The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I think that "Steven Spielberg family" might be the better choice, just because there may be other notable Spielbergs who aren't his close relatives. The title is still concise and not that persnickety, IMO.
P Aculeius (
talk) 12:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rulers of Bithynia
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: Best general description of all people in the cat and its main article
List of rulers of Bithynia (where
List of kings of Bithynia redirects). I've spent a lot of time today trying to figure this out. Although a lot of literature suggests that
Zipoetes I of Bithynia was the first to assume the title of basileus ("king") in 297 BCE, I've found that not to be true. In literature and primary sources, the hereditary guys in power in ancient Bithynia are referred to as "prince", "chieftain", "ruler", "king", "eparch", "basileus", or something to do with "kratein", "archein" or "arkhe"; lots of different ways of saying that it was a monarchy or kingdom. The article
Kingdom of Bithynia goes for the latter, obviously, although
List of rulers of Bithynia is in
Category:Lists of monarchs, so it's difficult to make a
WP:C2B or
WP:C2D argument. In the end, "dynasts" is entirely
WP:OR, "rulers" is not
WP:PRECISE enough, and I don't care whether it becomes "kings" or "monarchs", as long as we fix the current situation to something better. (I went for "monarch" rather than "king" because it is the lowest common denominator of all terms mentioned, but a case can be made for labelling them all "kings" anyway). Whatever the outcome, it may also determine the future title of
Kingdom of Bithynia and
List of rulers of Bithynia. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 21:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Dynasts is a common term in secondary scholarship for the rulers of small states in Hellenistic Asia Minor, who don't have clear titles, like the early Bithynian rulers, but it is a small category and always will be, so it should go. Merge toCategory:Monarchs of Bithynia, since, as you say, it's not totally clear that the early ones were "basileis / kings." (The article should remain
Kingdom of Bithynia, because that's the common name, even if it's not strictly accurate for the earliest period).
Furius (
talk) 22:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that explanation and for your support.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 23:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, with thanks for the concise rationale after research. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 10:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Egalitarian communitities
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Land reform in Estonia
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1-2 entry. Very few potential to grow.
Estopedist1 (
talk) 20:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Emigrants from Portuguese India to Briitsh Ceylon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Transracial activists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete — none of the members
WP:V self-identifies as "transracial", this is somebody else's characterization. South Korean is not a "race". A person of color identifying as "black" is not a change of "race". Heck, a white person who pigments their skin does not become a different "race". This is just a superficial pile of garbage. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 09:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per William Allen Simpson, and transracial appears to be a too controversial term that we should not apply to biographies unless they explicitly identify as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Transracial 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.
In the articles it does not become quite clear that subjects explicitly identify as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — none of the members
WP:V self-identifies as "transracial", this is somebody else's characterization. South Korean is not a "race". A person of color identifying as "black" is not a change of "race". Heck, a white person who pigments their skin does not become a different "race". This is just a superficial pile of garbage. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 09:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per William Allen Simpson, and transracial appears to be a too controversial term that we should not apply to biographies unless they explicitly identify as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional females
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.
Category:American Girl was new to me. Clearly doesn't belong in the category, especially as it includes "eight- to fourteen-year-old boys".
Category:Disney Princess characters are all women. None of them are prepubescent. Most of them "live happily ever after" with a husband obtained during her adventure.
Category:My Little Pony characters clearly doesn't belong in the category, especially as these are equine of various kinds, and includes a significant number of males (and bearded males).
Category:Sailor Soldiers was new to me. None of them are prepubescent. A quick glance at the articles says they are late teens and college aged, originally based upon the author's college wardrobe. For some odd reason they have 2-years-old sized eyes in 6-years-old faces, but are busty, wasp waisted, with extremely short skirts. The taller one has a longer skirt and longer hair that somehow indicates she is a
a tough or delinquent girl.
Category:Magical girl characters should be women, but inexplicably include teenage males. None of them are prepubescent. Most of the articles are rather on the busty side, althought that could just be the preference of the predominent editors. "
Magical girl" and "
Manic Pixie Dream Girl" are well worn tropes, but they aren't necessarily young.
Disney Princesses start at 14 years of age (Snow White), and the mode is 16.
Screenrant says it's "alarming that most of Disney's female leads get married and have to rule kingdoms while they're still minors. It can be scandalous to learn that these characters were getting married as young as 14 years old".
List of mainline My Little Pony ponies lists 87 as female and only 26 male, so the predominance is clear. The present categorisation in Fictional females therefore seems justified, but would be lost if renaming to Fictional women.
Sailor Soldiers' main article
Sailor Moon says it's about the adventures of a schoolgirl, and she is depicted in school uniform. The plot summary in
List of Sailor Moon chapters begins with "A lazy 14-year-old girl named Usagi Tsukino…". Even though she and the other main characters have alternate military identities, they are girls.
All these categories belong in Fictional females, but would be excluded if this whole hierarchy from the top down is renamed to Fictional women. –
FayenaticLondon 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"These are plural "
Women" categories, not singular. The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "
women's rights" to denote female humans regardless of age.
Then American Girl should be excluded on both age and sex. Likewise, My Little Pony ponies. These are
Category:Fictional children. Isn't there a guideline against sexing children?
Sometimes I'm surprised at legal differences across the pond. We call them "young women". (A classic book is Little Women.) There are still
several states with no lower limit on the age of consent, where statutory rape can be voided by marriage.
The Little Mermaid was 15 in the Danish original. Original
Pocahontas was 10-12 on her first marriage and 16 on her second marriage; changed to 18 in the film because a thirty year-old Smith falls in love with a child would be "sleazy". But half his age is just standard Hollywood casting. All are marriagable women at the time.
Japanse school uniforms do not have bare midriffs and skirts are not above the knee. There are no pastel skirts or garish colored plaid pants. Originally based upon the author's fashion forward college wardrobe. That original characters were down-aged from age "18 in Season 1 of the anime" to 14 is just more infantilizing of women.
Etc. If you insist that these are children, despite wearing skimpy sexualized clothing usually associated with adults, then I'd certainly agree they should be excluded to
Category:Fictional children. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Checked a Sailor series on Netflix. Unwatchable. Utterly racist and sexist. They didn't just down-age the characters, they down-aged their voices. Actors in falsetto as children, perhaps age 4-6 matching age 4-6 faces, despite the fair skinned title characters have tits and asses, with wavy northern european color (blond, brunette, reddish) hair and blue eyes. Bad guys are voiced as adults, with darker skin, hair, and eyes. So split those mentioned above (other than Disney princesses) to
Category:Fictional children subcategories as appropriate. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Maybe split to Fictional women, to contain Fictional women by occupation, Fictional Jewish women, Fictional first ladies etc. That would then belong fully within
Category:Women in art. But I consider that Fictional females is a valid subcat already, as most of the content is women. –
FayenaticLondon 09:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
"Women in fiction" sounds as a topic category, while this is primarily a set category for fictional characters.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, you're right, I stand corrected. I suppose the whole argument is about age then. I'll leave this CfR here because I don't really have anything to add about that semantic discussion.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 04:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Bad examples. Goldilocks was originally an old woman, so being a girl isn't at all defining. Heck, in some illustrations Goldilocks is just a boy with long hair typical of the period. (Also the 3 bears were originally 3 bachelors.) Moreover, would the latter story be any different as the "little match boy"? Not defining at all. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 09:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
If the rename would have the consequence that female humanoid characters (humanoid aliens, goddesses, angels) are removed I would oppose too, but I think these can just as well stay in a Women category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
User:Dimadick and
User:Fayenatic london, who are absolutely correct. Having the appearance of being female or having female characteristics, does not make the character a human woman. In addition, to address another concern from above, splitting between "woman" and "girl" is a subjective determination at best. And really would just be
WP:OR. I think it's fair to say that most fiction does not discuss questions of "
age of consent", or of when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Noting that this is not consistent even in US states or countries of the world in real life, much less in fiction. See also
Child#Biological,_legal_and_social_definitions. I respect the nominator's well-meant intentions, but in this case, this is just a bad idea. - jc37 02:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lithuanian pacifists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom, only a limited set of nationalities is represented in this tree, and multiple siblings may be nominated for merger too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Compilations of biographies about artists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose This is not how RS describe them, and I think would be highly misleading for the reader as they are mostly historical, and stop at eg 400 years ago, and sometimes cover only a generation or two. Many of them cover only 100-200 artists, or fewer, and rely heavily on the personal experiences of the author, who knew the artists concerned. Only one, the
Benezit Dictionary of Artists is what I would call a biographical dictionary and has been kept updated.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per WAS. As mentioned, it is not essential that they are limited in scope, or not kept up to date.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Biographies by subject
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support the first. In its current state,
Category:Biographies by subject is not diffused by subject at all, the proposed "by occupation" describes much better how it is organized (with few exceptions as mentioned by nom). Neutral about the third, I guess topic and occupation are both fine.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: I do not think it is necessary to disambiguate the whole of the biographies hierarchy like that, e.g. "Category:American biographies (books)". I admit that I just removed films & plays categories from
Category:Biographies about actors, necessitating the new parent
Category:Biographical works about actors, but I haven't seen any other cases of non-book media within the biographies tree. In any case, can we merge these for now, and consider possible renaming separately? –
FayenaticLondon 22:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: then maybe I misunderstand, but to me it seems with your second nomination you are proposing a rename, rather than a merge.
Category:Biographies by subject will supposedly first be emptied (which I totally agree with) and then be populated with everything that is currently in
Category:Biographies (books) by subject. That is practically speaking a rename of the latter to the former, no?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
In terms of CFD bot processing, you are right, it would be easy to nominate and process the first and second lines as renames, with only a little cleanup afterwards. I had assumed that
Category:Biographies by subject was intended to mean "by person" rather than "by topic", and had been diffused to subcats later, in which case I thought it would be better to leave the old page history at its present name. However, now I think my assumption was wrong – the page was put into a "by topic" parent straight away. So it should be moved to "by occupation". That means your new category can be renamed or kept instead of merged. I would not object to keeping it at its current name
Category:Biographies (books) by subject, and making a new disambiguation page at
Category:Biographies by subject. –
FayenaticLondon 08:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Then let's keep the second category for now.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While we are discussing these categories anyway, I am also completely fine with changing the clunky "biographies (books)" and "biographies" (if meant as books) to "biographical books" as suggested by WAS. This applies both to the first- and second-nominated category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I have added that one to the nomination. Note: I still don't think it would be necessary to rename all the subcats, e.g. by country. –
FayenaticLondon 10:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Since we appear to have agreement on a new
Category:Biographical dictionaries by occupation, I've performed the split as an exemplar. Did I miss any? That leaves the question of keeping "by topic", or manually merging it elsewhere. I'm in favor of keep, as described above. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
"By subject" in biographies should now be used consistently with the meaning sub-catted by person. The category was created meaning by topic, which was implemented mainly as by occupation. It is therefore appropriate to retain the old page history by moving it to the new name
Category:Biographical dictionaries by occupation. As for the residual contents currently in the old category, there is not sufficient distinction from the parent
Category:Biographical dictionaries to justify keeping it. –
FayenaticLondon 21:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree that "by subject" for a biography means "by person". Disagree that "by topic" meant "by occupation". Current topics are religion and women. Hard to say what was in the categories in 2005 and 2007 respectively, but currently there are still a lot of "by occupation" in the parent. That's why I'd put the new
Category:Biographical dictionaries by occupation directly under parent
Category:Biographical dictionaries. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 02:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I can't see any justification for keeping the six articles in
Category:Biographical dictionaries by topic rather than the parent; and moving them out would leave the two sub-cats (religion and women) as the only contents, not useful enough for navigation. –
FayenaticLondon 13:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
That's the value of doing the split par exempli gratia. There are quite a few topics in the parent. My preference would be to split the parent further, moving more topics into "by topic" and more occupations into "by occupation". William Allen Simpson (
talk) 17:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Doesn't every biographical dictionary have a topic? What would you leave in the parent category? –
FayenaticLondon 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Having given the parent a once over looking for more by occupation, I see a lot of by country. Also, some in by topic that belong by country. There are several more that belong in by topic such as religion and women. Hard to tell what the non-english ones cover. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I've purged the rest of by topic articles, there's only 1 remaining. So now I agree with you. Upmerge away! I'll update my earlier alternatives. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 18:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I think royalty and nobility are commonly categorised as occupations because that is useful and close enough. The same usually goes for religious figures. But the remaining sub-cats by ethnicity, sexuality and political tendency (anarchism) are non-occupational topics, so in this case it may be justified to keep the separate intermediate "by topic" category.
Merging "books about X" and "biographies about X" is beyond the scope of this nomination, but in some cases "books" may include novels and speculative works as opposed to bios. –
FayenaticLondon 21:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaving "Books about X" and "Biographies about X" for manual merges later.
Update — I've modified my earlier proposals, as
Fayenatic london and I have come into agreement. Also, Support the March 18th additions. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 18:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
As for biographies by subject/topic,
Marcocapelle counted anarchists as an occupation,
[1] leaving only African-American and LGBT within
Category:Biographies by subject (ignoring
this). Surely that now makes "Biographical books by topic" not worth having. Like the dictionaries category, the contents should be moved up, and the page moved over the new
Category:Biographical books by occupation. –
FayenaticLondon 12:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I've marked the "upmerge" as done, my next line has the rename/move "to save history'". Please do that!
Marcocapelle is wrong,
anarchist is not an occupation, any more than "libertarian" or "democratic socialist". Emma Goldman made her living as a writer. She was jailed for distributing pamphlets about birth control and being against the draft (which for some people was anarchy), but we have more accurate terms today (feminist, conscientious objector).
To that end, we need more topics, not fewer. Seeing
Noam Chomsky in the anarchists subcategory, when he is a self-described
libertarian socialist, tells me there are probably many that could be better categorized.
OK, I've done the move. This CFD is progressing in a rather irregular manner, but it is doing so by consensus, and at least the closer won't have to bother about the parts that we are finishing here.
As for the category "by topic" (now including anarchists again), should it still be "Biographies by topic" as you proposed above, or "Biographical books by topic" to match the renaming of the parent? –
FayenaticLondon 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks. That's a good idea, these are all books, we hadn't nominated that at the beginning. Personally, this interplay of discussion arriving gradually at consensus is really great, instead of mere !vote counting. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 00:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sex worker organisations in Finland
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.
Fair enough.
The Red Thread (De Rode Draad) is not exactly a trade union, but it is not unreasonable to put it there anyway, it comes close enough and is more specific than business organizations.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I generally agree with the description of these organisations as trade unions (or labour unions), and would be inclined to say they are trade unions by definition, although currently they are categorised differently.
Category:Sex worker organizations is currently in
Category:Workers' rights organizations, which in turn is a child of
Category:Labor-related organizations and a sibling of
Category:Trade unions. The categories also refer to each other, but
Category:Workers' rights organizations states a distinction: Workers' rights organizations are organizations, other than trade unions, which promote workers' rights. Examples include legal rights organizations that sue to enforce labor laws, and human rights organizations that work to expose violations of workers' rights. By contrast,
Category:Trade unions states: Trade or labor unions are unions formed around professional, occupational, trade, and labor activities. I reckon that means the organisations listed under
List of sex worker organizations#Supportive are not trade unions, because they are not (primarily) run by (former) sex workers, but they are definitely workers' rights organisations. Pretty much all sex worker organisations primarily run by (former) sex workers are de facto both trade unions and workers' rights organisations, because they are engaged in the trade but also advocate workers' rights because of all the legal restrictions their trade faces in pretty much all jurisdictions. It seems to me that this calls for categorisation on a base-by-case basis. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
For consistency we should then rename all subcats. However, when all subcats would be nominated I would advocate merging instead of renaming because the whole tree is very small.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough.
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't say when a category is too small, nor do I know whether there are guidelines on when categories are recommended to be split up into subcategories for size reasons. Personally I would think the threshold to be somewhere about 5 items at least (which means all current subcats except the UK and US would be merged into the parent), but are there conventions about this? Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 15:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Members of the International Law Commission
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:delete. –
FayenaticLondon 20:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NONDEF, mere membership of something is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Possibly chairs of the commission is defining, but in this case I doubt that too. There is a list, which is perfectly fine.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not a mere membership of something, though. The United Nations International Law Commission is the main body responsible for the codification of international law. Being elected as member is arguably the second most prestigious (perhaps, important) position an international lawyer can be elected to, after the
International Court of Justice. As I mentioned, there are two Wikipedia categories: members and officials. I did not see the "officials" category (which is not the technical name) and therefore created the "members" one. It was a mistake, had I seen the pre-existing category, I would have simply proposed to rename it to "members". They should now be merged under the name "members".
TantPersis (
talk) 14:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Hardly any article mentions it at the start of the article as one of the major achievements and mostly it just appears as a single line just mentioning the fact.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Probably Reverse merge -- ILC is a body of legal experts, elected by the UN General Assembly every 5 years, tasked with harmonising law internationally. It appears to hold an annual session, which has since 2000 been held in two parts, each at least 4-7 weeks long. The correct name appears to be "members". It is clearly a part-time position, but highly prestigious. It probably does not receive a great deal of attention, since much of its work will go on in the background. There are currently 34 members at a time (worldwide), once fewer. If we need an officials category, it should be limited to staff supporting the work of the Commission members.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The biography articles don't treat this as defining. More a reflection of their prestige than the source. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 22:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete both — tagged latter — nearly identical content, per Marcocapelle and RevelationDirect. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 18:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Second category just tagged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep (reverse merge). It is a tremendously prestigious body, composed of members (not officials).
TantPersis (
talk) 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The fact that the body is prestigious does not necessarily imply that it is defining for individual people.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not the United Nations: the body is basically composed of its individual members, which are elected in highly competitive elections at the UN. It is a career-defining election for most individuals.
TantPersis (
talk) 04:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not apparant at all. For example the article
Kamil Idris expands much more on his directorship of WIPO than on his membership of the ILC.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jek (Quba)
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.
Note: the pages are now interlinked, so that navigation will still be possible without the categories. –
FayenaticLondon 15:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Balakhani
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.
Oppose Balakhani have a completely different architecture and line of development. And it is wrong to combine this category with Baku. Balakhany has its own architectural monuments. Here you can find architecture from the Middle Ages to the 19th century. In addition, over the past 5 years, large-scale construction work has been carried out in the village and historical monuments have been restored. The number of jobs in the city increased and, as a result, the population increased. I don't think it's right to combine these categories. --
Rəcəb Yaxşı (
talk) 05:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Estonian merchants
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Gamergaters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I saw this added to Milo Y's article last night. Per
WP:OPINIONCAT, people should not be categorized based on their stance on a singular, niche issue.
Zaathras (
talk) 14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, if applicable people can be put in far right categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
In the case of Milo, I think we're talking about the "activist" part of
WP:OPINIONCAT. It's not just an opinion; he was was a prominent advocate for "the cause", and it's a big part of his early notability. That said, no it doesn't seem like we should be categorizing anyone as a "Gamergater". I see the category creator also created
Category:Gamergate (harassment campaign) and
Category:Targets of Gamergate. There are enough people and organizations involved enough to have extended coverage in their articles to justify a single category on the topic, I think. Perhaps we could just put everyone from "Gamergaters" and "Targets" into the main category (or, if there turn out to be too many people, "People associated with Gamergate"). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Categories have to be clear cut without ambiguity and supported by sourced content in the subject's article. It's not clear to me how individuals would be characterized as "Gamergaters" in an online harassment incident that involved thousands of anonymous social media accounts and lasted for nearly a year. For the two individuals in this category right now, it's clearly a minor incident in their lives that happened 9 years ago. LizRead!Talk! 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Renamed localities in Russia
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 three Oblast categories were created after the original nomination. I have added them to the nomination. This was done after the 19:55 post by
Marcocapelle.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 23:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedians interested in association football teams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. In addition, many of the deeper level categories per team may be nomination for deletion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Machinima based on Second Life
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sportspeople of African descent
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:Wikipedia:Category naming does not provide for by region encapsulating by country. These "regional" categories are also a proxy for race.
Summary: Continuing removals after categories were emptied by 16 (and counting) previous discussions.
Delete, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' place of living.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the precedent of previous discussions. Regional/continental intersections at that level are a bad idea, and likely to be used only as a privacy for race.
Place Clichy (
talk) 09:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-inheriting heirs presumptive
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category seems too broad, as most monarchies have had an heir presumptive who did not inherit the throne. Especially in earlier times where the monarch faced a low life expectancy, it was quite common for a childless monarch to come to the throne and wait years for an heir apparent to be born. It is much more unusual for an heir apparent to not accede to the throne.
Векочел (
talk) 02:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: We have other extremely broad categories:
Category:Daughters of kings, for instance. Is a category being large itself grounds for deletion?
DeleteWP:NONDEFINING — Do not categorize by every fact. Many heirs died before inheriting. Some of these are spurious: both "non-inheriting" and "pretender". William Allen Simpson (
talk) 02:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Strange category with a strange selection of articles.
Place Clichy (
talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge to limit its scope to the heirs apparent or presumptive of kings. Heirs-apparent of nobles either should not appear at all or be in a separate category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women leaders of China
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.
Note that the cat was
CfD'd twice before, in 2006 and 2013, but because of the word "women"; I nominate it for the word "leaders", which is vague, arbitrary and can mean whatever you want it to mean. This cat is just a catch-all that doesn't have a proper scope. The cat itself gives the following description:
Delete Too subjective and vague to be of any use.
Mucube (
talk •
contribs) 04:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but perhaps purge -- This should be limited to women who ruled China, normally as regent for an infant emperor, which seems to be what most of it actual scope. Perhaps rename and repurpose as
Category:Female regents of China.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rulers of Finland
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge&purge/delete respectively, as per Marcocapelle.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Category:Women rulers of Finland states This category includes the women who ruled over Finland in their own right. The proper term for that is "
queen regnant". All three women are explicitly called that in their lead sections.
Semantic point: although neither "king of Finland" nor "queen of Finland" was ever a dynastic title (the Swedish and Russian monarchs preferred "(Grand) Duke of Finland"), except during the brief
Kingdom of Finland (1918), the main article makes the point that these monarchs reigned over Finland rather than that they were titulary kings/queens of Finland.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 01:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Marcocapelle's proposal. I think the Grand Dukes of Finland ought to remain in
Category:Heads of state of Finland (I don't think William Allen Simpson is right to characterise them as simply "monarchs of neighbours who invaded" - they were the constitutional rulers of a semi-autonomous state). I don't think that any decisions about
List of monarchs and heads of state of Finland should be taken here, nor do I think that deleting the information in that article from before 1917 follows from Marcocapelle's proposal. The article and the category do different things.
Furius (
talk) 21:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair points. Though articles and categories are interlinked (through
WP:C2D and
WP:C2B, for example), and a
WP:BOLD rename seems justified (as "monarchs" is redundant when you've already got "heads of state"), the talk page is probably a better place to discuss the article's contents.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 01:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women rulers of Egypt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.