From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 16 April 18 >

April 17

Category:Redirects from opposites

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Propose harmonising with {{ R from antonym}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with color blindness

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT, WP:COP and WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:TRIVIALCAT)
Howie Mandel, Brian Foster (BMX rider), and Rod Stewart are not remotely defined by this medical condition and Wikipedia is not a medical history of every diseases or ailment of notable people. There's already a separate list article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Background There was a rename CFD nomination for this category last year and we've deleted other medical conditions here, here, here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Too common and insignificant to be a defining trait. Around 9% of men have some form of color blindness. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Per RevelationDirect's comment, Wikipedia has been deleting categories about well-defined medical condition. This destructive trait has to stop, and I would support recreating the other categories. Dimadick ( talk) 18:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-defining. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not really defining, and like some other conditions it covers such a braod array of things seeing them as a unified group does not make sense. We do not have to categorize by every point that might be brought up in a biography. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bruce Jesson Memorial lecturers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT approaching WP:TRIVIALCAT)
We don't have a main article on the "Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture" and we won't because the topic is likely non-notable: of the first 10 hits on Google, 1 is this category, 8 are primary sources from a foundation, and 1 is this link from the Scoop (website), which automatically reprints press releases in their entirety, so it's effectively a primary source. Bruce Jesson was a prominent journalist from New Zeeland and this is annual lecture in his honour but none of the 10 articles in this category even mention this performance. The category contents are already listified right here in the biography article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT, lectures are performances too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not even have an article on the lecture itself. Giving some specific lecture is not defining. This clearly falls under the performance category rubric, even if some people want to limit its application. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alternative energy

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. I will let other users decide what belongs in Category:Renewable energy and what does not belong in Category:Energy democracy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The term alternative energy is falling out of use, and its meaning overlaps strongly with sustainable energy. alternative energy is already a redirect to sustainable energy. FemkeMilene ( talk) 20:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Admin note: merging to Category:Renewable energy would be a downmerge, so merging with the bot will not fully work. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. I'm a little bit confused about two existing target categories at proposal: 'Sustainable' and 'Renewable'. Which should be prefered for which reasons? Unclear IMHO. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    The term alternative energy is poorly defined. Some definitions overlap with that of renewable energy (which includes some polluting forms of energy such as unsustainable forms of bioenergy, but no nuclear), others are more in line with sustainable energy (which may include nuclear). see article universe today. I think sustainable energy is slightly broader, so would merge it to that one, also in line with the main articles ( merge done in 2019). FemkeMilene ( talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Federal buildings in Canada

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a duplicate? Mike Peel ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom, to an unknown title. It will need to be harmonized with wherever the two categories in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Category:Federal_buildings_in_the_United_States are merged. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, though not strongly as I am not totally sure that a "Federal Building" is a real thing in Canada, the way that a "Federal Building" very much is in the U.S. I did create the category "Federal buildings in Canada" back in 2019, but maybe just to shunt off Federal Building, Edmonton separately. The other four current members of the category might be just Canadian federal government buildings, not the distinct kind of thing that is a Federal Building (massive office building, restricted access not open to general public, distinct architecture, part of a massive program to consolidate back offices of various federal departments). But it would seem U.S.-centric to assume the term applies for just U.S. ones. The Edmonton one has the look of real Federal Buildings in the U.S., and maybe there are more Canadian ones. So I think Keeping this category is best. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Persons who have mainly lived in the United Kingdom or various other countries will likely not know/understand that a " Federal Building" is a very distinct kind of thing in the U.S., the same way that U.K. editors were about Masonic buildings, back when there was long contention about List of Masonic buildings (which even now only includes about 10 in the U.K., where they are not really a "thing", while there are more than 400 very notable ones in List of Masonic buildings in the United States). Most U.S. persons will recognize that the Masonic building in a town is an important, prominent, major thing, often one of the most substantial original buildings. And recently I had discussion with a Europe-based editor skeptical about historic one-room schoolhouses, which are community-built/celebrated/important/notable/honored places in the U.S. symbolic of American pride in independence/frontier life etc., while the few that survive in Norway for example (subject of a dissertation comparing Norway ones vs. U.S. ones) are merely historical embarrassments, unwelcome reminders of imposition of city-type(?) education systems upon resistant rural farming areas. This is a U.S. (and maybe Canada) vs. other places issue. See also my comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Category:Federal_buildings_in_the_United_States. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in Canada, searching the Canadian "Directory of Federal Real Property" for building type=office yields 3036 buildings, including remote small shacks serving lighthouses, harbor authorities, etc. In the "Display on a map" option, the term "Federal Building" is used to refer to these, not at all the kind of thing that is a Federal Building in the Wikipedia article on that topic. The term "Federal Building" occurs just three times among names of those 3036 (which I can see after downloading the search results to a spreadsheet), for three buildings of Public Services and Procurement Canada (akin to General Services Administration in the U.S.):
But these are a significant few. The search did not find Federal Building, Edmonton. There may be more which don't show up in type=office-only search. This is a 2019 announcement of construction of a new one in Shawinigan, Quebec, to hold mostly Canada Revenue Agency offices. So I think that the Canada category should be kept, to cover this kind of thing in Canada, though there are fewer than in the U.S., and perhaps fewer even in proportion to population. And the Canadian ones are smaller than the massive U.S. ones. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • We should not keep the category for buildings that merely have "Federal building" in the name. If kept, there should be a substantive difference with other government buildings. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Would love to hear from Canadian editors. While I think there is a distinction in the US context, I have no idea here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Same as RevelationDirect above. Unclear. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Tag Manually tagged WikiProject Canada. (This cat talk page wasn't in any WikiProjects so no automatic notices would have gone out). - RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Category:Canadian federal government buildings. I'm not aware of any real distinction between the terms, and I think using "federal government buildings" is more clear. Besides that, the "Federal buildings" category only has 5 entries, three of which are in the "federal government buildings" category, and the latter has subcategories as well. Btw, I'm a Canadian editor. Regards, PK T(alk) 13:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom, although with caution — the reason Doncram didn't find the Edmonton one in a database of government properties is that the Edmonton one isn't a federal government property at all anymore: it used to be, but then the federal government moved its operations to a newer building, following which the provincial government took it over and just didn't change its name. But all of that means it would be miscategorized if we moved it to the target category, because it isn't one of those. To be fair, I do see the distinction that the category creator was trying to get at, but the current name absolutely fails to convey it — yes, government buildings of the type Doncram describes do exist in Canada, but the problem is that "federal building" isn't generally the standard name for them up here, with the corollaries that (a) "federal buildings" is not readily identifiable as a distinct topic from "federal government buildings" in Canada, and (b) you're not actually going to find most of them by searching for the phrase "federal building" in a government property database (you'd even miss numerous such buildings that already have Wikipedia articles that are already in the target category.) There might be a different name by which they could be better distinguished from other types of government buildings, which would make the distinction clearer — but "federal buildings" isn't it, and I can't think of an alternative that would be better (though I'm willing to reconsider if somebody else can). Bearcat ( talk) 13:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    Commment The problem is that the term "federal building" meaning a major office tower where government offices are located, was definitely used in Canada. It just wasn't used consistently and for a long period of time like the in US. And is it a defining part of a building's history if that name was used? Not really. Is it a defining part of that building's history that it has used as the main government office in a small town for decades? Probably (assuming the building is notable in the first place), but what do you call the category for that then? Note also that in Alberta we have "Provincial Buildings" in most small towns that are a smaller version of the same phenomenon. So, keep, I guess? -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I do not think there is a distinction despite the attempts to claim there is such. The terms are used interchangebly. There is not an agreed upon idea that "Federal Building" is something other than a "ferderal government building". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Things named after Francisco de Miranda

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) 20:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Breaches WP:SHAREDNAME, not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, and contrary to practice on en.wiki as the only "Things named after" category. NebY ( talk) 17:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Empty categories for defunct collaborations

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) 20:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: All of these categories contain only one userbox and no actual users, and the underlying collaborations appear to no longer be operational. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. – Just N. ( talk) 12:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no continuing use. PrisonerB ( talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As the creator of all three of these, I have no objection to their deletion. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 15:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nakba

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping categories, there is hardly anything in Category:History of the Palestinian refugees that isn't about the post-1948 history of Palestinian refugees that Category:Nakba is also about.
@ Selfstudier and Ibadibam: pinging participants of this related discussion, which is still open. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Category:Nakba is a much broader topic. Not sure whether we need a category on History of the Palestinian refugees at the moment, so am ok with merging into Category:Nakba. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Now it is proposed to merge the Nakba cat to the History of the Palestinian refugees cat on the grounds " largely overlapping categories, there is hardly anything in Category:History of the Palestinian refugees that isn't about the post-1948 history of Palestinian refugees that Category:Nakba is also about." which essentially amounts to a different method of deleting the Nakba cat.

The obvious point to make is that the Nakba (either in reality or as a cat) is not equal to the History of the Palestinian refugees any more than it is equal to the 1948 Palestinian exodus.(see this discussion) I make here the same argument I made before, the proposal is exactly backwards. Onceinawhile is also right that we do not need a category History of the Palestinian refugees cat anymore than we need the 1948 Palestinian exodus cat. The former is an artificial unintuitive way of looking at the Palestinian refugees (as I said before I don't even know what it is supposed to mean) while the latter is just one of a series of exoduses, albeit the largest. The Nakba whether it is defined only as a set of events in 47/9 or whether it includes later events does not really alter its defining characteristics. Namely, the creation ( not the "history" and not only in 1948) of refugees, dispossession/destruction of property, the loss of homeland, forced migration, the defining of the culture and identity of the people.

Consider the recent edits at List of towns and villages depopulated during the Nakba, Onceinawhile correctly changed the name of this article (about property not refugees) from List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus with reason "Most of these were depopulated and destroyed outside of the core exodus period. Some during the civil war, and some after armistice" (ie in 1947 and in 1949 as well as in 1948). Then by this edit earlier today, editor Marcocapelle removed cats Nakba and History of the Palestinian refugees and restored cat 1948 Palestinian exodus. This is a reflection of the general problem to be solved here, how to categorize this article as well as others. I say the defining feature here is Nakba and should be categorized the same, apart from which 48 Exodus or even History of the Palestinian refugees are about refugees not properties. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  • There are two independent topics here: the Palestinian exodus of 1948 as a result of the 47-49 war on the one hand and the History of Palestinian refugees after the exodus of 1948 on the other hand. Dependent on how Nakba is defined it coincides with the first topic only ( Category:1948 Palestinian exodus) or with both in conjunction ( Category:History of the Palestinian refugees). I don't really mind how Nakba is defined but as a category it is redundant either way. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The "topic" 1948 Palestinian exodus is an article about a particular exodus that is considered by all as a foundational aspect of the Nakba, that there is a Category:1948 Palestinian exodus seems a historical error, there should have been a Nakba article and Nakba cat all along, now there is and that is where the article 1948 Palestinian exodus (probably needs a rename) should be, it could/should also be in a refugee category of some description. The "topic" Category:History of the Palestinian refugees is a cat whose purpose is at best unclear, there is no article with that title, there is an article Palestinian refugees plus a cat of the same name which ought to be the cat for refugee type articles. Many of the originally created refugees are dead, current refugees including descendants of them as well as refugees created 1949 to 56 and 67 and all this is explained in other articles (like the UNWRA article, which I would not include in the Nakba cat but would include in a refugee cat). The solution here is not difficult to say (implementation is something else), we need Category:Nakba and a refugee cat, Category:Palestinian refugees seems appropriate as a subcat of that. Then there are some other subcats, camps, films, whatever that need to be subcats of one or other of these. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

*Support Merge. Recently created cat in a POV push. The new cat overlaps with the existing cats, who are in English, for the topoc. Free1Soul ( talk) 15:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Support Merge per WP:OVERCAT -- Shrike ( talk) 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge The earlier delete nomination was not the direction but this is. The point of categories is to aid navigation and creating a parallel category does not do that. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • A reverse merge will delete an unnecessary and confusing category ( Category:1948 Palestinian exodus also needs to merge in Nakba/refugees) that does not aid navigation at all and that overlaps with the category Nakba, a more accurate, clearer and simpler navigational aid that is also more natural and simple for categorizing new articles. I realize that nav boxes do not necessarily need to correspond with cats but we do have a Nakba template that sits at relevant pages and for good reason. The fact is there should have been a Nakba category all along. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

*Merge Better to avoid POV spin lots of other articles with Nakba this, Nakba that.-- SoaringLL ( talk) 02:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Nakba article exists so there is no POV issue. I have Cfd'd the reverse merger [ here] Selfstudier ( talk) 10:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Nakba is a language article about a Palestinian word referring to the 1948 Palestinian exodus that sometimes pops up in English-language sources. I have no issue with that article. But it is still a Palestinian word while we have neutral English terminology at hand to describe the category, so the category is POV. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Moving the goalposts, are we? Have you actually read the article? Nakba is not a language article. Nakba is not about a Palestinian word. Nor is Nakba the same thing as the 1948 Palestinian exodus (that was discussed here) or even Palestinian refugees in general. "Sometimes pops up" is false, Nakba is a commonname in English language sources. NGRAM The article was nominated for speedy deletion as being "recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic" and all those arguments just made by yourself were also made during that deletion discussion. The article was kept. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OSE, feel free to nominate it for renaming if you know a better English equivalent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Aliyah + Category:Aliyah It does not matter if there is some English equivalent, the point is that there are many precedents for foreign words, Nakba is a common name in English language sources (so is Aliyah, Iyar is not). Selfstudier ( talk) 10:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Request @ Selfstudier: Please close the other, rival nomination. The correct procedure is to !vote "reverse merge" right here not to open a second nom with the opposite proposal. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    OK, I will do that, still quite new to how it works in this area, how do I close the other? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rushed forumshopping, in poor form from the nominator, who opened this just 2 days after his nomination of Category:Nakba for deletion did not achieve consensus. The nominator did not bother to notify editors in that discussion.
Sadly WP:FORUMSHOPPING can be successful in ARBPIA, because it is plagued by ideological "voting", and editors with questionable edit histories, like the two new accounts who voted above having only just crossed 500 edits through a series of tiny edits not in the spirit of the ARBPIA threshold, and then immediately started focusing on ARBPIA edits. This is clearly not the way consensus is supposed to be achieved.
Process aside, the nomination shows a poor understanding of both the concept of the Nakba and the concept of the Palestinian refugees. That is why none of the merge voters have been able to explain how this square peg could possibly fit into the proposed round hole. Their comments are just a rehash of the failed deletion attempt, as the contents of Category:Nakba simply do not fit into Category:History of the Palestinian refugees.
  • Only the 14 million Palestinians, only 6 million are refugees. The term Palestinian refugees is a specific concept relating to those people historically or currently registered and served by UNRWA. All Palestinian lives were turned upside down by the Nakba, but only part of those Palestinians became refugees.
  • The Nakba encompasses the catastrophe which befell the Palestinian people. It is very broad in scope, and is central to the identity of all 14 million Palestinians. It includes the destruction of Palestinian society (not just refugees), the erasure of Palestinian locations and historical sites (not a refugee issue), the loss of the country of Palestine and their legal identity as Palestinians (not just the refugees), the displacement of Palestinians (including internal displacement and those who acquired new citizenship without becoming refugees), etc etc. The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution, displacement, and occupation of the Palestinians, which again, is mostly about non-refugees.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If the term Nakba is taken so broadly, its scope may ultimately coincide with Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict. However the articles currently in Category:Nakba mainly focus on the 47-49 war and the resulting emergence of Palestinian refugees. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    Marcocapelle, the category is just two weeks old, and was nominated for deletion for most of that period. Shouldn't we have some time to fill it up first rather than have non-stop arguments about it. The thing I find most disappointing about this nomination is how you chose not to allow any breathing space after yourthe deletion proposal did not attain consensus. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It was obvious follow-up on the discussion of April 15 and this merge had not been discussed before. Meanwhile you are free to populate the category further, but as mentioned by broadening the scope of the category further you will merely discover that the category is going to overlap with a next level existing category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    Silly question, am I right in saying that Nakba cat is not in the IP tree? And is PetScan useful for examining trees? Selfstudier ( talk) 22:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I have fixed my error. It never ceases to amaze me how encyclopedic content about Palestinian history consistently attracts so many “new” editors with just over 500 edits, who come to talk pages to advocate for the removal of such information. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, straightforward merge of redundant category to neutral descriptive name. PrisonerB ( talk) 09:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What happens if merged as proposed? The merged cat will contain items that are miscategorized, due to Nakba items that have been added with more yet to be added but time has not been given to add them per Onceinawhile comments above. The way to fix that would then be to rename the merged cat as Nakba except that it will then be in the Israel-Palestine conflict tree which is somewhat wrong because Nakba starts in 1947 (which is why we have an article 1947–1949 Palestine war) while there is no Israel-Palestine conflict until May 48 because no Israel until then. The fear that Nakba category will end up duplicating the IP tree is misplaced, most items in the IP tree are not Nakba items. Fundamentally, all the Nakba issues, refugees, displacement, dispossession and so on are societal/human rights issues and should be parented in Category:Palestinian society (which contains the relevant hr subcats. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Three "new" accounts voting so far This discussion appears to be continuing to attract "new" accounts that have just passed the ARBPIA 500 threshold. Onceinawhile ( talk) 14:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Request for discussion: @ Marcocapelle, RevelationDirect, and Justus Nussbaum: currently this nomination has Selfstudier and myself, the three of you, and then a bunch of "new" editors of the type who regularly appear in ARBPIA votes. Would you be able to take the time to address some of the points that have been raised by Selfstudier and me? I see this as one of the most bizarre category-merge proposals that I have ever seen in my 10 years working in this project:
(1) There are no other categories named “History of the [X] refugees” anywhere in our encyclopedia. Looking through Category:Refugees by nationality will show how other such groups of refugees are categorised.
(2) This proposal would merge a broad and important topic into its own sub-sub-category. It is not just merging Nakba with the Palestinian refugees (a meaningful part of the Nakba, but only one angle of it, as I have explained above [4]), but only their history. What about all the other elements of the Nakba?
(3) This proposal makes it difficult for readers to find articles about the Nakba. Despite being a new article, less than three weeks old, our article Nakba has settled at 100 page views per day, and is likely to increase over time. The term is used ever more frequently in English books. Many readers will want to understand all the different elements of the Nakba, and that is what categories are here for. Every other major "national catastrophe" in our encyclopedia has its own category, for exactly this reason.
I am also pinging the other editors who participated at the previous CfD: @ Dimadick, GizzyCatBella, Sir Joseph, NSH001, Supreme Deliciousness, Darwinek, and Buidhe:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OVERCAT is clear that we can't have multiple categories covering essentially the same thing, so policy requires a merge in some form. ( t · c) buidhe 10:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Agreed: both merge and reverse merge are plausible solutions here, likely with a redirect. Maintaining two rival categories is the main issue here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There seem to be 3 issues, the name of the merged cat, its contents and its parent cat(s).(Overcat is resolved by any suitable merger, Palestine refugees cat should be set-and-topic cat and History of...cat done away with or be better defined). Selfstudier ( talk) 10:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Agree on your breakdown of the 3 issues. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

*Merge. This is an overlapping category that disrupts the present category tree.-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 12:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Four "new" accounts voting so far all with broadly the same number of edits, just over the 500 ARBPIA threshold. Onceinawhile ( talk) 14:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Onceinawhile: I haven't checked the account histories but, based on your concerns, requesting a sock puppet investigation seems reasonable in this case. More info on that process is at WP:SPI. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to a more neutral, descriptive category name.-- Darwinek ( talk) 21:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Polish abbots

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all categories contain 1-4 articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comments - a difficult one as Polish wikipedia has plenty on these, eg pl:Opaci_klasztoru_cystersów_w_Oliwie. I would say a minimum requirement is: (a) category inclusion should be justified in the article (which will reduce numbers); (b) there should be an article on the abbey or a list of the abbots. Oculi ( talk) 12:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time - clearly these could grow sufficiently given the content at Polish Wikipedia. Elli ( talk | contribs) 10:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It is not obvious that every abbot of these monasteries is notable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- There is no reason in principle why these categories should not exist, provided they can be populated with at least 5 articles, probably 4 abbots and the abbey as a main article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep implying that just because a person was an abbot over a place in Polsand means they were in any way, shape, means or form Polish is false. It ignores the actualy history of these locations and the changing meaning of various terms, and how many Germans there were at some points running things in Poland. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per Elli. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Elli and John Pack Lambert. A brief foray to relevant plwiki categories proves there's a potential for growth.-- Darwinek ( talk) 21:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Caesars of the Tetrarchy

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, this category is the same as its parent except it applies only for the period 293-313 AD. WP:NONDEFINING and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Avilich ( talk) 01:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Dual merge also to Category:Tetrarchy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The Tetrarchy introduced the administrative distinction between senior emperors (Augusti) and junior emperors (Caesares). It is not an arbitrary category, but a key aspect of the administrative system. Dimadick ( talk) 18:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The Tetrarchy was very different from the situation before because there were two emperors instead of one, in the East and in the West. However the fact that the emperors had appointed an heir apparent (a ceasar) who was a kind of 2nd-in-rank-emperor was not any different than in the period before. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • "Tetrarchy" is a modern invention, there being four people changes nothing. Emperors appointed their own Caesars since forever. Avilich ( talk) 19:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, in accordance to the nomination this removes an unneeded redundancy. PrisonerB ( talk) 09:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17&oldid=1103972970"