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: This is a valid Wikiproject category that exists principally as a container for other Wikiproject tracking categories, but it's straying a bit from its stated purpose: not every category that's been filed here is tracking issues in the "something wrong here that needs to be fixed" sense, and instead some of them are just tracking usages without regard to any "issues". So genuine "issues" categories can be left here, but "usage" categories should be upmerged to the parent instead of being here.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a much larger scope than the original nomination, let me know if you want to limit the discussion here to just the film-related categories. —
andrybak (
talk) 23:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This category isn't being force-transcluded onto its contents via a template, but is just being generically declared as a conventional category declaration, so I'm not sure I see why this is a larger issue. We can just move things out of the category and up to the parent if they're not tracking issues, while leaving things that are tracking issues here, so I really don't grasp why we would need to complicate things by widening the net.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:58, 11 May 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: We should merge 'Climbing books' with 'Mountaineering books' to create 'Climbing and Mountaineering books' (as we have done with some other climbing and mountaineering categories like 'List of climbers and mountaineers'). It is not always appropriate to merge 'climbing' and 'mountaineering' but in this case it is not useful to split them as too many of the books include both topics.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 16:29, 5 May 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.
Yes, that will be processed shortly. In such cases, the bot needs to process the work in stages – if a merge and a rename to the same target are listed at the same time, it is coded to ignore both instructions. –
FayenaticLondon 14:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Great - thanks for that.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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 one subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 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.
Brazilian cuisine 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: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's
official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change.
BaduFerreira (
talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 5 May 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:Sikh military
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.
A: Propose renamingCategory:Sikh military to
Category:Military of the Sikh Empire, and Purging this tree of everything unrelated to the
Sikh Empire (which may mean either removing all three subcategories, or also renaming and purging those subcategories as a follow-up to this nomination); or
B: Propose deletingCategory:Sikh military as an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT (and also Delete the subcategories (at least the Wars and Military units ones) as a follow-up to this nomination)
Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents
Category:Sikh Empire and
Category:Military by former country, and siblings in
Category:Military by former country. However, as @
Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the
Sikh Empire. Moreover,
Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children
Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and
Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be
WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B).
Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes
WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of
Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of)
Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the
Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the
Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a
Sikh Confederacy and later a
Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to
Category:Sikh military (1621–1849).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating
Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing
Münster rebellion and
Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means
Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the
Sikh Empire is a different state than the
Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the
Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the
Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per
WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
The
Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to
Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the
First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are
WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the
Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the
Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the
Battle of Rohilla.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 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:Sikh warriors
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 purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the
Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g.
Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the
Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 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:Battles of the Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky
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 without prejudice.
Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky indicates that this category could include up to 8 articles, but only 3 of them have been written so far, and they are fine to leave in the parent category for now.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:56, 5 May 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 result of the discussion was:Speedy delete under G7. –
FayenaticLondon 12:57, 7 May 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:Australian business executives by industry
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: Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here.
Mason (
talk) 04:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:21, 5 May 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:Australian mining entrepreneurs
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: overlapping category. Also there's no
Category:Mining entrepreneurs (which suggests that this tree is probably also redundant)
Mason (
talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
support - good points made - however for the record - despite the fact that in the Australian context an entrepreneur tends to infer an investor/wealthy person, whereas businessperson includes and infers potentially management level - the lack of mining entrepeneurs as a tree seems to deny the universal phenomenon, which is extensive.
JarrahTree 07:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
indifferent - closer examination -
the specific article exists, and the separation between magnate/business person is clearly made at the head of the category - whereas the american mining business people conflates the issue by having text inside the main page Magnates of the mining industry. The conflation is unhelpful and combines the entrepreneurs and the rest. A merge will simply make a mess.
JarrahTree 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, the content of this category is a conflation anyway, with many articles about upper management level.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:30, 5 May 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:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust