The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that doesn't fit into any existing category trees. Though it is unclear to me at what point a campaign becomes a movement (or visa versa) I would argue it's better to categorise these articles in the existing category frameworks at the moment.
Sionk (
talk) 10:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
If split, we would rather need to split by political versus non-political.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
There is the top category
Category:Campaigning ...though aren't most campaigns political in some way?
Sionk (
talk) 09:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
All sensible proposals.
Titus Gold (
talk) 12:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 07:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sionk and
Titus Gold: the discussion will probably be closed as no consensus if you do not clearly agree on a best solution.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
That will leave a mess. The category was created because TitusGold had created a number of "Campaign for... " articles, which are currently in the process of being deleted, merged or re-named.
Sionk (
talk) 17:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Perhaps splitting to "Category:Political movements in Wales and "Category:Cultural movements in Wales" could be an option?
Titus Gold (
talk) 17:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The former is already categoried under "Political movements" without any concerns. As for the latter two, we don't categorise sections of articles. "Cultural movements in Wales" would be a big no-no because it falls into the same trap as the current category under discussion, not fitting into any exisiting category trees (and being so vague as to be difficult to define).
Sionk (
talk) 22:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support proposed split. Sorry I have not said anything earlier but I have been on the fence on this one. Taxonomies are hard, and I am no expert in these discussions, but it seems to me that the rationale for putting all political campaigns in proposed existing categories makes sense. We don't categorise article sections and it is not clear what benefit the reader gets from having a category that would have a campaign for the WRU to change their logo in the midst of all the political campaigns anyway (although as soon as it becomes a nationalist campaign, it clearly is political and thus can go in the political categories anyway).
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 07:15, 29 September 2022 (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.
Moorish people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge,
Moors is an outdated and ambiguous term. Most of the articles are already in more specific subcategories, e.g. for Al-Andalus, Morocco and Ifriqiya.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion until all articles are distributed to appropriate "national" subcategories. Moors refers to people from the Muslim West, as opposed to those of the Middle East, or Persia or India. Until these are all containerised, this nom destroys detail.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The nom already says the large majority of articles has been distributed to appropriate "national" subcategories so this reason to oppose does not quite make sense. By the way,
Muslim West or anything like that never existed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. 'Moors' is outdated, vague, and a catch-all
exonym used by Europeans to describe North African Muslims, without any further distinction. An Andalusi Arab 'Moor' is a completely different thing to a berber 'Moor' from what is now Algeria. It would be like grouping all Catholic or Protestant Europeans as '
Franks'.
Constantine ✍ 11:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not to mention that 'Moors' in older works can also be pre-Islamic Berbers (e.g. the 'Moorish Wars' of Justinian's time). Not a useful term for an encyclopedia.
Constantine ✍ 11:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 07:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 27 September 2022 (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.
Municipality categories in Ukraine
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, we normally do not have a municipality category when there is already a town category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 07:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
They are similar. There are no 'municipalities' in England.
Privybst (
talk) 12:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Exactly, there aren't any, so the analogy does not make sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:38, 29 September 2022 (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:Pretenders to the Lithuanian throne
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "pretender" to the Lithuanian throne. A
pretender is someone who claims to be the rightful ruler of a country although not recognized as such by the current government. None of these people ever claimed to be rulers of Lithuania. The whole episode stems from the attempt to establish
Kingdom of Lithuania (1918). A king was selected, but never crowned or assumed the position. After a few months everyone very amicably split up with no further claims being made by
Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach or his successors. Only media once in a while rediscovers the story and stokes fantasies.
Renata•
3 19:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Putting aside dukes of Urach, shouldn't figures such as
Alexis of Russia be included in the category? He claimed to be a Grand Duke of Lithuania
Marcelus (
talk) 12:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Marcelus: That actually would be far more historically accurate. Unfortunately, I don't know much about other such claims from the period of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Renata•
3 01:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Looking at other categories about pretenders, it seems they contain mostly representatives of deposed dynasties, like Carlist leaders in Spain; or persons who had some support within a country but failed to achieve the actual rule. And Alexis was just claimant, but
Maximilian III, Archduke of Austria would be perfect for example. Nonetheless I think that category should stand, but without Urachs, he as you said never were pretends, with exception of Wilhelm
Marcelus (
talk) 12:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment, if this is the case the five articles should be edited to downplay the pretendership.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Attempted to downplay in the articles, but got reverted. Discussing the issue on my talk page with the user.
Renata•
3 01:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 07:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Convert to cat-redirect -- Essentially this is identical to
Category:Dukes of Urach. This does not refer to claimants to the ancient Jagellian crown, but to a throne that might have been created in 1918 following the
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Duke of Urach was elected king by the Lithuanian council, but he never took office due to opposition of the German Kaiser. The appropriate course is to add a short note as to this to the headnote of "Dukes of Urach" to the effect that Dukes since 1918 are claimants (pretenders) to a potential Lithuanian throne.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Peterkington. —
Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 5 October 2022 (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:Recorded music characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: First, the current name is unclear and invented for and used only for Wikipedia. I don't think anyone can figure out what this category is for without checking the definition ("Fictional characters invented for recorded music."). Since conceptually we have category for fictional characters by medium they debuted in (comic book characters, etc.), I guess the existence of this category is ok, but we need to use a proper descriptive name here instead of this Wikipedia-unique term. Which would be
Category:Fictional characters invented for recorded music. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 12:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 27 September 2022 (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:Non-sovereign countries with multiple official languages