of different rotating offices so this one doesn't seem defining. (It also appears from the PREDB article that the top official is "President" not director but that may be a translation issue.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje
- Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- The Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje is given to members of the Petrović-Njegoš dynasty and other royalty by Montenegro. Being in this family is absolutely defining which is why we already have this Category:House of Petrovic-Njegoš. The members of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means Delete Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete -- yet another OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2019 (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.
March 15
Category:Bajo Nuevo Bank
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Bajo Nuevo Bank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Bajo Nuevo Bank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article. It appears that all relevant parent cats. are already present in the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Little room for growth since it's such a small cay. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: will never contain anything other than the one article in the category, unnecessary categorisation. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2019 (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:Doris Lessing
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Doris Lessing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Doris Lessing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 16:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This was a good-faith creation by me a few years ago. I would prefer that it be kept, but I understand it is in conflict with WP:OCEPON. —Bruce1eetalk 08:36, 16 March 2019 (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.
Macedonia and international organisations
- 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 all per expanded nomination.
(Note: I did participate in this discussion, so I am WP:INVOLVED ... but since every comment supports the proposal, this is an undisputed case per WP:INVOLVED. So I am closing now as part of an effort to clear the big CFD backlog.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Heads of Mission of the Republic of Macedonia to NATO to Category:Heads of Mission of North Macedonia to NATO
- Category:Permanent Representatives of the Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations to Category:Permanent Representatives of North Macedonia to the United Nations
- Category:Ambassadors of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union to Category:Ambassadors of North Macedonia to the European Union
- Related categories added to original nomination:
- Category:Republic of Macedonia and the United Nations to Category:North Macedonia and the United Nations
- Category:United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the Republic of Macedonia to Category:United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning North Macedonia
- Category:Republic of Macedonia–European Union relations to Category:North Macedonia–European Union relations
- Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to North Macedonia
- Nominator's rationale: for consistency within Category:Ambassadors of North Macedonia. At WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia, the nomination excluded categories which
refer to the participation of the country in international organisations such as the United Nations, which sometimes uses a name different to the name chosen by Wikipedia's naming policies
. However, the UN immediately adopted the new name, see this citation from the main article: "On Thursday afternoon, the UN Protocol and Liaison Service announced the official switch over within the UN, from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to the new name of North Macedonia."[25] NATO [26] and EU [27] are also using it. – Fayenatic London 08:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. As noted above, I excluded these from the mass nomination of 650 categories at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia. That was because usage with those organisations has been hotly disputed, and i thought it best that these formerly v controversial categories be given individual consideration.
- The evidence presented by @Fayenatic london demonstrates that all three international organisations have updated their usage to adopt the new time created as a result of the Prespa agreement. So I think that the case for renaming is clear.
- Thanks for FL for doing the research, and for being so nice about my pedantic oppose of doing this via speedy. These international orgs were kinda the epicentre of the now-resolved dispute, so I think that being cautious and bringing it to full discussion was best.
- However, I note that there are parent and sibling categories which should also be renamed: Category:Republic of Macedonia and the United Nations Category:United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the Republic of Macedonia, Category:Republic of Macedonia–European Union relations, Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to the Republic of Macedonia. Would you like to add them to the nom, @FL?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support all - there seems to be very little actual Wikipedian opposition to the change from 'Republic of Macedonia' to 'North Macedonia'. Oculi (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support all, consistent with actual usage of the name "North Macedonia" in these organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support seems entirely legit, based on the general acceptance of the new nomenclature. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support all but there should be a headnote explaining that it includes the period before the change of name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2019 (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:Mosques in Sri Lanka by city
- 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 one, delete others per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Mosques in Sri Lanka by city to Category:Mosques in Sri Lanka and Category:Mosques by city
- Propose deleting Category:Mosques in Sri Lanka by district
- Propose deleting Category:Mosques in Colombo District
- Propose deleting Category:Mosques in Sri Lanka by province
- Propose deleting Category:Mosques in Western Province, Sri Lanka
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge redundant category layer, with only one subcategory for the capital of the country. The district and province categories are also container categories containing only one subcategory, ultimately only for the mosques of the capital of the country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2019 (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:Coptic Catholics
- 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: upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Coptic Catholics to Category:Coptic Catholic Church and Category:Eastern Catholics by church
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge as a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Note that the majority of Coptic Christians is not Catholic but Oriental Orthodox. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2019 (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.
People of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid people by century to Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate by century
- Rename Category:8th-century Abbasid people to Category:8th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:9th-century Abbasid people to Category:9th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:10th-century Abbasid people to Category:10th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:11th-century Abbasid people to Category:11th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:12th-century Abbasid people to Category:12th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:13th-century Abbasid people to Category:13th-century people of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid admirals to Category:Admirals of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid calligraphers to Category:Calligraphers of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid courtiers to Category:Courtiers of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid eunuchs to Category:Eunuchs of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid generals to Category:Generals of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid governors to Category:Governors of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid military personnel to Category:Military personnel of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid officials to Category:Officials of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid scholars to Category:Scholars of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid viziers to Category:Viziers of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid-period musicians to Category:Musicians of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Rename Category:Abbasid-period poets to Category:Poets of the Abbasid Caliphate
- Nominator's rationale: rename in order to reduce ambiguity: "Abbasid people" may either refer to people of the Abbasid dynasty (more likely so) or to people of the Abbasid Caliphate (as intended in the above categories). The nomination also brings the category names in line with the parent Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate. A similar case is Category:People of the Ottoman Empire and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support all, good work. Fayenatic London
- Support all -- This works well. I had to oppose a previous nom. Abbasid (properly used) refers to the dynasty only, not its subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- That would be Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_10#Medieval_Iraqi_people. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support all Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The "of country" format is broken, and the no consensus outcome of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 28#People_from_the_Ottoman_Empire has left us with numerous absurdities, such as Category:Painters of the Ottoman Empire which contains painters who were from the Ottoman Empire, but the title describes people from anywhere who made paintings of that Empire.
- Same in this case, e.g. Category:Abbasid scholars describes people of the Abbasid Caliphate who were scholars, but Category:Scholars of the Abbasid Caliphate describes people of any era who studied the Abbasid Calipahate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps "under" instead of "of" works better after all. This was suggested in another discussion by User:Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Or "from". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Aceh Medal
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Aceh Medal
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- According to the Aceh Medal article, "All soldiers participating in the First Aceh Expedition and/or the first six months of the Second Aceh Expedition were entitled award of the medal." We generally avoid categorizing by campaign medals because it creates clutter for career officers. While a lot of soldiers must have received this award, the category only contains one article which I added ("listified"?) here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Background We've deleted similar categories for campaign medals from other countries here, here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- By All Means - Too much clutter, too little time. :( Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Plain delete -- Campaign medals are awarded for being there and are inherently NN. Unusually, I doubt that we need to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2019 (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.
March 14
Category:Mosques in Kazakhstan by city
- Propose merging Category:Mosques in Kazakhstan by city to Category:Mosques in Kazakhstan and Category:Mosques by city
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, only two subcategories in this container category and the parent Category:Mosques in Kazakhstan is even thinner-populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge This added layer isn't adding navigational value. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Debuts mixtape albums
- Propose deleting Category:Debuts mixtape albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Debuts mixtape albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure this category is even needed because I don't think someone's first mixtape has the cachet and significance that one's debut album has, but at the very least this needs to be renamed to Category:Debut mixtape albums. I just hope this doesn't lead to something like Category:Debut compilation albums.StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support rename. I agree it can be renamed as Category:Debut mixtape albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypillsjr (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. I don't see any evidence that "debut mixtape" has anywhere near the significance of "debut album". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename / do not delete, based on what I am reading in the articles this appears to be the most important characteristic of these articles. If significance is questionable then the articles should be discussed at AFD. Disclosure: this is not my field of expertise. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notability of these mixapes is not what is in question but only if being an artist's debut mixtape is a defining quality. Reading something like The Come Up doesn't suggest that being J. Cole's first mixtape is its most important characteristic anymore than No Strings Attached (NSYNC album) most important characteristic is that it's NSYNC's second album. An artist's debut album will receive a lot more coverage as being their debut, and I don't see that being the case for these mixtapes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Milwaukee Wave 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging :
- Nominator's rationale: Team's players categories are never separated by league. American Money (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge all - as nom says, we do not have separate categories for clubs depending on what league they played in. GiantSnowman 08:29, 15 March 2019 (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.
Needing infoboxes
- 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: speedy delete per WP:G8: Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page.
@Gonnym, for future reference these categories need not have been brought to a CFD discussion. They could simply have been tagged with {{Db-g8}} or {{Db-templatecat}}. That would have been less work for everyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
- Category:Aircraft articles needing infoboxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Gliding articles needing infoboxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Rotorcraft articles needing infoboxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Air sports articles needing infoboxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Aircraft articles needing infoboxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The category documentation only mentions a deleted template. Not sure if this is still used or should be removed. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2019 (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:People permanently banned from Twitter
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:People permanently banned from Twitter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:People permanently banned from Twitter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Way too specific. Are we going to create a cat for every website? Guy Macon (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2019 (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.
Years in London
- 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 per amended nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:1675 in London to Category:1675 in England and Category:17th century in London
- Propose merging Category:1712 in London to Category:1712 in England and
Category:18th century in LondonCategory:1710s in London - Propose merging Category:1742 in London to Category:1742 in England and
Category:18th century in LondonCategory:1740s in London - Propose merging Category:1761 in London to Category:1761 in England and
Category:18th century in LondonCategory:1760s in London - Propose merging Category:1785 in London to Category:1785 in England and
Category:18th century in LondonCategory:1780s in London - Propose merging Category:1794 in London to Category:1794 in England and
Category:18th century in LondonCategory:1790s in London
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article in each of these categories, and big gaps between the years, which makes navigation between the articles cumbersome. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- ALT For the second target, make it the decades of the century in London (e.g. Category:1740s in London). If these too are too small, they can be the subject of later nominations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Laurel Lodged alternative idea. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination adapted for the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support as amended. There should be enough for decade categories. I suspect this could be carried back into 17th century, but this may depend on whether there is yet enough population. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2019 (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:People from the Northern Rivers
- Propose renaming Category:People from the Northern Rivers to Category:People from Northern Rivers
- Nominator's rationale: A far as I can see from the head article Northern Rivers (it's a region of New South Wales, Australia), it doesn't take a definite article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – The article Northern Rivers uses the definitive article when appropriate. Locals use it. These web pages use it: Northern Star, Northern Rivers Community Foundation, Arts Northern Rivers, visitnsw.com. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
March 13
Category:Group actions
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Group actions to Category:Group actions (mathematics)
- Nominator's rationale: For total clarity: avoids confusion with the other type of "Group action", Group action (sociology), and conforms with main article, Group action (mathematics). Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. "Group action" (or "actions") is a particularly nebulous-sounding phrase. bd2412 T 17:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, nicely put. Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2019 (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:Bottled water brands in Ghana
- 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: upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Bottled water brands in Ghana ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Bottled water brands in Ghana ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Recently created category that has only one page populating it. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Ghanaian brands and Category:Bottled water brands (neither of which has any other subcats). Oculi (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Oculi. Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2019 (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:Comics about spiders
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Comics about spiders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Comics about spiders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This is more suited as a list of spider-man related titles and characters, with one from DC, rather than anything to do with actual spiders. I’d be surprised if there were enough pages to properly fill the category, and so it should be deleted. Killer Moff (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as misleading, per nom. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- 'Delete' These are mostly humanoids with "spider powers", not spiders. Plantdrew (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2019 (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:American championships
- 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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Category:American_championships. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:American championships to Category:UNKNOWN
- Nominator's rationale: This category was tagged by an anon editor for speedy renaming to Category:Pan American Championships, but not listed with a rationale. That proposal would be consistent with the article List of Pan American Championships. However, some of the contents do not cover all of the Americas, but North + Caribbean, North + Caribbean + Central, or Central + South. The current name is consistent with others in Category:Continental championships, but I think the best name might be Category:Sports championships in the Americas, following another parent Category:Sports competitions in the Americas. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:International Sports championships in the Americas. I am generally in agreement with Fayenatic london. "Pan American Championships" could easily get confused with the Pan American Games and its affiliates, while "Sports championships in the Americas" is more inclusive for non affiliated sports such as sailing (already in the category). The additional word "International" excludes domestic or generic championships. Otherwise a national championships, the beer pong championships or even a tri-county championship might be able to be included if it were to attain notability in some way. Trackinfo (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2019 (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:American female rappers
- 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 current name. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:American female rappers to Category:American women rappers
- Nominator's rationale: Instead of female, women is perfect sense. Happypillsjr ✉ 05:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I often prefer "women" over "female", but in cases like this, where an appreciable number of articles are likely to be about female performers who are under age 18, I think it's probably better to use the broader term. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Category:Female rappers by nationality and Category:American female singers. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support rename. @Oculi: I thought there was already a discussion-forged consensus built somewhere that "female" people categories should all be moved to 'women' as more respectful, so those categories may need to be moved too. And@Anomalous+0: I don't think we should be making decisions on Wikipedia on such a basis unless there are legal reasons. Different cultures declare adulthood at different ages. And even still, many groups are still called "women's X" even if the majority of participants are minors, such as high school choirs and junior sports competitions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not so. There have been many cfds on this matter, which have gone different ways. Eg this one. In any case there is no chance of picking out one from hundreds and renaming it against the unanimous pattern (in say Category:Female singers by nationality). Oculi (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- The cfd Women/Men or Female/Male as an adjective dwelt at length on the matter. Oculi (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr. Guye - Thanks for you comment, which actually reinforces my argument as to why it's preferable to use the term "female" in certain cases -- precisely to avoid making those distinctions. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I support this in principle, but not as a one-off. Category:Female rappers and it subcats should all be consistently named, and I see no reason to rename Category:American female rappers to "women" while leaving the others unchanged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- It goes up to Category:Female musicians, so it would be quite an undertaking. Oculi (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not really, Oculi.
- Category:Female musicians has 982 subcats, of which 453 contain the word "female". It would take me about 20 minutes to create the nomination listing and tag the categories, if anyone wants to write the rationale. Alternatively, a request at WP:BOTREQ should generate a prompt and helpful response, because this is an easy job for anyone with the tools.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: if @Xaosflux or another BAG member wants to trial Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 13, I can do it - that task was specifically designed to tag all of the subcategories of a category with CfD notices. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: See my comment[28] at the BRFA. This is one of the cases where you script wouldn't work (because it wouldn't preserve capitalisation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: if @Xaosflux or another BAG member wants to trial Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 13, I can do it - that task was specifically designed to tag all of the subcategories of a category with CfD notices. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2019 (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:Temporary Wikipedian user pages
- 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: speedy delete. WP:G4 per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary_Wikipedian_userpages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Propose deleting Category:Temporary Wikipedian user pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Temporary Wikipedian user pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: No longer in use and a similar category Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages was deleted a few years ago. Goveganplease (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2019 (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:Recipients of the Order of Belize
- 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. I have made a list of the category's contents at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Recipients_of_the_Order_of_Belize. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Belize
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- When foreign leaders visit Belize, or vice versa, one of these awards is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Presidents Ma Ying-jeou of the Republic of China, Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Fidel Castro of Cuba are not defined by this award. If you want to see the clutter this type of category creates at the article level, take a look the train wreck at the bottom of this article. The only Belizean in the category also received a higher ranking medal from Belize and I listified the contents of the category here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories for visiting officials here, here, here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly support - Categories like this for lesser awards just create horrendous clutter and discourage readers from making use of the category system. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete after listifying if necessary. This diplomatic awards to foreign heads of state/government are intrinsically NN. A typical OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2019 (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.
15 to 21 days old
March 12
Telephone numbers by country
- Propose merging
- Category:Telephone numbers in Greece to Category:Telephone numbers by country and Category:Telecommunications in Greece
- Category:Telephone numbers in North Macedonia to Category:Telephone numbers by country and Category:Telecommunications in North Macedonia
- Category:Telephone numbers in Tokelau to Category:Telephone numbers by country and Category:Telecommunications in Tokelau
- Nominator's rationale: These three categories only contain the lead article and therefore do not help navigation. All other sub-cats of Category:Telephone numbers by country contain multiple entries. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I have two main reasons for objecting to this change.
1. It is important to have a consistent naming structure for all countries. This aids both navigation for users, and editing for contributors.
2. At present, it may be the case that the categories have only one article, but more articles may be added to these categories in future. In which case these changes would have to be reversed. These is little benefit to be gained from making the change, and there is a significant possibility that it would have to be reversed soon even if the reason given (only one article in category) was to be accepted. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, all siblings in the tree of Category:Telephone numbers by country may be nominated, as each of the countries is lacking sufficient content. Having just one Category:Telephone numbers by country with articles only, and one Category:Lists of dialling codes by country with articles only, should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom and per WP:SMALLCAT.
- Category:Telephone numbers by country contains nearly 300 pages, but only 22 subcats (including these), so the by-country subcats are clearly not part of an established series.
- I see no evidence that categories are likely to be expanded in the foreseeable future ... but if more articles become available, then they can easily be re-created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Religion in France by city
Propose merging Category:Religion in France by city to Category:Religion in France and Category:Religion in Europe by city- Propose merging Category:Places of worship in France by city to Category:Places of worship in France and Category:Places of worship by city (excluding the churches subcat)
- Nominator's rationale: Only few cities in France have a separate religion category on top of the Christianity category, or a separate places of worship category on top of the churches category, which makes sense because Christianity is dominant in the French religious landscape. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, IDK if Christianity is still dominant in the French religious landscape now, but it has had the most massive role to play in France's long, long, history. I am from the U.S. and have not sufficiently studied French history outside of their Revolution, and thus may be wrong. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I dont think religion in France, or indeed in other countries, varies much from city to city. The articles are mostly about Places of worship.Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Category:Religion in France by city now has 10 subcats, after I created a few more.
- Category:Places of worship in France by city is good way of grouping religious buildings by city. There should be more such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Roman Catholic churches in France by city exists for a good reason, but the number of places of worship other than Roman Catholic churches is very limited in smaller French cities. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw first nomination, while imho the new-created subcategories add little value, it would require a separate nomination to have them upmerged as well. Given the fact that they exist, a merger of Category:Religion in France by city is no longer applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the by-city subcats of Category:Religion in France by city which I created have been reduced to single-item containers by the noninator's subsequent creation of Category:Christianity in France by city, and its subcats Category:Christianity in Toulouse, Category:Christianity in Strasbourg, Category:Christianity in Nice, Category:Christianity in Marseille , Category:Christianity in Lille.
- It is surprising that @Marcocapelle chose not to disclose those creations when complaining that the broader
new-created subcategories add little value
. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)- It was already addressed in the nomination rationale that there is too little content about religion beside Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the Category:Places of worship in France by city is one of ~1000 similar categories which at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Places_of_worship I have proposed renaming to the slightly broader title "Religious buildings". In some cases, this will add a few articles to those categories, so if there is consensus for that renaming, it may alter the assessment of the categories nominated here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:WikiProject Aviation guidelines
- Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Aviation guidelines to Category:WikiProject Aviation advice pages
- Nominator's rationale: These are not WP:Guidelines; they're WP:PROJPAGE essays ("WikiProject advice pages"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - the inclusion of the word "pages" in the proposed category name is inconsistent with existing categories (e.g. Category:WikiProject style advice). DexDor (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to something more appropriate. Merely as a suggestion: Category:WikiProject Aviation essays. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Village in Pakistan
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Village in Pakistan to Category:Villages in Pakistan
- Nominator's rationale: Merge singular version of category into correctly formatted plural version. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (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:Women in film
- 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: split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose splitting Category:Women in film to Category:Women in film and Category:Depictions of women in film
- Nominator's rationale: Women in film currently covers both real and fictional women. Oornery (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. There is already a sub-cat Category:Female characters in film, which is within Category:Cultural depictions of women, but there are sufficient other "Films about..." sub-cats in here to make this a useful structure. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 13 March 2019 (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:Kim Norton
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Kim Norton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Kim Norton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON Le Deluge (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RISIBLE. Oculi (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a small category but it requires no maintenance and serves a purpose: it ties the photo to the person. Jonathunder (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- The photo, which has just been added, should be moved to Category:Images of Kim Norton, part of Category:Images of American politicians. The article Kim Norton does a good job in tying the photo to the person. Oculi (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Textbook example of WP:OCEPON. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:42, 14 March 2019 (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:Leibniz scholars
- 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:Gottfried Leibniz scholars. The nominator @RevelationDirect and others may wish to purge the renamed category of articles for whom the category is WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Leibniz scholars
- Propose Selectively Upmerging Maria Rosa Antognazza to Category:Gottfried Leibniz
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
- This category groups academics who focus on Gottfried Leibniz but we only have one article in Wikipedia that definitely belongs in it so far (Maria Rosa Antognazza) and growth potential is limited. There a two other articles in the category: Chad Engelland had a thesis on Leibniz but that is not his professional focus while the Stephen Daniel article makes no mention of Leibniz at all. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename this to Category:Gottfried Leibniz scholars since we're not in Aristotle/Oprah first name territory here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Gottfried Leibniz scholars per Category:Gottfried Leibniz. I agree with the nom about 2 of the articles, but I did find 2 others and there may be more. It is my personal view that a focussed subcat such as Category:Leibniz scholars is much better than lumping anyone vaguely connected with Leibniz into Category:Gottfried Leibniz. Or: 'Leibniz scholar' is a defining characteristic for someone devoted to the study of Leibniz. Oculi (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with a purge/populate and rename approach as long as we end up with a viable category. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2019 (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:Shakespeare Prize recipients
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Shakespeare Prize recipients
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- This award certainly sounds defining. It is given by a nonprifit in Hamburg, Germany each year to a British performer or writer in order to promote better relations between Germany and the U.K. Some of the biography articles mention the award in passing with other honours but many articles don't mention it at all. The winners are already listed here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Hah. It certainly does sound defining. And I suppose it actually might be if it was awarded by the Royal Shakespeare Company. (LOL) Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete -- a typical OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2019 (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.
March 11
Category:Greta Garbo
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Category:Greta Garbo
Category:Sarah Michelle Gellar
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Sarah Michelle Gellar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Sarah Michelle Gellar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Only one other article besides main. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 2019 (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:Gary Cooper
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Gary Cooper ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Gary Cooper ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Only one other article besides main. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 2019 (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:Kim Basinger
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Kim Basinger ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Kim Basinger ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Minimal content to justify eponymous category. Certainly doesn't add navigation over the main article itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 2019 (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:Eddie Murphy
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Category:Eddie Murphy
Category:John Ritter
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:John Ritter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:John Ritter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This is basically an empty category. Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Apparently was populated simply with relatives which is overkill for an eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 2019 (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:Don Murray (actor)
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Don Murray (actor) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Don Murray (actor) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Basically empty. The subcategory Category:Images of Don Murray (actor) doesn't need a parent category other than Category:Images of American people and Category:Images of actors. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have no objection. I just found this in the red wanted categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2019 (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:Seasons in Macedonian football
- Propose merging either:
- or
- Nominator's rationale: Regardless of what decisions are made at WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC#Adjective, there doesn't seem to be any distinction in scope between these two categories, and they each have the same two parent categories: Category:Association football seasons by country and Category:Football in North Macedonia.
- So I don't see any purpose in retaining both. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option A - avoid the adjective, cf Category:Seasons in New Zealand association football. Oculi (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option B - 'New Zealand' is the denonym, and it is standard to use the denonym (see e.g. Category:Seasons in English football et al). GiantSnowman 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a great deal of controversy about whether 'Macedonian' is the denonym (cf 'Northern Irish' - Category:Seasons in Northern Irish football has somehow survived so far). Oculi (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename/merge all to Category:Seasons in North Macedonian football with a headnote to the effect that it includes the period before the country was renamed. This is standard practice with merged and renamed entities, a principle originally developed for alumni categories for renamed or merged colleges. The individual seasons should not be renamed, because they reflect the name of the time. This is all about the same place, a renamed country not a new one. We have also applied this to colonies/republics that have changed names, such as Upper Volta/Burkino Faso. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron, I oppose that proposal to use the adjective "North Macedonian". That term is highly controversial, and is still being debated at WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019_RFC#Adjective.
- That is why I proposed one other of the two existing names, both of which appear to be acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- The RFC is currently in the process of being closed. We may well follow the outcome of that closure for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Fictional trans people
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional transmen to Category:Fictional trans men
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional transwomen to Category:Fictional trans women
- Nominator's rationale: The phrases "trans men"/"trans women" are preferred to "transmen"/"transwomen", to to avoid the implication that they are not men or women but something else. Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seems reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge both to Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. At ~30 articles in total, there is not enough content to justify splitting the category based on declared gender. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not true. It's far more effective to have it this way. A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. Merging them would do nothing but make navigation harder.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense.
That's definitely not true. The 5-article threshold is a minimum necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to justify a category's existence. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)- No one is suggesting that we have a category for trans male characters solely because there are more than five of them, but rather because it would also be useful. This isn't a case of WP:SMALLCAT; there are obviously more of them than this, and the number is already starting to rapidly grow. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I don't see the category's usefulness. I agree that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to this category, but my focus continues to be on the necessity and utility of splitting Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. We can disagree about utility, but with ~30 articles it is definitely not necessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- The usefulness comes from the fact that they are distinct groups, because their defining trait is their gender. Someone researching trans characters will almost always consider their gender significant. For example, a trans man looking to identify characters like himself would appreciate not having to click thru a category of mostly off-topic articles to find those. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I don't see the category's usefulness. I agree that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to this category, but my focus continues to be on the necessity and utility of splitting Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. We can disagree about utility, but with ~30 articles it is definitely not necessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- No one is suggesting that we have a category for trans male characters solely because there are more than five of them, but rather because it would also be useful. This isn't a case of WP:SMALLCAT; there are obviously more of them than this, and the number is already starting to rapidly grow. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue that breaking the category down by gender is not just acceptable, but valuable, because the category is about gender. The fact that Maura Pfefferman is female isn't an incidental part of the character; it's arguably the main theme of the story she appears in. Further a question such as, "How are trans men handled in fiction?" would be a very likely topic of inquiry, which categories are meant to assist. And there's "optics": Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- The handling of transgenderism in fiction would be a meaningful category, but that's not what this is—this is just a bifurcation of transgender characters by their declared gender. I don't disagree that doing this could be acceptable and valuable in principle but for me it's a question of organization, and a 30-member category does not, quite simply, benefit from being split.
Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case.
Not so, and I don't think we should let "optics" drive the decision. Someone could potentially infer that, but in my experience people who assume the worst before asking questions tend to do so regardless of how much we try to accommodate them. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- The handling of transgenderism in fiction would be a meaningful category, but that's not what this is—this is just a bifurcation of transgender characters by their declared gender. I don't disagree that doing this could be acceptable and valuable in principle but for me it's a question of organization, and a 30-member category does not, quite simply, benefit from being split.
- Not true. It's far more effective to have it this way. A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. Merging them would do nothing but make navigation harder.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename/Keep Separate The rename seems clearer. I do not infer any bad intent with the suggestion to merge the categories, above. Since what is defining is the identified gender, I think it's defining whether they are trans men or trans women. As more more trans characters are created and our understanding of gender increases, no objection to reviewing how best to categorize these articles to aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Alternate proposal: I to think there is value in keeping these categories separate because their treatments in fiction are likely to reflect their differing treatment/reception in real life. However, neither the current names nor the proposed names are appropriate for Wiki categories.
- The proper solution is to Rename Both in accord with the overall parent Category:Transgender and transsexual people and ALL of its other subcats, which yields: Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual men and Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual women. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would instead be worthwhile to revisit the 15-year-old decision to use the construct "transgender and transsexual"; "trans" has since come into general use as an inclusive term. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- The proper solution is to Rename Both in accord with the overall parent Category:Transgender and transsexual people and ALL of its other subcats, which yields: Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual men and Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual women. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But that would be a whole other, much larger, CFD discussion. So for now, these categories should just be renamed as I've suggested. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support alternate proposal as a straightforward case of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support alternate proposal per Anomalous+0+0 as a straightforward case of WP:C2C. Oppose keep, 2nd preference merge per Black Falcon. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the categories are kept separate, then certainly rename per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether they should be kept separate or merged as Black Falcon suggests, and I also would not oppose alternatively renaming them to incorporate the full "transgender or transsexual" phrase, as Anomalous suggests, although I would prefer if all those categories were revisited to use the now-common short form "trans". Mostly I just agree that the current outdated unspaced names should go. -sche (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to use the correct form. Do not merge; gender is the defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Anti-pornography movements
- 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: Opinion is roughly evenly split. Neither side cited any scholarly evidence, and neither had cited any edge in policy or guideline. And so, after 40 days and forty nights, there didst emerge no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Anti-pornography movements to Category:Anti-pornography movement
- Nominator's rationale: This was suggested on the Speedy page, but it did not fit the criteria there. I am inclined to agree with the original nominator that there is an overall anti-pornography movement. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
|
---|
|
- Inclined to keep plural (if there's one movement, why are there so many articles, I ask myself). It seems unlikely to me, given the geographic and time ranges, that half these groups have even heard of the other half. Mary Whitehouse's lot (older British readers will recall it), now rebranded Mediawatch-UK, is not there, nor are a number of older groups, now presumably defunct. Nor is the US National Legion of Decency. As always, people should spend less time worrying about the minutiae of category names, and more about whether they contain the obvious basic contents! You know who you are. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Bear in mind, there is a fundamental distinction between movements and organizations. Movements are comprised of organizations along with large numbers of individuals. This is true across the board, regardless of what particular movement you're talking about. In this case, all of those organizations are part of the Anti-pornography movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: - I should have pinged you when I posted my reply to your comment. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Bear in mind, there is a fundamental distinction between movements and organizations. Movements are comprised of organizations along with large numbers of individuals. This is true across the board, regardless of what particular movement you're talking about. In this case, all of those organizations are part of the Anti-pornography movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not a single movement. For one, anti-porn feminism and anti-porn evangelicalism are quite different. feminist (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Tend to support. The article Anti-pornography movement in the United Kingdom (singular) suggests it is one movement originated from two different perspectives (a feminist and a conservative/religious perspective). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting ping to the participants: @Fayenatic london, Anomalous+0, Johnbod, Feminist, and Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Alternative It doesn't feel to me that there is a single, worldwide movement, you could add the likes of the Bad Sex in Fiction Award whose position is solely based on literary merit for instance. At the very least, the use of "movement(s)" is debatable and confusing, which suggests to me that it should be avoided. How about Category:Anti-pornography campaigns? Le Deluge (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's in Category:Social movements, though I'm not sure it belongs there. I notice a number of other sub-cats of that use the plural. And the Bad Sex in Fiction Award has nothing against well-written sex in books, you'll find. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Anatomy of Social Movements 101" - Elaborating further on what I said above:
- Social movements are large, complex, amorphous, heterogeneous social organisms, comprised of the following elements:
- Large numbers of Individuals, ranging from sympathizers and occasional volunteers to full-blown activists.
- An array of Organizations, ranging from small informal groups to large organizations with formal memberships, and also ranging from short-lived ad hoc groups to non-profit organizations with boards of directors.
- Campaigns - focused efforts undertaken by activists and organizations.
- As I said, social movements are complex, amorphous and heterogeneous -- which means they include a diverse range of people and organizations with differing views on all sorts of things, working toward the same general goal, but not necessarily coordinating with one another in their efforts. The Anti-pornography movement is no exception. Take the issue of anti-porn feminism versus anti-porn evangelicalism: very different people, to be sure, yet part of the same overall movement -- much like Catholic pacifists and Marxist radicals were all part of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
- Lastly, as far as I'm aware, there are no categories for Campaigns; I think I've come across a few articles about campaigns, but as a rule they're just discussed within articles about the organizations that direct them or the movements that spawn them. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just because OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST, doesn't mean it's a flawed idea. However trying to categorise by something that is by your own admission "complex, amorphous, heterogeneous" sounds like the exact opposite of a good Wikipedia category.Le Deluge (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh dear, did I offend you? I was merely pointing out that there simply aren't anywhere near enough articles about campaigns to serve as a basis for categorization. If there were enough articles it might make sense. Btw, my remarks about social movements was hardly an "admission" (LOL), just a clear-eyed and knowledgable description, by way of explaining that it's not at all unusual to find different views and tendencies co-existing in the same movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just because OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST, doesn't mean it's a flawed idea. However trying to categorise by something that is by your own admission "complex, amorphous, heterogeneous" sounds like the exact opposite of a good Wikipedia category.Le Deluge (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (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.
- 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 1 / rename 3 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Royal houses of Norway to Category:Norwegian royal houses
- Propose renaming Category:Royal houses of Denmark to Category:Danish royal houses
- Propose renaming Category:Royal families of Sweden to Category:Swedish royal houses
- Propose renaming Category:Burial sites of Royal families of Sweden to Category:Burial sites of Swedish royal houses
- Nominator's rationale: more consistent with Category:Scandinavian royal houses, siblings in Category:Burial sites of European royal families, and the contents of these categories which use "House" rather than "family" or "dynasty". – Fayenatic London 13:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
|
---|
|
- Oppose - more people will find these categories more quickly if their names begin with "Royal families of ...". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support, only for consistency reasons. The form "Royal houses of Norway" is actually more to the point than "Norwegian royal houses" which may imply "Royal houses from Norway", so a wider nomination with a reverse rename would be appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging the participants to see if they have anything to add to help reach a consensus: @Fayenatic london, Chicbyaccident, Armbrust, Black Falcon, SergeWoodzing, and Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I still believe my nomination would be the most helpful option, as it would be most consistent with parents, siblings and sub-categories. To help people looking for "Royal families of…", we can add redirects from those names. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - User:Westfield2015 who created all but one of these is a sock of User:Pastorwayne, the legendary creator of bizarre categories (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne, several of which include Westfield). Amusingly Westfield2015 seems to have created both Category:Royal houses of Norway and Category:Norwegian royal houses on the same day. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2019 (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:Right-Wing Militia
- 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:Right-Wing Militia to Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following suggestion at Speedy page, matching article Militia organizations in the United States. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
|
---|
|
- Alt Rename/Support I would favor Category:Militia organizations in the United States to match the main article (Militia organizations in the United States). The proposal is better than the current article name so would also favor the proposal above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support - the original suggestion seems better. Note there is also Category:Left-wing militant groups in the United States. In true US style, these articles are not tied in the the international tree very well. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting comment. @Fayenatic london, Anomalous+0, Black Falcon, RevelationDirect, and Johnbod: none of you likes the current title. Can you reach a consensus on which of the suggested alternatives would be better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any objections so far to "Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States" - Anomalous+0 hasn't commented on it, but everyone else seems ok with it, as I am. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: This is, usefully, part of several "Right-wing" parent hierarchies. Just because there is no lead article specific to right-wing hierarchies does not mean it should be named in such a way that should take it out of those parents. By all means create an additional parent Category:Militia organizations in the United States to hold both left and right, if that would aid navigation. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- While not my first choice, the proposed rename is still much better than the current category name that doesn't mention a country. Mild Support for the nom. (Note this is my second/clarifying vote.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- rename per nom as a better alternative. Separately, the article should be similarly renamed as it only discusses right wing militias in the US Hmains (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2019 (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:Caucus
- 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:Caucus to Category:Caucuses in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Caucus to Category:United States presidential caucuses
- Nominator's rationale: The current name is excessively vague; the category contains articles about caucuses used in selecting US presidential candidates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm wondering if your proposal would work better as a sub-category under Category:Caucus since a minority of the current won't belong in the new category. Specifically, Boston Caucus isn't presidential, Caucus and Caucus chair are not American-specific. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:United States caucuses - firstly it's distinctly about the US, and not about caucases in other parts of the world, and secondly, it should use the plural. If you want an overall parent, then it should be Category:Caucuses, but I dpn't see it as being particularly vital. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:United States caucuses (or similar) per Grutness. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Caucuses in the United States. Better grammatically. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting question: there seems to be a consensus to rename to either Category:United States caucuses or Category:Caucuses in the United States.
- @Power~enwiki, Grutness, and RevelationDirect: please can you clarify which you prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- My suggestion was simply following the name in the original proposal. Perhaps the other option, (Category:Caucuses in the United States) would be preferable, however, given that we already have Category:Caucuses of the United States Congress. Grutness...wha? 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer Category:Caucuses in the United States, but am not going to bother checking if there's policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename with preference for Category:Caucuses in the United States but no objection to Category:United States caucuses if it achieves consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- rename to Category:Caucuses in the United States as this pertains to their geographic location not the polity involved. Hmains (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- rename to Category:Caucuses in the United States. Also note that caucus and caucus chair should be removed from the category. Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- REname one way or the other. Prefer Category:Caucuses in the United States. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2019 (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:List of DAV schools in India
- 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:Schools affiliated with the Arya Samaj. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:List of DAV schools in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:List of DAV schools in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: New category created by editor with competency issues. It is nothing more than an uncategorised list with no links in the categorisation tree and I'm not sure what to do with it. With this editor, deletion is the normal direction we've been heading but if somebody can work out what to do with it... AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SHAREDNAME, and all these schools are already in Category:Schools affiliated with the Arya Samaj. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2019 (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:Amazon oil
- 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, with selected upmerging per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Amazon oil
- Propose Selectively Upmerging Açaí oil & Ucuhuba seed oil to Category:Cooking oils
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCLOCATION
- This category groups both plant articles are that are indigenous to the Amazon rainforest if they can produce cooking oil and actual cooking oil articles if they are made from plants from the Amazon. (Some of these are endemic and grew naturally only in the Amazon basin while others had a broader distribution in the Americas.) The plant articles are already well categorized under the Category:Flora of Brazil tee and I added the the cooking oil articles to the Category:Crops originating from South America tree. I can't picture a Wikipedia reader that wants to know crops from the Amazon but only if they are cooking oils (or vice versa). Alternatively, if kept, we should rename to make it clear it is not petroleum related. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (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:Recipients of the Carlsberg Architectural Prize
- 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. If anyone wants to make a list, the 4 pages currently in the category are: Carlsberg Architectural Prize, Tadao Ando, Juha Leiviskä, Peter Zumthor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Carlsberg Architectural Prize
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- This was a short-lived Danish architectural award given out 3 times between 1992-1998. All three of the recipients are non-Danish (Tadao Ando, Juha Leiviskä, Peter Zumthor) and were already prominent before receiving the award so it's mentioned only in passing in each article along with other honors. Since the award is discontinued, there is no room for growth nor any likelihood that its prestige will increase with time. The recipients are already listified here within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - we have the list already. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Listify then delete -- as usual for OCAWARD. Lists do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2019 (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.
March 10
Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (W-League) 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 to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (women) players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think it's worth having these two categories. The team played in the USL W-League for the entirety of its existence. Although to be consistent with the parent article, perhaps the merged category should be called Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (women) players? I'm not sure if that can be done here or if I'd need to request a renaming if my merger request is successful. Many thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and move to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (women) players in line with standard naming conventions and to match the parent article name. GiantSnowman 12:01, 11 March 2019 (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:Independent Eastern Orthodox denominations
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge). Confusingly the previous discussion concerned a rename nomination while it should have been a merge nomination. The confusing nomination may well have contributed to a lack of consensus in that discussion. By this new nomination a clear merge (or reverse merge) is proposed. The rationale is obvious: the two categories serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Chicbyaccident, Laurel Lodged, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: for the record, the nominated category was previously "Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies", and renamed (over a redirect; not merged as stated in the close) at CFD 2018 Nov 25. (If both the adjacent nominations on that page had obtained consensus, then it would have been a merge.) The target category was previously "Category:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements", and renamed at CFD 2013 May 28. For even older names of both, see CFD 2008 Oct 23. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Do not merge these two, but relist or re-nominate Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches for renaming to Category:Schisms from the Russian Orthodox Church.Both categories are currently sub-cats of Category:Schisms from the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the target is also a sub-cat of Category:Russian Orthodox Church,and its contents fit the name that I have suggested. After renaming that one, then by all means rename Category:Independent Eastern Orthodox denominations to Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches, and put the Russian category within it.– Fayenatic London 22:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)- Split the difference Interesting categories. Denomination is POV. Schism is also POV. "Independent EO Churches" is the best and most neutral name but isn't in either merge proposal. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Schisms" is part of Category:Schisms in Christianity, which in turn is part of Category:Religious schisms. Now, if we are not deleting that hierarchy, what's the difference between independent EO churches, and Category:Schisms from the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Merge to that one instead.– Fayenatic London 20:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: "Schisms" categories should be for articles specifically about a split itself (such as East–West Schism, Western Schism or Raskol), not the church body or sect resulting from a schism (they all do). Place Clichy (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Place Clichy: you are evidently right. I have struck my suggestions above. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: "Schisms" categories should be for articles specifically about a split itself (such as East–West Schism, Western Schism or Raskol), not the church body or sect resulting from a schism (they all do). Place Clichy (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Schisms" is part of Category:Schisms in Christianity, which in turn is part of Category:Religious schisms. Now, if we are not deleting that hierarchy, what's the difference between independent EO churches, and Category:Schisms from the Eastern Orthodox Church?
- Move back to the names decided in this structured CfD :
- Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies for major Church bodies widely regarded as Eastern Orthodox which temporarily lacked communion with the rest (such as Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate, or Bulgarian Exarchate), and
- Category:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements for sects that originated from Orthodoxy (most often, Russian Orthodoxy), such as Doukhobors and Molokans.
- These two are not the same thing. Place Clichy (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- A distinction like this is a lot clearer. However, I wonder whether any church bodies should be included in the second category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy: Do you have any further comment here? Why not simply 'movements' for the second category? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: looking further, I realized there is a top article for these "movements", which is Spiritual Christianity. Most of these belong to the description given there:
non-Orthodox indigenous to the Russian Empire that emerged from among the Orthodox, and from the Bezpopovtsy Raskolniks. Origins may be due to Protestant movements imported to Russia by missionaries, mixed with folk traditions, resulting in tribes of believers collectively called sektanty (sects).
Just to be clear, the Protestant reference cannot in any way be understood as a link to Protestantism, but just that these groups reject such or such aspect of the teaching of their original mother church, the Russian Orthodox Church. I suggest moving this group to a new Category:Spiritual Christianity per C2D, and keep the original name Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies for the remainder of the merge category. The new Spiritual Christianity category should be parented to, for instance, Category:Christian movements, in addition to the current Category:Russian Orthodoxy and the renamed Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies. Place Clichy (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)- Both subcategories and half of the articles can be classified under Spiritual Christianity, but the other half of the articles can't. Having said that, there is admittedly an issue in the sense that a number of these (movements?) (sects?) can't be regarded as Eastern Orthodox either. Perhaps most of them should simply be put in Category:Christianity in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy: Forgot to ping you last week. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: looking further, I realized there is a top article for these "movements", which is Spiritual Christianity. Most of these belong to the description given there:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 10 March 2019 (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:NHS hospital trusts
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:NHS hospital trusts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:NHS hospital trusts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The term "NHS hospital trust" is no longer in use. Since the 2013 reorganisation of the NHS, a range of trust types were abolished, and all trusts are now either "NHS trusts" or "NHS foundation trusts". See here: [29] BLSMD (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wikipedia does not have to follow official policies when it comes to categorising articles. The 2012 legislation didn't actually say anything about types of trusts. All trusts were already either "NHS trusts" or "NHS foundation trusts", but some run mental health services, some acute hospitals, and some ambulance services. That distinction is helpful because it enables the articles, via their categorisation, to be linked to the appropriate clinical field. Furthermore there have been a lot of mergers, so many of the articles are about organisations which no longer exist and are not affected by any official recategorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- So do you mean keeping something like Category:NHS trusts running hospitals? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose straight deletion - for one thing it would leave articles such as George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust unparented. DexDor (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with that. Alternative: split to Category:NHS foundation trusts and Category:NHS trusts. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Every trust is either a Foundation Trust or an NHS Trust. But the smaller ones can, or could, be properly subcategorised as hospital trusts, community trusts, mental health trusts or ambulance trusts. The process of amalgamation which is now being encouraged means that the larger organisations now appearing may well perform several of these functions, so it doesnt make much sense to subcategorise them, and it may be that those subcategories will, in the long run, only contain organisations which are no longer operational Rathfelder (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- As 'hospital trust' is a defunct term, a continuing subcategorization as hospital trust would merely lead to confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- The real problem is not the hospital trusts, which generally still exist, but the community and mental health trusts, which are repeatedly merged and reorganised. And the ambulance trusts, which need to be linked to a different category tree. The point of the subcategories is to distinguish them. Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (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.
Churches
- (group 1)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Banja Luka to Category:Banja Luka
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Batumi to Category:Buildings and structures in Batumi
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Bendigo to Category:Buildings and structures in Bendigo
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Boboshticë to Category:Boboshticë
- (group 2)
- group 3)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Benson, Minnesota to Category:Benson, Minnesota and Category:Churches in Swift County, Minnesota
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Chillicothe, Missouri to Category:Chillicothe, Missouri and Category:Churches in Livingston County, Missouri
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Crosstown, Missouri to Category:Crosstown, Missouri and Category:Churches in Perry County, Missouri
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Halifax, North Carolina to Category:Halifax, North Carolina and Category:Churches in Halifax County, North Carolina
- (group 4)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Batticaloa to Category:Places of worship in Batticaloa and Category:Churches in Batticaloa District
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Gampaha to Category:Places of worship in Gampaha and Category:Churches in Gampaha District
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Jaffna to Category:Places of worship in Jaffna and Category:Churches in Jaffna District
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Kurunegala to Category:Places of worship in Kurunegala and Category:Churches in Kurunegala District
- (withdrawn)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Abuja to Category:Buildings and structures in Abuja and Category:Churches in Nigeria
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Category:Buildings and structures in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Category:Churches in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Tianjin to Category:Buildings and structures in Tianjin and Category:Religion in Tianjin
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Xi'an to Category:Buildings and structures in Xi'an and Category:Churches in Shaanxi
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Changchun to Category:Buildings and structures in Changchun and Category:Churches in Jilin
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Chongqing to Category:Places of worship in Chongqing
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Sacramento, California to Category:Places of worship in Sacramento, California and Category:Churches in Sacramento County, California
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 1 or 2 articles in each of these cities. While there may well be some room for expansion in any of those cities it remains a matter of a crystal ball to determine how many churches are really notable. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Note that I have no intention of batch-nominating categories of 3 or more articles.
- Note that the nomination consists of four groups:
- articles for which only one merge target has been specified, for example because the Churches in region or country parent category has been diffused by denomination and the articles are already in the denominational cousin categories;
- articles with a Buildings and structures in city target and a Churches in region or country target;
- articles with a City target and a Churches in region or country target, because the city does not even have a Buildings and structures in city subcategory;
- articles with other merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support All While there are some other churches in these locations, it's not clear there are 3 or 4 notable ones so this is just breaking up articles and hindering navigation. (If I'm mistaken and any of these categories get up to 5 or so articles, no objection to recreating.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the Chinese ones: Category:Churches in Tianjin, Category:Churches in Xi'an, Category:Churches in Changchun, Category:Churches in Chongqing. These are huge cities with populations of 10 million or more, and have many notable churches. The equivalent category on Chinese Wikipedia for Tianjin, for example, includes almost 30 churches, and even that is not exhaustive. Just because articles have not yet been created does not mean they are WP:SMALLCAT. -Zanhe (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose all Back to basics! What does WP:SMALLCAT actually say? This: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, ....". Is there "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" for churches? Yes of course there is. Please don't refer to policies without reading them! Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is a larger overall accepted sub-categorization scheme for countries, not for populated places. With some exceptions (as nominated), subcategories of cities are being created upon need, not by default. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose categories for very large cities. These are likely to grow. Abuja, Baton Rouge and those mentioned by Zanhe. Otherwise support deletion of smaller cities that are highly unlikely to ever grow.--TM 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, then I'll withdraw these. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would request that you withdraw the Sacramento category as well. It now has 3 articles and, with a population of over 500,000 residents, there are likely several other notable church buildings in the city.--TM 19:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, To be honest I do not feel strongly one way or the other, but I have a feeling some of these are useless categories. There are three categories for communities that I am familiar with and I will limit my comments to them. To begin with, they can all be merged as proposed. Ottumwa and Keokuk, Iowa are small cities with few notable churches. Another problem with these two is that the individual churches are categorized in both their respective city and county church categories. There is no need for all four categories, the city's church categories will not grow much more, if at all, so I would maintain the county church categories and eliminate those from the cities.
- Silver Spring Maryland is a slightly different case. First of all, it is an unincorporated area in the southern part of Montgomery County, with part of that area forming a census-designated place (CDP) called Silver Spring. However, places with a Silver Spring address exist in other CDPs as the boundaries of these places change at the discretion of the US Census Bureau. The post office, based on their needs, generally keeps address locations the same regardless of the changing CDPs. This is all background to say that neither church categorized as Silver Spring is in the CDP, but they maintain their Silver Spring addresses. So their "municipal" category is based on their address and not their changeable jurisdiction. They, like the Iowa churches, are categorized in both the municipal and county church categories.
- I haven't checked the other categories from the US, but is this double categorizing common for all of them? If so, it seems to me that they might be better served by their county church category than their city church category while maintaining their inclusion in the city or city building/structure category. I realize, however, that this may not be true for all locals and a determination needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. Farragutful (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Environmental radio
- 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 and merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Environmental radio to Category:Environmental radio programs
- Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity: these are programs, not stations or anything else. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The category currently contains two radio programs and one radio station. Purge the station, then upmerge the category to its two parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2019 (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:John Gottman
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:John Gottman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:John Gottman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Tiny eponymous category. I've already added a bunch of categories to the articles, so it's all ready to go. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2019 (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:Subsystem
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Subsystem ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Subsystem ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined scope. It could mean any number of things to different people. Currently, it's being treated as for software subsystems, judging from its members. It probably shouldn't be renamed to "Software subsystems" either, since that suffers from the same problems of poor definition and vagueness. 99Electrons (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The category, as of nomination for CfD, had 11 entries. Seven are related to IBM subsystems which, including their precursors, are over 30 years old, and whose current implementations process a large percentage of all mainframe work. Of the remaining four, 2 have the name subsystem in their title and are Microsoft-related.
CICS? If that's not a subsystem, stop the world - CICS and its play-a-likes (e.g. Uni-Kix, based on how some people say C-I-C-S and others say KICKS) are the "windows" to non-batch dating back longer than . . . ? That leaves just one: Interix. If that's vague, take out Interix. The rest are subsystems.
What's interesting is that there are other articles that are about subsystems and are not tagged with Category:Subsystem. Since some are about hardware, I'd recommend either leaving it as, or renaming it "Subsystem (computing)" Pi314m (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Dispute: The nomination refers to a definition. There isn't even an article on Subsystem, just 2 sentences in another article, and a REDIRECT pointing to same. The first sentence
- "A subsystem is a set of elements, which is a system itself, and a component of a larger system"
has no citation; the second sentence, - "A subsystem description is a system object that contains information defining the characteristics of an operating environment controlled by the system"
has an IBM citation.
What about WP:AfDisNotCleanup? That makes for 2 cleanups, (a) the Subsystem subsection of System and (b) adding more articles to Category:Subsystem. Pi314m (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)- Update: New pair of sentences added @ ===Subsystem===
- The IBM Mainframe Job Entry Subsystem family (JES1, JES2, JES3, and their HASP/ASP predecessors) are examples. The main elements they have in common are the components that handle input, scheduling, spooling and output; they also have the ability to interact with local and remote operators. Pi314m (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Right now, it seems to be no more than "List of things somebody deems to be a subsystem, in some sense of that term". Guy Harris (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Question: would renaming to Category:Job schedulers be appropriate? (Possibly with some purging.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's not a rename, that's a new category, for job schedulers; "some" purging would mean "removing everything from Windows, as well as Channel I/O and possibly CICS (which is deemed, by its own page, to be a teleprocessing monitor), leaving only 4 of 11 pages. Deleting this category and introducing a new "Job schedulers" category might be useful, but it's not a "rename". Guy Harris (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Harris:@Pi314m: I was wrongly assuming that the list of elements you added in the Subsystem section are generally applicable, not just to IBM. Since this list of elements is IBM-specific it is not of any help to explain the broader concept of a subsystem and you'd better remove that second sentence. The question remains: what do IBM subsystems and Windows subsystems and other subsystems have in common with each other, except for the name subsystem?Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: I have no idea to what list you're claiming I've added elements, nor to what "second sentence" you're referring. And the answer to your question is "nothing". Guy Harris (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wrong ping :$. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. Guy Harris (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (recategorizing articles if necessary) as this category is incorrectly named and is not well-defined. For software it's probably better to use the word "components" (e.g. as in existing categories such as Category:Operating system components by operating system) than "subsystems". DexDor (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2019 (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:New Christians
- Propose merging
- Category:New Christians to Category:Conversos
- or renaming
- Nominator's rationale: (without recommendation). I created this cat page to fill a set of redlinks, after @Cateyed added ten articles to the non-existent category.
- This is not my topic area, but it from my reading of New Christian and Converso I am unsure whether the distinction between the two terms is clear enough to make a viable category without a lot of overlap contrary to WP:OVERLAPCAT. Hopefully some more knowledgeable editors can comment.
- If the category is kept, then it name is multiply ambiguous: it could refer to converts from any era, or to members of the The New Church (Swedenborgian), who are also known as "New Christians". I suggest Category:New Christians (conversos) as a disambiguated title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - If someone has tagged articles for categories that don't exist wouldn't it be better to simply remove that category tag (e.g. revert the edit including restoring any previous category tag) rather than creating the category? Otherwise, you risk creating a category for a subject that you are not knowledgeable about and hence may duplicate an existing category or have incorrect parents etc (and cause extra workload at CFD). DexDor (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Horses for courses, @DexDor. I fix several hundred such red cats every week, working off Special:WantedCategories (or, in this case, in my quarry query). There are several possible courses of action.
- If it's in draftspace or a user sandbox, then I disable the categories (e.g. [30], [31]). In some cases I just revert, with a boilerplate edit summary linking to WP:REDNOT (e.g. [32]). In other cases the cat clearly should exist, so I create it (e.g. Category:Tehran University of Medical Sciences alumni). Sometimes I may redirect the red cat (e.g. Category:Films shot in Hyderabad). If there's an existing cat which is specific enough I apply the correct category (e.g. [33]); in other cases I just fix a typo (e.g. [34]). In some cases I find that the new category has subsequently been created but should probably be deleted (e.g. Foyle College, so I CFD it).
- However in some rare cases there seems to me to be a prima facie case for creation which I am not sure how to evaluate. Those are v rare, because in most such situations the editor concerned creates the category page and it doesn't enter my workflow; I think I do a few each year, so that's about one in 2,000 cases. In this case, creation and prompt CFD seemed like the least-worst way of bringing more eyes on it. I tagged the category talk page for the relevant WikiProjects, so that it will show up their article alerts, and I will also leave a note at WT:Christianity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Although the articles aren't really clear about it, I think that 'conversos' are people who converted during their lifetime, while 'new Christians' are the descendants of conversos (who were born as Christians). I'll leave a notice at the talk page of both articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note that all articles in this Category:New Christians concern people who were born Christian but descend from Jewish people who converted to Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge -- Reading two main articles, I cannot discern that Conversos is a wider category than New Christians, as the current structure would imply. New Christians actually appears to cover converted Moors (Muslims) as well as converted Jews; if that is correct, the parent/child relationship should be reversed, but I think this is probably all about ex-Jews, in which case they should be merged. Possibly they should be split into Spanish, Portuguese and expatriate (e.g. in Italy) categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- WikiProject Christianity has been notified[35]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- WikiProject Spain has also been notified. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment from @Cateyed the editor who populated this category, @Cateyed doesn't seem very familiar with how en.wp works. Instead of commenting here, they created[36] Category:New Christians (conversos) with the following content:
I don´t think we should join it with "conversos". There is a difference between a Converso and a New Christian. Converso is only the person who converts, while New Christians are their descendants up to the third generation. Torquemada for example was a New Christian but not a Converso. It could be merged with "Spanish people of jewish descent", but New Christian isn´t specific to jew converts, and is more limmited in how far away the "descent" goes. You are right that the title may be confused with another church though, if the category is kept. Maybe the disambiguation would work, or even keeping the name in Spanish as " Cristiano Nuevo" to avoid confussion?
- --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- That confirms what I thought. It means, most of all, that the two articles need to be improved in order to clarify the difference better. Also, the category may well be renamed in order to diambiguate, e.g. to Category:New Christians (conversos) as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, @Marcocapelle.
- Rename per the second option in the nom, and invert the parenting so that Category:Conversos is a subcat of Category:New Christians (conversos). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia character-substitution templates
- Nominator's rationale: For concisions and to be consistent with almost every other such template category (Category:Character templates, Category:Line-handling templates, Category:Example-formatting templates, Category:Typing-aid templates, Category:Unit indicator templates, and insert 100+ other examples here). While there are templates in the real-world, the few notable enough for any kind of Wikipedia coverage have names that will not be confused with Wikipedia templates and their categorization. We only prefix "Wikipedia" into category names when necessary for clarity (e.g., arguably in the very broad Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates). Doing that unnecessarily makes it harder to find categories and to properly categorize things, for no actual gain. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:México Indígena
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:México Indígena ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:México Indígena ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: No need whatsoever for this tiny category. The primary article is already well-categorized, and there's no serious likelihood of adding further articles beyond the two it has now. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also possibly constitutes undue weight. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete -- It is an unnecessary category. There are a lot of indigenous people in Mexico, each with distinct languages, but we have a category for them and the main article of this cat is in it already. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2019 (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:American political women
- Propose merging Category:American political women to Category:American women in politics
- Nominator's rationale: These categories seem to entirely overlap. TM 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Category:American political women may potentially contain e.g. political activists and political commentators while Category:American women in politics seems to be intended for politicians only. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how it is currently used. It currently includes all women in politics, including Category:First Ladies of the United States and Category:Second Ladies of the United States.--TM 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- A better idea than merging is sorting out the two categories such that they mirror their parent categories Category:American political people and Category:American politicians. For example Category:First Ladies of the United States and Category:Second Ladies of the United States should be moved to Category:American political women. Also we possibly nominate Category:American women in politics for renaming to Category:American women politicians in order to clarify its purpose better. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Marcocapelle.
- As it stands, the whole of Category:Women in politics is a messy hybrid of politicians (i.e. those seeking or holding electoral office) and people with some other political role.
- So in this case, I would
- keep Category:American political women
- Rename Category:American women in politics to Category:American women politicians (which should be a subcat of Category:American political women)
- However, I think that needs a wider discussion somewhere. I would be willing to do a group nomination of all the by-nationality subcats of Category:Women in politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Christian socialists
- Propose merging
- Category:Christian socialists by denomination to category:Christian socialists
- Category:Anabaptist socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Anglican socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Anglo-Catholic socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Baptist socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Congregationalist socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Presbyterian socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Calvinist and Reformed Christian socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Catholic socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Eastern Orthodox socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Lutheran socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Methodist socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Quaker socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Swedenborgian socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Category:Unitarian socialists to Category:Christian socialists
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT, there is no evidence that membership in these churches significantly influences their socialist beliefs. These are (or should be) proponents of Christian socialism, not Anabaptist socialism. TM 13:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom, but please add the other denominational categories to this nomination or else we will get a procedural oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I've added the other similar categories.--TM 19:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry you also need to copy the CfD tag from Category:Anabaptist socialists to the other category pages. I wish this would be a lot easier, but it is what it is. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I've added the other similar categories.--TM 19:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose denominational mergers. Many of these are well-populated. In several cases, I suspect that the denominational ethos was a significant factor -- not a trivial one. For example, British trades unionism has its roots in Methodism; and Quaker philanthropy in their denominational ethos. Anabaptist an be merged into Baptist. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then do Anglican socialists have a different view on socialism than Methodist socialists? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I address that in my comment below. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Christian socialism is a valid encyclopedic topic. Methodist socialism is not.--TM 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then do Anglican socialists have a different view on socialism than Methodist socialists? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think that it is sufficient to know that their Christianity may have influenced their socialism; we need not delve deeper. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – We must bear in mind here that Christian socialism is not solely a topic of political theory but is also a theological tradition. Therefore, it is not sufficient to look solely at the impact that one's denomination has on one's socialism, as Marcocapelle seems to suggest.
- That being said, one's denomination can definitely influence one's politics – and Christian socialists are far from being an exception. For example, we can look at Anabaptists' unique view that the state should be subordinate to the church.[2] Or we can look at the interplay between the liturgics, the sacramental theology, the Christology, and the social ethics of the Anglo-Catholic socialists (often described as the "sacramental socialists").[3]
- The intersection here is most certainly not trivial; for Christian socialists, one's denominational tradition can greatly influence the form that one's socialism take. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Health education". WHO. Retrieved 27 March 2019.
- ^ Joireman, Sandra F. (2009). "Anabaptism and the State: An Uneasy Coexistence". In Joireman, Sandra F. Church, State, and Citizen: Christian Approaches to Political Engagement. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 73–91. ISBN 978-0-19-537845-0. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
- ^ Groves, Nicholas (2000). "Society and Sacrament: The Anglican Left and Sacramental Socialism, Ritual as Ethics". Buddhist-Christian Studies. 20: 71–84. doi:10.1353/bcs.2000.0008. ISSN 1527-9472. JSTOR 1390322.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've checked a large number of articles in these categories and none of them was explicit about the denominational influence on the person's socialism (or vice versa). Even worse, quite a few articles are not even explicit about the influence of Christianity on the person's socialism (or vice versa). So while there may be a possibility for having separate articles about Anabaptist or Anglo-Catholic socialism, it does not make sense to categorize people separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Even worse, quite a few articles are not even explicit about the influence of Christianity on the person's socialism (or vice versa).
The inclusion by some people of socialists who happen to be Christians but who are not necessarily part of the Christian socialist tradition in these categories has been an issue, one that I personally helped with rectifying, removing the categories where they are clearly inappropriately placed. But if that were the basis for deleting categories, surely we would be discussing the whole Category:Christian socialists tree, along with a host of other categories for various theological or political traditions. Of course we would not, however, given that Christian socialism is a theologico-political tradition well-recognized in both the disciplines of theology and political theory.- If this is your primary issue with the category, the solution is to improve its usage, not delete it, especially given that, as Peterkingiron pointed out and my citations substantiate, the denominational connections are far from trivial here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are two problems at stake, one problem requires purging, the other problem requires merging. Let us keep that apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge I clicked through all of the Catholic sub-cat and one article in the rest. Some link their Socialism and Christianity and others don't (and should likely be purged) but the articles are not generally linking the type of Christianity to Socialism. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect: Wouldn't that be an argument for getting rid of the Category:Christian socialists tree altogether? That's not what's being discussed here. Moreover, wouldn't the solution be cleaning up the categories? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I don't favor deletion of the parent category at all. As you suggested though, regardless of the outcome of this nomination, I would also favor purging articles where the person is socialist but Christian only insofar as childhood/background. (The issue for this nomination is the more narrow question of whether the intersection of denomination and socialism is defining and, while I expected it to be for Catholic vs. Protestant, I didn't find that to be the case with the current articles.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect: Wouldn't that be an argument for getting rid of the Category:Christian socialists tree altogether? That's not what's being discussed here. Moreover, wouldn't the solution be cleaning up the categories? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Compromise: Merge to broader denominations. Many of these really are defining characteristics, especially Catholic socialism. What we should do is upmerge to the broader denominations: Anabaptist socialists ➡ Protestant socialists, and etc.. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose all. I get decent hit levels on JSTOR for the intersections I try. It may be that in some cases "Fooian socialism" is not seen as a distinct ideology from broader "Christian socialism"; but it is very clear that there are distinct cultural patterns of Christian socialism within various denominations. For example, the statement by Morgan Phillips that the Labour Party (UK) that it
owes more to Methodism than Marxism
is very widely quoted: see see Google search with lots of hits on the web, in news, and in books. Phillips's remark also implicitly references the deep cultural divide in England between Methodism and the dominant Anglicanism: in short Methodism is the religion of the industrial north, Anglicanism of the rural south. Merging that into amorphous "Christian socialism" or "Protestant socialism" would erase a crucial cultural distinction which absolutely central to any understanding of the history of socialism in England.
- Similarly, JSTOR's hits for Quaker socialism and the existence of organisations such as Quaker Socialist Society reaffirms that there s at least a culturally (and to some extent ideologically) distinct strand of Quaker Socialism.
- As to Catholic socialists, just look at the deep vein of literature on JSTOR. This is a widely studied enyclopedic topic.
- I am sure that @Namiba (TM)'s nomination was well-intentioned, but it seems to have been based on assumptions about the nature of these various strands, rather than on actual research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Province of Rome
- Propose renaming Category:Province of Rome to Category:Province of Rome (1870 - 2014)
- Nominator's rationale The Province of Rome was an administrative sub-division of the region of Lazio from 1870 to 2014. It was superseded by Metropolitan City of Rome Capital in 2015. I boldly renamed the eponymous article to Province of Rome (1870–2014) prior to the nomination. The move is necesary to disambiguate it from the modern entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't follow the village pump, but the year style should be Province of Rome (1870–2014) or not? – and - is different actually. Matthew hk (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- As a note. the article was only moved recently by Laurel Lodged from Province of Rome, thus C2D not applies. Matthew hk (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I accept Matthew's correction and have also changed the name of the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Provinc Rome (1870–20e of14), with corrected hyphenation. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- If kept, support alternative rename Category:Province of Rome (1870–2014), but I also wonder whether the category should be kept at all. There is hardly anything left. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- It may be a container cat for the cat of the former mayor (or whatever the name of the position) of the province. Matthew hk (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt if we will be able to populate that, the article doesn't even provide a list of presidents and article Provinces of Italy does not even bother to describe how the provinces are governed. It does mention though: "Provinces are often deemed useless, and many proposals have been made in recent years to eliminate them." In Italian Wikipedia only 3 presidents of the Province of Rome have an article, of which only 1 also has an article in en.wp. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- It may be a container cat for the cat of the former mayor (or whatever the name of the position) of the province. Matthew hk (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Based on the it-wiki the predecessor of the Province of Viterbo belong to the former Province of Rome, thus it was placed in the Italian counterpart. However, the en version did not have a trace of that part of history (the province was founded in 1920s, so Roman era history is not that relevant) Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Or to be precise, the starting year 1870 is wrong. File:Circondario di Roma.png, old Province of Rome is as big as Lazio region, while Circondario di Roma (circle of Rome) is more similar to the newer Province of Rome, but not entirely the same. So it may have potential but need to import more content from it-wiki to make it relevant. Matthew hk (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, the province of Rome has been greatly reduced in size, in multiple phases in the first half of the 20th century. That makes it even more questionable to keep it as Category:Province of Rome (1870–2014) because it is not clear which province of Rome we are talking about. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Or to be precise, the starting year 1870 is wrong. File:Circondario di Roma.png, old Province of Rome is as big as Lazio region, while Circondario di Roma (circle of Rome) is more similar to the newer Province of Rome, but not entirely the same. So it may have potential but need to import more content from it-wiki to make it relevant. Matthew hk (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- support to Category:Province of Rome (1870–2014), with corrected hyphenation.GreyShark (dibra) 19:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The arguments brought up by Marcocapelle and Matthew hk above warrant further discussion. Specifically, is this the right starting date? Should this category be kept at all?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Since the article that moving from title Province of Rome was a bold move, may be better to revert to and start a RM instead. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is not the best place for such discussion. Also, may be it did not need disambiguation bracket for Province of Rome, only if we split the articles from pre-war and post-war province (which they are quite different in size). Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good plan. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Instead Revert article move and decide the title at RM, per Matthew hk's suggestion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
1 and 2 article church categories in New York (state)
- 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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Triple Upmerging Category:Russian Orthodox churches in New York City (2 articles) to Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in the United States, Category:Russian-American culture in New York City and Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in New York City
- Propose Dual Upmerging Category:Churches in Saratoga Springs, New York (2 articles) to Category:Buildings and structures in Saratoga Springs, New York and Category:Churches in Saratoga County, New York
- Propose Dual Upmerging Category:Churches in Peekskill, New York (2 articles) to Category:Buildings and structures in Peekskill, New York and Category:Churches in Westchester County, New York
- Propose Deleting Category:Greek Orthodox cathedrals in New York (state) (0 direct articles)
- Propose Triple Upmerging Category:Greek Orthodox cathedrals in New York City (2 articles) to Category:Cathedrals in New York City, Category:Greek Orthodox churches in New York City and Category:Greek Orthodox cathedrals in the United States
- Propose Dual Upmerging Category:Presbyterian Church in America churches in New York City (2 articles) to Category:Presbyterian churches in New York City and Category:Presbyterian Church in America churches in New York (state)
- Propose Dual Upmerging Category:Korean churches in Manhattan (1 article) to Category:Churches in Manhattan and Category:Korean-American culture in New York City
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION, WP:NARROWCAT, and WP:SMALLCAT
- These intersection by denomination/location categories are all 1 or 2 article and tend to hinder navigation since they break up small groups of articles and none of the target/merge categories are overly large. As far as growth potential, there are some other churches we don't have articles on in most of the categoreis but too few are notable to foreseeably get to 5 or so articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. In addition the parent categories are often quite small as well (not too small, just quite small). For example Category:Greek Orthodox cathedrals in the United States now has only 10 articles and New York City is its only subcategory with 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support all per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2019 (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:Smith-Wintemberg Award recipients
- 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. The award-winners are already listed at Canadian Archaeological Association#Smith-Wintemberg_Award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Smith-Wintemberg Award recipients
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- It's honestly hard to infer too much about the defining-ness of this Canadian archaeology award from Wikipedia since the vast majority of winners don't have an article and, of the 4 that do, all are pretty short
stubarticles. For what's it's worth, 3 of those biography articles mention this award in passing with a list of other honors although 1 mentions it in the intro. All 4 articles are already well categorized in 44-article Category:Canadian archaeologists and the winners are listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a highly prestigious, national "lifetime achievement" type award that is defining of the careers of its recipients. See the references at Canadian Archaeological Association#Smith-Wintemberg Award.
- Also, just in the interests of accuracy, three of the four articles are not stubs. Although I don't see why that matters when we're discussing the category. – Joe (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your perspective as the category creator. Clearly this award is defining to the organisation but let's talk about those 5 references in the article that assert prestige for the recipients:
- 1 Congratulations in a company newsletter (link)
- 2 Congratulations in an organisational newsletter (scroll to page 9)
- 3 An online encyclopedia article without citations with a paragraph on the award within a long article (link)
- 4 Primary source home page from the issuer of the award who intends it to be prestigious (link)
- 5 Primary source nomination form to the issuer of the award (link)
- While these sources may be allowable as references under WP:RS, "CONGRATULATIONS, DR. RON!" (an actual cited article) doesn't convince me that the award is defining for the biography articles here in Wikipedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your perspective as the category creator. Clearly this award is defining to the organisation but let's talk about those 5 references in the article that assert prestige for the recipients:
- Support, while the sources may be sufficient to allow an article about the award, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good basis for categorization. Only 1 of the 4 biographical articles even bothers mentioning the award in the body text and the source for it is the website of the organization that grants the award, so there is no convincing reason to make an exception on WP:OCAWARD in this case. Note that listification is not needed either because the main article already contains a list, by the way with many redlinks. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per above. DexDor (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- DElete OCAWARD. Lists deal with awards much better, because there is scope for modest commentary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2019 (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.
March 9
Category:Oxoanions and subcategories
- 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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I originally proposed the moves at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy under C2D (And although I did not realize it originally, C2E would have also applied to some of the categories.), but after the request was removed as stale in the Speedy subpage due to opposition against specific oxyacid categories, I'm taking the oxyanion moves here for a full discussion. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
C2D: Consistency with main article's name. In the mainspace, Oxoanion redirects to Oxyanion. However, given the overwhelming number of categories using the oxo- prefix (although one used to use the oxy-prefix), maybe Oxyanion should be changed to use the oxo- prefix. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I originally proposed these moves along with moves for the corresponding oxyacid categories, but since my initial efforts failed due to specific opposition to a couple of the oxyacid categories, I think that if none of the oxyanion category moves are opposed, those can go ahead. Also, I did not realize the first time that C2E also applies to some of the categories. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Oxoanions to Category:Oxyanions
- Category:Halogen oxoanions to Category:Halogen oxyanions
- Category:Phosphorus oxoanions to Category:Phosphorus oxyanions
- Category:Sulfur oxoanions to Category:Sulfur oxyanions
- Category:Transition metal oxoanions to Category:Transition metal oxyanions
- @The Nth User:, could you please tag the categories as described above?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I want to point out that for Category:Oxoanions, the Commons category uses the oxy- spelling. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per Oxyanion. Oculi (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2019 (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:Fictional mentors and godparents
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Fictional mentors and godparents ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Fictional mentors and godparents ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: It's rather vague what exactly qualifies for this category, and the godparent part seems to be pretty unrelated to the mentor part JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no Category:Mentors and godparents parent category. An example where this is one of many categories an article is in is Buffy Summers. DexDor (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (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:Kenyan superheroes
- 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. If normal editing processes conclude that the category's contents don't belong in the category, then it will be speedy deleted as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Kenyan superheroes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Kenyan superheroes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category and it's questionable if that article even qualifies (the character's father was Kenyan, but she was born and raised in America and Egypt.) JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:09, 9 March 2019 (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:Place names
- 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, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Place names to Category:Toponymy
- Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping categories, since toponymy is the study of place names. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - maybe reverse merge. In general we should keep Cat:Study-of-foo and Cat:Foo as separate categories (with the former a subcat of the latter) - e.g. we shouldn't merge Category:Crime into Category:Criminology or Category:Birds into Category:Ornithology. However, in this case I don't think we have many/any articles that are actually about toponymy (even articles such as Welsh toponymy really should be titled "Welsh place names" or similar) so we could probably get rid of the toponymy category. DexDor (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reverse merge is also possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: will tag Toponymy, so that a reverse merge can be discussed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Tagged --DannyS712 (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- No Merge - On the whole I am strongly in agreement with DexDor: "Study of Xyz" cats should always be subcats of the subject being studied. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Anomalous+0: Please do not assume that articles with a title starting "Toponomy of" are about the study of toponomy. Instead they are nearly all about the object of study of toponomy, i.e. about place names. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not to worry - my comment was specifically about categories. I don't have a problem with articles. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the articles do not make a distinction between the study and the object of study, then why do we need distinct categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2019 (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:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C.
- 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.
This seems to come down to whether the category is viewed as topic category (in which case the rename would probably be justified) or as a set category, in which case the current title has merit. But since there is no consensus for a change, we keep the status quo.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C. to Category:Civil War Defenses of Washington, or split to Category:American Civil War forts in Maryland, Category:American Civil War forts in Virginia, and Category:American Civil War forts in Washington, D.C. (or Category:American Civil War forts in the District of Columbia)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is specifically about the topic of Civil War Defenses of Washington, not "defenses" (lower case) of Washington, D.C., which could include topics such as the Battle of Fort Stevens or other actions/battles (e.g. of the Maryland Campaign) that kept Confederate forces away from Washington, D.C. (I am pinging the category's creator, User:AjaxSmack.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the article be moved to Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C. per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters? It is not clear by what criterion a capital would be needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it functions as a proper noun (see https://www.nps.gov/cwdw/index.htm). However, I may be mistaken, in which case you would be right about the article title, and I think we ought to split the category as suggested above. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- The name of the organization is a proper noun, but the category primarily contains the defenses of the organization, rather than articles about the organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This is not an organisation, but a group of buildings and structures. The present capitalisation is thus correct. If preferred it might be renamed to Category:Civil War fortifications of Washington, D.C.. They are all around the city, though many are in neighbouring states. "D.C." is needed because there is also Washington (state), where I presume there were few (if any) defences. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2019 (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:Books by Indian authors
- Propose deleting Category:Books by Indian authors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Books by Indian authors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: "books by Indian authors" is a non-defining trait of individual books, and not part of an established existing category hierarchy. Category essentially overlaps existing Category:Indian books by writer and Category:Indian books. For a hypothetical book published abroad by an Indian expatriate, such a category would again be non-defining trivia. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Partial merge, moving only the sub-cat Category:Indian-American literature up into Category:Indian books by writer. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: The proposed move is a bit questionable. The subcategory is mainly about works written after the author migrated from India, that hardly counts as Indian books. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: That's why they are in the sub-category and not directly in the parent category. As you know, in English Wikipedia, sub-categories do not have to be logical sub-sets of the parent, but to have a close enough connection for the link to be useful for navigation. IMHO that fits this example. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and populate properly - for Indian literature in English expatriate authors like Salman Rushdie, Rohinton Mistry, Amit Chaudhuri, Vikram Seth and Vikram Chandra (novelist) (mostly), are unusually important. The Satanic Verses has never even been published in India. Then there are people like V. S. Naipaul, Jhumpa Lahiri and others who have never lived in India, but much of whose writing relates to India. Given that Indian-related subject matter is a major or dominant element in the work of these and many other writers, calling this "trivia" seems deeply inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per @Johnbod, and because the existing convention is back-to-front. Defining the nationality of a book as somehow distinct from the nationality of its author may be a useful distinction to make in some cases, but such cases should be the exception; the norm should be as in this case "Books by Fooian authors". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Buildings and structures by city
- Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Aimargues to Category:Aimargues and Category:Buildings and structures in Gard
- Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Alajuela to Category:Alajuela and Category:Buildings and structures in Alajuela Province
- Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Almuñécar to Category:Almuñécar and Category:Buildings and structures in the Province of Granada
- Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Amaravati to Category:Amaravati and Category:Buildings and structures in Guntur district
- Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Balanga, Bataan to Category:Balanga, Bataan and Category:Buildings and structures in Bataan
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. The above categories currently contain only 1 article. It is not quite likely that the categorize size will become 5 or 10 times bigger any time soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Bridges_by_city. DexDor (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DexDor: You struck your oppose in the other discussion. Does this one still stand, or is it similarly struck? Same for the above nom. ~ Rob13Talk 01:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I struck my oppose on that CFD because of the statement (paraphrased) "The additional <things> in <place> on <foreign wp> would probably not qualify as notable on en.wp.". I still don't support as I think these CFDs are a waste of time etc and because they may have errors (e.g. see my "Dnipro" comment in the CFD above). DexDor (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DexDor: You struck your oppose in the other discussion. Does this one still stand, or is it similarly struck? Same for the above nom. ~ Rob13Talk 01:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge for now as WP:SOFTDELETE, as they only contain one article each. This would not be a bar to re-creating them if a few more articles are created to go in them. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge for now as WP:SOFTDELETE per Fayenatic. Laurel Lodged (talk)
Category:Anchovies
- 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 per WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. merge Category:Engraulidae to Category:Anchovies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Anchovies to Category:Engraulidae
- Nominator's rationale: "Anchovies" is simply the common name for the family Engraulidae. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question, shouldn't it be a reverse merge? The main article is at Anchovy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge (or Merge) I would go with Anchovies, especially with Category:Anchovy dishes. But the proposed merge would be better than the status quo so I would also favor that if it's closer to consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reverse merge -- I know what an anchovy is. The scientific Latin family name is gobbledegook to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Tagging Engraulidae so that a reverse merge can be considered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Anchovy category should be for the species that are used as human food. Many Engraulidae species are uncommon and have small ranges and are not used by humans. Eliminating categories with taxonomic names is wrong-headed. When categorizing new articles on species with HotCat, I just work my way up the taxonomic hierarchy in the taxobox until I find an existing category. Having to guess at a common name for a category, when the common name isn't prominently displayed in the taxobox makes the categorization process more difficult. 23:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep both - the article anchovy states that "An anchovy is a small, common forage fish of the family Engraulidae"; hence the present set-up where Category:Anchovies is a subcategory of Category:Engraulidae is exactly correct. Oculi (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2019 (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:Thiomersal controversy
- 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. The renaming is supported by only a narrow majority of editors in this CFD, but they have on their side the fact that the title of the head article was upheld at Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines#Requested_move_19_February_2019 by what the closer describe as
Very little support, much strong opposition
. None of the opposes here offer any reason why this category should be an exception to the basic principle that category titles should follow article titles; instead, they were trying to re-argue issues which belong in the RM discussion. CFD is not the venue to challenge an RM outcome: we have WP:Move review for that.
It's likely that someone will ask me why I have closed this differently to the superficially similar WP:CFD 2019 February 5#Category:MMR vaccine controversy, so I will pre-emptively explain that here. The answer is simply that in this case, there is a recent RM discussion upholding the new title, but in the other case there was not.
And yes, per the discussion on my talk at MMR vaccine controversy CfD (permalink), I utterly deplore the Stalinist erasure involved in the process of redefining a controversy as not-a-controversy because a majority of editors back one belief system which defines the side other as wrong. I have no view on the substantive merits of the dispute, but deplore the denial of a real public controversy. Similar logic was regularly deployed in the theocratic eras of European history: the powers-that be insisted that there was no dispute, just heretics to be burnt. The same logic of "no controversy unless the dominant ideology defines it as a legitimate controversy" is at play regardless of whether the dominant ideology is medieval Catholic orthodoxy, Stalinism/scientific socialism, or — as in this case — scientism.
But that's an argument which I or anyone can make at RM, to be assessed at RM. On this page I am just closing a discussion in accordance with the policy and guidelines relating to article and category page titles, not imposing my own POV. So whatever anyone thinks of the RM outcome (and in case there is any doubt, I think that it stinks as fundamental rejection of WP:NPOV), it leads to the category being renamed unless there is a policy-based reason for divergence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Thiomersal controversy to Category:Thiomersal and vaccines
- Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with the parent article, recently moved to thiomersal and vaccines as the word "controversy" gave undue weight to a refuted fringe theory. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The move argument was rubbish. It basically says by giving the name that the people involved used we gave undue weight to the people who orignated the controversy in covering the controversy. This is all part of a new age double speak which we should avoid. This is a controversy, the people pushing it insist it is a controversy, plain and simple. It is not giving "undue weight" to pay attention to what people actually say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The proposed name sounds meaningless to me. Thiomersal was used (and is used) as a component of vaccines (among many others). It is not clear what exactly "Thiomersal and vaccines" would mean? Ruslik_Zero 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ruslik. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support/Correct Venue The oppose votes above indicate that the article is misnamed. OK, submit a requested move on Thiomersal and vaccines and reach a consensus for a better name. I'll gladly support renaming this category to match the outocme (whether I agree with it or not). Having different main article and category names hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support . See my reasoning in the Category:MMR vaccine controversy section. This case is very similar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move or delete altogether. It's not a genuine controversy, no matter how much Johnpacklambert moves words around. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support the suggested name as a better alternative to the current one. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - As in the case of the effort to rename the parent, Category:Vaccine controversies, this is nothing more than an attempt to make the word "controversy" disappear from discussion of the subject on Wikipedia. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural support following the RM regarding the main article Thiomersal and vaccines which was closed as keep. There has apparently been a fair amount of discussion about this already, and this is not the right place for re-doing that same discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2019 (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:WikiPathways
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Propose renaming Category:WikiPathways to Category:WikiPathways templates
- Nominator's rationale: Would be a more accurate name for this category UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support more accurate, and keeping in line with other template categories. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support makes sense to me, and I'm the one who started it. Sorry for not naming it better to being with. Let me know if I can further assist in this process. AlexanderPico (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (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:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68)
- 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. There is a long-standing practice that category redirects may be kept when a category is moved, as happened here. The nominator has taken a very prescriptive view of WP:CATRED which is not supported by others. I also don't believe that the nominator's is supported by the text, because CATRED does not assert that it includes a full list of the limited circumstances in which category redirects are appropriate ... so I see no reason to add extra weight to the nominator's arguments.
I do question whether several screenfuls of Wikilawyering about one category redirect was a wise use of the nominator's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category. A Template:Db-empty was added on 1 March 2019 by me for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:C1. The speedy deletion tag was removed on 4 March 2019 by Marcocapelle with edit summary stated as "why?". User:Tleaver created the category on 13 March 2013, but has not been active on Wikipedia since 13 March 2013. Therefore, no notice was sent to category page creator. Mitchumch (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- It used to contain a redirect to Category:Civil rights movement which sounds like perfectly valid content. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Background The main article was moved from African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968) to Civil rights movement based on a discussion here in 2018. Not sure if the articles were recategorized with a speedy WP:C2D nomination or manually moved to the new title. No opinion on whether to delete this category or keep it as a redirect. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Point 1: According to "Redirecting categories" on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion "In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects, we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue."
- Point 2: Wikipedia:Soft redirect defines "In limited circumstances" as "a replacement of usual or "hard" redirects and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project, another language Wikimedia site, or in rare cases another website."
- Point 3: The redirect destination of "Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68)" is not a "Wikimedia sister project, another language Wikimedia site, or ... another website." Therefore, this category does not satisfy any of those "limited circumstances" and should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. Mitchumch (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- In Point 1, the next paragraph of WP:CATRED also mentions redirects to former category names when replacing hyphens with dashes (and it's unclear to me if that's a lone exception or an example). In any case, I'm fine with deletion (or a redirect). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think the central problem is a lack of explicit conditions to satisfy in order to use Template:Category redirect. Former admin AllyUnion posted "What this template is for" as the first talk page post for that template on 3 January 2006. There needs to be a "Usage" section on the template page that clearly and unequivocally states when to use the template. It was never designed to be used for all alternative names of a category. The other 10 types of soft redirects are more clear as to when to use them. Mitchumch (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The first-mentioned purpose of redirects in general is redirection of alternative names, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. I cannot imagine why this wouldn't apply to both hard and soft redirects. Reasons for deleting this category should be taken from this list. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those lists apply to articles, not categories. Here are the conditions I've observed from different sources:
- "They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K)."
- "In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects, we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding
{{Category redirect|target}}
to the category page." - "In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations)."
- "It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics."
- "In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects, we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding
- "Do not create inter-category redirects, by adding a line
#REDIRECT [[:Category:
target category]]
to a category page. ... "soft" redirects are used. It can be created by placing{{Category redirect|target}}
in the category page. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories."
- "Do not create inter-category redirects, by adding a line
- Marcocapelle, beyond the three Wikipedia links above, have you seen any other sources that provides instruction in the use of "Template:Category redirect"? Mitchumch (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- We agree that there is nothing else specifically about category redirects, we disagree on whether general instruction on the use of redirects also applies to category redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree.
I'm going to suspend this request for deletion.I will investigate the template further, then I will proceed based on what I find.
- No, I don't agree.
- We agree that there is nothing else specifically about category redirects, we disagree on whether general instruction on the use of redirects also applies to category redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those lists apply to articles, not categories. Here are the conditions I've observed from different sources:
- The first-mentioned purpose of redirects in general is redirection of alternative names, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. I cannot imagine why this wouldn't apply to both hard and soft redirects. Reasons for deleting this category should be taken from this list. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think the central problem is a lack of explicit conditions to satisfy in order to use Template:Category redirect. Former admin AllyUnion posted "What this template is for" as the first talk page post for that template on 3 January 2006. There needs to be a "Usage" section on the template page that clearly and unequivocally states when to use the template. It was never designed to be used for all alternative names of a category. The other 10 types of soft redirects are more clear as to when to use them. Mitchumch (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- In Point 1, the next paragraph of WP:CATRED also mentions redirects to former category names when replacing hyphens with dashes (and it's unclear to me if that's a lone exception or an example). In any case, I'm fine with deletion (or a redirect). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Before I wrap this up, have you seen any other sources that provides instructions in the use of "Template:Category redirect"? Mitchumch (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- These 6 links may also be helpful:
- Category Deletion 6: Sometimes there is a request, or it may be helpful anyway, to leave a redirect at the category page. Standard redirects do not work with categories; instead, use {{Category redirect}}.
- How to rename categories:
- 3 by default, the old category page will have been replaced with a soft redirect; this should alert a daemon to move all the subcats and articles. For a sparsely populated category, you should recategorise them manually; WP:HOTCAT will help, as re-selecting the old category redirect will result in using the new target name.
- 4 if you delete the original category page when it is empty, link to the CFD discussion page in the deletion summary. Alternatively, at your discretion, you may leave the category redirect. It is not hard, just a little time consuming. Deleting a category (without assistance from a bot) is harder, since the references on the member pages have to be deleted manually.
- See also, Essays, Category redirects that should be kept
- Naming conventions:
- Redirected categories: Do not create inter-category redirects. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories for the policy, and Wikipedia:Redirect#Category redirects for the technical details.
- Naming conventions Wikipedia:Categorization/Naming
- *Residence: Where the commonly used English name for residents of a place is well-known globally (usually the original place of that name), Fooite demonym categories should be {{category redirect}}ed to People from Foo, assisting in automated categorization (for example, Category:New Yorkers).
- In article titles: In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand). Nonetheless, to aid searching and linking, provide a redirect with hyphens replacing the en dash(es), as in eye-hand span. Similarly, provide category redirects for categories containing dashes.
- When naming a category, one should be particularly careful and choose its name accurately. Moving non-conventionally categorized pages to another category name (see {{Category redirect}}) imposes an additional overhead – an edit for each article and subcategory.
- - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- These 6 links may also be helpful:
- Thank you RevelationDirect, but I found the source for the confusion. On 14:47, 2 August 2018 admin Black Falcon began changing the section "Redirecting categories" from:
- Before I wrap this up, have you seen any other sources that provides instructions in the use of "Template:Category redirect"? Mitchumch (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- "It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)"
- "However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over. But categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects: #REDIRECT[[target]]. (See Wikipedia:Redirect#category for the technical details.)"
- "Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding
{{Category redirect|target}}
to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects."
- "Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding
- "In particular, we set up category redirects at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up redirects from forms with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics."
- to the current version on 14:50, 2 August 2018
- "In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e.
#REDIRECT[[''target'']]
), we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding{{Category redirect|target}}
to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets."
- "In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e.
- "In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics."
- The original language of "Rationale: Unlike articles, categories ..." had been present in the section "Redirecting categories" since 02:58, 20 July 2006. My position remains unchanged from my initial request and rational. The original language of the section "Redirecting categories" was substantially less ambiguous several months ago. That section language needs to be restored to its previous wording to prevent the confusion that led to this lengthy discussion. Mitchumch (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- What was the confusion that led to this discussion? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Black Falcon You should have pinged me, because I didn't know you left a statement. Marcocapelle thinks all categories that are alternative names for another category should be kept as a category redirect. Your rewrite of the guidelines on 14:50, 2 August 2018 removed (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)" As a consequence, it is not clear when to use a category redirect. Mitchumch (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- What was the confusion that led to this discussion? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- The original language of "Rationale: Unlike articles, categories ..." had been present in the section "Redirecting categories" since 02:58, 20 July 2006. My position remains unchanged from my initial request and rational. The original language of the section "Redirecting categories" was substantially less ambiguous several months ago. That section language needs to be restored to its previous wording to prevent the confusion that led to this lengthy discussion. Mitchumch (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Let's take this from a different perspective. Why would the use of category redirects need to be different from the use of article redirects? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your argument. But, your argument needs to be presented in a discussion for a policy change. This is not that forum. This forum is to apply existing policy to requests. The applicable policy to my request (before an undiscussed edit several months ago) is as follows:
- "It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)"
- The Category:African-American civil rights movement (1954–68) does not have articles in it. Mitchumch (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, so this is not going to bring us further. As before, I am not convinced that this is a change of policy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle Please mark yourself as "oppose". Mitchumch (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. That was an easy request. But why? Are you concerned that the closing admin does not recognise it as oppose?Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Wikipedia policy as presented by myself above. In response to Marcocapelle, No. Only a matter of simplicity. Mitchumch (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Just to be clear! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle Please mark yourself as "oppose". Mitchumch (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, so this is not going to bring us further. As before, I am not convinced that this is a change of policy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your argument. But, your argument needs to be presented in a discussion for a policy change. This is not that forum. This forum is to apply existing policy to requests. The applicable policy to my request (before an undiscussed edit several months ago) is as follows:
- @Mitchumch: Mentioned above and not further elaborated in this discussion is Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept, an essay by User:Fayenatic london stating that redirects may be useful for "names that editors might try to use again, and which will help editors to find the current name". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle I'm not going to ignore guidelines for an essay. The guideline for WP:CATRED are explicit: "It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. (Rationale: Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and sorting.)" Mitchumch (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2019 (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:Slovenian Chetniks
- 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 per nominator, without prejudice to any future proposal to rename Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Slovenian Chetniks to Category:Slovenian Chetnik personnel of World War II
- Nominator's rationale: As a child category of the existing Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - There are several reason for my opposition:
- Renaming is unnecessary because the child category does not necessarily have to have the same wording of the parent category. The parent category sometimes has personnel in its title because it is sometimes child category of parent category which covers more topics than personnel. Child categories of Category:Foo personnel can only be about personnel.
- Its not about ethnicity. Its about military units divided on territorial principle. Slovenian Chetniks were Chetnik subdivision separate from i.e. Montenegrin Chetniks. The nominator tries to introduce completely unrelated and irrelevant ethnic division into this category. Slovenian Chetniks category exist not to point to Chetniks of Slovenian ethnicity, but to point to Chetniks who belonged to separate group of Chetniks which more closely define them and distinguish from other groups.
- Per WP:CAT - Don't write the category structure in names. Example: "Monarchs", not "People - Monarchs".
- Per WP:CAT - Standard article naming conventions apply to categories also. Having that in mind, the existing title is more natural, concise, recognizable and equally precise. Consistent with ie Category:Slovene Partisans.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- The clearly established category structure is Chetniks of WWII→Chetnik personnel of WWII and Chetniks of WWII→Military units and formations of the Chetniks in World War II. Moving this to Slovenian Chetnik personnel of WWII does not change the meaning, they are still Slovenian Chetniks as distinct from Slovene Chetniks, which is the ethnic division in this case. The separate subdivision is maintained by moving it to Slovenian Chetnik personnel of WWII, and the category is fixed in time by "of WWII". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per current structure, but honestly the term Chetnik personnel sounds a bit odd. Why not simply Chetnik people? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. There is no need to add personell or people to it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't odd at all Marcocapelle, this is exactly the wording used for the entire category structure relating to military personnel (which Chetniks were), see Category:Military personnel by nationality for dozens of examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Then the other alternative would be Chetnik military personnel. The current category name is neither fish nor fowl. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, military personnel is implicit in Chetnik. They were all guerillas, therefore military. And this is a subset of Chetnik personnel of WWII, specifically Slovenian ones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Then the other alternative would be Chetnik military personnel. The current category name is neither fish nor fowl. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't odd at all Marcocapelle, this is exactly the wording used for the entire category structure relating to military personnel (which Chetniks were), see Category:Military personnel by nationality for dozens of examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. There is no need to add personell or people to it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2019 (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:Montenegrin Chetniks
- 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 per nominator, without prejudice to any future proposal to rename Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Montenegrin Chetniks to Category:Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of World War II
- Nominator's rationale: As a child category of the existing Category:Chetnik personnel of World War II. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Same arguments as above presented for Slovenian Chetniks, except pointing to the Category:Montenegrin communists at the end of the text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- The clearly established category structure is Chetniks of WWII→Chetnik personnel of WWII and Chetniks of WWII→Military units and formations of the Chetniks in World War II. Moving this to Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of WWII does not change the meaning, as "Montenegrin" clearly can mean ethnic or territorial division equally, so the current name is no different from the proposed one in that respect. The separate subdivision is maintained by moving it to Montenegrin Chetnik personnel of WWII, and the category is fixed in time by "of WWII". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per current structure, but honestly the term Chetnik personnel sounds a bit odd. Why not simply Chetnik people? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't odd at all, this is exactly the wording used for the entire category structure relating to military personnel (which Chetniks were), see Category:Military personnel by nationality for dozens of examples. This just brings it into line with similar categories. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. Chetnik personnel indeed sounds a bit odd. It is neessary to understand that all Chetniks were people. The existing title of the category by default refers to people. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2019 (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:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire
- Propose renaming Category:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire to Category:Prince-Bishops in the Holy Roman Empire
- Propose renaming Category:Prince-Bishops of Switzerland to Category:Prince-Bishops in Switzerland
- Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification, the current names may wrongly suggest that the entire Holy Roman Empire, and entire Switzerland, were a prince-bishopric. Perhaps the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" should also be nominated to "Prince-bishoprics in" but that is probably less needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support for the first since the Prince-bishoprics were "of" the Empire, not just sited "in" the Empire. Would oppose changes to the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" since the same potential for confusion does not arise. Support the second proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Rename target is a better form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong opposition. As Laurel Lodged indicates, the Prince-Bishops were "of" the Empire, i.e., their secular jurisdictions were (at least nominally) granted by the Emperor, they were not merely located in the Empire, and re-naming the category would obscure this fact. Even stipulating that the potential confusion cited here exists, if it were a sufficiently widespread problem to warrant comment, it would be easy to dispel. This same objection applies to the parent category idea. With regards to Switzerland, "of Switzerland" is a perfectly valid construction; "of Switzerland" can be read synonymously with "Swiss," and they were Swiss simply by virtue of having been located in Switzerland. Furthermore, it would not be universally valid to refer to these ecclesiastical principalities as being "in Switzerland;" the Prince-Bishopric of Basel had lost its Swiss territories prior to mediatization, and thus, after 1792, was no longer "in Switzerland" in any meaningful sense. --Masque (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. If a reader assumes that some prince-bishops being of the Holy Roman Empire implies the entire Holy Roman Empire was assigned to prince-bishops, that is their own logical mistake. I don't think the category suggests it. Meanwhile, the proposed rename target, while not necessarily grammatically incorrect, certainly flies in the face of typical grammatical convention. ~ Rob13Talk 05:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: It certainly does not fly in the face of en.wp's grammatical convention: we also have Category:Bishops in Canada etc. The best analogy I can think of is governors, for example here we have Category:Governors of provinces of Chile which certainly is a more precise form. If we would follow that convention then the nominated category should be named Category:Prince-Bishops of prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire and in the Canadian example it would become Category:Bishops of bishoprics of Canada which are both getting a bit unwieldy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm talking about English grammatical convention, not what we've built up in category space locally on en.wp. If I read "Prince-Bishops in the Holy Roman Empire", I would assume it had been written by a non-native speaker, because it doesn't sound quite right. Your red-linked examples are improvements over the proposed rename here, and I would be neutral on those. ~ Rob13Talk 18:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support. The current titles are misleading. The format "Category:Bishops of Foo" is used in all other case to mean holders of the post "Bishop of Foo", e.g. Bishop of Ferns/Category:Bishops of Ferns or Bishop of Fulda/Category:Bishops of Fulda. The current title of Category:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire therefore implies holders of the post of Prince-Bishop of the Holy Roman Empire, a post which never existed.
- For other container categories we use "Bishops in Somewhere", e.g. Category:Bishops in Germany. The fact that the title was "Prince-bishop" rather than plain "Bishop" is no reason to adopt a misleading naming format.
- The fact that the prince-bishops also wielded secular power on behalf of the emperor is something to be noted in the text of the relevant pages. The attempt to use the article titles to convey that superfluous info has resulted in titles which avoidably mislead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- @BU Rob13: then is your English grammar comment a matter of WP:ENGVAR? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- What VAR of ENG would describe bishops of the various dioceses in country Foo as being "Bishops of Foo"?
- I'm not being sarcastic, just genuinely puzzled. I am used to seeing "Fooian Bishops" or "Bishops in Foo", but I honestly doesn't recall seeing the phrase "Bishops of Foo" being used for any situation other than when they are prelates of the "Diocese or Foo". What have I missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Estonian animation directors
- Propose merging Category:Estonian animation directors to Category:Animation directors
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- @JDDJS: Shouldn't we also merge to the two other parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Better to diffuse the rest of the 120-strong Category:Animation directors by nationality.
- And if this cat is merged, then it should be merged to all parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose alt diffuse proposal. A large amount of this category consists of biographies of American people, so diffusing by nationality would merely lead to many ultra tiny categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
UKBot
- 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 non-empty category Category:UKBot for now, and delete the others as empty.
Note to nominator @Pppery: this sort of nomination is kinda pointless. If a category is populated only by a group of pages which is at XfD, then there is no point in pre-empting the outcome of the XFD. If the pages are all deleted, then the category will be speedy-deleted as empty per WP:C1; but if any of the pages are not deleted, then the case for deletion evaporates. So either way, there is no need for a CFD discussion. In this case, the TFD has been relisted again at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2019_March_6#UKBot, where discussion is still open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:UKBot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:UKBot active contests ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:UKBot archived contests ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:UKBot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Categories consisting only of or only used by templates nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 19#UKBot {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: the related TfD has been relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_27#UKBot. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Close. Since they're intimately related to the previously nominated templates, we shouldn't go deleting them here. We don't want to risk the event of deleting categories for templates that are kept, or keeping categories for templates that are deleted. If the templates are deleted, these can be speedied with criterion G8. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2019 (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:Explosives engineering and bomb disposal in fiction
- 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:Fiction about bomb disposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: As with other CFDs of this nature, make it more clear that the category should be applied when the topic is a primary feature of the fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining regardless of name. It's not an established genre, just more trivia cruft. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rename without "Explosives engineering", i.e. to Category:Fiction about bomb disposal (although I would not oppose Category:Bomb disposal in fiction). Most of the contents seem to fit that name, and for it to be sufficiently WP:DEFINING, but this does not appear to be defining for Gunsmith Cats, so remove that one. – Fayenatic London 09:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2019 (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:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
- 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: listify and delete. Both categories have been listified already at Talk:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum#Category:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 has been nominated for discussion. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Parties that campaigned for leave during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
- Propose Deleting Category:Parties that campaigned for remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:OPINIONCAT
- Brexit is certainly dominant in UK politics today and has been since 2016. But most the current major parties of the UK were founded long before 2016: Conservative (1834), Labour (1900), Scottish Nationalist (1934), Liberal Democrats (1988), DUP (1971), The Independent Group (2019), Sinn Féin (1905), Plaid (1925), Green Party (1990). Looking through the minor parties, most have one line that they campaigned for or against. This is better for a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. Categorising parties by issue is a v v bad path to go down, a recipe for massive category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Listify both List of campaign organizations supporting Remain in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 doesn't actually seem to have most of these tiny groups, & separate lists may be best. I can't see an equivalent leavers groups list. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just copied the current articles from both categories here so that, if someone wants to create list articles, no work is lost. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Listify then Delete -- This sort of thing is much better done by a list, which can provide some commentary. This is a historic category for party POVs on a particular issue, though one that has dominated UK politics since. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2019 (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:Recipients of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- According to the introduction of the Zimbabwean Independence Medal, 1980 article, this award was given to those who were "involved in the Zimbabwean independence commemorations in some way". While this award was presumably given to a lot of people, the only recipients in the category is an Australian military officer and a South African pilot who both served in many other locations and received this award as a de facto campaign medal . We typically don't categorize by campaign medals because career officers serve in a variety of locations and conflicts and categorizing by every one of them creates category clutter. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Background We've deleted similar broad-based independence medals for other countries here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Just a routine commemorative medal. Not at all defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2019 (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:Ingersoll Rand
- 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ingersoll Rand to Category:Ingersoll-Rand
- Nominator's rationale: Company has gone back and forth with and without the hyphen in their official name; current incarnation is with the hyphen: Ingersoll-Rand. Does not qualify for WP:CFDS because article just moved. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. When a company oscillates the punctuation of its name, we don't need to be blown around in the wind by them. I have just created a category redirect from the hyphenated form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 10 March 2019 (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.
March 8
Category:Books featured on Reading Rainbow
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Books featured on Reading Rainbow ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Books featured on Reading Rainbow ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait of books per WP:NONDEFINING. Sure, notable books were featured on Reading Rainbow, but that fact alone is about as "defining" as "books adapted into a Wishbone episode". --Animalparty! (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PERFCAT. Not defining and already listified here. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2019 (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.
Template:Indie-rock-group-stub
- 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 Template:indie-rock-band-stub. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Template:indie-rock-group-stub to Template:indie-rock-band-stub
- Nominator's rationale: To conform to stub naming conventions; see {{rock-band-stub}} and related types. Her Pegship (speak) 23:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support as the current convention for such stubs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:38, 15 March 2019 (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.
Dubbed films
- 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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting:
- Nominator's rationale: This a procedural nomination, as a followup to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 7#Dubbed_television_programs, where @DexDor presented a cogent argument[37] that being dubbed into another language is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of either film or a TV program. I haven't decided where I stand on that, but it seems to me that if we are discussing deletion of dubbed TV show categories, we should also discuss the possibility of deleting dubbed film categories. So I am putting this up to see where consensus is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- WikiProject Film has been notified[38]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indian cinema task force has been notified[39]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Virtually every film made gets dubbed into other languages so this is not a defining characteristic. I went through a couple dozen of these and they all failed WP:CATVER as there was no sourced info about the dubbing of the film into any language in the articles. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The original language of film is defining. The only case where I can think where how it's dubbed later would be helpful would be if you prefer movies in Tamil and you want a list of ones available in your preferred language. But this is English Wikipedia and such a listing seems not only non-defining but non-encyclopedic. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NONDEF, WP:TRIVIALCAT, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If someone wants to make a cross-referenced database elsewhere of films dubbed into (or from) their language of choice, by all means do so, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Note: upmerging (to the category for the original language) could also be considered, but all those articles I've checked don't need such an upmerge as the dubbed category tag was added without removing existing tags (example edit). DexDor (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom/above as non-defining. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete for all the reasons above. It will need some watching, especially in multi-lingual countries like India as these categories are getting used quite often by some almost certain COI editors who add dubbing information (unsourced, of course!) from a particular dub production company. If these categories are deleted, some may need protection if they get recreated. Ravensfire (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2019 (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.
KK Mega Basket
- 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.
@IndexAccount, for future reference, this could have been done as a speedy nomination per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming: Category:KK Mega Vizura players to Category:KK Mega Basket players
- Nominator's rationale. From 2009–2014, KK Mega Vizura was a sponsorship name of KK Mega Basket, a basketball club from Serbia and currently known as Mega Bemax. It would be better to use original name of the club due to many sponsorship names. IndexAccount (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2019 (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.
People from Sardinia
- Propose renaming:
- Propose deleting:
- Nominator's rationale. Series of new categories created by new editor @RecycledPixels, with edit summaries noting that they were copied from the Italian categories. With two problems:
- Sardinia is not a sovereign state, we categorise people from there by the "People from Foo" convention, rather than by the demonyms which we used for nationalities.
- We don't need to replicate the whole category structure for a country in the category tree for an island. We don't have many article on people from Sardinia, and that path would just be over-categorisation.
- So this nomination seeks to rename the one category with actual substantive article content (Category:Sardinian Roman Catholic priests, with 16 pages), and delete the rest. (Category:16th-century Sardinian people contains one page, but we don't need to start a by-century tree just for one page).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per parent Category:People from Sardinia + lack of content. Oculi (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure lack of content is a fair reason to delete a category that was just created a few hours ago. I'm sure that a nation that existed for more than five centuries had more than one or two notable people in it. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, as creator. Agreed that modern Sardinia is not a sovereign state. However it used to be; see Kingdom of Sardinia which existed from the early 14th until the mid-19th century. The need for the category came to my attention while editing the Francesco Zirano article, of a 16th-century priest from Sardinia. The article before I started editing it identified him as an Italian Roman Catholic Priest. Another editor raised what I saw as a valid objection to this label (see edit summary at [40]. That edit had to do with the mentions within the article, but when I came back to the article, I noticed that there were several categories on the article that categorized the articles under categories like "italian Franciscans", 16th century Italian People, and so on. I don't feel that categorizing these articles as Italian or as Spanish people under the existing categories would be appropriate. Nor would I feel that people from Sardinia today should be put into these categories, but people from the Kingdom of Sardinia should be put there. No objection to renaming from "Sardinian priests" to "Kingdom of Sardinian priests", and so on if that would be less confusing, it just makes for confusingly long category names. A similar situation exists for categories like Category:Norman Franciscans. It wouldn't be appropriate to merge that into Category:French Franciscans just because Normandy is now part of modern-day France. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is Category:People from the Kingdom of Sardinia. Custom is to follow the format of the parent category. Oculi (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, then I probably just botched the category tree. My goal was just to create new categories attached to the Francesco_Zirano article, but didn't want to leave a bunch or orphan categories, so I tried to copy the category structure from the Italian categories. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Dk1919 Franking: because that user started populating some of the Sardinian categories shortly after I created them. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here are some additional categories I created at the same time that aren't listed in the original nomination, so they can all be included in this discussion (feel free to cut and paste into the top section if you like):
- These were all created just to maintain the same category heirarchy, and I used the Italian categories as a model. As you can see, it turned out to be quite a trip down the rabbit hole just to avoid leaving categories around that weren't appropriately connected to their parent categories. And the purpose of this was to replace four inappropriate categories on the Francesco Zirano article: Category:16th-century Italian people, Category:Italian Franciscans, Category:Italian Roman Catholic priests, and Category:Italian beatified people, so if there is a better way to do it, I'm open to feedback. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- The hierarchy should be created gradually, adding a category to the hierarchy only when it can be populated with at least around 5 articles (not counting articles in its subcategories). That is why below I voted delete, to be interpreted as "delete for now". Feel free to populate the categories while the discussion is going on and I will withdraw my opposition against any categories that reach a substantial number of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- These were all created just to maintain the same category heirarchy, and I used the Italian categories as a model. As you can see, it turned out to be quite a trip down the rabbit hole just to avoid leaving categories around that weren't appropriately connected to their parent categories. And the purpose of this was to replace four inappropriate categories on the Francesco Zirano article: Category:16th-century Italian people, Category:Italian Franciscans, Category:Italian Roman Catholic priests, and Category:Italian beatified people, so if there is a better way to do it, I'm open to feedback. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Roman Catholic priests from the Kingdom of Sardinia per Oculi, delete other categories per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi everyone! I suppose we may reach a compromise by moving everyone's category to the aforementioned Category:People from the Kingdom of Sardinia, which I think is the safest, and most respectable as well from an historical point of view, option. The point that I indeed raised and started the whole debate was that Sardinia was then its own Kingdom, as the nacció sarda following the early concept of "nation", with relatively few cultural and political contacts with Italy (so much so that Sardinia would in fact be part of the Council of Aragon, rather than Italy's, until its eventual handing over to the Austrians and then Savoyards, which marked the beginning of the Piedmontese rule over the island); as I said, it would be somewhat of an anachronism to attribute modern nationalities to people from such an early age. Therefore, I'm indifferent to whether we should keep the categories of "Sardinian monks, priests, etc." (the presence of which I nevertheless support and the elimination oppose) or just place them undel the label of "people from Sardinia" or also "people from the Kingdom of Sardinia", which sounds like the safest action to undertake. I conclude by personally thanking @RecycledPixels: for the sensibility shown to the historical question.--Dk1919 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename per Marcocapelle and Oculi. "People from Sardinia" would cover those from the island, probably mainly modern people. The renamed category would apply to the island and rest of the kingdom from 1718 to 1861 (when the kingdom was renamed to Italy). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Christianity in Copenhagen
- 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:Religion in Copenhagen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Christianity in Copenhagen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Christianity in Copenhagen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and move the article to Category:Religion in Copenhagen, there are one subcategory and one article in this category and there is no specific reason to expect a sudden increase of articles any time soon. There is no need to merge (except the article to one parent category) because the content remains in the tree of the parent categories anyhow. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Doesn't aid navigation today and growth potential (beyond more churches in the only subcategory) seems limited. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2019 (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.
March 7
Category:Hulk (comics) in other media
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Video games based on Hulk (comics) to Category:Video games based on the Hulk
- Propose renaming Category:Hulk (comics) television series to Category:Hulk television series
- Propose renaming Category:Hulk (comics) films to Category:Hulk films
- Propose renaming Category:Hulk (comics) in other media to Category:Hulk in other media
- Nominator's rationale: With the parent article being renamed, I see no need for disambiguation. I can't see what this could be confused for, and it's already been determined to be the primary topic anyway. The subcats should all follow suit as well. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - parent category is Category:Hulk (comics) (although attempts have been made to move it, to judge from the history). I would certainly have opposed the page move had I seen it. Oculi (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Parent article is Hulk in other media. The page move was widely supported. What would have been your basis in opposing it? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category names follow the format in the category. "There's no need for such a primarytopic grab on such an ambiguous term" per Dicklyon. Hulk is a Brazilian footballer to much of the world. Further, Hulk (comics) in other media makes some sense whereas Hulk in other media makes no sense (other than what?). Oculi (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Brazilian football player got his name from the character of the Hulk. Do you really think that any English speaker is going to see a category named Hulk TV series and think that it's for the football player? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category names follow the format in the category. "There's no need for such a primarytopic grab on such an ambiguous term" per Dicklyon. Hulk is a Brazilian footballer to much of the world. Further, Hulk (comics) in other media makes some sense whereas Hulk in other media makes no sense (other than what?). Oculi (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've also shaken my heads at the outcome of other Requested Moves that I see for the first time here in CFD. I should start following WP:RM#C more closely. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Parent article is Hulk in other media. The page move was widely supported. What would have been your basis in opposing it? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support all except the video games category. The character is called "The Hulk" or "The Incredible Hulk". The category should be renamed to Category:Video games based on the Hulk. Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Support All/Correct Venue per WP:C2D There was an RM discussion here that may have been brilliant or may have been a total travesty. Either way, CFD is the wrong venue to overturn that decision and having articles names mismatch category names hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Massively ambiguous title such as this impede accurate categorisation.
- Regardless of whether the RM was wonderfully policy-based or a blatant
primarytopic grab
, the ambiguity remains. And @RevelationDirect, please do read WP:C2D. It doesn't apply in cases of ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- I actually do see a lot of ambiguity in the article space with this rename but--not only is it not transferred to the category space--but it dissipates. For instance, if I'm reading the The Incredible Hulk Returns article and see Category:Hulk films at the bottom, it's meaning will be clear without me clicking on tje cat. Similarly, if I'm navigating from another category, say Category:Films based on Marvel Comics, I'll likely also know what the subcategory is referring to without clicking on it. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect that presumes that the only place category titles are encountered is when they are already present at the bottom of articles. However, there are many other situations in which readers and editors encounter category titles, where that contextual info will not be readily available.
- I see no zero benefit to readers or editors in deliberately introducing avoidable ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I actually do see a lot of ambiguity in the article space with this rename but--not only is it not transferred to the category space--but it dissipates. For instance, if I'm reading the The Incredible Hulk Returns article and see Category:Hulk films at the bottom, it's meaning will be clear without me clicking on tje cat. Similarly, if I'm navigating from another category, say Category:Films based on Marvel Comics, I'll likely also know what the subcategory is referring to without clicking on it. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2019 (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:Royal works by Sirindhorn
- 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: speedy delete. WP:G7 per request of creator @Thyj, below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Royal works by Sirindhorn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Royal works by Sirindhorn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. The scholarly Thai princess Sirindhorn doesn't seem to have written many notable publications. And if we did want a category for her works, the adjective "Royal" is pointless aggrandisement. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (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.
Dubbed television programs
- 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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Dubbed series to Category:Dubbed television programs
- Category:Bengali-language series dubbed in Hindi to Category:Bengali-language television programs dubbed in Hindi
- Category:Bengali-language series dubbed in Tamil to Category:Bengali-language television programs dubbed in Tamil
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Bengali to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Bengali
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Malayalam to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Malayalam
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Marathi to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Marathi
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Odia to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Odia
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Tamil to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Tamil
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Telugu to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Telugu
- Category:Kannada-language series dubbed in Tamil to Category:Kannada-language television programs dubbed in Tamil
- Category:Kannada-language series dubbed in Telugu to Category:Kannada-language series television programs in Telugu
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Gujarati to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Gujarati
- Category:Hindi-language series dubbed in Kannada to Category:Hindi-language television programs dubbed in Kannada
- Category:Marathi-language series dubbed in Tamil to Category:Marathi-language television programs dubbed in Tamil
- Nominator's rationale: per parent Category:Television programs by language, and to better describe the content. The omission of the word "television" makes the scope obscure; it could include films, but it excludes TV programs which are not part of a series).
- This could have been nominated as a speedy per WP:C2C, but I thought it best to bring it to a full discussion in case there are any objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (upmerging if necessary) as non-defining - e.g. that Ramayan (2008 TV series) has been dubbed into Malayalam,Telugu, Tamil and Gujarati may be worth noting in the article text, but it's overcategorization. DexDor (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DexDor: About half of these cats have been created by me to fill redlinks in Special:WantedCategories. I have no particular view either way on their merits, but the reason I created the cats rather than removing their entries on the articles was that we have a parallel structure of Category:Dubbed films with 48 subcategories. As with these TV cats, all of them relate to South Asian languages.
- Is there any reason to regard dubbing of TV show as any more or less defining than dubbing of a film? If not, shouldn't deletion be considered for both sets together? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- I suspect that these categories have been populated more by enthusiasts of particular languages than by people interested in improving categorization of films/shows (an editor of the latter type wouldn't have left them as redlinks).
- Note: Neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization nor MOS:TVCATS (although the latter is very brief) mention categorization by what languages a film/show is dubbed into. TVCATS does say "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network." and categorization by dubbing languages is somewhat akin to that.
- It's non-defining for both films and TV shows and I don't think the this CFD not covering films means we can't delete the categories for dubbed TV shows (and consider films in a subsequent CFD). DexDor (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, @DexDor. You make a good case, but I'm staying neutral on deletion. My main concern is that if these categories exist, they should be named less ambiguously. I will make a procedural nomination of the film cats as well, so that they can be considered together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The original language of showis defining. The only case where I can think where how it's dubbed later would be helpful would be if you prefer viewing in Tamil and you want a list of ones available in your preferred language. But this is English Wikipedia and such a listing seems not only non-defining but non-encyclopedic. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 8#Dubbed_films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 8 March 2019 (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:Cameo Records singles
- 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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Category:Cameo_Records_singles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Cameo Records singles to [[:Category:]]
- Nominator's rationale: Cameo Records was a record company in the 1920s that closed in 1928. The songs listed with this category are incorrectly linking to this page rather than to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Cameo-Parkway Records released songs as Cameo, Parkway, and Cameo-Parkway in the 50s and 60s so the WP articles should be linked Cameo-Parkway Records's category instead as Cameo Records and Cameo-Parkway Records are two completely separate companies.
I am thinking the songs listed under this category need to be moved to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records and this category as there are no WP articles with songs released under Cameo Records in the 1920s. LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the articles are miscategorized, then recategorize them to the correct category. If that then empties the category it would be eligible for WP:C1 speedy deletion. ~ GB fan 11:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I already tried to recatergorize them, but the creator of the category reverted the edits. I also already tried to do speedy deletion and it was denied and I was referred here.LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the articles are miscategorized, then recategorize them to the correct category. If that then empties the category it would be eligible for WP:C1 speedy deletion. ~ GB fan 11:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - we already have Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Oculi (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep.:This is a vexatious nomination. See the discussion on the talk page. Firstly, the introduction to the Cameo-Parkway article presently reads, 'Cameo-Parkway Records was the parent company of Cameo Records and Parkway Records, which were major American Philadelphia-based record labels from 1956 (for Cameo) and 1958 (for Parkway) to 1967.' So that establishes Cameo as a record label. So the main article confirms that there was a 'record label' called Cameo between 1956 and 1967, but because one editor won't accept this we have to go through this farrago of a nomination. The category these belong in is 'Singles by Record LABEL' NOT by company. There is a difference. Finally a 'record label' is a trade mark, device or marketing system used by a record company which was printed on the record, an example is here (others are on the talk page, or you can find your own easy enough). Image of Charlies Grace's Butterfly single showing the Cameo logo of the time.
- This give us two options, we rename the holding category as Singles albums etc by Record Company and merge all the subsidiary labels back into the record company, or we accept the category is correct as 'Singles by Record Label' FWIW Whether Cameo has a separate article is irrelevant to this discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Cameo Records was an American record label that flourished in the 1920s." I most misspoke by calling it a record company in my oringal post. It was also a record label. Also, I get you created this category, but can you please stop making person remarks about me and stick to the discussion on the category?LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could we not make Category:Cameo Records singles a subcat of Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles and move along? Oculi (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am perfectly fine with as a subcat. I just wanted to make sure there is no confusion since Cameo Records itself is a different label. The reason I posted this is I just worry there will end up being an article created that is a single release under Cameo Records, but they are now being categorized with singles from Cameo-Parkway Records.LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Two comments in further of suggestions above. This is far from the only example along these lines and needs sorting out, which I could/should have done many times over the past years, but then so should others, and I did suggest to LongLiveMusic it was a preferred way to take this discussion. I would have had no problem if somebody had added to the category text, something along the lines of 'Cameo was a label used by the Cameo-Parkway Record company to issue disks between 1956 and 1967 to solve this problem, but to incorrectly recategorize to fit an editor's whim. That's a no-no in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is an incorrect blue link on Bye Bye Birdie (to the 20s Cameo). Oculi (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but I've fixed it now. Incorrect blue links are a major problem at WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- It has to so with the possibility that confusion will arise and possibly miscategorisation unless there is some dab added to Category:Cameo Records singles, because the article Cameo Records is about a different entity. Eg it could be Category:Cameo Records (1956-67) singles, with a redirect Cameo Records (1956-67) to Cameo-Parkway Records. That is, Category:Cameo Records singles is ambiguous and should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- These singles were released on the Cameo label, not the Cameo-Parkway label, what renaming are you suggesting? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am suggesting Category:Cameo Records (1956-67) singles, or similar. Oculi (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have created the redirect Cameo Records (1956) and now suggest that Cameo Records be moved to Cameo Records (1922) (founded in 1922 acc to infobox) and Cameo Records be recreated as a dab page. I suggest Category:Cameo Records (1956) singles as a suitable name for the category under discussion. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oculi, I think that would be a good solution to dab the two to prevent confusion. That way if someone is searching for Cameo of the 50s they are not going to be incorrectly sent to the Cameo of the 20s which is what currently happens. This way viewers know the Cameo of the 50s is part of the Cameo-Parkway parent company.LongLiveMusic (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- These singles were released on the Cameo label, not the Cameo-Parkway label, what renaming are you suggesting? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- It has to so with the possibility that confusion will arise and possibly miscategorisation unless there is some dab added to Category:Cameo Records singles, because the article Cameo Records is about a different entity. Eg it could be Category:Cameo Records (1956-67) singles, with a redirect Cameo Records (1956-67) to Cameo-Parkway Records. That is, Category:Cameo Records singles is ambiguous and should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but I've fixed it now. Incorrect blue links are a major problem at WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2019 (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:Māngere
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Māngere ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Māngere ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: An excessive and unnecessary subcategory of Category:Suburbs of Auckland. No other suburb of Auckland has their own (sub)category. Ross Finlayson (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete but per WP:SHAREDNAME. I have no objections to categorizing individual suburbs if they have enough content but this is just grouping things named "Mangere" whether or not they're the municipality. Mangere Bridge (bridges) connects two towns (neither one of which is Mangere), Māngere (New Zealand electorate) and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board are bothh much larger areas, etc. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2019 (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.
March 6
Requested moves discussion of North Macedonia stub templates
- 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: Template_talk:NorthMacedonia-stub#Requested_move_4_March_2019 was closed as move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
At Template talk:North_Macedonia-stub#Requested_move_4_March_2019, there is a discussion of a proposal to rename 54 stub templates from "RMacedonia-topic-stub" to "NorthMacedonia-topic-stub".
I see now that I should have listed them at CFD. Sorry for that error; I hope that this notice will suffice as an alert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 6 March 2019 (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:Seth Meyers
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Seth Meyers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Seth Meyers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:44, 6 March 2019 (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:Uma Thurman
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Uma Thurman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Uma Thurman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Main article with an image category and little room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2019 (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:Middle-earth horses
- Propose deleting Category:Middle-earth horses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Middle-earth horses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: No articles. These are all redirects to a sections on a single article. --woodensuperman 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - it is good practice for the nominator to link to previous cfds, such as this one. This is in fact a perfect example of how to categorise useful redirects: see Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects#Categorization_of_list_entries where it is cited as an example. Oculi (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can see how it might be useful if it was redirecting to multiple articles, but not when all of the redirects are to the same article. The sections List of Middle-earth animals#Notable horses and List of Middle-earth animals#Notable ponies are really not that difficult to navigate without this excessive categorization. --woodensuperman 15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Where is the excess? Arod (Middle-earth) is categorized once, hardly excessive. Have you read Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects? Oculi (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can see how it might be useful if it was redirecting to multiple articles, but not when all of the redirects are to the same article. The sections List of Middle-earth animals#Notable horses and List of Middle-earth animals#Notable ponies are really not that difficult to navigate without this excessive categorization. --woodensuperman 15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's excessive because it isn't needed to negotiate these relatively small sections of a list. Yes, I've read it, but that doesn't change my opinion on the redundancy of this category. --woodensuperman 16:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is an extra signpost. Extra signposts are a help, not an inconvenience. Delete would make Arod (Middle-earth) uncategorised, which is highly undesirable Oculi (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Arod is barely even notable and probably WP:FANCRUFT, but if it really must be categorized, and I'm not convinced of this, then it could go in Category:Middle-earth animals and Category:Fictional horses, but it really isn't necessary. --woodensuperman 16:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is an extra signpost. Extra signposts are a help, not an inconvenience. Delete would make Arod (Middle-earth) uncategorised, which is highly undesirable Oculi (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's excessive because it isn't needed to negotiate these relatively small sections of a list. Yes, I've read it, but that doesn't change my opinion on the redundancy of this category. --woodensuperman 16:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, the purpose of categories is to link to other articles that are related to the article that you're currently reading. Being linked to the same article again and again is completely uninformative. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - (article) categories should be (just) linking to similar articles. Listify if nececessary. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment the list in question has changed somewhat since this category was set up nearly 12 years ago (see here for the original version that was later merged to a list of Middle-earth animals). Some of the list entries have been removed so some of the redirects no longer function as such - this can tend to happen over time with lists on fictional entities. On a general point, editors will have been following the consensus established at the categorizing redirects guideline:
If the consensus here is to delete, then a discussion should also take place at the guideline talk page to update the guideline, as editors who watch that guideline page may not be aware of this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)"...categorization of the redirects can be an alternative way of browsing entries in a long list. It can also provide an alphabetical listing for lists that are not organised alphabetically, for example, lists organised in a chronological order. Redirects to sections of minor character lists should generally only be categorized within that fictional setting, and not in the wider fictional categories."
- I agree that the guideline may need amending. That guideline (like many others) is not 100% clear about how much it is describing Mediawiki functionality and how much it is telling users what is good practice. "If you do X then the effect on the encyclopedia will be Y" doesn't necessarily mean that doing X is appropriate (in a particular situation). DexDor (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Per Oculi and the cited guideline. Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete/Hide if Kept I'm struggling to see the navigational pathway that's helpful here. I come to Category:Middle-earth animals where the main article is List of Middle-earth animals but there's a subcategory for horses that only points to that same main article. (No objection to a hidden redirect category if anyone finds that useful.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, this isn't a
navigational pathway
. It's a misnamed instance of a very common type of tracking category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect, this isn't a
- Delete per nom. I don't see the point of this cat, given they're all listed on List of Middle-earth animals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong keep, but as a hidden tracking category per e.g. Category:EastEnders character redirects to lists (and many similar subcats of Category:Fictional character redirects to lists)
- A category consisting solely of redirects is useless to navigation. However, it is very beneficial to editors to keep track of these redirects, and making it it a hidden tracking category ensures that readers don't get sucked into it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that categories like this are "very beneficial to editors"? We have categories such as Category:Redirect-Class EastEnders articles for editors and I'm not convinced that it's worth (the editor time) maintaining both mainspace and talkpage categories that are largely duplication. DexDor (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Middle-earth animals. There is not enough substantive content to merit a full category. No objection to moving redirects to Category:Middle-earth animal redirects as a hidden category (which would perhaps be done by renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)