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: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity and occupation. The merge target was selected based on the content of the articles.
Mason (
talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support with caveat. Ethnic Khazaks mainly live in Khazakstan. I suspect we do not need an ethnic category at all, or if we do then only for Khazak minorities abroad.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yep, I already added all the folks who fit into the Khazakstan category.
Mason (
talk) 01:47, 23 January 2024 (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.
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: I recently created this category with a few examples manually added so far. To broaden the scope I believe the renaming would be helpful. Regarding the acceptability of the category: I believe it could be considered a defining characteristic for these organizations and places since the characteristic is very uncommon due to the heavy skew in the places named after people, against women. Given this skew, one could argue that it typically deserves a mention in the intro paragraph. Any feedback regarding this would also be appreciated. @
Sdkb: in case you would like to comment on the discussion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheJoyfulTentmaker (
talk •
contribs)
Delete classic
WP:SHAREDNAME, categorizing articles by their names instead of defining aspects. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've just tagged teh category. Pinging the category creator @
TheJoyfulTentmaker. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for relisting. I have read the comments, and I am still of the opinion that keeping this category and renaming as I have proposed makes most sense. A place or organization being named after someone is more than just a shared name. It is especially more important and interesting if they are named after a woman. I realized this better when I tried to find examples of such places and organizations.
TheJoyfulTentmaker (
talk) 23:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
How do you mean "more than a shared name"? Namesharing is the only thing that these articles have in common, haven't they?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle I mean, for two organizations having the name Florence Nightingale: their relationship feels more like that of the Jackson family than two random Jacksons.
TheJoyfulTentmaker (
talk) 06:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I only see one article in the category with Florence Nightingale in the name. And no, it has nothing to do with family, just with names.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking at
List of places named after people, I think a sub-list of places named after women would be justifiable. But that would be for populated places, not institutions. A list of institutions named after women would be enormous, and neither complete, manageable or useful. (Consider e.g.
Marie_Curie#Commemoration_and_cultural_depictions and
Beatrice Tate School.) Anyway, that would if anything be a suitable topic for a list, not a category. Delete. –
FayenaticLondon 14:48, 24 January 2024 (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:Cultural Heritage of early modern times of South Korea
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:merge, in many countries a distinction between
middle school and high school does not even exist, and it is a rather trivial distinction anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Many works of fiction are focused specifically on high school or middle school as a topic, and this is a defining trait for characters in such works.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 05:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dimadick: What do you think about this nomination?
AHI-3000 (
talk) 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The concept is nearly synonymous with
adolescence in most works set in the 20th or 21st century.
Dimadick (
talk) 10:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Per nom. There's usually nothing particularly defining about this since it's not particularly special for someone of that age to be a middle school or high school student. Categories must focus only on defining aspects of a character.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 14:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge. The notion of middle school / junior high school is just not consistent from one country to the other. Fictional works tend to be adapted to the target culture when translated for better understanding, especially when they target a young audience. Therefore, the same characters of
Attacker You!,
High School! Kimengumi or
Captain Tsubasa will find themselves in different types of school when adapted in several countries and languages.
Place Clichy (
talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (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: Can't find a similar category to this. Merge with expatriates parent cat since they are likely already in Spanish writers subcat.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 18:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 22 January 2024 (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:Revolutionaries 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.
Nominator's rationale: Following brief discussion at
[1]. I assume it was created when categories like "Fooian people" became "People from Foo", but this one is problematic. The people in this category are (or should be) Russian, not simply from the Russian Empire, which would also include many Polish, Ukrainian, etc revolutionaries (which I hope we can agree should not belong in a subcategory of "Russian revolutionaries"!). Furthermore, the existence of this category promotes overcategorization, since many of its members were active both before and after 1917. The category simply needs to be merged upward to its parent.
asilvering (
talk) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 19:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These are descriptions of two different things and shouldn’t be merged into a single category that would result in potentially labelling many people of non-Russian identity or ethnicity as “Russian” just because some tsar’s army conquered their country. The empire was a régime that controlled many countries, and we should not be making changes that favour a historical bias that academia is in the process of shedding.
[2] If anything, the other category should be split into ethnic Russian and from the Russian Federation categories. —MichaelZ. 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mzajac sorry, I missed this comment before. I find it perplexing - removing some of that historical bias is precisely what I am suggesting. I do not believe that Polish, Ukrainian, etc revolutionaries should be in this category. It is strange to call these people "from the Russian Empire"; I do not believe that is how they were identified historically, nor by historians. The decolonization that Slavic studies is attempting is in this same vein; here is a quote from that article Many scholars say the Russian state receives too much focus in academia at the expense of the colonized nations, regions, and groups, including Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, as well as ethnic minority communities in Russia itself.. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So I guess you’re proposing a change in the defined scope of the category, where I only perceived a change in name. That’s fair, but some editors will reasonably want to categorize people according to the state where they were born and lived, possibly for their entire lives. IMO people can and should also be categorize people by their country even if it lacked statehood and belonged to an empire, and the nation they were a member of or paid allegiance to.
In either case, “Russian X” is IMO ridiculously ambiguous and will never well serve either readers or editors. We should use clearly labelled categories like X from Muscovy, X from the Russian Empire, X from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, X from the Russian Federation, ethnic-Russian X, etcetera. —MichaelZ. 03:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose; Being from the Russian Empire and being Russian are two different things.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 15:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, it is very unlikely that the category only contains ethnic Russians.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle then we should find those ones and remove them from the category - do you see any? --
asilvering (
talk) 02:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
At a glance, I've spotted a few Polish ones, and again, I don't think it really makes sense for this category to exist at all, and it's not so difficult to remove those ones from the category either after or in advance of a merge upwards. --
asilvering (
talk) 02:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
And what about Ukrainians, Georgians etc.? In fact I do not think it is a good idea to remove any of them at all, as they presumably all were revolutionaries against the Russian Empire.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It sounds like you're arguing in favour of a different kind of category, one based on what the revolutionaries were fighting against. We have those already: they're things like
Category:Decembrists. --
asilvering (
talk) 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Russian means Russian nationals (i.e. Russian subjects), the term should not be restricted to people of Russian ethnicity. An article can be placed in duplicate categories (e.g. both
Category:Polish revolutionaries and
Category:Russian revolutionaries) if they are primarily described in reliable sources as Poles within the Russian Empire.
Place Clichy (
talk) 03:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't expect that reliable sources would ever call Polish people in the Russian Empire "Russians". They will be called "Polish people in/of/from the Russian Empire".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you find a reliable source that calls someone a "Polish person from the Russian Empire"? --
asilvering (
talk) 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: a late answer, but e.g. Pyotr Kakhovsky is introduced as a a Russian officer and active participant of the
Decembrist revolt (1825) while he was a Polish subject of the Russian Empire. Józef Unszlicht (1879–1938) is a Polish and Russian revolutionary activist, a
Soviet government official and one of the founders of the
Cheka.Jan Czerski, a participant in the 1863 January Uprising, is described as Russian and Polish. Kalikst Witkowski, a leader of Warsaw who sided with the Russians in the January Uprising, is a Russian general. Adam Petrovich Ozharovsky (1776–1855) is a Russian general of Polish descent who distinguished himself during the Napoleonic Wars. Famous explorer Nikolay Przhevalsky (1839–1888) is a Russian geographer of Polish descent. Otto Wilhelm Furuhjelm (1819–1883), from Turku in then-GRand-Duchy of Finland, is a Russian lieutenant-general of Finnish descent.Sofya Bogomolets (1856–1892) is defined as a Russian revolutionary and political prisoner, while also belonging to hereditary Polish nobility. Grigory Gershuni (1870–1908) is a Russian revolutionary while being a Lithuanian Jew from Kaunas. Etc. So yes, people from Poland, Lithuania or Finland when they where parts of the Russian Empire are routinely defined as Russian, especially if they were in public or military service it seems, but also in politics or revolutionary activities.
Place Clichy (
talk) 00:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Place Clichy: note that in the discussion below there is support for the merge proposal under the condition that these articles are not moved under the Russian category. That is the sort of thing that will happen when using an ambiguous name.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Conditional support. This category definitely seems unnecessary to me, overlapping with other categories to the point of over-categorisation. I just want to make sure if/when the merge happens, that we aren't sorting all the Polish and Ukrainian revolutionaries into the "Russian revolutionaries" category. Care needs to be taken with the merger. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 10:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be happy to go through it. When I nominated this, I don't think there were any. A great many people have been added by the category's creator since the nomination. --
asilvering (
talk) 02:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It is exactly because of the latter why I am opposing. There is no point in splitting revolutionaries against the same Russian Empire government by an attribute that is not relevant. Note that
User:Place Clichy supports the nomination under the opposite condition.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Mellk (
talk) 04:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 22 January 2024 (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:Fictional humans
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 very notion of this category is flawed and overbroad. It is quite simply not necessary, because a character being a fictional human is the default, whereas them being inhuman is an exception. That's not to get started with why this is categorized under "fictional apes".
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 16:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. From the very beginning I intended this category to only be a container category for subcategories, not articles, so that it won't become too broad in scope; hence why the original name for this category when I created it was
Category:Fictional humans by type. Also
humans are indeed
great apes, it's a fact that can't be disputed. I don't know what exactly you are arguing for here.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 00:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem is not that it's a container category, it's that it's problematic as a category period.
Humans are technically primates, but
common sense is that people would not be searching for humans as a subcategory of primates outside of a scientific context. It is exceedingly odd when done in a context of fictional characters.
Both these decisions appear to be motivated by a desire to make direct duplicates of real-life scientific categories/classifications while totally ignoring the distinction between how things are treated in real life vs. fiction. Real life and fictional categories cannot and should not perfectly match up, because they're two different things.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The main category should be
Category:Fictional characters. One of the reasons why categorizing characters as humans is a problem, besides the above, is the always possible plot twist when a character you assumed was human turns out to be something else. In other words: if it's animal (or elfic etc.) you know (and the character will be defined as such from the start), if it's human you don't know.
Place Clichy (
talk) 04:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Place Clichy: This is a container category, it's meant for subcategories, not individual character pages.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 04:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Respectfully, I still consider that the character of this category is not defining, regardless of it being a container category.
Place Clichy (
talk) 16:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose "because a character being a fictional human is the default" It is far from common in several fictional settings, including much of the
fantasy genre.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep We can safely assume that many
speculative fiction characters are not human, and should not belong in any of the subcategories. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 22 January 2024 (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:Fictional human races
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: I've come to think that this category is too heavy an overlap to exist. When we say "fictional race", from a standpoint of humans, a humanoid race is the default. If we want to further specify, there are categories for that. But there's no need to specifically categorize groups of humans. This can be diffused to
Category:Fictional ethnic groups and
Category:Fictional species and races depending on the article.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 16:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Which targets? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 22 January 2024 (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.
Indigenous peoples of Europe
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. Unclear whether the "indigenous" label is subjective or not.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, the history of Eurasia is full of peoples migrating for thousands of kilometers and assimilating with other peoples to other peoples. It is impossible to tell which peoples are truly indigenous. At best we can tell which groups are ethnic minorities, but that is what the "Ethnic groups" tree is for anyway. For example, the
Crimean Tatars are here, of whom their ethnicity emerged only since the 13th century.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
Indigenous peoples are not just “ethnic minorities.” They are the subjects of the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, are designated as such by UN member states (the law of Ukraine
designates three such peoples), and have certain protected rights different from those of “ethnic minorities.” Eliminating these categories should not be done on a regional basis and based on the random opinions that history is hard and the supposed indeterminability of “truly Indigenous,” and distastefully bad logic about Crimean Tatars (a stereotypically colonial statement casting doubt on the legal rights and very validity of a national group that’s been subject to genocide and persecution for centuries). —MichaelZ. 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge. The indigenous label is never used consistently in Europe. It is a risky game to call which ethnic groups are indigenous and which are not. Terms like ethnic groups and minorities are much more reliably used in academia in the European context. Main article
Indigenous peoples and main
Category:Indigenous peoples clearly define the term as linked to societies that have been overwhelmed by modern colonization, which is the case in Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania and the Americas but not Europe or Asia.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merging. Some ethnic groups in Europe are legally designated as Indigenous (including the Crimean Tatars). The Sami, Nenets,
the many groups defined in Russia as Indigenous, etc. Erasing that distinction by merging the categories is unhelpful in my view.
XTheBedrockX (
talk) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 22 January 2024 (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:Indigenous languages of Europe
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. In line with the above nomination.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think there is a connection to be made between the Slavic languages and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the specific European context, there are a number of ethnic or
linguistic minorities, such as the Basques, Catalans, South Tyroleans,
Turks of Western Thrace etc. but it is better to describe them as minorities than indigenous. BTW Slavic and Oghur languages (incl. Turkish) are not in the minority.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This should be closed consistently with the above discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 22 January 2024 (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:Fictional characters who can manipulate probability
Category:Fictional characters with extrasensory perception
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.
Rename for conciseness, since that is the common name for such powers.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is not an obviously common name, and would be confusing.
Mason (
talk) 22:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The word "esper" seems uncommon. It does not
currently appear in the the text of the
extrasensory perception article. "Category:Fictional characters with ESP" would be somewhat concise and
more common; though not matching the name of the parent topic, that could be explained as
WP:NATDAB.
jnestorius(
talk) 17:56, 22 January 2024 (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.
I'm not sure about the Hindu versus Indian renames.
Mason (
talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison: I just thought that "Indian" would be more broadly inclusive than just "Hindu".
AHI-3000 (
talk) 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
While that seems well-intentioned, I'm not sure that there's a significant amount of non-Hindu mythology that's distinctly Indian. Most of India's other major religions originated elsewhere, or have little or no mythology associated with them, at least as the term is commonly understood in English. While there's some mythology associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (some adherents might object to the term), none of these are distinctly Indian, or have mythology connected to India. Zoroastrianism is primarily rooted in Persia. Baha'i, also rooted in Persia/Iran, is a modern fusion of Islam and Hinduism. Sikhs and Jains don't really seem to have any mythology in the traditional sense; Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, and to the extent that Indian Buddhists incorporate deities in their practices—and not all do—they are usually Hindu deities. Some of the other religions are variants of Buddhism, often developed elsewhere. I do see a few indigenous or tribal religions, but they seem to have very small numbers of adherents, and it's not clear whether they have distinct mythologies involving royalty. That said, "Hindu mythology" probably would be fine as a title.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That seems like a valid point. I looked through the religions listed in the table at the top of "Religion in India" to see whether there were distinctly Indian but non-Hindu mythologies, and did not see this one listed, presumably because the number of adherents listed (235,000) would constitute a religious minority of only 0.016% of India's population, given the 2023 estimate. That's relevant, but not necessarily determinative. There could also be others. I'm generally in favour of more categorization, not less; so if there are enough individuals to be worth distinguishing mythological Meitei royalty from mythological Hindu royalty, then the proposed title change from "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mytholdy" makes sense.
P Aculeius (
talk) 16:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep these but merge in subcategories. There is a good deal of content in this tree, but too many layers before one reaches them. This is probably mainly a matter of upmerging monarchs.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35T--
C 15:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 22 January 2024 (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:merge, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: A very inappropriate nomination. There are several categories that grew from a single member to 10s and 100s. This category is likely going to grow and I see this inappropriate. There are several other things I am going to write about that will fit into this category. Also, the Edoid languages category is not even related to the concept of Edo literature.
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If articles appear we can always recreate the category. For now it is a matter of a crystal ball whether that is going to happen.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support merge as its unhelpful for navigation in its present state. I see nothing about this nom that is inappropriate.
Mason (
talk) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This category now contains two members and a subcat and as such my Keep rationale stands.
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 3 members. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The category is clearly ineligible because it has members. Merging it to Edoid languages does not in my own view add any value rather it removes and it doesn't make sense either—to me. Best,
Reading Beans (
talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This could use further subcategories.
Dimadick (
talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now The oppose/keep votes all hope that more content emerges and I do too. Per
WP:MFN, let's merge for now with no objection to recreation later when more content emerges. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 17:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:41, 22 January 2024 (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:Roman Catholic theologians
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 and re-parent to
Category:Catholic religious workers, there is no distinction between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology. If this goes ahead, I will nominate the subcategories too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that there are a number of important distinctions between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology... First and foremost the position of the Holy Spirit within the trinitarian structure, no?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No, that is Eastern Orthodox, that is something different.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
My Maronite friend disagrees, he says that you are presenting the Catholic Church's position but many Eastern Catholics don't agree. Of course that is just hearsay, I would love to see a source for the claim that there is no distinction between the theologies.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no source for Eastern Catholic theology because it does not exist. Of course individual people may not agree with everything that their church teaches, but that it is not what theologians categories are about. Even theologians may not agree with everything that their church teaches.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If one exists and the other does not there is a massive distinction between the two.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't get me wrong. I mean to say that there is no separate Roman or Eastern Catholic theology. E.g. there is one
Catholic catechism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is merely an observation as it's not a subject I will pretend to know anything about, but
Category:Old Catholic theologians exists, if this makes a difference. --
woodensuperman 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom. Old Catholic theologians are very often Catholic theologians or priests who parted from the Catholic Church on topics such as papal infallibility.
Ignaz von Döllinger is an example among many. So Catholic doctrine and debates over it are at the heart of what defines an Old Catholic theologian, it is not different. There is ample reason to put them in a parent
Category:Catholic theologians. As for Eastern Catholic theologians, while they adhere to the theology of the Catholic Church, they are just not Roman Catholics.
Place Clichy (
talk) 19:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think that it is helpful to make the distinction between types of catholicism for diffusion purposes.
Mason (
talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So does this mean you would agree to make
Category:Catholic theologians a parent of
Category:Roman Catholic theologians and
Category:Old Catholic theologians? Re: Eastern Catholic theologians, I don't think there are enough articles to populate a separate hierarchy (especially with a double century/nationality structure), but they can be placed directly in the parent Catholic theologians category in the absence of a more specific one.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 22 January 2024 (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:Tajikistani people by occupation and location
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: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navifation
Mason (
talk) 01:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Alternatively this category and its subcategory may be just deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggesting this as an alternate proposal: –
Aidan721 (
talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 22 January 2024 (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:Chess gambits
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. Weighing up the previous discussion in addition to the arguments here, I think there is consensus to merge this. The primary dispute is whether Gambits are categorised arbitrarily, with the arguments in favour being stronger.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: As pointed out in several places on wikipedia, chess opening terminology is inconsistent and not a useful basis for classification. The
Queen's Gambit arguably is not a gambit, the
Two Knights Defence, which usually involves the sacrifice of a pawn, arguably is.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk) 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, if some articles do or do not belong in the category then that should be discussed at article talk pages. Generally these openings are described as gambits.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I see no value in subcategorizing chess openings in this way. Far more useful to have all openings in the same category.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk) 08:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Currently there are both
Chess opening and
Gambit which means that so far the community has deemed these two topics worth having their own article. This means that having two categories is also fine.
Gonnym (
talk) 12:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Propose changing to non-diffusing. Everything that is a gambit should also be an opening. This will enable readers to find an opening without knowing whether it is a gambit, or indeed, without knowing what a gambit is or what the word "gambit" means. With this change, the Gambit category can be useful without also being confusing. Withdrawing this proposal, see discussions below.
Bruce leverett (
talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit. If people generally don't accept the c4 pawn in the Queen's Gambit and then hang on to it, it doesn't mean that it's not a gambit, there are lines where White just can't win it back. Also, I think that making it a non-diffusing category, as
Bruce leverett pointed out, makes sense.
Deltaspace42 (
talk •
contribs) 11:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Chess opening nomenclature is a matter of tradition, not systematic classification. It arose haphazardly. The Queen's Gambit is definitely not a "gambit", White can even regain the pawn immediately by 3.Qa4+ (though it's not the best move). Several lines that *do* involve actual sacrifice of material don't have the word "gambit" in their name. This is why names of openings are not a useful guide to their classification, and subdividing chess openings into different classes on wikipedia is a bad idea.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Deltaspace42: I had guessed that you had used a syntactic, rather than semantic, classification of openings. I don't think this is necessarily the best classification, but I am glad that we are on the same page w.r.t. making it non-diffusing.
I have no trouble classifying
Queen's Gambit as a gambit. In variations like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6, White has sacrificed a pawn, and it seems to have happened on move 2. But the
Catalan opening leads to similar positions with Black hanging onto a pawn on c4.
@
Bruce leverett: We can also create a subcategory related to Queen's Gambit opening variations and include there Slav Defense and other openings.
Deltaspace42 (
talk •
contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Kreply
What would be the point of that? How would such a category improve the encyclopedia?
Quale (
talk) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. Alternatively if
Category:Chess gambits is kept then
Category:Chess openings should be non-diffusing as suggested by Bruce leverett. If the parent cat is non-diffusing then I don't care do too much what others do with a gambits subcategory, although some of the suggestions here are embarrassing for an effort trying to produce and maintain a serious encyclopedia so I'll explain a bit. The chess openings category has existed for 20 years (since 2004); the chess gambits category for two weeks (since December 26, 2023). The
WP:CHESS community could have created a gambits subcategory at any time if it thought it was useful, but tellingly it did not.
The suggestion that a chess gambits category should contain chess opening articles whose titles contain the word "Gambit" is shockingly poor for multiple obvious reasons. 1) Some chess gambits including important lines such as the
Marshall Attack do not include the word "Gambit". 2) The names of chess openings are not defining characteristics, and categories are supposed to be defining characteristics. You might just as well create a category
Names of US states that end in "ia". 3) Because chess opening names are not defining characteristics there is no main article for chess opening names containing the word "gambit". You can observe that
list of chess gambits does not use this definition of gambit which is found nowhere except on this discussion page.
A different suggestion is that editors could have pointless arguments on multiple chess opening article talk pages whether the article belongs in a gambits category. The only people competent to make this determination are experienced chess players and they are telling you right here that they have no interest in doing that. It serves no purpose; the problem is entirely artificial. It was created only because someone decided to change the categorization of chess opening articles in a way that is not helpful and was not desired by the editors who actually do constructive work on these pages. Just the fact that it can be difficult to know whether a page belongs in the category is a sign that it is not helpful. When it's too hard for a reader to know whether a page is in a category then that category might not be good, especially when it serves no purpose.
Finally, although the "chess opening gambit" usage is common even with chess experts, strictly speaking it is chess opening variations that are gambits rather than the openings themselves. In common parlance "chess opening" is often used to mean "chess opening variation" (and similarly "opening" for "opening variation"), but this is the kind of shorthand experts often use in many fields because there is no chance of confusion when speaking to other experts. (Worse still there is no clear division between an opening and a variation. In many cases the distinctions were made centuries ago before chess was studied in a systematic way.) In many cases we have articles on the gambit variations, but in other cases we don't and the gambits are discussed in the parent opening article. You could decide that the parent articles don't go in the gambits subcategory even though they discuss gambits, or you could create redirects for all the gambit variations and put the redirect pages in the gambits category. It would be simpler to go back to December 25 when there was no gambits category. Because it is actually opening variations that are gambits this classification is much better suited to a list, and we already have
list of chess gambits. (That list article has other problems and is frustrating to chess editors, but those issues are different than the ones with the gambits category).
Quale (
talk) 05:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Given that for 20+ years of wikipedia history this category didn't exist, the default assumption should be in favour of the status quo, not in favour of the newly intoduced and imprecisely defined category. This new category will lead to pointless arguments about what is or isn't a "gambit", and for what purpose?
MaxBrowne2 (
talk) 10:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It occurred to me that we should look to our sources, i.e. to chess literature. I have seen quite a few opening books and references that classify the openings as "queen's pawn games", "king's pawn games", or "flank openings", or similar terminology. So I could hardly object to three categories like those. On the other hand, I do not recall any opening reference with a separate section for gambits, and searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess. It looks like by creating a "gambits" category we are breaking new ground, which explains why it is so difficult. I am considering striking my earlier vote in favor of one to support.
Bruce leverett (
talk) 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I do not have a copy of Schiller's book, nor was I able to find a review of it online, although Tony Miles wrote a famous two-word review ("Utter crap") of one of the companion volumes, "Unorthodox Chess Openings". I would reserve judgment, for now.
Bruce leverett (
talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Quale that the syntactic classification, i.e. categorizing openings by their name, is ridiculous. And, in agreement with
MaxBrowne2, I see that it's difficult to impossible to arrive at a good semantic classification. The fact that I disagreed with him over the classification of
Queen's Gambit is an illustration of this, but there are many other examples.
Bruce leverett (
talk) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The very fact that
Deltaspace42 chose to reintroduce this category despite knowing that an almost identical category had previously been rejected by the community shows a lack of respect for
WP:CONSENSUS. By the way it is irrelevant that the closer of the previous CfM (a long term admin with AGF and CIV issues) has since been banned; if you're going to bring that up, so has the prolific sock-puppeteer who created the former category "Gambits".
MaxBrowne2 (
talk) 23:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MaxBrowne2: The very fact that Deltaspace42 chose to reintroduce this category despite knowing that an almost identical category had previously been rejected by the community. On the Helpdesk post, I said that I learned about the previous deletion only after I created the category.
Deltaspace42 (
talk •
contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Marco. This category can certainly be misused, but that is not a reason to get rid of it. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 17:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteThere is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit is classic
WP:SHAREDNAME* Pppery *it has begun... 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Not quite, it does not only share the name but also - or rather, primarily - shares the characteristic of a gambit.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment For reference,
here is a link to the discussion of the Gambit category from 2018 (the result was that it was deleted).
It was claimed that
WP:NONDEF applied, i.e. that "gambitness" is not a "defining characteristic". In the present discussion, we have already seen examples in which even experienced players do not agree whether or not an opening is a gambit. These are not obscure variations, but are generally well-known openings. I can give more examples, if anyone is interested.
It was also claimed that
WP:ARBITRARYCAT applied, because there are a number of notable openings or variations of openings, that do not have "gambit" in their names, although they look like, smell like, and taste like gambits; there are other openings and variations that have multiple names, some of which use the word "gambit" and some of which do not. I can give examples of these situations, if anyone is interested.
The result of the 2018 discussion presumably hinged on the arguments that were presented. If we want to overturn that result, I would presume that the discussion must start by refuting those arguments. When a question like this is once answered, it should stay answered, unless something has gone terribly wrong.
Bruce leverett (
talk) 04:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Changing my position, as per discussions above. My earlier proposal to make the category non-diffusing is the best lipstick for this pig; the category would still cause more problems than it would solve.
Bruce leverett (
talk) 18:00, 31 January 2024 (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:Superhero schools
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.
Disperse in the tree of
Category:Fiction about schools, since most articles aren't about a school but rather about a film or series etc. It is fine if an article belongs in
Category:Fictional schools but most articles don't, and should be moved to siblings.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 22 January 2024 (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:Faculty by art school
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: parent categories, including
Category:Academic staff by university or college, and most children (except U.S. ones) have been renamed to use academic staff instead of faculty, which is ambiguous. These categories, which are location independent, should probably use the same generic term.
Place Clichy (
talk) 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per precedents. (I added "by music school" which was tagged but not listed.) –
FayenaticLondon 09:03, 24 January 2024 (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:FLaMme artists
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, artists can easily move from agent to another, it is not a defining characteristic of the artist.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:29, 22 January 2024 (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:FLaMme
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 Serves no use. It's only content, subcategory
Category:FLaMme artists, can stand on its own or also be deleted.
Gjs238 (
talk) 14:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the subcategory suffices.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Equally fine with me
Mason (
talk) 01:49, 23 January 2024 (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:Mount Vernon Seminary and College alumn
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: Typo, redirected to
Category:Mount Vernon Seminary and College alumni. We generally don't keep redirected categories for unlikely typos, however they are not eligible for speedy deletion under the present criteria.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (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 involved in plagiarism controversies
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.
Comment: How about merge to academic scandals?
Mason (
talk) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge people to a category about the scandals themselves? That wouldn't exactly work. Nor is plagiarism necessarily related to academia.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
keep - this was last discussed in 2006 which was 17 years ago. also "people involved in plagiarism controversies" is far more verifiable than plagiarists, which assumes some sort of judgement of guilt.
more generally a very useful tag anytime a plagiarism controversy happens, which is like every year or so.
Jjazz76 (
talk) 04:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's verifiable, but it's not defining to simply be accused of plagiarism.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, we normally categorize people by conviction, but this is not a crime that results in many court cases, so it remains more a matter of
WP:OCASSOC.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Marcocapelle.--
User:Namiba 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Marcocapelle. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (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:Works involved in plagiarism controversies
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.
No idea, but my guess is it has to do with rule changes (but that's total speculation). @
Omnis Scientia might have some insights, as they're more familiar with sports categories.
Mason (
talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Good to know. Thanks –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:14, 29 January 2024 (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:professional shogi 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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersections. We don't have other "professional" player categories like this. Also no need to intersect with whether the person is alive or dead.
Mason (
talk) 04:24, 22 January 2024 (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:Tao Yuanming
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 for now. There's only two pages in this category: the writer and their notable fable, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 04:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (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:Women's cricket in South America
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: Unnecessary layer with just one child (Brazil). Women's cricket categories are organized by country, there is no other continent-level category.
Place Clichy (
talk) 04:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I added an additional sub-category. However, still support just deletion now (since the additional child shouldn't be merged and the Brazil cat is already in the target). –
Aidan721 (
talk) 18:03, 22 January 2024 (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:Tsuchimikado clan
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: Only one person in this clan. Delete for now, as it's unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The only article in
Category:Tsuchimikado clan was a religious organization rather than a person. I have merged that article to
Onmyōdō, so now it is empty.
Dekimasuよ! 03:23, 22 January 2024 (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:Horror films by region
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: These categories are just for continent and country/nationality container categories, a useless additional layer.
Place Clichy (
talk) 01:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 02:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
My intuitive reaction would be to Oppose this, but maybe I missed something. Why is it useless according to you?@
Place Clichy and
Smasongarrison:. I am only expressing my view about films (not fiction in general), but
Category:Cinema by country subsumes various film genres. Why would this one be an issue? What do you mean by just for continent and country/nationality? Sorry if it's obvious, but for me, it's not.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (edited after having read the kind explanation below)reply
@
Mushy Yank: categories are only useful as a tool for helping navigation. This proposition does not delete any content, it just moves it a little bit to make it easier for users to find what they're looking for. Most topics are organized in the following fashion:
Nobody is actually looking for the container categories themselves (the ones called ... by ...), but they are mandatory to avoid the root category for becoming too large. However, containers of containers are, in most cases, useless.
Place Clichy (
talk) 13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Understood.Thanks. I had missed something. Will amend my !vote. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It does indeed seem to be an unnecessary layer. The nomination makes sense. Thanks.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe this means support (making it clearer for the discussion closer).
Place Clichy (
talk) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Redundant category layer.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge as not useful. If not merged, rename to "by location". –
FayenaticLondon 08:55, 24 January 2024 (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.
Americas
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) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per long precedent. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, it would have been different if there were a substantial number of articles covering both continents simultaneously, but that is not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:02, 22 January 2024 (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:Ethnic Montenegrin people
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: Near-empty non-defining category. There is actually much debate whether Montenegrins actually constitute a separate ethnicity, and there wouldn't be much content to place here rather than in the target category and its children.
Place Clichy (
talk) 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (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.