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.
Nominator's rationale: Standard is FOOIAN people, not FOOIANS, in addition, the two child categories are overlapping
Mason (
talk) 21:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename/merge as nom. Other redundant creations by JPL.
Place Clichy (
talk) 22:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, but it is three times rename, right? (No merging.)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: The target for the 3 categories is the same, and I would say that merging them is a good idea. I would assume that the creation of 3 so closely-named categories is accidental in the first place. Do you wish to keep 3 separate categories? What would be their difference in scope?
Place Clichy (
talk) 08:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
≤ Of course, how can I have overseen that yesterday. I do not have a clue how the three categories are intended to be different.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:49, 8 October 2023 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The only content of this long string of empty categories is
Category:Bougainvillean Roman Catholic priests, which contains two articles. This hurts more than it helps in terms of navigation. My proposal is to merge to the nearest non-empty parent in every direction.
Place Clichy (
talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (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:Companies of insular areas of the United States by city
Category:Universities and colleges in insular areas of the United States 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.
@
Place Clichy: I've nominated your proposed target for speedy renaming and revised the nomination accordingly. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The existing "Universities and colleges in insular areas of the United States by city" best (i.e., most uniquely) represents the contents of the category in question. The territories are a separate
body politic from the "United States" proper and the name of the category should reflect that. Universities and colleges native to those areas are not institutions IN the United States (as the proposed "Universities and colleges IN the United States by state or territory and populated place" would suggest) because those areas are not IN the United States. For an area to be IN the United States it needs to be in one of the 50 states or DC, and the territories of the United States are not in any of those 51 areas. There's good information about this
HERE.
Mercy11 (
talk) 22:08, 11 October 2023 (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:Right of foreigners to vote
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 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:Festivals in Puerto Rico 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.
Puerto Rico is, by definition, not IN the United States, therefore the merging of Puerto Rico festivals with United States festivals would incorrectly depict Puerto Rico as being IN the United States. If Puerto Rico is not IN the United States (which it is not) then a festival in Puerto Rico could not possibly be a festival IN the United States either. Only festivals in the 50 states and DC can be categorized as festivals in the United States.
Mercy11 (
talk) 23:14, 11 October 2023 (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:Festivals in insular areas of the United States 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 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:Tanzanian physicians
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.
Merge, keeping a redirect. Clear duplicate. The older category is better populated, and as Tanzania is a former British colony I guess that British English works better.
Place Clichy (
talk) 21:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge without a redirect, per nom. Both names begin with the same string, so it is unlikely a redirect is needed.
HouseBlastertalk 00:06, 15 October 2023 (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:Participants in John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename per
WP:C2D, the article is at
John Brown's raiders. This was opposed for speedy. If this nomination leads to an RM in order to move the article, by all means follow the outcome of the RM.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy. This sounds clucky and doesn't make it clearer that this is about the raid on harper's ferry
Mason (
talk) 21:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't think the proposed category title is informative without the Harper's Ferry context.
Mason (
talk) 19:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mason,
Mason, per below, a name change can be proposed once the article and category match.--
User:Namiba 13:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support to match article. I'd support moving the article, but that's a discussion for a different place.
CLYDETALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE 04:49, 9 October 2023 (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:Parthians
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.
Support. per nom
Mason (
talk) 19:52, 7 October 2023 (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:Wikipedians experiencing stress
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.
Delete, the reasons for stress may widely differ, if this is really an issue then a category surely does not solve anything. One or more essays about it may be more helpful.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:38, 8 October 2023 (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:Latin-language writers
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.
Nominator's rationale: moving to full discussion after waiting for on
Texts in Fooian. Now all are in the format of "writers in Latin".
Mason (
talk) 15:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Defer all these until we make a decision on the follow-ups of
Category:Songs in Latin,
Category:Texts in Latin etc. We might end up with something like
Category:15th-century writers in Latin if the precedent is found to fit the writers tree as well. I'm not totally opposed to the proposed renamings, they are arguably an improvement; I just think we might do even better than Latin-language writers.
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Fine with me. I was on the fence about "in FOO" compared to "FOOD-language" or "FOO-speaking". We should do the same for an earlier batch I did for Arabic language (like "8th-century Arabic-language poets").
Mason (
talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I see no reason to use "Latin-language writers". It's just verbose. In this case, "Latin writers" is clear enough. The case of songs was complicated by an unrelated article at
Latin music. —
Srnec (
talk) 14:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think that it is clear as it looks like any nationality right now, and could be confused with Roman or Latin American (which I know isn't a nation, but it sometimes gets used as a higher order group). It would also match all the other FOO-language categories.
Mason (
talk) 17:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
But
Latin is the title of our article on the language. If it's fine there, it should be fine in the categories, at least when it is in front of the word "writers".
Srnec (
talk) 20:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Articles aren't categories. If you would prefer to rename all the categories to something like writers in LANGUAGE, then I'd be happy to support that if you did it for all the language categories.
Mason (
talk) 22:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Moving opposed speedy Latin-language writers from Poland
Oppose C2C. There is not consistency among peer categories; some are "(country) writers" and others are "(language)-language writers". This is not the place to seek consensus by caveat; rather suggest this go to full discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
"Latin writers" is fine. "Latin-language writers" and "writers in Latin" are unnecessary. The article on the language is the primary topic and is at
Latin. The mistake is in trying to force consistency. "Irish" and "English" are generally ambiguous, but "Aramaic" and "Latin" are not (generally, although they might be in certain contexts). Our article titles should be our guide here.
Srnec (
talk) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per consistency. And per avoiding additional disambiguation, per
Latin (disambiguation). - jc37 09:58, 13 October 2023 (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:British Columbia Liberal Party politicians
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 "British Columbia Liberal Party foo" to "BC United foo".
(non-admin closure)HouseBlastertalk 21:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Party changed its name from "British Columbia Liberal Party" to "BC United" earlier this year, but renaming of the associated categories was not undertaken at that time. This has crossed the line into editors actively trying to move articles into redlinked replacement categories for BC United in advance of any BC United categories actually existing, which obviously isn't acceptable -- the BC United categories have to exist before they can be used, which means that the existing categories have to be renamed first.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 16:05, 7 October 2023 (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:Brawand family
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 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.
Small families
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 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.
Innovators, part 2
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 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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with only one or two subcategories each. The subcategories are already part of the "by occupation" tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. per nom.
Mason (
talk) 13:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:49, 8 October 2023 (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 by ethnicity and nationality
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 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 of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
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 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 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:20th-century musicians from the Russian Empire
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 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.
Okay I'm just confused, why did you empty both categories?
AHI-3000 (
talk) 22:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I *tried to* restore the categories to their previous state. If you wanted to get rid of a category, you need to nominate it for deletion, not just remove all the items in it.
Mason (
talk) 23:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose and alt split to
Category:People by ethnicity and
Category:People by nationality, the target splits ethnic groups by nationality (by ethnicity and nationality) while the nominated category just mixes up the two concepts (by ethnicity or nationality). Note, for implementing the split properly the subcategories should be split as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support! and love this alternative
Mason (
talk) 13:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose and alt split per Marcocapelle.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison and
Nederlandse Leeuw: wait, there is just one subcategory in here, so this category can simply be deleted as a redundant category layer. There is certainly reason to split the subcategory, but let's do that in a fresh nomination because there is a whole tree under it.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose nom, and SupportMarcocapelle's proposal to selectively split between ethnicity and nationality. - jc37 09:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm just seeing this CFD nomination now.
Mason, please do not empty categories before or during a CFD. It doesn't give editors participating in a deletion discussion much to consider. It effectively wastes their time to consider what should happen to empty or nearly empty categories. Next time I see this happening, from any editor, I think I'll start reverting these kinds of edits. Emptying categories that other editors are supposed to consider for deletion or merger is just disruptive as it gives an inaccurate view of how the category has been used. Using the tool that indicates which articles have been recently added or removed from categories, I see no evidence to support your claim that these pages were not originally in this category and you were returning things to the status quo. If this is true, it happened a while ago. LizRead!Talk! 23:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, I don't really know how to respond to this, other than to ask you to assume good faith. Because it it true that "it happened a while ago", in January 22 when the hybrid category was created.
[2] I understand that emptying categories out of process is disruptive, which is why I don't do it (and when it happens it's not my intent).
Mason (
talk) 00:58, 14 October 2023 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: A category or template needs at least a dozen links to be useful. I don't see anything useful coming from having this category or its subcategory with so little links.
Amaury • 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. So how do you propose a reader finds related article? Scan through the article to find any relevant links? This is exactly what a category is for.
Gonnym (
talk) 12:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This category meets all the size requirements for Smallcat. The norm is 5, not 12.
Mason (
talk) 12:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Exactly. It isn't that difficult for a small universe like this. There are links for a reason. Besides which, they are all technically different series. Just because size requirements may technically be met doesn't mean it's warranted. It's the reason
WP:UNDUE exists. Just because there's some sort of statement that is covered by a reliable source doesn't automatically mean it merits inclusion in Article Y. For example, if an actor departs from a series, the exact details belong on the actor's article, not the series' article. You can mention the actor left the series on the series' page, but anything else beyond that belongs on the actor article. In this case, common sense must also be used. Are size requirements technically met? Yes. Is there any use for such a small category? No. Also note that
WP:SMALLCAT is a guideline, not a policy. It's not a hard top-down rule that must be absolutely followed every time.
Amaury • 09:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Such a large wall of text to talk about something completely unrelated. UNDUE is really irrelevant here. Also, if your argument that a relevant guideline should be ignored because it isn't a policy, you should really have at least something better than a personal opionion (your deletion argument does not cite a policy nor a guideline...).
Gonnym (
talk) 16:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know where you're from, but that is by no means a wall of text. My response was perfectly related to this and relevant. The
WP:UNDUE example was perfectly relevant. The specific page is
WP:GUIDES, which states: Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Emphasis mine. However, citing a policy or even a guideline is not required to nominate a category or template for deletion. I've gotten support for deletion of categories and templates in the past from other users without citing a specific guideline or policy, and the categories or templates were subsequently deleted. I'm not saying you shouldn't cite something, but it's not required.
Amaury • 19:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It really isn't. Re-read
WP:UNDUE not only does it not talk about categories, but the entire page talks about a neutral point of view (hence
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). So yeah, completely irrelevant argument and nomination that not only cites nothing relevant, but ignores actual relevant guidelines.
Gonnym (
talk) 08:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs a third opinion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Just to comment on the re-list. You had 3 opinions (nom, Mason, myself). A better wording would have been "more opinions".
Gonnym (
talk) 08:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose, it is a borderline case, so give the category the benefit of the doubt.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:06, 7 October 2023 (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.