If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:
*[[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name
should be redirected rather than deleted, use:
* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:
* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
Remember to tag the category page with:{{
subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 08:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 442 open requests (refresh).
Administrators and
page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categories
are processed following the 48-hour discussion period and are moved by a bot.
Current requests
Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).
Then does the page
Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment need to be edited to say it's main page is a redirect to anti-zionism? Or does it need to be updated to say that it is an OPINIONCAT for biographies and subcategories?
Soyembika (
talk) 07:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would not oppose removing the catmain script on the page.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
that sounds interesting, as you can probably tell i am not very familiar with best practices/procedure.
As it stands, the
catmain is a redirect that has always been a redirect to
Anti-Zionism.
Will removing that make any difference to the way this category is used?
Where is the proper place to have this discussion? Because the last three discusssions have not led to a consensus, and this
WP:OPINIONCATWP:COPDEF definitely needs one.
Soyembika (
talk) 01:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Soyembika: just removing the catmain script can be done boldly. But it would not make a real difference, it would just avoid some confusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, if only for the fact that not all Zionists are Israelis (
Christian Zionism is a thing, for instance). Opposition to a political ideology is not necessarily the same thing as having negative feelings or beliefs about a country or its people. (I also personally think
Anti-Israeli sentiment should redirect to
Criticism of Israel instead, but that's another topic).
This was moved two days ago. I think if you disagree with the move, it should go to full CFD. I do not think it is a good idea to move categories back and forth without any comments.
Ymblanter (
talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Garda Síochána operations to
Category:Irish Garda Síochána operations – As the Garda Síochána operations and other law enforcement articles continue to appear on more and more internationally linked pages in english, there is the need to be
WP:concise and
WP:consistent for readers not familiar with the agency. As an example, the United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement isn't just called Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. It uses the prefix U.S. (for example
Category:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations) to ensure readers are able to quickly recognize the home country of the law enforcement agency without being forced to check each article that contains the names of multiple national law enforcement agencies.
eximo (
talk) 17:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't even understand what "! Presets" is supposed to mean. @
Joana machado2021: could you please clarify? —
andrybak (
talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I was going to come back to this yesterday but got distracted. You're right, probably worth a full discussion on all the categories. I have no clue why they're named like this.
AusLondonder (
talk) 08:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This applies to all the NFL noms here. A sub category should follow the parent category. As long as we aren't using
Category:NFL for the parent, these shouldn't move. If we do move, the parent, then this should also move.
Gonnym (
talk) 16:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gonnym: The parent (
National Football League) was one of two exceptions in the
recent move discussion that resulted in utilizing the abbreviation. I also don't believe there's a rule or guideline that states we shouldn't switch to abbreviations at any point if the pages themselves are abbreviated.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Take it to a full discussion here then. Categories should match and not switch over. That is basic thing here.
Gonnym (
talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gonnym: Then point to a guideline that states that. It makes sense to utilize the full name in the first instance and then utilize an acronym afterwards, as we do in articles.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is how it's always been done here.
Gonnym (
talk) 13:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
So, to be clear, your argument is not policy/MoS based @
Gonnym? It's just
WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Speaking from experience, I very frequently see abbreviations or short names used in subcategories of larger topics.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not IDONTLIKEIT, it's HOWITSALWAYSBEENDONEHERESOTAKEITTOAFULLDISCUSSION.
Gonnym (
talk) 13:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
So you're unable to provide an MoS, policy link, or discussion of any kind? It's just based on what you feel and perceive to have always (not accurate) been done?
Hey man im josh (
talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Good eye, thanks. I may give that a go in near future, but it is a big project. Is it ok to do it incrementally?
toobigtokale (
talk) 15:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but when tagging and nominating a category, all subcategories should be added here too (top to bottom, starting from parent).
Brandmeistertalk 19:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I do not think we should upmerge these five categories. If I understand the situation correctly, the provinces were created in 2019, and we have articles on all the districts in these provinces and on come localities (in any case, the administrative centers). However, these articles have not yet been updated or have been updated inconsistently, and they remain in the category trees of the old provinces where they belonged before 2019. I would update them, but the update might require some research (and I hope it does not require knowledge of Arabic), but I do not think upmerging is a good idea.
Ymblanter (
talk) 06:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Generally, I can hardly imagine a situation when a category of a first-level administration division can not be populated and thus amenable to C2F.
Ymblanter (
talk) 06:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Smasongarrison I think that "People's Artist of the Moldavian SSR" was awarded before 1991 and "People's Artist of Moldova" after 1991. Also
People's Artist of the Moldavian SSR is a redirect, so I don't think C2D applies.
TSventon (
talk) 16:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Now, with the new description, it is much clearer that they're not duplicates.
Mason (
talk) 13:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern.
Anomalous+0 (
talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I disagree, since this category can be included in
Category:French atheists. A "writer on Atheism" is not necessarily an atheist, and an atheist writer can write about many different issues except Atheism.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 11:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Btw, none of the writers listed in this category are "writers on Atheism", they didn't write on that issue.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 11:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In fact, I just solved the problem argued: parent category is now French atheists.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 12:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Excuse me? I would encourage you to assume good faith instead of what you have written here.
Mason (
talk) 23:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
PedroAcero76 " But the worst thing is that you messed it all up." is inappropriate and not in good faith.
Mason (
talk) 23:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison: I do assume good faith, but a bad result. One consequence will be that the new category will be an empty one: Jean Meslier didn't write on atheism, neither Marcel Proust did (he was just a novelist). In fact, Meslier wrote on Catholicism: he was a harsh critic of Roman Catholicism. So you will get an empty, useless category, mistaking concepts. That's what I tried to explain. I assume that we all try to improve Wikipedia, and I apologize if I didn't explain myself clearly enough. It wasn't my intention.
PedroAcero76 (
talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are better ways to express your concerns including not attributing the outcome of the CFD to me. You have made many assumptions about what I believe and that I am somehow responsible for the consequences of the CFD.
Mason (
talk) 00:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Also you are much better off discussing this in the CFD instead of here.
Mason (
talk) 00:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Question Why 'Atheism' with a capital 'A'? Subcategories of
Category:Atheism spell it with a lowercase 'a'. Otherwise I support the renamings.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I was just basing it off of the parent category. No other reason than that.
Mason (
talk) 23:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No such concept
Ethnonymic surname in reliable sources. As original research, category created by banned user from created lots of mess in anthroponymic articles/categories. The whole category must be moved to
category:Toponymic surnames. -
Altenmann>talk 05:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:20th-century Bosnia and Herzegovina mathematicians
Nominator's rationale: There are only three Bosnia and Herzegovina mathematicians in the entire tree. Upmerge for now, there's no need to diffuse this category by century
Mason (
talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just delete, with very few exceptions these aren't management consultants at all, and "consulting" alone is not a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A category of redirects that all go to the same article with no info there on any of the albums except in a discography list. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category with no imminent prospect of expansion. 2024 is apparently the first time Georgia have ever qualified for the UEFA, so there isn't any significant volume of Georgia-UEFA content to file here yet -- the base article itself is the only thing there is, and the country does not yet have any of the spinoff content that populates other countries' subcategories of
Category:Countries at the UEFA European Championship. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's more content for it, but it isn't needed just for one article -- the article can just be filed in the base countries category (where it already is) and
Category:Georgia national football team in the meantime.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too-small category for a brand-new thing. This is a new level of competition just being introduced for the first time at this year's Rugby Championships, so the 2024 edition is not just the only article filed here now, but the only article that can be filed here at this time. So no prejudice against recreation in the future when there are enough other articles to justify a category, but it isn't necessary for just one thing, and can be catted as part of the parent entity in the interim.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. I created the cat - the author of the 2024 article had added it as a redlinked cat - might have been better deleting it! Agree with the nominator's rationale.
Bcp67 (
talk) 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article (
Twintelle). Seems to be a
WP:NARROWCAT. No good merge targets.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as the creator. This was created before Min Min was redirected. No prejudice to recreation if Arms gets more character articles.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 14:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two Botswana actresses in the entire tree (and three actors total). There's no need to diffuse by century, which is unhelpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate the categories when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
See other similar cats. Again, 2 subcats and 3 articles does not strike me as an indecently low number: 'Categories which intersect two (or more) topics or characteristics can result in very narrow categories with few members. Such categories should only be created when both parent categories are large enough for diffusion to be an option, and when similar intersections can be made for related categories.' That seems to be the case here and up-merge seems unnecessary.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For many conditions/disabilities/traits, the use of person-first language is preferred or there is no consensus. This was also true in the past for autistic people. However, within the last few years, particularly since the rise of the
Autism_rights_movement and its focus on self-advocacy, use of identity-first language has become much more preferred and prominent among people who are actually autistic.
While
neurotypical people have no consensus on person-first or identity-first language, this category is used specifically by people who are actually autistic. So, in order to better represent people who self-identify with the category, it would be better for it to be named "Autistic Wikipedians".
Although some prefer to use the person-first terminology person with autism, most members of the autistic community prefer autistic person or autistic in formal English, to stress that autism is a part of their identity rather than a disease they have. In addition, phrases like suffers from autism are objectionable to many people, and are discouraged by prominent style guides.
Autistic adults and parents were more likely to select an [identity-first language] term. The identity-first terms “I am autistic” (64.1%) and “I have autism” (13.1%) were the most common terms selected.
This article shows autistic people generally prefer identity-first language, while other people who aren't autistic may prefer person-first language or may have no preference. Since this category is about Wikipedians who are autistic self-identifying, it makes sense to use identity-first language. This is more likely to respect the identity of the people in the category.
There has been a recent shift from person-first to identity-first language to describe autism. In this study, Australian adults who reported having a diagnosis of autism (N 198) rated and ranked autism-terms for preference and offensiveness, and explained their choice in free-text. ‘Autistic’, ‘Person on the Autism Spectrum’, and ‘Autistic Person’ were rated most preferred and least offensive overall. [...] Statements in this theme reflected that being autistic is core to these participants’ sense of self, and not something that can be removed or separated from them (i.e., their autism is not an ‘accessory’)
No change: "Category:Autistic Wikipedians" is a redirect to "Category:Wikipedians with autism". It is not possible for Wikipedians to add the "Autistic Wikipedians" category to their user page. This is because bots will edit their user page to "Category:Wikipedians with autism" in an attempt to
"fix" the redirect.
Another name: As per the Australian paper, the term "Person on the Autism Spectrum" was most consistently ranked and offended the fewest people, though it wasn't the most preferred term as frequently as "Autistic Person".
While "Autistic Person" may not appeal to every single person who self-identifies as autistic, it overall has greater appeal in English-speaking communities than "Person with autism".
CauliflowerMoon (
talk) 09:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support making a change. My impression has been that the general preference in the community is to use Identity first language rather than person first language. Annoyingly, I could have sworn that the APA style guide used autism as an example for identity first preference... but it seems I was either misremembering or it was changed
[1]. One core tenent that I think is extremely applicable from the APA guide: "Use person-first or identity-first language as is appropriate for the community or person being discussed. The language used should be selected with the understanding that disabled people's expressed preferences regarding identification supersede matters of style. " I think creating three categories with a user box template could be a workable solution. We could have the main category be:
Category:Wikipedians on the Autism Spectrum, and have two child categories with
Category:Autistic Wikipedians and
Category:Wikipedians with autism.
Mason (
talk) 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge for now, currently only one article each, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge for now, currently only one article, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The Philippines has no "territories" to speak of, as every square inch of the country is incorporated (i.e., there is no "
unincorporated area" or unorganized areas).
Howard the Duck (
talk) 01:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Events in the Philippines by province or territory
Nominator's rationale: Main article:
Hero of the Republic. Not sure what the best name for this category is; should it specify North Korea in parentheses? I don't think "National" should be a part of the title; there doesn't seem to be any indication that it is in either Korean or English.
toobigtokale (
talk) 21:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree with both assessments, and am ok with either deletion or renaming to the suggested title. Will keep that guideline in mind from now on, thanks.
toobigtokale (
talk) 18:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Rename or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge or reverse merge, clearly duplicates.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:2010s Japanese superhero films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Nomination withdrawn. LizRead!Talk! 19:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What do you mean, "content has been transferred"? You mean you've added those categories before the merge was decided? I'm not sure I like the idea, to be honest. I would have waited for this discussion to be closed (again) before doing that. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 16 pages and 2 subcategories as of relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Withdraw. I'll renominate them jointly a month from now. Kailash29792(talk) 05:56, 28 March 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:Philipino culture by province or territory
Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles about this topic are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The
Savannah Bananas are an exhibition barnstorming team.
USA Today says to [t]hink of them like the Harlem Globetrotters, but for baseball. These notable individuals who are now categorized as playing for them did so as a
one-time stunt. They do not "play" for the team. The few articles I've spot checked make no mention of their Bananas "tenure". This is
a non-defining characteristic. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I agree, its a non-defining characteristic if these players appeared only once or twice as a publicity stunt.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 19:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't Delete only remove those that appeared a few times. They have full-time players though and the category should not be deleted.
Batgirl-Awsomeness (
talk) 00:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle, I don't think any of them are. Checking the current roster, (
Template:Savannah Bananas roster navbox) the regular players don't have articles. It is very likely all of the players in the category were one-off publicity appearences since all of them are retired MLB players.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 11:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The Savannah Bananas used to be a collegiate summer league team in the
Coastal Plain League. This is defining for those players. However, the team eventually became an exhibition team, which is generally not defining for most of the players. I think we need purge those who made singular appearances but keep the category. Look at the articles in the category and you will see plenty of non-exhibition players.--
User:Namiba 18:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The question are they full-time players? Like do they regularly play like they would with a Major League team? I checked a few articles at random and it doesn't even mention they played with the team. One ex-major leaguer appeared in a few games in 2022 but not beyond that.
(Also, don't confuse the players for
Savannah Sand Gnats as regular players for the
Savannah Bananas. On a quick glance, it may seem like its the same team but the latter is a minor league team).
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rylan Bannon and
Cade Marlowe are two players whose articles indicate that they played for the collegiate league team. More research is needed for the others in the category.--
User:Namiba 12:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, the team is notable per references at its page, and its players, if they have an article, certainly rate a categorization.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a notable list. The sub-categories are notable due to criminal or treasonous behavior. Additional members will appear to be guilty by association.
Johnjbarton (
talk) 16:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Containerize (do not delete), the articles directly in this category are about people who may have been Nazi symphatisants, but that was mainly before they migrated to the United States.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Then everyone can revert that, preferably with a reference in the edit summary to the containerization discussion if there was any.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your explanation. This solution then creates an ongoing maintenance issue that would not occur if we delete the category. Is there any notable reason to keep the category?
Johnjbarton (
talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not much different in maintenance than everyone being able to recreate a deleted category and everyone else being able to get it deleted again as G4. Having said that, I doubt if the two smaller subcategories are appropriate (one nominated above) and if they don't stay there isn't any reason to keep
Category:Nazis in the United States after all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete? Containerise? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding stated criteria on precedents
Category:English-language singers and
Category:Songs in English, English-language categories should be excluded for countries where English is the majority language. The Bahamian category includes 100% of the articles about Bahamian films, making it pointless. The others may be a little more useful since they are siblings of
Irish-language films,
Scottish Gaelic-language films,
Scots-language films and
Welsh-language films, but as the the majority of the output from those countries is in English, I believe the English-language categories should be deleted as
WP:OVERLAPCAT. Note that Irish, Scottish and Welsh have been explicitly excluded from the singers and songs categories since 2012. –
FayenaticLondon 11:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Partial oppose. While I understand and can support the rationale to delete the
Category:English-language Bahamian films cat (where, per nom, there is/should be 100% overlap with the parent category and, seemingly, no members/cats for Bahamian films in other languages), I can't support the rest. And oppose deletion of
Category:English-language Irish films in particular. Fundamentally, I don't agree with the argument that "English-language categories should be excluded for countries where English is the majority language". I mean, English is a majority language in Canada (
where 86% can speak English, 30% French, with bilingual overlaps), and yet I don't think anyone would suggest that
Category:English-language Canadian films is superfluous. Per nom's own note, these categories have a use (including in categorising
Category:Irish films by language). Otherwise, on its own, "English-language cats are [always] superfluous in countries where majority speak English" isn't an argument I can get behind...
Guliolopez (
talk) 10:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The oppose does not really address
WP:OVERLAPCAT, these categories largely overlap with the whole tree of their parent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a revisioned version of a previous Cfd related to Minor league coaches. These particular teams are defunct now and have only one and two articles respectively in them. Propose upmerging these two to the parent category.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as it would break the scheme and eliminate them from a category connection with the team.--
User:Namiba 18:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Namiba, precisely the point. These have one and two articles each and don't have a bigger tree like
Category:Staten Island Yankees. Since they are no-longer-extant teams with three articles combined, I don't see the point in keeping them.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 16:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What I mean is that by deleting the team coaches category, there will no longer be any category linking them to that team. If there were a
Category:Jamestown Expos, for example, I would support merging to that and the minor league coaches category.--
User:Namiba 11:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, the category wasn't tagged back then, nor was it now. I just tagged it after all. A category won't be deleted by the bot if the page has not been tagged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Yours6700's original reasoning, which still applies to the category now.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 02:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per original CfD. Probably was just a technical issue. --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The list is of at least minor historical interest. It may not be something a large number of people would be interested in, but remember that
"Wikipedia is not paper" and we are not forced to prioritize and choose between one article/list over another because we have virtually unlimited space, unlike a traditional paper encyclopedia. If the list doesn't contain any irreconcilably incorrect information or other serious issue that can't be fixed then what is the point of deleting it? I can think of plenty of potential reasons why someone may be interested to see the information the list provides.
Also, the logic behind "partially trivial intersection (if their suicide was unrelated to being a Nazi)" could also apply to other articles, for example,
List of suicides of LGBT people if their suicide was unrelated to their being LGBT.
Vontheri (
talk) 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I just wanted to point out that the two "support" votes are both basically just
WP:PERX (one is even exactly word-for-word "per nom"). I'm the only one other than the nominator (so far, at least) who has actually given any real argument.
Vontheri (
talk) 22:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Vontheri, If the rationale provided in a comment includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of that argument may be sufficient. (Example: "Delete per nom. I find their argument that such and such policy is not met compelling")—
Qwerfjkltalk 21:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Qwerfjkl I was told in another discussion that my "keep" comment was invalid based on
WP:PERX because I said something like "keep, for the reasons given above by [another editor]". The [other editor] certainly gave a specific argument for keeping the pertinent article. So, that made me think that any vote with a reason given as similar to "per nom" was invalid. I don't want to start a tangent here, but this policy (like so many others) seems to be inconsistently interpreted and inconsistently enforced.
Regardless, to be on topic, my opinion on the deletion of this list remains oppose for the reasons as I already stated.
Vontheri (
talk) 22:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Vontheri, There is a difference between supporting a nomination as compared to agreeing with something that a non-nominator has added to the discussion. In the first case, supporting is effectively saying I find the basis of this nomination reasonable, and I do not wish to write a lot to effectively say what you have already said.
I'd also like to state that I do not think that the comparison between the page:"
List of suicides of LGBT people " and the category Category:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States is a fair comparison.
1) categories are not lists.
2) even if we were to hold this list to the same standard, there is a long history of literature on the fact that the intersection between sexual orientation and suicide is defining, there is not for the intersection of nazism, suicide, and suicide in the united states.
3) it is worth noting that the question is whether the intersection of the three, is defining, not merely whether nazism and suicide is defining.
4) LGBT is an
EGRS category, while being a Nazi is not, so I find this entire line of comparison troubling.
Unless you happened to be
a rocket scientist who only became a Nazi to 'advance his career' (which, of course, is a totally acceptable reason for joining the Nazi party. How else can you continue your life-long ambition of making huge explosions? /sarcasm), then execution, imprisonment, managing to create a new false identity, or suicide are generally the outcomes faced by those who were at least greater than low-ranking Nazis during WW2. Note that the
leader of the Nazi party himself died by suicide, as did most of the other highest-ranking party members. So, yes, there definitely is an intersection between being a Nazi and suicide, and this has been documented numerous times over. Here are three of many potential examples: [1][2], and [3]
Is there an intersection of the three that includes the United States? Let's look a bit more closely at the individual entrants in the category. With one exception (
Petras Polekauskas), all of the entrants either do not say the circumstances of their suicide or the relevant person either committed suicide while being prosecuted for their Nazi activities or while incarcerated, again, for their Nazi activities. So it does seem to me like there is an intersection between the three, and given that not all (or even most) of them were actually in prison when they ended their lives, moving them all to Category: Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody would not suffice. There is enough historical relevancy to keep the category, certainly more historical relevancy than this category: Category:Farmers who died by suicide (and I'm not proposing a purge, by the way)
Perhaps creating a new category called "Nazis who died by suicide by country" would be the best path forward, and then merging Category:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States" into it. As I mentioned before, "Category:Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody" is not sufficient.
By the way, what do you mean by "4) LGBT is an EGRS category, while being a Nazi is not, so I find this entire line of comparison troubling."? Because both LGBT and Nazism are political and "touchy" subjects, in rather opposite directions? Can we please use logic and reason and avoid emotions clouding our judgements while building an encyclopedia? And it seems EGRS categories were created for a somewhat opposite reason than implied, not as "protection" categories, but to avoid censorship.
I virtually never say anything personal about myself on Wikipedia (for an explanation of why, please see my user page), but I will make an exception one time because I feel I've been misunderstood: I lost one of my closest friends I've ever had about ten years ago now to suicide, and one of the largest reasons for his suicide was because he was gay and his family did not know and he feared that they would have a strongly negative reaction if they found out. So I'm not throwing around comparisons between LGBT suicide and Nazi suicides in the way I sense you are implying by "I find this entire line of comparison troubling." I intend to practice the Socratic Method at all times during discussions. That doesn't mean I'm perfect but it is my intent. I intentionally separate collective emotion of society from logic when engaging in "disputes" (I would say "arguments", but fear it would me misinterpreted, as I intend the old, original Socratic meaning of the word "argument") and, hoping I don't sound immodest, but I have been told that I have a gift for dealing with "heavy subjects" in an objective way.
An unrelated issue I found: "
Michael Popczuk" redirects to a list that doesn't include or even mention him. I've made a post about it on the relevant talk page.
Vontheri (
talk) 20:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Vontheri (
talk) 20:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
So I don't have the bandwidth to unpack your wall of text. But I will say two more things. 1) No one is disputing that the intersection between nazism and suicide is defining. But, there's no need to diffuse by location of suicide. 2.a) my use of EGRS is to make it clear that these categories are very different. One is a historically marginalized group
oppressed by the Nazis, and the other is well, Nazis. So I think this attempt to make a subject less heavy falls flat. For me personally, I find the conversation more heavy when marginalized communities are involved (regardless of whether I am a member of that community). 2.b) I'm sorry to hear about your friend.
Mason (
talk) 01:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I write the length of text necessary to come as close as possible to adequately describing the concepts and ideas in my head. That is an impossible task, as language is much simpler than human thought, but I certainly don't write at length to attempt to create a "wall of text". (it really wasn't that long, and calling it a "wall of text" is a bit demeaning to the effort and thought I put into writing it, but anyway...)
I think the "heaviness" of a topic is a hindrance to objectively creating an encyclopedia, which, as a defining feature of [nearly all] encyclopedias, neutrality and objectivity should be at the absolute core. Why should the oppression or oppressor status of a group of people have anything to do with whether or not we document their suicides or other traits/actions? We should attempt to put aside our personal views or the views of society at large and use the pursuit of truth as a guide. I look to Socrates as a role model in this respect, although he did lose me quite a bit when he tried to justify his own execution.
But, if the heaviness of LGBT suicide cannot be overcome, then, as I already mentioned, what about replacing my use of the LGBT suicide category with the category "
Category:Farmers who died by suicide" or "
Category:Artists who died by suicide, with nearly the same arguments applied? For example, is it a trivial intersection if their suicide had nothing to do with being a farmer or nothing to do with being an artist? I assume the answer is "no"? So why would it be a trivial intersection in the case of Nazis?
To summarize: We should neutrally document reality. Many Nazis died by suicide. Not all Nazi suicides occurred while that person was in prison, thus the category "Category:Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody" is insufficient. I would be fine with removing this category of Nazi suicides in the United States if it is replaced by a new category called something like "Nazi suicides by country", which is surely of interest to researches of history, but, although it would make things a bit less convenient for some readers, a category simply called "Nazis who died by suicide" would be acceptable in my opinion. But, perhaps my most important point here: having only "Category:Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody" is absolutely not sufficient as not all Nazis who died by suicide committed their suicide in prison custody!
My proposal at this point: delete this category, but *ONLY* if it is replaced by a new category called something like "Category:Nazis who died by suicide by country" or simply "Category:Nazis who died by suicide", given that "Category:Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody" is insufficient on its own for the reasons I have given. *OTHERWISE* If it is not replaced after deletion, then my vote is simply "keep".Vontheri (
talk) 05:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What are people's thoughts on the most recent proposal to transform this into
Category:Nazis who died by suicide (which could contain the articles in the current category,
Category:Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody, and any other Nazis who died by suicide)? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Despite my seemingly clear memory of previously searching for it, somehow I hadn't even noticed that "Nazis who died by suicide" was already a category. I must be having some sort of Mandella effect moment going on here... So my proposal may have been slightly different had I been aware that the category already existed.
(Also, not especially relevant to the current discussion, but how exactly are we defining "Nazi" for the purpose of these lists/categories? Is it limited only to people who were members of the German Nazi Party during during and/or prior to WW2, or are we including "Neo-Nazis"? What about former Nazis who renounced their Nazi beliefs but still later died by suicide? I certainly assume we are not including
Fascists, which is so often erroneously used as a synonym for "Nazi". While they are both related and share many similarities, they are still distinct far-right political ideologies with defining differences.)
Vontheri (
talk) 04:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding Neo-Nazis in this category tree would be weird because the whole point here is people escaping their trial or imprisonment for what they did in WWII.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't proposing to add neo-nazis, just creating an open question for of thinking for exactly how we should define "Nazi" for the sake of these categories.
The problem with having there only be the two lists, one "Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody" and "Nazis who died by suicide in World War II" is that there are also Nazis who died from suicide who committed their suicide after (sometimes long after) WWII and also were not in prison custody when they committed suicide. They didn't all commit suicide for the reasons of escaping trial or imprisonment (or, at the time, execution). That was a common reason, but certainly not the only reason. Some were so deeply indoctrinated into the Nazi ideology that they saw no hope for a future life in a post-war world in which the Nazis lost the war. There was even a wave of suicide among German civilians after the war ended, as well, and they were certainly not people under threat of trial or imprisonment. (See the two references I gave earlier in the discussion written by Christian Goeschel for more information about this.) So having only those two categories would leave out some notable people, for just one example, see:
Petras_Polekauskas#Death. Petras Polekauskas died by suicide but was neither in prison custody nor was his suicide during or even shortly after the war, but was just over 20 years after the war ended.
Vontheri (
talk) 09:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing to not have that category anymore "Category:Nazis who died by suicide" and to only have the two categories "Category:Nazis who died by suicide in prison custody" and " Category:Nazis who died by suicide in World War II". I think I would be fine with something similar to what you are proposing; but I see a couple issues that would need to be sorted out first:
First we would need to determine exactly when a start and end date for "World War II" would be. Are we defining WW2 as ending when Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, or are we extending to when the entire war ended (ie. September 2, 1945, when Japan surrendered)? The latter definition isn't especially relevant to this context, as we are talking about Germans and not Japanese, and the former definition has the problem that the primary wave of suicides occurred during a period that overlapped with the date of May 8, 1945. Some of the relevant suicides were just before May 8th when defeat of Germany seemed inevitable, but others of the relevant suicides occurred after May 8th after defeat was official. For example,
Heinrich Himmler died by suicide after May 8th.
Vontheri (
talk) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of these pages don't belong in this category.
Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium is a stadium, not a monument or memorial. Purge the category, and if there are sufficient contents, then rename as proposed.
Mason (
talk) 00:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle per nom. The nomination is very carefully phrased, one may also simply say "delete per
WP:SHAREDNAME".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
March 26
Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in New Caledonia
Nominator's rationale: Broaden this category to include 19th-century churches of all denominations. There are only two pages in here, and 4 total in the entire Roman Catholic churches in New Caledonia
Mason (
talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for categorising under the dependent territory and the continent category trees. (Otherwise combine with the counterparts for other territoires d'outre-mer, collectivités d'outre-mer, pays d'outre-mer and collectivités sui generis.)
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Both the rename and the merge proposal are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory, so this is not a reason to oppose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for Roman Catholic churches of all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis.
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I countered your argument in my previous reply. Then it does not make sense to repeat your "keep" without any new argument.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a mixture of the
Janów Podlaski farm and the village which bears the same name (
Janów Podlaski). Pretty much nothing in here is defined by the village OR the farm, and does not help with navigation
Mason (
talk) 19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I created this when I was researching the area, just to save anyone else the trouble and also hopefully so that others would add further articles to the category. It didn't seem any different from other geographic categories, but I have no particular view on whether it stays or goes.--
Northernhenge (
talk) 21:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion: Correcting nom, the category is not a mixture, though the article mentions both village and stud. There are no members of this category that are not related to the stud farm; they are all articles about horses born at the stud, or stallions breeding there, or related articles. I suggest renaming the category to
Category:Janów Podlaski Stud, and putting it under
Category:Horse farms. The Janów Podlaski Stud is well known, more so than the village. The stud is a Historic Monument of Poland. Search google scholar for "Janów Podlaski Stud" and you get hundreds of results. I'm not sure why no one has yet created a wiki article for the Janów Podlaski stud, but there's one in Polish-wiki,
pl:Stadnina Koni Janów Podlaski. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Okay, okay, you twisted my arm... I'm working on translating the article here:
Draft:Janów Podlaski Stud Farm. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per I am Grorp. There is enough regional distinction in this area and enough articles to justify a category.
Montanabw(talk) 15:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: rename? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Though this might well need renaming, that is not the nomination. There are two oppositions to the nomination and no additional comments during one relist period, so I am unsure why you relisted it. If you want to rename it to
Category:Janów Podlaski Stud, I'm sure no one would object. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with either rename.
Mason (
talk) 22:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not "Horses of", because I can conceive of placing other types of articles in that category. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Currently there are 2 towns, 1 man, a horse breed article, and another stud categorized there. Shortly will be the main article for the stud,
Draft:Janów Podlaski Stud Farm, and the Polish wiki has 7 or so articles for men associated with this stud that might get translated to English wiki. So naming it "Horses of" would be wrong today, and wrong in the future. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's not need to diffuse horse farms to this degree (as in every country gets a farm). Upmerge categories with one or two members
Mason (
talk) 19:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Oppose: Note that most of the category members are nation-owned stud farms for breeds of horse originating in those countries, or are facilities of historical interest. These aren't just "farms". The word "splitting" made no sense to me because I checked each one of the articles, and all but maybe two are already in their second "farm" categories. As long as you change them from [Category:Horse farms in _______] to
Category:Horse farms (so they are not lost), then I'm okay with the change. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Changing 'comment' to opposed' based on Montanabw's rationale as well as my own reading since I wrote the above. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The stud farms in these European nations are quite distinct entities from mere “farms.” The historic importance of these places was often linked to training animals for military purposes. It would be sort of like merging “military contractors” into “factories.”
Montanabw(talk) 15:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Though someone named these categories "horse farms" in English Wikipedia, the correct term in English is "stud farm". Our word "farm" connotes agriculture related to food production. However, stud farms were the genetic source for transportation and other elite activities, never a food source, which puts them in an entirely different category to other types of "farming". I'm not sure how other [non-English] languages handle it and whether there is a common word like "farm" tying together two different types of concepts (food versus transport) or if there is a clear distinction in those languages, but a quick skip through google translation tells me they don't. (en:stud farm/farm, sp: ganadería/granja, fr:haras/ferme, de:Gestüt/Bauernhof, hu:ménesbirtok/Farm, pl:stadnina koni/gospodarstwo rolne) ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
According to
Stud farm, they are for breeding rather than for transport. I'd say that still makes them a type of farm.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Facepalm. For breeding (genetics), not raising as agricultural commodities. From
Farm: with the primary objective of producing food and other crops; it is the basic facility in food production. The
WP:WikiProject Transport editors would argue that horses were primarily "power"; transportation machines for riding, or pulling objects. Also, cats, dogs, tigers, and many other animal species are "bred" but not "farmed". "Breeding" is not identical to "farming", though farming livestock certainly involves breeding. I don't know why you are arguing this. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reports of puppy farms (on Wikipedia as
Puppy mill) use the term "farm" in a negative way, whereas the term dog breeder (can't quickly find an article other than
Dog breeding) has more of a "stud" connotation. In the UK, I've never heard anyone say "horse farm" but if they did, I'd assume either they were being negative, so equivalent to puppy farm, or neutral about food production in countries where they eat horses. Regarding transport, there must have been a term used to describe mass production of horses when they were used in enormous numbers for transport, but I don't know what that term would have been. Farm might have made sense then. I agree that stud is a much better term than farm for specialist horse breeding as distinct from mass production. --
Northernhenge (
talk) 11:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Grorp Do you have an alternative target for merging?
Mason (
talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison: I don't see why it needs merging at all. Is there some policy requiring there to be 2 entries before you can create a category similar to other categories on the subject? For those of us who work in the "horse breed" topic, we know our breeds by their place of origin. If you remove each country category that only has 1 or 2 entries, and lump them all together under
Category:Horse farms, then we would have to click on every single one of them to find, say, stud farms in Russia. I don't think removing any of these subcategories improves anything, and you will instead lose what I would consider valuable information. It's not like these stud farm articles are overcategorized. I don't think there's anything in
WP:Categorization or
WP:Overcategorization that says we can't have subcategories with a single entry in them. I consider the subcategorization by country valuable information. You may not be interested in horse breeds, history/origin of horse breeds, or breeding in various countries, but some people are and this is not fancruft... it's history. I went through every article and made sure they weren't categorized in both Farm and Horse farms (unless they were both). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
So the purpose of categories is to help navigation. But I would like to know where you thing these categories should belogn. If these categories do not belong in farms, where should they be nested? @
GrorpMason (
talk) 01:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I like how they are currently done. But maybe we're not not talking the same language? I understand
H:CATS. There is nothing in
WP:CFD that explains "splitting".
WP:CI was zero help. And I read through
WP:CAT. There just doesn't seem to be any explanation of "splitting". My interpretation of your original suggestion was to remove/delete the [Category:Horse farms in countryX] if the category has only 1 entry, and recategorize its article with [Category:Horse farms] plus [Category:Farms in countryX]. If that's not what the proposal meant, then please explain "propose splitting". If I understood you correctly, then no... don't do it. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
1) The nomination is to "upmerge for now". There is a problem with how one of the tools works, that it labeling as spilt instead of merge.
2) I don't understand why you aren't answering my question. It seems like much of your argument is that Horse farms aren't farms. I am trying to understand where the category should be nested if does not belong in farms. Hence I have asked: "If these categories do not belong in farms, where should they be nested?" You saying that you like it as is, is not helpful. I am trying to understand your perspective on the category. This is a sperate issue than whether the category gets upmerged or not. If the current structure is wrong, then I would like to understand what is the problem.
Mason (
talk) 01:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all no compelling reason in the nom. As the above discussion shows, the naming here is dubious. "Horse farm" is just not a thing in British English, and has no article. A search on the term shows many places that were "horse farms" in the US & elsewhere in the 19th century or before, when mass-breeding of working horse was a thing. Current places that are notable tend not to use "horse farm", even in the US, and can be divided into
stud farms or racing stables, with some overlap. Probably our categories should be re-arranged this way.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My experience in this area is not significant, but my impression was that a horse farm usually (but not quite always, especially in terms of simple searches; see "one-horse farm") means a stud farm, and horse farming means that you have an ordinary old-fashioned farm with a horse to pull the plow (as contrasted with tractor farming). This is sufficiently confusing that I could wish for completely different names in these categories.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Why was this relisted? The nomination is based on "not needed" and there are two simple "agree per nom" votes, and four very strong "oppose the nom" votes with reasoning. Though there is some discussion that something could be done with the categories, there is still a clear consensus of opposition to the nomination. So why has this been relisted? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. There's not a "clear consensus of opposition". This is likely headed toward non-consensus.
Mason (
talk) 22:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: More useful than an eponymous category. If the new name is agreed, only
Warren Spector should be removed, but he and the category should remain linked. –
FayenaticLondon 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Both categories could be useful. For example there is
Category:Hideo Kojima and multiple sub-categories for video games and other article types.
Category:Video games designed by Hideo Kojima is a sub-category with game pages. So we could use both for Warren Spector too. -22:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Artanisen (
talk) 22:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename, apart from the eponymous article all content is about video games. No objection to restoring this category after a few more articles not about video games are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 games so not really a franchise. Both articles are interlinked and in plenty of other categories already. –
FayenaticLondon 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 00:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. May be suitable for a list if it can be supported with citations from
WP:RS. –
FayenaticLondon 21:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Thank you for nominating this. I got busy IRL and was going to come back to do this one, too. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Is this a defining quality of these acts? Overcategorization per
WP:PERFCAT. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. We put readers first over editors in Wikipedia. This is not overcategorization. They list the performers who performed in the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
Abhiramakella (
talk) 22:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"We put readers first over editors in Wikipedia. " I don't understand what you mean by this.
Mason (
talk) 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, obvious case of
WP:PERFCAT. It is very unhelpful to readers to have a messy long list of category tags in articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one person in this category, which is unhelpful from navigation
Mason (
talk) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep added more people to the category.
TonyStarks (
talk) 19:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Three members as of relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 16:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are still only three biographies in the category and none in the parent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: New category, intersection of where someone is from and where they live and what they do and what their gender is.
WP:NONDEF or
WP:NARROWCAT or at least some form of
WP:OVERCAT? I just realized there are others like these, I may go searching for them and add them later, or others are welcome to.
Largoplazo (
talk) 11:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The parent and sibling category of male actors were tagged too, so I took the liberty to add them in the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I second Marcop, that if not kept, these need to be merged, not deleted.
Mason (
talk) 16:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep the UK ones, merging in the English ones. Largeish numbers, & defining enough I think.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Are they really "largeish"? EGRS's examples are categories that would have over a thousand entries if unsplit, not a mere hundred or so.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 06:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Marcocapelle and Johnbod.
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 07:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't think this meets the criteria under EGRS at the intersection of gender, occupation, and nationality. I've already added everyone to an American women category.
Mason (
talk) 04:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, trivial intersection between occupation and gender.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Johnbod How is it defining, under EGRS?
Mason (
talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What is this EGRS you keep talking about? Would renaming to
Category:Female winemakers help with the bureaucracy? It seems to me we ought to have such a category.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably
Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people, which says: “As another example, a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male.” So if historically the vast majority of winemakers have been male, there is an argument in favour of keeping this category. It should be a member of
Category:Female winemakers though, and then – for example – we’d need
Category:German female winemakers etc etc. There are presumably too many of them to put everyone into a single category. --
Northernhenge (
talk) 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not, it seems, with articles on Wikipedia. A global
Category:Female winemakers would, probably should, be set up, to keep the gender aspect alive. It would (see below) not be enormous.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Northernhenge has found the gender specific example. But more broadly, @
Johnbod,
Wikipedia:EGRS requires that the intersection be defining. In other words, "where that combination is itself recognized as a
defining topic that has already been established in sources as academically or
culturally significant in its own right." So there has to be evidence/sources to support the argument that the intersection between being female and being a winemaker is defining.
Mason (
talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The paucity of articles in the other national winemaker cats is very strong evidence for this: only 2-3 in Italy (including Countess Cinzano, who inherited), amazingly only one in the 68 Australians, and she married an owner. The 67 French are similar - a couple of inheritances, & only
Christine Barbe, whose career has all been in California. The only Spanish female is "María
Isabel Mijares García-Pelayo (1942 – 10 February 2024) was a Spanish
oenologist. She was considered the first woman in the profession and the first woman to run a winery in Spain.[1] It would be nice if we could disentangle "vineyard owners" from "winemakers" who know one end of a syphon pipe from the other, but I don't suppose we can.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as defining, a Google books search for female winemakers finds four books that look like reliable sources, all from 2000 or later.
Crushed by Women: Women and Wine (Jeni Port, 2000)
Women of Wine: The Rise of Women in the Global Wine Industry (Ann B. Matasar, 2006)
Women Winemakers: Personal Odysseys (Lucia Albino Gilbert, John C. Gilbert, 2020)
Women of the Vine: Inside the World of Women Who Make, Taste, and Enjoy Wine (Deborah Brenner, 2007)
TSventon (
talk) 03:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
And do those sources refer specifically to American women?
The conundrum here is that, per Johnbod, we don't actually have a generic "female winemakers" category, and we need to establish whether that is an oversight first. Because it's difficult to establish that being a woman in the winemaking industry is a particularly notable thing in the United States relative to the wider world. And even then, the reason that we don't have a blanket "women in occupation X" exception is because the main reason for most of those categories to be small is the historical tendency for society to discourage women from running businesses, which is more a society thing than a women thing.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 06:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not really; once we have "a generic "female winemakers" category", as we now do, whether a diffusion to a US national category is viable is simply a matter of numbers. No special sources for US examples are needed, though it is utterly unsurprising that
WhatamIdoing has very kindly been able to find some (see below). And no doubt US women figure largely in the non-specific books
TSventon found above, for which also thanks. I think our work here is done.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that the main issue is whether there should be a generic "female winemakers" category, so I have created
Category:Women winemakers. American women winemakers are likely to be most numerous as the US has the largest wine industry in an English speaking country and there are a lot of American editors on en Wikipedia.
TSventon (
talk) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! It is easy to see they are the most numerous, & at present no other national sub-cats seem likely to survive the Cfd Eye of Mordor.
Johnbod (
talk) 23:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, at least for now. There are books like Wine Country Women of Napa Valley (ISBN 978-1944903183) and journal articles like
doi:
10.1111/1468-0424 "Donne in the Vineyards: Italian‐American Women in the California Wine Industry" that are exclusively about women making wine in the US.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 03:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as now is. Apart from the art, there's now only one redirect in
Category:Looting in the Napoleonic Wars, but no doubt plenty of room for expansion - Spain, Russia, Netherlands etc.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one monard in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 20:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Did you check PetScan to see if there are more? Sincerely, Thinker78(talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not check petscan in this case. But I did look through all the assassinated Burundian people to see if there were any other monarchs I had missed.
Mason (
talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Traditionally some "by nationality" categories only have one entry. This is because the full by nationality tree is intended to contain all nationalities intersecting with the topic. I think leaving out categories from the parent
Category:Assassinated monarchs by nationality only because they have one or few entries provides for incomplete information regarding the topic of assassinated monarchs.
The intention is to build it up collaboratively in time to include all nations where at least one monarch was assassinated. I do think that having a separate category with only one or few entries in a parent category "by nationality" aids in navigation because the reader can simply browse through the nationality category looking for relevant assassinated monarchs. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk) 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dual merge, also because it is odd to ghettoize monarchs of a nationality in an assassinated subcategory and separate them from non-assassinated monarchs. This is more something for lists.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, it makes me think we should mark assassinated categories as non-diffusing so that assassinated folks aren't ghettoized.
Mason (
talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't agree with this drive to limit diffusion of categories so much. There are niche interests of readers for a variety of reasons. From specialized researchers to specific interests or intellectual needs. Although I understand NotEverything, I also understand that diffusing assassinated monarchs by nationality is reasonable because assassination of monarchs is of historical interest and the assassination of monarchs in their nations is something notable in its own. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk) 00:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Thinker78 What do you think about marking the assassination categories as non-diffusing for monarchs of that nationality?
Mason (
talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: We don't need to diffuse male musicians by continent
Mason (
talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Many subcategories in it have the 'statute', like, ""This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase". However I checked a couple and see that people dont care and put there items that are just about subjects that have title in foreingn language, such as e.g.
Goralenvolk,
Gokenin,
Gradonachalnik.
Shall we undertake a really massive cleanup (and put these cats on watchlist to prevent from "contamination", since it will most surely happen )
P.S. While we are at that, it will make sense to double-check the ledes for proper "XXX is a term for YYY" vs. "XXX is YYY". For example two articles about basically same concept but in different cultures introduced dirfferently:
Mazhory (from majors; roughly translates as "the superior ones"[1]) is a slang term used in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries for children of privileged people,
vs:
Princelings (Chinese: 太子党), also translated as the Party's Crown Princes, are the descendants of prominent and influential senior communist officials in the People's Republic of China.
If we drop the requirement that the categories only contain articles about words themselves, then they just wouldn't be useful.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A category containing every article that is a word in a specific language would be far too inclusive. dummelaksen (
talk •
contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I dont think WP:NOTDICTIONARY is applicable here. Besides, We have articles such as
Yiddish words used in English. Shouldn't the list items with articles be in a matching category?-
Altenmann>talk 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not necessarily, I don't think so. The article you mention already fulfills that exact purpose. Essentially my point is that if we drop the requirement in question then articles would be categorised purely based on their titles and not their scope, which I think is
overcategorisation. It's not a very strong example of it, so I understand your concern, but I still think it's better if these categories of words and phrases only contain articles about words and phrases. dummelaksen (
talk •
contribs) 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
ETA: I think list articles, like
Yiddish words used in English, are a much better idea actually. I would be completely fine with list articles like those instead of putting non-word articles in the words categories. dummelaksen (
talk •
contribs) 20:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The instruction on these category pages isn't clear at all. We should either remove the requirement or delete the categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Words exist for the very purpose of referring to a concept or thing. It is not very well imaginable that we have articles about words that do not also discuss the meaning of the words.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That's fair. Almost every article should have a definition of its title but most articles are much more than just the meaning and usage of the word. In that case, the header should read "articles about the usage of the word in language" or something else to that effect. dummelaksen (
talk •
contribs) 23:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dummelaksen: let me rephrase this slightly: "articles mainly about the usage of the word in language". The question is how much % of the article should be about the usage of the word in language in order to qualify for the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A good article should be about one thing and one thing only, i.e. an article should be about the word itself, or not about the word itself. So ideally, 100%. In reality a lot of articles in these categories aren't written well so are about the concept, but are inappropriately written like dictionary definitions.
I've been very conservative thus far, and only removed articles that are clearly about concepts, but many of these articles should be rewritten to avoid
WP:NOTDICT and
WP:REFERSTO. dummelaksen (
talk •
contribs) 05:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Even if this is an organization
Dyne Foundation, there's no need to add software to the category.
Mason (
talk) 13:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Smasongarrison - I see your nomination, but I am not sure why deletion? Do you think there should be between Category:Dyne Foundation > Dyne Foundation software >...actual individual software pages like it is with Category:Google for example...I am not sure that applies better then category Category:Blender Foundation (also Dutch also FLOSS). Curious to hear your arguments and recommendations! Have a good Easter weekend :-)
Zblace (
talk) 06:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Insufficient content for eponymous category, containing only one company and an example of its sponsorship. –
FayenaticLondon 13:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Moved article per
WP:NCBC without RM so can't speedy. Category should move for the same reason.
Gonnym (
talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Islamic State – Khorasan Province activities
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one person in this category, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 01:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These seem to effectively be a duplicate category. I'm bringing the category here in case I'm missing something obvious
Mason (
talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep this is the category for the pages used by
Portal:Paleontology.
Category:Paleontology portals is a hierarchical category for categorizing various paleontological portals, such as
Portal:Dinosaurs. If we are to organize pages by category instead of using PREFIXINDEX to look up supages, then the category is useful. Now, the proposed merge target only has two entries, so it might instead be upmerged into something else.--
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: any merger would remove
Paleontology portals (plural). We should keep the nominated
Paleontology portal (singular) to hold the subpages within one portal, because
Biology portals (plural) and
History portals do not do this job: instead, they serve a different maintenance purpose of holding the portals within one subject area.
Certes (
talk) 09:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: More accurate. Agents refers to someone recruited to spy, rather than an agent handler referred to as a
case officer. This category includes agent handlers who were employees of CIA, rather than people the CIA recruited to spy on their behalf.
Longhornsg (
talk) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Alt rename and re-parent to "Assassinated" instead of "Murdered" and purge articles about more casual murders.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Rename as nominated or take the alternative? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I like the alternative per marco.
Mason (
talk) 01:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment should this also include executed officers? And what of assets that have been assassinated or executed? (foreigners recruited as "agents" and fixers) --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 22:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:American theatre people by populated place
Nominator's rationale: I think that we should repurpose this category to contain all of the theater people form Cleveland rather than delete it.
Mason (
talk) 22:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no need to diffuse American dramatists and playwrights by city. Notably this is the _only_ city category.
Mason (
talk) 22:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The article
Combined authorities and combined county authorities has been amended to include combined county authorities as they are similar to combined authorities. Other articles have been amended to reflect this change. The category should reflect this in the same manner, as it currently includes pages linked to it which are CCAs but appear in this category as CAs.
TheBishopAndHolyPrince (
talk) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, but add "in England" (or is it UK?) for clarity.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The main article does not include "in England". The template
Template:Combined authorities and combined county authorities does not either. I would therefore propose to leave out "in England" so that it matches with the template, the article and the other text on the category page. 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
TheBishopAndHolyPrince (
talk) 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Categories often need clearer names than articles, as here.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably better the other way round as the article is confusing attempting to cover 2 separate things, the article needs splitting not the categories merging.
Keith D (
talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think it ne_eds to affect this discussion but the nominator has been indefinitely blocked so don't expect any response to questions. LizRead!Talk! 04:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I didn't think he'd last.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A concrete, updated proposal would be very much appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename to match the main article. I don't see why "in England" is necessary.
* Pppery *it has begun... 20:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Follow article, in this case rename category as nominated. If the article is split, per
User:Keith D, then by all means follow that too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Use England as this will collect various authorities that have been variously combined --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
China after 1949 is considered to be synonymous with the People's Republic. This would require a much broader discussion than just about culture, but I doubt the discussion would lead somewhere.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We don't have to. Our category trees and main articles are quite clear:
If we re-parent it as I proposed, it all makes sense.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It leaves the problem that "by city in the People's Republic of China" is considered to be equivalent to "by city in China" even without renaming.
Category:Cities in China does not contain cities in Taiwan.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Those who voted for the China–PRC merger never bothered to figure out what to do with topics as such. Topics associated with
culture of the PRC, e.g., should certainly be fed to a category similarly named but such scenarios have simply been ignored.
188.211.233.131 (
talk) 07:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are topical subcategories for the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Montenegro, the United Provinces of the Netherlands (the Dutch Republic), the Orange Free State, the Transvaal Republic, the United Province of Canada, the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Confederate State of America, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, and so on and so forth. Why can't there be subcategories for the PRC?
188.211.233.131 (
talk) 16:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What about Indian foo and Foo of the Republic of India, for instance? The former may according to contexts covers Pakistan and/or Bangladesh and that the latter is a subset of the former.
188.211.233.131 (
talk) 08:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
From when on would it be right to equate the Soviet Union with Russia, or Malaya with Malaysia, or England or Great Britain with the United Kingdom, for the purpose of categorisation on Wikipedia?
188.211.233.131 (
talk) 08:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The category can be recreated when there are more pages to add. I really tried to find anything that could be added, and turned up nothing.
Mason (
talk) 16:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will note that
WP:SMALLCAT has been deprecated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There are only a handful of Medieval medical doctors from India. I think we should upmerge for now until there's a critical mass
Mason (
talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Indian in "Indian people" may or may not be associated the modern Republic of India.
185.104.63.112 (
talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand that point you are trying to make. No one is saying these doctors are from the modern Republic of India.
Mason (
talk) 21:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Indian people by century feeds ultimately to Category:Indian people and thereupon Category:India (and not any other modern-day successors). Are these physicians Indian if we are to equate India with the ROI?
185.104.63.112 (
talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, so I think I now understand what's happening with your dispute over Hong Kong versus China. That's not how nationality works for nesting. So there's no built-in assumption with categories that people nested in India are necessarily citizens of the modern nation of India.
Mason (
talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per nomination and change Indian to South Asian.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 11:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Renaming Indian to South Asian would require a broader discussion. The current nomination is about a much smaller issue.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like one of the entries is about a doctor who was Bengali.
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, it happens so often that deities of these ancient and medieval mythologies are personifications of something that it does not differentiate them at all. Put it more precisely, it is not defining that they are the personification of something, it is only defining what they personify, and
Category:Deities by association suffices for the latter purpose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, if only because most if not all polytheistic deities are personifications of various concepts, and I agree that
Category:Deities by association serves that purpose better.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 22:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, these well-populated categories, per nom that "it happens so often that deities of these ancient and medieval mythologies are personifications of something" seems to be a fact and observation in favor of keeping the pages instead of a negative blow to their existence. Personifications are a "thing", not an abstract thought or whim.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: those categories are sufficiently and clearly defined within their contexts in mythology and folklore, since all of them were/are considered to be inseparable from the things they personify. Personifications have been a thing since a very long time, and are easily recognised and differentiated. Moreover, all those categories have enough pages that merging them would do the opposite of cleaning up.
Deiadameian (
talk) 10:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposers seem to think that the nomination would entirely abolish personifications. That is not the case and not the intention. Personifications are still kept in place in
Category:Deities by association.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: According to the official
style guide for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.DarthTanner421 (
talk) 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not a convincing argument. You need to make a case that reliable sources commonly use the expression "The Church of Jesus Christ".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I second Marco on this. Unless you can demonstrate that this is standard practice or in numerous non-affiliated credible style guides, I oppose this rename.
Mason (
talk) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now as it is a very small category. Hypothetically this could become a set category while
Category:Private spaceflight would serve as a topic category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep it is merely not being populated. All the missions currently in
Category:New Shepard missions would qualify for this category (though not necessarily all of them in the future, if a government charters a spaceflight); as would most of the missions in
Category:SpaceShipTwo except the one chartered by the Italian Space Agency and the ones that did not reach space; as would all the missions in
Category:Axiom Space; and all the space missions in
Category:SpaceShipOne not including the ones that did not reach space. There's also the Russian movie filmed on the ISS, which would be its own space mission, in addition to riding with people on other missions. --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Feel free to add articles to the category as appropriate.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCLOCATION, not meeting either of the two criteria on which that would be allowed. The parent categories are not otherwise subdivided by province of origin at all, and are not large enough to need diffusion on size grounds, so this isn't part of any comprehensive scheme -- but being from Quebec does not define a translator differently than being from anywhere else in Canada does, so Quebec doesn't need special treatment here that other provinces aren't also getting. (And no, it doesn't map neatly to whether the person is an English-to-French translator or a French-to-English translator, either -- Quebec anglophones and ROC francophones both still exist, so a person from anywhere in Canada can equally do either thing.) So this is a scheme that would really only be necessary if it were possible to all-ten-provinces-and-three-territories it right across the board, and is not a thing Quebec needs in isolation.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. It also escapes me why there are gendered categories for translators.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle. But also merge to Writers from Quebec. The gender intersection is because one of the parents is writers.
Mason (
talk) 23:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Still, that does not require every subcategory to be split by gender too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not at all wedded to the necessity of subdividing translators by gender — most countries don't have that at all (India has one for women, but not for men, and even for women it's the only other country I know of that has one), and even the Canadian ones featured here were newly created by the same editor who created these Quebec subcategories on the same day just under a month ago, so there's absolutely a valid argument to be made that the gendered categories aren't necessary either. But that would be a fundamentally different argument than the one against these Quebec subcategories, so it wouldn't have made sense at all to bundle them directly into this discussion. They can certainly be nominated for a separate discussion if you feel strongly about it, but I didn't nominate them here simply because the question of whether gendered categories are necessary or not is a completely separate issue from whether Quebec categories are necessary or not.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree, it will require a fresh discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Typo. Diocesan Girls' School is a girls' school and the word "alumnae" should be used instead. Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul) 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We don't use the female version for alumni for categories.
Mason (
talk) 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Remarks: This isn't probably the case of DGS, but there are women's education institutions which are having or had at some point male students, or vice versa, e.g. YWGS, SSGC, or SJA, especially when there were matriculation classes for the A-levels (SJA went on to become coeducational).
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 05:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I have seen Mason's argument before. It would be useful for the progress of the discussion if someone would provide examples of other girls' schools. I do not have an opinion myself, except let's just follow convention.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: As concerned
here and
here, the term identity is sketchy since sexual orientation isn't necessarily a sexual identity (and some argue identity is a choice compared to the term orientation). The
original category uses "by variation". Not sure if it's the best. We can reparent these categories anyways.
Also, separating transgender from marginalized sexual orientations is exclusionary, as
concerned here
Oppose Variation is not a term I’ve ever heard use by anyone referring to their orientation or identity. It sounds very inhumane and may actually be considered a form of
othering - so I do not think that that could be used to refer to people - especially since all of these categories require positive self identification of the people tagged with these categories.
The worldwide
WP:COMMONNAME use of the terms are “
sexual orientation”, "
romantic orientation" and “
gender identity” - that is what the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the scientific community use. Anything else would be strange and artificial - Wikipedia follows, not leads in definitions.
Many people have multiple gender identities and sexual and romantic orientations. All of these are part of their overall
Identity as an individual, hence "identity" is the overall root.
Raladic (
talk) 04:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Has this been notified to the LGBT project? It really needs to be. Sympathetic to some simplfication, but I'd like to hear from those more involved, who I'm sure will have views. I'm pretty sure "variation" won't fly. I notice all our
Category:Queer people seem to be female (or... not gay men anyway) which I don't think is how the term is generally used.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I came here from
WP:LGBT/Alerts, but a notice on the talk page might get more attention.--
Trystan (
talk) 13:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support alternative merge. I do like the alternative merge and grouping with sort keys. Strong Oppose to rename. "Variation"? I reallyreally do not like the term variation, and would definitely be bothered if someone referred to my sexual orientation or gender identity as variation. (I know that this is anecdotal, and just one queer person, but that's my immediate reaction to the term).
Mason (
talk) 21:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Giving this some more time post the notification of
WP:LGBT. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 03:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MikutoH: "demographic" is, like "variation", also a word that is almost never used in common language in this particular context. Why would you want to keep this category layer in the first place? Isn't it much more natural to find lesbian, transgender etc. people directly under LGBT?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I second the concern with demographic. Demographic is typicalyl used to describe a variety of groupings. If I were to see the term by demographic in the title of a wiki category, I'd assume it was looking at the intersections of nationality, race, and other broad classes of groupings. It would never occur to be that it would contain non-intersections, like Lesbian, Gay, Queer, Trans, etc.
Mason (
talk) 23:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: The only reason presented here to merge all container layers to the general category is making them all visible at it. Because merging both subcategories into "by identity" would solve the problem regarding them being separated. I'm not the only one supporting keeping it, it seems that Raladic supports status quo, and you also supported both choices suggested by Trystan, one of them supports keeping "by identity" cat and merging its subcategories.
Why am I bringing "by variation" and "by demographic" here? Because then we can move the category in simplewiki (it hasn't RfD) and change the list section title. --
MikutoHtalk! 23:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a very weak argument. Other Wikis do not have the same category structure anyway. I support Trystan's proposal to merge all three categories, but at minimum upmerge
Category:LGBT people by identity.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as constituted, but not fundamentally against other alternatives. "Variation" is absolutely not the right word for what this entails, so that's a non-starter — but just upmerging them to the parent would be fine.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. There's only one city in each of these categories, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 01:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. No need to diffuse by gender. The novelty is in the intersection of twinness and age, not their gender.
Mason (
talk) 21:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, trivial intersection with gender.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Identical twin child actors by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge or delete. This isn't helpful for navigation to carve out two abbeys that are associated with a saint
Mason (
talk) 13:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The abbeys and the saint are two different concepts. What's the issue to have different categories?
Yann (
talk) 12:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There shouldn't be two categories as this is largely a matter of
WP:SHAREDNAME. It is merely a coincidence that one of the two articles does contain some legendary information about Saint Anthony the Great.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors
Delete, if we would adopt and expand this concept (hypthetically) it would lead to overcategorization of politicians articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge new category per article name
CONAKAT. Both member pages are biographies of people who were politicians. –
FayenaticLondon 17:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, "evangelical" has a very specific meaning in American Christianity which does not apply to these Swiss people. See also
Evangelical (disambiguation).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The supposedly "very specific meaning in American Christianity" is exactly the same in most European Protestant countries and their languages, as
Evangelicalism is at pains to stress. Looking at the contents of the cat, all Calvinist church people, it does seem to apply fine. Why do you think it does not?
Johnbod (
talk) 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Evangelicalism is typified by a personal born-again experience and the term wasn't used this way before the 18th century. It is not equivalent to Calvinism, and Calvinists in mainland Europe are hardly ever calling themselves Evangelical. Lutherans in mainland Europe do call themselves Evangelical, but still not with the same connotation as in the Anglo-American tradition.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unconvinced - the English term
born again may be relatively recent, but the concept is not - see also
Evangelicalism again. Historically, the vast majority of Swiss Protestants are Calvinists (the Lutherans having been agressively chased off the patch very early on). We certainly shouldn't be treating "Evangelicals" as an exclusively English-speaking group; even for here that would be outrageous.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It does not have to be exclusively English-speaking as I suppose there are a lot of evangelical converts around the world due to the work of American (and possibly British) evangelical missionaries. But that has nothing to do with the Swiss people in this category. Again, Evangelicalism isn't synonymous to Calvinism and mainland European Calvinists do not identify as Evangelicals. The closest to Evangelicalism we had in mainland Europe is
Pietism. I agree that the word Evangelical is older than the 18th century, that is exactly why it is in the name of most Lutheran churches, but that has no relationship with the meaning of the word nowadays. The article
Evangelicalism describes how the meaning of the word has evolved.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between style, nationality, and specific kind of designer.
Mason (
talk) 01:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose re French Baroque viol players. These musicians constitute a distinct sub-genre of music and the reader who starts with e.g. Marin Marais would like to easily find other persons who belong to the same school. If Wikipedia would allow to easily search for people who belong to categories Baroque musicians AND viol players AND French musicians it might be redundant, but that's not the case, right? even if it was possible, this category is much more accessible.
Meizy (
talk) 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Stong Oppose both, and please don't mix different noms this way! What we should do is delete the ridiculous
Category:French Baroque people, and the Italian and Spanish equivalents - oh, I see you just set these up today - bad idea. We could rename along the lines of the main article,
French formal garden, but French Baroque garden style dominated Europe for over a century, & is highly defining. Unsurprisingly, all of the French viol players except for two contemporary Early Music players, are in the Baroque sub-cat, and it is useful to keep them separate. This was another speciality of the French Baroque period, which effectively ended with it. Gardeners are not normally treated as "artists", and I don't think we should start now. I can't for the life of me see why it is ok to have
Category:French Baroque painters (which it is), but not ok to have
Category:French Baroque garden designers - please explain your thinking here.
Johnbod (
talk) 03:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Johnbod First, I didn't see this as different noms, hence the bundling. 2nd, I only made the French Baroque one to match the rest that already existed. 3rd, neither of these French FOOian categories had non-nationality specific categories. There is no
Baroque garden designers or
Category:Baroque viol players. An alternative would be to create/broaden these into parent categories, which I would be fine with if there's sufficient content.
Mason (
talk) 14:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What do you mean? "you haven't answered my question on the grounds of the nom." You asked me to explain my thinking; I did explain my thinking see 1,2,3. Furthermore: the nomination says non-defining intersection. So I don't know what "grounds" you're asking for. But I did answer the question you asked.
Mason (
talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, if that's the case, then I have zero opinion on whether it should be artists or people.
Mason (
talk) 16:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category to be able the broader vocation of Jewish Polish artists (instead of being a specific kind of artist). If not broadened, the category should be renamed to Jewish Polish painters.
Mason (
talk) 05:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Marco and OCEGRS. Jews are (or were) a significant part of Polish population, but I don't think that you can consider Polish Jewish painting as a separate art movement.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, the main article of the category is
Androcide but the articles in the category aren't related to Androcide.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, that's a really weird nonsensical reason to just suddenly delete a well-populated category with 141 pages. Besides we also have
Category:Massacres of women.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 20:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of these matches actually took place outside of the Las Vegas city limits.
User:Namiba 01:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article that belongs in this category,
Monk's Café. The rest are either redirects or not actually about the fictional restaurants themselves. Easily contained within
Category:Fictional restaurants.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Purge and merge, quite a few articles are about works about coffeehouses which is something else.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here. Sole category member already in FOOian-century Panamanian singers
Mason (
talk) 16:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I think we should repurpose this category to include actresses/male actors of any nationality. Right now there's only one or two people in each, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fine with me
Mason (
talk) 14:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is the 13th-century Jurchen empire considered part of China and the peoples considered Chinese?
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 06:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not really, but which of these actors were active in the Jurchen empire?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
All of the artists who are from Quebec and/or Montreal are now appropriately categorized. Several artists are not from Quebec.--
User:Namiba 17:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining. No objection to a list if someone wants to create one. -
Eureka Lott 18:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Two articles only. One of the articles is about an entirely hypothetical motorway as indicated in the entry, the other hypothetical by and beyond the straits. Rename to hypothetical expressways of the People's Republic of China.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 12:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. The convention isn't yet defunct.
Mason (
talk) 03:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. Having an "inactive" category puts the spotlight on conventions that have lapsed. I have seen conventions before which give no official "defunct" message. The only way of telling in these cases is through a stale website. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 03:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure, that's a useful piece of information, but I don't think that counts as
WP:DEFINING.
Mason (
talk) 14:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see it as a way to make life easier for editors monitoring the convention articles. There really is no net gain by getting rid of it. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Although these were previously deleted per
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 27#Category:LGBT people from Canada by province or territory, that was a full decade ago, and thus I don't feel comfortable just speedying them without a new discussion. This is, however, still a violation of
WP:OCLOCATION -- there is no defining relationship between one's province of birth and their LGBT identity per se, but the parent category (which is already well-diffused on other criteria) doesn't need this for size control purposes either. As always, just because the United States does something does not automatically mean Canada has to match it: the US is almost ten times larger than Canada by population, and thus has at least ten times as many articles to worry about, so the existence of an "X by state" scheme does not mean Canada automatically has to imitate it with an "X by province" replication. Many of the people so categorized, further, do not possess notability claims that are all that closely tied to their province of origin:
Jann Arden and
k.d. lang and
Tegan and Sara are not notable as Albertans per se, they're notable as national or international pop stars whose birthplaces have almost nothing to do with their grounds for notability;
Betty Baxter attained her notability in British Columbia, not in Alberta;
Jeffrey Bowyer-Chapman is notable as a Hollywood actor, not as an Alberta actor; and on and so forth. These, further, were created by an editor who has a history of being a serial overcategorizer who's had a lot of things taken to CFD, and does not have any established record of being any sort of expert in what categories Canada does or doesn't need. These just don't pass the tests that would justify this scheme: the intersection of these people's province of birth with their LGBTness isn't defining in and of itself, but the parent category is already so well-diffused that it doesn't need this for size control either.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle. But, because non of the categories are tagged with non-diffusion, we'll need to ensure that these people are in the relevant parents. Thus they should be selectively merged into Category:People from FOOian province and a relevant Category:Canadian LGBT people child category.
Mason (
talk) 03:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No need to have a category with a single event.
Mason (
talk) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It's not just this category. There are parent categories that just hold this category. Kind of like a house of cards. LizRead!Talk! 03:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary level of intermediary categorization between a category and its natural parent. As I've noted more than once in other past CFD discussions, "British North America" was never a polity in its own right -- it was just a collective geographic term for all of Britain's colonies in North America, but each of those colonies was its own standalone thing and there was never any overarching entity called "British North America" that they were all subordinate parts of. That is, it was not like "England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom" or "Massachusetts + New York + New Jersey + California + Wyoming + 45 other US states = United States", it was always like "Thailand + Vietnam + Laos + Cambodia + Burma = Indochina" or "Jamaica + Haiti + Montserrat + St. Kitts + the Bahamas + Puerto Rico + Cuba = Caribbean". An umbrella term for multiple separate things in a region, not a "parent" term for subordinate parts of a unified thing. There is exactly no point in history at which it was ever incorrect in any way to refer to a resident of Toronto or Montreal as "Canadian", or correct in any way to refer to them as "British North American" instead, because that simply isn't how those terms worked: Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Jamaica, et al were always each their own things, and "British North America" was just an umbrella term, and was never the nationality of any Canadian, New Brunswicker, Nova Scotian, Newfoundlander or Jamaican in any sense. Of about 80 people in here when I found it, every last manjack one was directly recattable as
Category:Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United States or one of its subcategories -- so that category can just directly stand as its own direct subcategory of the merge target, without needing this as an intermediary, because "British North America" never existed as an intermediary thing between "pre-Confederation Canada" and "British Empire".
Bearcat (
talk) 01:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, and the dozens of CFDs that have been surrounding this point.
Mason (
talk) 01:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. BNA is a defined collection of polities, not whatever in North America that were British. Nominators' rationale is wrong by itself.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 10:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale is not wrong, and nominator is incidentally highly knowledgeable on the subject of Canadian history. Upper Canada, Lower Canada and the united Province of Canada each had their own legislative assemblies, New Brunswick had its own legislative assembly, Nova Scotia had its own legislative assembly, Newfoundland had its own legislative assembly, and on and so forth — but never was there ever any such thing as the "Legislative Assembly of British North America" at all. Each colony had its own direct one-on-one relationship with the motherland, and there was never any overarching "British North America" layer of government between them.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, I would not object to renaming the subcategory to British North America, but that would require a different discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, this is an extremely narrow cat. Only one event is in this entire tree. So I'm proposing deleting the parent cats at the same time.
Mason (
talk) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The same category creator created 15 separate categories for one article on a military documentary film. And I could never track down what article that was because the categories were all empty except for containing other empty child categories. They are now all CSD C1'd. LizRead!Talk! 03:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. Vaguely defined. This category has considerable overlap with Category:Civilians killed in the Israel–Hamas war
Mason (
talk) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, we do not have any other "attacks on civilians" categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Ōigawa Railway Ikawa Line is a branch line.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, overlaps with
Category:Synagogues by year of completion. In contrast to what the parent category suggests, the content is not about a particular architecturale style.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one person in this category. (The person is already in Puerto Rican music educators, so only one target is needed)
Mason (
talk) 21:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Merge instead to Luthiers and Puerto Rican musicians/artisans. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It isn't part of the 50 states and the DC or an incorporated territory.
121.202.202.197 (
talk) 12:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The subject of the article lived in mainland United States while he was a luthier so merging to
Category:American luthiers is entirely justifiable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Small category for an overly narrow intersection of characteristics. There's no defining relationship between civil service and being from Winnipeg per se, so the only basis for this would be if the parent category needed diffusion on size grounds -- but with only three people here and only four in the parent, that hasn't been established. (Upmerging to
Category:People from Winnipeg not needed, as all three people here are already in other subcategories of that as it is.)
Bearcat (
talk) 20:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I also have mixed feelings about "in France"
Mason (
talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What about, say, Hawaii or Alaska? (Or Malta should integration be achieved back in the 1950s–60s?)
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep so that it may be grouped under an African parent category when there are also such by continent parents.
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Other than
Asian Americans in music, all the articles here are people. Current title could infer types of music specifically made by Asian Americans, and I'm not sure any such genre exists. Couldn't really think of anything else that would go in here other than more people. Adding the hyphen as
C2C with the rest of
Category:Asian-American culture.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per Mason, the category only contains articles about people, not about any particular genre.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I also support this merger. Probably should've thought of it first.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 14:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is an extremely problematic category, under
WP:EGRS. We do not need an intersection of sexual orientation and crime. Similar categories have been deleted at the intersection of crime and race.
Mason (
talk) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one church in each of these categories, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 14:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose in the cases of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. Dependent territory categories don't get under the categories of the sovereign powers this way. The nominator gotta read more to make responsible nominations.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Maliseet is becoming more of an outdated name for the peoples; Wolastoqiyik is its official name and is becoming more & preferably used including by the area's governments:
New Brunswick,
Quebec, and
Maine. Wolastoqiyik is also preferred by the
Canadian Encyclopedia,
Dartmouth,
CBC, etc. Additionally, my move discussion for the main article under this topic (formerly 'Maliseet') to 'Wolastoqiyik' received unanimous support and was successfully moved, so it makes sense to move the relevant categories as well. This discussion also includes
Category:Maliseet people.
B3251 (
talk) 14:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support To match the recently-moved main article.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one continent in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 13:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Guayana Esequiba is not an administrative division of Guyana and shouldn't be categorized as if it is. It is the Venezuelan name of the area that is disputed by Venezuela.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Guayana Esequiba one of the geographical areas of the
Guianas, like it is the case with the
British,
French and
Dutch Guianas. It can be compared to the
Patagonia or the
Rocky Mountains, they don't have to be limited by administrative dvisions.The categories currently has articles about its flora and fauna. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 11:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The comparison with
Patagonia does not hold because the name Patagonia is used in the country itself and in many other countries. In contrast, Guayana Esequiba is only used in Venezuela. It is a matter of NPOV.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not used only by Venezuela. It's just the Spanish name for the region. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Whether or not it is a region at all is a matter of POV.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, irredentist claim rather than a useful category tree. Looked to see if we had a similar one for Taiwan Province or Tskhinvali Region and we do not seem to.
CMD (
talk) 12:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: There is indeed a Taiwan Province on parts of the island of Taiwan and the islands of Pescadores, which don't cover Taipei since 1967 and Kaohsiung since 1979. It still exists on paper even after it was streamlined.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding plants and animals into a category about a terroritorial dispute doesn't make much sense. The category is about a geographical region. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That is exactly why I said "related material". If necessary, Category:Fauna of Guyana, Category:Fauna of the Guianas, Category:Flora of Guyana and Category:Flora of The Guianas can be used. As explained above and in the linked move discussion, "Guayana Esequiba" is a term promoted by Venezuela.
WMrapids (
talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks football games
oppose this is part of a 191 member category tree. Eliminating just this one would hurt naviagation.--
User:Namiba 18:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It is 191 subcategories and 5 articles to be precise. A dual merge would make that 190 subcategories and 6 articles. I can't see how that hurts navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
None of the 5 are about an individual game.--
User:Namiba 13:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Clearer and less ambiguous, the
category:Palestinian people encompasses all individuals of
Palestinian ethnicity. This name, "Palestinian people by descent," might be interpreted as including those individuals of Palestinian ethnicity whose ancestors were of a different ethnicity or nationality. However, this category actually comprises people from the State of Palestine, categorized by their descent.The term 'Palestinian' may also refer to people from the
Palestine (region) or those from Mandatory Palestine, which are similarly
categorized by descent.
Stisorder (
talk) 20:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This rename changes the scope of the category for the worse, IMO. These people are Palestinians, period.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 10:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose many of the people in these categories are not from the State of Palestine. It goes without saying that Palestinians have been a largely refugee and diasporic people since 1948. If we remove those who are not from the State of Palestine, we would be essentially erasing their Palestinian heritage.--
User:Namiba 17:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I briefly looked through these categories and didn't find anyone not from the State of Palestine. --
Yorkporter (
talk) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Note: I was pinged. We only categorise people based on their descent if it is known and relevant; this may differ from their citizenship (or subject-hood) or nationality. There have been endless discussions about when it is "relevant", which need not be repeated here. Suffice to say that ethnicity and descent tend to be a lot more controversial than someone's legal affinity to a jurisdiction (unless the status of that jurisdiction is disputed).
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as this changes the scope. People with a defining link to Palestine in other eras also deserve to be called Palestinian. This includes for instance people at the time of the British Mandate, and not just the Arabs.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That was just an example. The State of Palestine was declared in 2013 IIRC. There were Palestinian people before then.
Place Clichy (
talk) 22:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I also wanted to add that
Category:Palestinian people of Israeli descent is absolutely the wrong way of framing it. The Arab Palestinian population within the state of Israel are largely self-defined as Palestinian. An Arab citizen of Israel who represents the Palestinian national football team is Palestinian, not of Israeli descent. So this category should be deleted, period.--
User:Namiba 18:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all. Does Palestine overlap entirely and congruently with the State of Palestine?
203.186.171.150 (
talk) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
User:Namiba and
User:Place Clichy's rationale and examples. There are many Palestinians who were not born within the current borders of the State of Palestine. These things are not always clear cut, especially in this case. –
Starklinson 05:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
They should be in the same tree. It is absurd to exclude bishops in Denmark from
Category:Danish people by occupation while nobody has an issue with e.g. adding
Dyveke Sigbritsdatter to the tree of Danish people while she grew up in Norway and had Dutch parents.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to diffuse this medical specialty by nationality to this degree. Each of these noms have one or two people in them
Mason (
talk) 22:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that the Canadian category is big enough with 6, but I'd be fine with adding Irish
Mason (
talk) 12:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will support merging the Irish category too if it is going to be added to the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Part of an established category tree. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a circular argument. After the merge very little of the tree will be left.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional categories were added to the nomination, relisting to allow time for discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The entire categorisation scheme of Wikipedia consists of occupation by nationality categories, many with few members. The other issue I see is then having say British and American geriatricians in subcategories but having a large category of geriatricians not divided by nationality. I'm not sure that assists in navigation, either.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The current name isn't very helpful (not that mine is much better. But I'm trying to contrast
Category:Modern cryptographers). I would love better suggestions.
Mason (
talk) 04:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is a redundant layer that's unhelpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, and monarchs aren't politicians anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename Indian to South Asian to avoid ambiguity.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That would require a separate nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category with only one person in it, isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 00:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to diffuse women writers yet, with only one poet in here.
Mason (
talk) 00:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to have categories by year when there's only one year in this entire century. It's not helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 23:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Stub category for a genus with a single species. Too small a category to be useful
Plantdrew (
talk) 22:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Stub template for a genus with a single species. Too small a category to be warranted
Plantdrew (
talk) 22:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmgerge for now. There's no need to have just one (or two) politicians in these categories.
Mason (
talk) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle per nom, but only merge to
Category:Exiled politicians because the articles are already in a subcategory of the other target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Languages officially written in Indic scripts
Nominator's rationale: The scripts are mostly not so much official as just conventional, and I don't think the distinction is particularly useful.
PepperBeast(talk) 17:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: (Or maybe "Aphex Twin compositions".) Strictly speaking, songs contain singing. Aphex Twin tracks have no singing, or no singing in the traditional sense. For example, it is not really accurate to describe
Avril 14, a piano instrumental, as a "song".
Popcornfud (
talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean oppose. Don't other categories have non-singing songs in them? I don't think it's helpful for navigation to make the distinction between songs that contain vocal tracks and those that do not.
Mason (
talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just for clarity, I'm not proposing we create separate tracks for vocal and instrumental Aphex Twin tracks, just keeping a single category and renaming it. (There are very few, if any, Aphex Twins that could really be called "songs" in my view, and I also suspect the habit of calling non-vocal tracks "songs" tends to be an Americanism, but that's probably by the by.)
Popcornfud (
talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. But the parent category is
Academics by university or college in England. Staff has a *very* different meaning. From looking at the contents, these people are academics. If anything, I think that other categories should be renamed to reflect that these folks are academic staff/faculty.
Mason (
talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not all of the princes and princesses included in this list are children of the sultan, some are grandchildren.
Векочел (
talk) 14:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. It is also a redudant category layer with only two subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The fact that you mentioned is good reason to keep the category, it should be used for specifically children of Sultans, illegitimate ones too.
★Trekker (
talk) 18:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No, per
WP:OVERLAPCAT, it would largely overlap with the existing princes and princesses categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article each; merge, for now, with parent category.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The primary category tree for these articles is the ice hockey people tree and American Ice hockey people by state. Merging to the generic sportspeople category would remove the articles from the more important category tree.
DJSasso (
talk) 01:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The two category trees serve different purposes. The American ice hockey players is based on their international playing status/nationality. The other tree is based on where they are born. They portray two different sets of information which yes most often overlaps but doesn't always. -
DJSasso (
talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Part of the broader hierarchy.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 11:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The primary category tree for these articles is the ice hockey people tree and American Ice hockey people by state. Merging to the generic sportspeople category would remove the articles from the more important category tree.
DJSasso (
talk) 01:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The two category trees serve different purposes. The American ice hockey players is based on their international playing status/nationality. The other tree is based on where they are born. They portray two different sets of information which yes most often overlaps but doesn't always. -
DJSasso (
talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just two century subcategories can sit perfectly well in
Category:Moroccan educators, it does not help here to have an extra category layer. 09:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marcocapelle (
talk •
contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now there's only one or two people in these categories, which is unhelpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 01:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 13:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. There's only two generals in here, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 13:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article move. Article's name is now 2023 Al Haouz earthquake. Main category is nominated below.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 12:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article move. Article's name is now 2023 Al Haouz earthquake.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, redundant category layer, there is nothing in the category but the main article and the above subcategory. If kept it is a simple matter of
WP:C2D.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, only two articles and they are not really about the clan. The two articles are also directly connected in
Category:Historic Sites of Japan.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Indian independence activists from Bangladesh
Nominator's rationale:merge, Bangladesh did not exist for a long time after these people were independence activists and West Bengal at least not before the independence of India.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Question: What about maintaining separate categories for East and West Bengals?
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Please read the nomination rationale, it is anachronistic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 23:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename per article
New France. I have not listed this at
speedy in case I might oversee something.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I have added a couple of new articles to both categories. The number of pages is now similar to that of the 19th-century category, which wasn't listed for deletion, so I assume that is enough. But a few more articles will follow within the next couple of days.
Ramblersen2 (
talk) 12:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Now keep the 18th century but delete the 21st century. The latter consists of articles about people who were mainly active in the 20th century, per
WP:OVERLAPCAT.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I have now added four new biographies and weeded out a couple of the oldest people who did not seem to ghave been very active after the turn of the century. The four new biographies are all about people who are either still active or have been so until fairly recently.
Ramblersen2 (
talk) 11:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This seems anachronistic. These forts were not "in the United States" when they were built and only became so later on.
User:Namiba 02:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment if these forts still existed at the time Canada was established, then the category is correct. And there was also the colony of
Canada, New France and colony of
United Canadas, British North America --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment if these forts still existed at the time that the USA took over the territory, then they are correct. Such as many forts acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Or any ruins/museums that still exist today --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not only a proposed renaming but also an extension of scope; forts in New France that were not in provinces which became the United States will be covered as a result.
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
dual merge also to Category:College football seasons – Huh? Why the heck would we want to merge a mere two of 30,000+ college football season articles to create a brand-new category called "College football seasons" – that makes absolutely zero sense.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It can be populated with many more articles when all subcategories with one or two articles are merged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That still makes no sense. If I wanted to find seasons of this team, I would look up "Dallas Hilltoppers football seasons", not a broad "College football seasons" category that has the potential for hundreds of thousands of entries! Not to mention such a category would be missing tens of thousands of articles for programs which have more than a few seasons with articles. It just doesn't make sense.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose upmerging to the Chinese categories. Items of dependent territories don't get categorised to categories for the metropolitan.
185.104.63.112 (
talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would not object to upmerging to the Chinese categories. Hong Kong has become part of China even if it has a bit of autonomy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This isn't relevant. There are dependencies which are possessions of different sovereign nations and got little or no autonomy.
188.211.233.131 (
talk) 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree. What matters is the fact that Hong Kong is now part of China.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No it isn't part of that in the same way like provinces or province-level municipalities. It's just like Curaçao and Sint Maarten that are not part of the Netherlands in the same manner as Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba are.
46.229.243.187 (
talk) 08:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Curaçao is not part of the Netherlands at all. Hong Kong is part of China.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As an IP user you can vote as many times as you want but don't expect this will be taken seriously by the closer of the discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Major League Baseball players with one career hit
How is it defining? This seems very arbitrary to me. Why not two career hits?
Mason (
talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Letsrun. One hit only players are talked about in media, two not so much. -
DJSasso (
talk) 14:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Trivia is often discussed in the media.
WP:CATDEF says "The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place." Does the fact that a player managed only a single career hit rise to this level?--
User:Namiba 15:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply