Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 24

[edit]

Category:Jewish chess players

[edit]
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 all except Category:Jewish chess players. This was a tricky discussion to close, but in the end the overriding guideline at WP:EGRS/I says that specific intersections need specific justifications and no specific justification has been provided by anything other than chess. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS/I: Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics), with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless these characteristics are relevant to that topic. The intersection of religion and occupation is not defining here. Edward-Woodrowtalk 12:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking more about this and considering the arguments, I'm conflicted. On the one had, I don't think we should do specific sports by ethnicity, like African American basketball players, but I can see the merits of African American sportspeople. With that reasoning, I'm in support of a Jewish sportspeople category, but not specific sports, like chess.Mason (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brandmeister has hit the nail on the head by pointing out that Jews are ethnoreligious. In UK law, Jews and Sikhs are defined as ethnoreligious and, as such, are protected under the terms of our race relations and anti-discrimination statutes. While I would agree that categories for Anglican chess players or Catholic water polo players or Atheist gymnasts should be deleted, you cannot treat Jews or Sikhs in the same way. A category like Jewish gymnasts has the same authenticity as Category:English gymnasts. (Again in the spirit of neutrality, I am a British atheist.) PearlyGigs (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PearlyGigs: As Marcocapelle said, EGRS/I advises against intersections with ethnicity and religion. Also, what authenticity does Category:English gymnasts have? The English people are an ethnic group, which intersects with their occupation – another EGRS/I violation. I was considering nominating it for deletion for that very reason, but I'll wait (at least a little bit), as nominations to make a point never go anywhere good. Edward-Woodrowtalk 20:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Edward. Well, first of all, English is a nationality, nothing more. The English people, arguably the most diverse on Earth, are a multi-ethnic group.
The whole of WP:CAAP is an editing guideline, not an editing policy. If you look above OCEGRS at WP:EGRSD, it says that categorisation by ethnicity, religion and other attributes is permitted, although it acknowledges that controversy may arise. OCEGRS summarises intersections including ethnicity and religion but it rightly urges caution. It says intersections should not be created unless the characteristics are relevant and later says that a category for Swedish American politicians, for example, would be invalid, whereas one for Native American politicians is valid. Intersections should be used to split large categories such as those for LGBT people or, in this case, Jewish people. Such categories should only be created if the combination (e.g., Jewish gymnasts or English gymnasts) is a defining topic that is academically or culturally significant in its own right.
The fact that a gymnast is English is defining. Nationality defines a gymnast from England vis-à-vis a gymnast from another country. Religion per se is not defining because it doesn't matter if an English gymnast is Anglican or Catholic or atheist. But, if the gymnast belongs to an ethnoreligious group like Jewish or Sikh, that does define them. As I pointed out earlier, UK law actually defines Jews and Sikhs as ethnoreligious and grants them a status under the terms of our race relations and anti-discrimination statutes.
Below OCEGRS is WP:EGRS/E which considers ethnicity and race in more detail and, because it is a specific guideline, must take priority over OCEGRS which is generic. EGRS/E states that ethnic groups, including Jewish people, are commonly used for categorisation, while race is not. It gives the Jewish/Semitic example to illustrate the point. The reader is directed to List of contemporary ethnic groups in which Jews have possibly the largest entry.
While OCEGRS provides a useful overview of the guidelines, EGRS/E makes the points that actually count. If we had Category:Anglican gymnasts or Category:Atheist gymnasts, I would readily support their deletion on the grounds that they do not add value and are neither here nor there in terms of academic or cultural significance. But Category:Jewish gymnasts has both academic and cultural significance because of the ethnoreligious characteristic of Jewish people. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PearlyGigs, I hope you're well.
Firstly, from English people (emphasis mine): The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language... Regardless...
I maintain that the fundamental issue here is that being Jewish does not affect how people play, say, table tennis. The subjects are defined by being table tennis players and probably a myriad other things, but the intersection of being Jewish and playing table tennis is not. Also, how UK law defines things isn't particularly relevant.
Regarding EGRSD: it says that, broadly, categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability is permitted, but that, as you say it may cause controversy. It then goes on to comment, in various sections, about aspects of EGRS categorization, including specific intersections – which these categories are an example of. Here we come back to our old acquaintance, WP:EGRS/I.
Regarding your comment regarding WP:EGRS/E (which regards something, I hope) :
Below OCEGRS is WP:EGRS/E which considers ethnicity and race in more detail and, because it is a specific guideline, must take priority over OCEGRS which is generic. Maybe, if, that section actually addresses the issue at hand, which it does not. You are confusing broad categorizations of ethnic groups, which EGRS/E covers, like Category:Rohingya people, and intersections of ethnic group etc. with other aspects – like the categories in question – which EGRS/I covers.
Cheers, Edward-Woodrowtalk 20:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine, thanks, Edward, and hope you are also. I do understand your point of view but I'm looking beyond a Jewish person's sporting capability to the importance of Jewish people in ethnoreligious terms. I believe Wikipedia must recognise nationality and ethnicity because many readers will expect to find articles whose subjects have those characteristics. While the individual article should provide the information, the category helps the readers by providing a list of the articles. Anyway, it is right that all points of view are presented here and then consensus will decide the way forward. Thanks for your message and good wishes. Regards. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 24 October 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.

People in Europe by century

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This could do with further discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two or three subcategories each. Moreover, if anyone would be willing to expand this, it would require "by occupation" in the name rather than "by country". The merge was suggested earlier in this rename discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Country and nationality are different. The people in Europe category is for people working in a specific European country. Several occupations draw the distinction between the country of work and the nationality of the person working. Mason (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is just unhelpful not to be able to navigate between the two. Besides, within Europe there is a very strong overlap between the two, can you tell which African or Asian kings there were in Europe? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some overlap, but the entire point of making this rename from "European people by country" last month was to make it clearer that nationality and country are distinct category structures. I'm be much more supportive of reparenting the "people in Europe" category to Category:20th-century in Europe if that would help. Mason (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Within Category:People by occupation and continent, only nobility, religious leaders and rulers are sub-catted by country of work as opposed to origin. However, there is no worldwide parent by century and country of work. Perhaps we should repurpose and rename these and their parent without "Europe", creating scope to add in other categories elsewhere:
The Ottoman governors category can be removed, as it is not by country (it has sufficient other parents already e.g. Governors in Europe).
Alternatively, if the Europe structure is considered useful, then rename to Category:13th-century people in Europe by occupation and country of work etc. Worldwide head cats could still be added later.
I'm thinking aloud here, and open to better suggestions. – Fayenatic London 11:20, 31 October 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:Catholic high schools in the United States by state or territory

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:Catholic high schools in the United States by state or territory

Category:Łopaciński family

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:Łopaciński family

Category:Wiśniowiecki family residences

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:Wiśniowiecki family residences

Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa

Establishments in Germany (Holy Roman Empire period)

[edit]
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. The category descriptions make it fairly clear that the HRE is being referred to. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All German categories nominated here link to the Holy Roman Empire. Germany did not exist in this time period. Merge (and redirect) all per WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The kingdom of Germany and the Empire were distinct entities, one of which was a subset of the other (see P. H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire 2016, chapter 4). In the High Middle Ages, the HRE also contained the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Italy (855–1801), and the Kingdom of Arles. By 1500, this had become basically irrelevant as Arles was gone and Italy barely participated (it still used the HRE imperial court). Furius (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 24 October 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:Indigenous Mexican schools

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROW. Not a useful way to categorize schools. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hispanics are a relative majority in California I believe. Articles about these schools do not give much information on what is special in their curriculum, or in their recruitment. Place Clichy (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I tagged Category:Minority schools in California.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the cfd tag from Category:Minority schools in California as it is a parent of Category:Native American schools in California. Why are you adding it back to the nomination? This could have been closed as delete. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721, tiredness I suppose. Please remove it from the nomination rather than just removing the tag, in future. Qwerfjkltalk 08:11, 25 October 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:Phalia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There was consensus to create Category:People from Phalia Tehsil because this category was not deleted. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for a category for this town. Most of the entries are notable people, who can be, and often are, listed in the town's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are three very different proposals going around; more participation would be very welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 16:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 24 October 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:Ethnic Albanian rebels

[edit]
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 the first, no consensus on the others..
Nominator's rationale: same problem as the rest of the ethnic Albanian categories [1] Mason (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to include new categories. Pinging. @Marcocapelle@Place Clichy Mason (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mason (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging Category:Ethnic Albanian military personnel to Category:Albanian military personnel since the former category contains military personnel of the Ottoman Empire while the latter category military personnel of the state of Albania, those should not be lumped together. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging Category:Ethnic Albanian activists to Category:Albanian activists since the former category Albanian independence activists against the Ottoman Empire while the latter category activists of any sort in the state of Albania (or in exile), those should not be lumped together. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true: the latter category activists of any sort in the state of Albania (or in exile). (1) The first category is an unfinished business created by a mass creator of bogus categories, populated with 2 articles and left to stand there, while the second is a long-standing one that has demonstrated its usefulness by the number of articles and sub-categories that users have trusted it with over the years, in full understanding of what Albanian activists means. (2) Looking at the content (and name) of Category:Albanian activists, I would describe it as a category for activists that reliable sources primarily call Albanians, whereas their state of residence or citizenship is Albania proper, the Ottoman Empire (plenty of them) or, in rarer cases, other countries. (3) The difference between the two notions is not feasible in practice. How do you treat people who where both Albanian activists within the Ottoman Empire before independence and in Albania after, such as Sali Butka or Thoma Avrami? How do you treat the most important child Category:Activists of the Albanian National Awakening, precisely because the Albanian National Awakening movement describes events and people both before and after independence? Place Clichy (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 24 October 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:Ethnic Greek people

[edit]
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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this category at the intersection of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation is defining. This situation seems really similar to this CfD about "ethnic" Armenians. Mason (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 24 October 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:Noble titles by country

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I *think* that these are overlapping categories. But if someone who is knowledgeable to sees the difference, perhaps there's a good way make that distinction clearer Mason (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree there is no difference in scope, but reverse merge Category:Titles of nobility by country to Category:Noble titles by country and the other countries should be added to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Smasongarrison, which direction are you suggesting the merge take place? Your proposal has conflicting directions for the parent and the one subcat. You also left out the Spanish (a/b), French (a/b), Dutch (a/b) and British (a/b) categories. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Honestly, I don't have a clear direction on the merge. I found the German category first, and then realized it was a much bigger web, and decided to bring the category here for other people's wisdom. Mason (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation: The Fooian noble titles branch, I think, should be for the titles granted to people (duke, earl, etc.), and the Noble titles in Foo branch for their associated domains (dukedoms, earldoms, etc). Further clean-up is evidently needed, but if the distinction can be made clear they could probably remain separate.
    Background: Previously, the Fooian noble titles categories were a jumbled mess containing both concept articles and people subcategories. Following this 2021 CfD, I separated the people subcats into Fooian nobles by title, leaving the concept articles in the respective Fooian noble titles cats. The Fooian titles of nobility branch is a long-standing separate tree. I think I attempted a bit to clarify the distinction according to the above explanation, but gave up as I wasn't quite able to draw a clear line. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the targets as well to allow discusssion for a merge either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 24 October 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:French-language Occitan writers

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. All four articles (1, 2, 3, 4) are for 19th- and 20th-century French writers from the region of Occitania who wrote some or most of their work in French. It is not defining for French writers to write in French, hence we don't need such a category (that's why there is no Category:French writers in French or Category:French-language writers from France). Other parent categories for European writers or Writers by nationality are out of place because they are all French and Occitan was never a nationality. No merge is needed as all members are already in other Occitan-language categories. Place Clichy (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe that Iketsi's concerns above were all answered. Namely, all articles in this category will be kept in Occitan-related categories, often more precise ones. The purpose of this nomination is just to remove the non-defining French-language category. Place Clichy (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there appear to be no Occitan writers who wrote solely in French, I will agree with Place Clichy's points until the existence of such a writer makes the category in question defining. Iketsi (talk) 03:22, 2 November 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:Culture of Karelia

[edit]
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: rename to Category:Karelian culture. There is no opposition to the proposed rename. Place Clichy notes that there may be further merging and splitting required, which can be the subject of future discussion. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 17:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: based on the content of the category.Everything here is connected specifically with the Karelian people (with the exception of the "Culture of the Republic of Karelia" category, which needs to be swapped with) I suggest 1) remove from here the category "Culture of the Republic of Karelia" 2) And to the already changed category,add this category :
  • Category:Karelian people
  • Category:Culture of Russia by ethnicity
  • Category:European culture by ethnic group
  • Category:Culture of Finland
  • Category:Culture of the Republic of Karelia

It seems to me that this will be more informative and rational more consistent with some standards for sorting categories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miikul (talkcontribs) 16:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place Clichy (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that if we take a strict definition of mythology, then Karelian and Finnish mythology are essentially the same, for example, everything from Finnish deities is also in “Karelian mythology” - but a look at folklore among peoples, different. In general, the category about “Finnish mythology” has some chaos, for example, articles about Hammaspeikko - not a mythological character in the strict sense of the word, but a literary invention. The category itself, about "Finnish mythology", most likely also needs to be renamed and cleaned up... Miikul (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that having a subcategory here related to Sami mythology will be disorienting. Borders of countries and boundaries of cultural areas are very different things.... Miikul (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy, have your questions been answered satisfactorily? Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose the renaming. However, as Karelian and Finnish mythology are essentially the same, there may be further merging and splitting required. Editors in the know should probably clarify which content is linked to geography (Rep. Karelia and predecessors) regardless of culture, and Karelian/Finnish culture regardless of location. Place Clichy (talk) 02:23, 4 November 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:British Christian hymnwriters by nationality

[edit]
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 all.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization Mason (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Place Clichy (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Updated nomination. Note that I proposed deleting the foundational category: Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom" Mason (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Category:United Kingdom by country, which is quite a full hierarchy between E/NI/S/W (e.g. Geography of the United Kingdom by country), is the UK sub-cat of Category:First-level administrative divisions by country. I considered whether it should be removed from there, and do not think that would be useful. One alternative, of replacing it with a new intermediate layer comprising 9 English regions + the other 3 Home Nations, would be even more cumbersome.
I was reluctant to let go of People by nationality within the United Kingdom as the "people" subcat of Category:United Kingdom by country, preferably renamed to British people by country; but I guess we could get by without it.
I see the advantages of your option (1). As e.g. English artists sits directly in British artists, then let English people be held directly within British people. (I picked Artists at random, but it is an interesting example as there are overseas territory and crown dependency siblings there too.) – Fayenatic London 15:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So: oppose changed to support, but merge Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom to Category:British people rather than deleting it as currently listed in the nom. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 30 October 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:Albums produced by John Cornfield

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent article (John Cornfield) was deleted at AfD, thus this is not a "notable" category. Natg 19 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The producer of an album is a defining attribute of that album. Whether the producer is notable by WP standards is another matter that would be decided on other matters, like celebrity. (As per WP guidelines which confirms that an article need not exist to support a category). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richhoncho. Categories do not have notability requirements, they are meant to group articles about notable topics into their defining aspects. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:26, 1 November 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 the Dominion of Newfoundland to the United Kingdom

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 17:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small, overlapping cat with an unhelpful distinction. I'd also support merging Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United Kingdom to Canadian emigrants to the United Kingdom, under the same reasoning Mason (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose calling people from the Dominion of Newfoundland, in effect, "pre-Canadians" is presupposing that the were always actually secret Canadians, destined to join that country; it's highly anachronistic. A much better solution is to remove the "pre-Confederation" tag from all of our categories about British colonies that later became part of Canada, and instead have Category:People from Nova Scotia (colony), etc. 67kevlar (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@67kevlar: indeed I agree that in many cases these people are better described in relations to the Newfoundland Dominion that by later Canada. However it is the emigrants part that is disputable here. If you read arguments above, I actually wrote that articles in this category are in Newfoundland World War I, World War II and Colony people, and that they cannot be called emigrants to the United Kingdom. Hence the suggestion to delete, i.e. just remove them from Category:Emigrants from the Dominion of Newfoundland to the United Kingdom. Would you agree with this outcome? Place Clichy (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. Newfoundland was a separate dominion until 1949. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aidan721 and Necrothesp: actually, the 2 articles here will be kept in Newfoundland Dominion categories. The issue is the "emigrants to the United Kingdom" part. They were both British from birth, not immigrants, and have nothing to do there is the first place. Would you agree to just delete the category, instead of merging it as initially proposed? Place Clichy (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As was anyone else from the British Empire, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. Do you plan on purging these categories of anyone who came to Britain when this was the case? Because that, I can assure you, will be a losing battle. And given that, it makes no sense to delete this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Necrothesp here. The modern concept of "emigration" and "immigration" as leaving one sovereign nation sate for another doesn't really apply at all to movement within the British Empire, however, in the broader sense, these people were leaving one self-governing area to a very geographically remote and therefore culturally distinct place for a very different one. We perhaps have to decide if we rank legalities or geographies as more important here. 67kevlar (talk) 19:52, 1 November 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 pre-Confederation New Brunswick to the United States

[edit]
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. Although there's some traction behind a rename, I think it's advisable for now to preserve the integrity of the Category:Pre-Confederation New Brunswick category tree. bibliomaniac15 19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small overlapping cat, where I doubt it makes a difference from which pre-confederation colony they emigrated from Mason (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the nom may not understand pre-Confederation Canadian history. From 1784 to 1867, what is now the province of New Brunswick was the Colony of New Brunswick. It was separate from Canada politically and governed separately. That is why Category:Colony of New Brunswick people exists. Moreover, merging this category as described would remove the now 11 articles from Category:Colony of New Brunswick people so that the proposal needs to be rectified at the very least. Grouping people from different colonies together in pre-Confederation Canada doesn't make much sense and, honestly, I would like to see categories like the one nominated created for each province. Note: I have added 10 articles in approximately 7 minutes. Smallcat is not a useful rationale for this category.--User:Namiba 15:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, as you are correct that I was unaware of the distinction. I'm thrilled that the category is more populated now. Mason (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nambia. I've also noticed that multiple articles placed in the Canadian emigrants category can fall under the New Brunswick Category, so I'll work on moving the ones in question to the right category. Additionally, I feel that the parent category is a bit messy and could really use some further categories to better sort the people listed under it. Possibly add new categories for Ontario and Quebec? B3251 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    update: being bold and adding new categories for at least Quebec and Ontario to further help categorize the articles. B3251 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using the political designations used at the time, i.e. Lower Canada, Upper Canada and so on. Ontario didn't exist until Confederation. So prior to Confederation, it would have been Canada West.--User:Namiba 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could the category be interpreted as what makes up modern-day Ontario? My only concern about this is that it seems that a number of the articles do not mention whether the individual was born in Lower Canada, Upper Canada, Canada West, etc. B3251 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be included, we need to look up which designation existed during that person's birth / residence in the province / colony. Canada West was not coterminous with modern day Ontario.--User:Namiba 17:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian, I would suggest we not split hairs. Upper Canada and Canada West were not radically different things from modern Ontario; they were just different names for what's always been fundamentally the same thing. (It's also a digression from what this discussion is about, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with New Brunswick.) It's a real technical distinction in history, yes, but it's not particularly helpful to the reader to pedantically overcomplicate the category system with an explosion of narrowcast microcategories for purely technical distinctions that don't represent meaningful differences in context. It would be like saying we need to start a new category every time a sports team changes its name, even though it's still the same entity. Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Emigrants from the Colony of New Brunswick to the United States to be clearer. All entries are people from the Colony of New Brunswick who moved to the United States. Similar rationale to reason to keep as Namiba. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or rename. As noted by most commenters above, the issue here is that New Brunswick was not part of what constituted Canada in the pre-Confederation era, so it would be entirely incorrect to categorize a person from New Brunswick in the 1820s, 1830s, 1840s or 1850s as "Canadian". I'll grant that a New Brunswick category should be kept as a subcategory of a Canadian category anyway (just as this already is) for ease of navigation (i.e. the location of New Brunswick categories needs to be predictable to the uninitiated even if they don't have the background knowledge to know that New Brunswick wasn't already part of Canada yet in that era), but it would be entirely inappropriate to merge the categories. Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:59, 24 October 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:Writing systems derived from the Chinese

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:Writing systems derived from the Chinese

Category:Chinese scripts

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:Chinese scripts

Writers by Occitan dialect

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Writers by Occitan dialect

Category:Han character input

[edit]
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: rename to Category:CJK input methods. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: consistent with almost the entire rest of the site as per 'Chinese characters' over 'Han characters' Remsense 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I'm currently supporting Folly Mox's suggestion of Category:CJK input methods. Remsense 17:01, 24 October 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:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license

Category:Ankylosaurian stubs

[edit]
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: soft delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stubs category with less than 50 pages, upmerge to Category:Ornithischian stubs. Andumé (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:59, 24 October 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:History of the Chinese script

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:History of the Chinese script

Category:Alopoglossidae stubs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:Alopoglossidae stubs

Category:Anguidae stubs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:Anguidae stubs

Category:American Meteorological Society journal image covers

[edit]
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: rename to Category:American Meteorological Society journal cover images. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 15:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match other cats in this tree. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Pierre cb (talk) 12:23, 24 October 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:Afghan women cricketers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:Afghan women cricketers

Category:Pre–World War I spies

[edit]
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: split between Category:19th-century spies and Category:20th-century spies. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 15:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non defining split Mason (talk) 04:02, 24 October 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:English transgender people by occupation

[edit]
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 all as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 15:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now; only one category in each. Mason (talk) 02:24, 24 October 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:Expatriates from the British Empire

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 1#Category:Expatriates from the British Empire

Category:Naturalised subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 3#Category:Naturalised subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain

Category:Bermudian LGBT people by occupation

[edit]
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 to Category:Bermudian LGBT people. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now; only one category in it Mason (talk) 01:34, 24 October 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:American Basketball Association (2000–present) venues

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 15:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The ABA 2000 is a semi-professional league and these arenas are not primarily known for its games. They are multi-purpose arenas. User:Namiba 01:13, 24 October 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.