Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 20 June 22 >

June 21[edit]

Category:Suspense in horror video games[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) SSTflyer 01:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a rather pointless category with only two articles, one of which is to be merged per an AfD. TTN (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source article has no sources and sounds like original research. Dimadick (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a practically empty category, basically useless when it can't be kept in anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:35, 22 June 2016 (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:Birds of Egypt[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. I have checked the contents and ensured that the articles are appropriately categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previous CFDs (this and this) have upmerged categories for individual countries into categories for regions (Middle East and North Africa) - categorizing species by countries inevitably leads to some species being categorized for a large number of small countries (e.g. Kuwait). The Egypt category was not included in those discussions as Egypt overlaps both regions. All of the articles currently in the Egypt category (apart from the list) are also in Category:Birds of the Middle East and many are also in Category:Birds of Africa. Note: There is a List of birds of Egypt (which is already in another Egypt category so doesn't need to be upmerged).
Example of similar previous discussion DexDor (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a bit more problematic. Egypt's main area is in North Africa, but it also controls the Sinai Peninsula in Asia and has controlled it since the time of Ancient Egypt. Upmerging may result in exclusively African species being added to a Middle Eastern category or species which can only be found in the Sinai added to the African category. Dimadick (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing any upmerge - there are only 3 species articles currently in this category that are not already in both the Middle East and Africa categories and these (Kurdish wheatear, Variable wheatear, Finsch's wheatear) are where the article doesn't make clear whether the bird is found in North Africa. DexDor (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have been deleting (e.g. by upmerge) birds-by-country categories as it causes far too many categories on some pages (did you look at the CFDs linked in the nomination?) - creating Category:Birds of the Sinai Peninsula would be going in the wrong direction. DexDor (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Category:Birds of Northern Africa, one by one (though cat intersection tools may help), and only then Delete.
@DexDor:You're right, I didn't recall the other CfDs, though I even participated in WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 13#Category:Birds of Angola. It however turned out that most birds (at least all of those I just picked randomly) are now only categorized in a single, obviously unnecessarily large and unspecific Category:Birds of Sub-Saharan Africa, so it's hard to call that last merge a success story. Shame on me, though – I should have looked into a sample of individual species articles earlier, not now. Splitting that category again at a later point will be more work than going more into details during the WP:CFD.
I agree though, that a distinction between Sinai Peninsula and mainland Egypt would probably turn out unreasonably specific, and the existing categories Category:Birds of the Middle East and Category:Birds of Africa should be sufficent. However, if currently the species are only categorized in Category:Birds of Africa, that's no good replacement for Category:Birds of North Africa. Also, if many of them are only in the Category:Birds of the Middle East and Category:Birds of Egypt categories, I don't think we may assume that they're not present in mainland Egypt (= Category:Birds in Northern Africa). --PanchoS (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category intersection tools can tell you which articles are currently in particular (combinations of) categories, but when sorting out what categories articles should be in (especially where, as is the case here, the number of articles is very small) it's better to look at the article text (and any map).
I'm not sure why you think Category:Birds of Sub-Saharan Africa is "unnecessarily large and unspecific" - it's smaller than the continent-level categorization wanted by the relevant wikiproject (see here).
Regarding Category:Birds of Africa / Category:Birds of North Africa: It may be appropriate to (clarify the relationship between those categories and) move some articles between them, but (for the moment) I'm concentrating more on by-country categorization because it leads to all sorts of problems - categories for very small jurisdictions, categorizing an animal in of-France (and hence in of-Europe) because it is found on a Pacific island that belongs to France etc. DexDor (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly right – we don't need cat intersection tools here. Unsure, if some birds might have already been purged, or whether I grossly slipped up. Anyway {{Cfd manual}} still seems the best way to go. --PanchoS (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- These biota categories are a nightmare. A continental category is unsatisfactory because it covers too much - from temperate South Africa, through the tropics, Sahel, and south Mediterranean littoral. Fauna and flora distributions are driven by climate, not man-made political boundaries. I would suggest that we should invite a relevant project to come up with a geographic classification scheme that can be applied generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think a continental category "covers too much"? (bearing in mind that the purpose of categories is to categorize - not to attempt to encode the map of a species distribution). DexDor (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Northern Africa. Categorization by one country is too fine for birds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Northern Africa and to the Middle East. Birds of Egypt is too specific! gidonb (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: IMO straight deletion is preferable to merging (see my and Dimadick's comments above), but I would prefer this to be closed as merge rather than as NC/keep as any incorrect categorization caused by a merge could be fixed by normal editing. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that delete, preferably placing a {{Cfd manual}} tag would be better than a full merge, which would still be better than keep/no consensus. --PanchoS (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That template says "... this category should have some action that requires manual changes. Once the manual work is completed, this category will be deleted." - can you clarify what changes you think should be made to the category before it is deleted. DexDor (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2016 (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:Hemiptera of 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: merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category (e.g. Western conifer seed bug) aren't specifically about the UK (as they would be if the species were endemic to the UK) - and anyway we're moving away from categorizing by country (which inevitably leads to categories for Jersey, Andorra etc) to categorizing by larger regions (a Great Britain or British Isles category wouldn't be quite so bad). Example previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How different is the species list in the British Isles from those in mainland Europe? While you're right about the basic consensus of the stated discussion, we've had others where we decided to keep Madagascar as a separate category because it's a separate landmass with its own animals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most/all of the articles in this category are for species that are found elsewhere in Europe. Re Madagascar - quoting from its lead: "Madagascar split from the Indian peninsula around 88 million years ago, allowing native plants and animals to evolve in relative isolation. Consequently, Madagascar is a biodiversity hotspot; over 90% of its wildlife is found nowhere else on Earth.". DexDor (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer -- Biota in UK are generally a subset of those in Europe, so that the answer is "not much". There is a clear boundary within Indonesia between an Australasian and an Asian species set. Similarly Madagascar has a different fauna from Africa. Accordingly, Support. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2016 (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 Dutch Reformed Church 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 Category:Members of the Dutch Reformed Church by nationality to Category:Members of the Dutch Reformed Church; rename the South African category and remove it from the above. Taking this discussion together with the one on 22 June, there is not after all a consensus to mesh all Reformed Christians in one country together, which necessitates keeping the Dutch and American categories for this denomination. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At the moment Category:Members of the Dutch Reformed Church by nationality is a mess, because it has confused different bodies called the Dutch Reformed Church. It came out of a mistaken close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 14#Category:Dutch Reformed Christians. Anyway, here is my solution. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa actually includes a couple of denominations, but we have an umbrella article, and the category can match that.) Also, we don't normally split up denominational membership by nationality - we don't, for example, have Category:French Southern Baptists. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Dutch and South African/Unsure on American American members who lived/remained in the faith after the RCA split from the mother church in 1819, would also go under Category:Reformed Church in America Christians. I'm wondering if the American one is worth keeping for continuity there but I definitely support the others. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at who's in the category, it has people like Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen, who is already in Category:Reformed Church in America ministers. Martin Van Buren is already in Category:Reformed Church in America Christians. So maybe we need a selective merge, or just delete the category. StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mess because it confuses denominations with Christian traditions. Category:Christians by nationality is split up by country and tradition, not by denomination. "Dutch Reformed Church" is a specific denomination, not a Christian tradition. It's like the difference between "Baptist" and "American Baptist Churches USA". So we have Category:Baptists from the United States, but not Category:American members of the American Baptist Churches USA. StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Reformed Christians and Calvanist + nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- (probably voted above) -- I have no problem with merging categories where the churches have merged. However, at earlier periods, there will be people who are defined by membership of denomination A, and others (in strong opposition to them) who belonged to denomination B. It is not appropriate to put those who were hostile to each other into a single category, as if they were all the best of buddies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2016 (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:Beetles by region[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 have been a few proposals made, but each has been met with enough opposition so the status quo will remain. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category (it contains just one subcategory). It's unclear what (if any) distinction there is between a by-location category and a by-region category. DexDor (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending to oppose The British Isles are a proper sub-continental mesoregion, so this is a valid container category, small but with sufficient room for expansion. More often than not, it will be a good idea to categorize species by region rather than by country, so I'm inclined to keep the per-region container, which would indicate to users that we'd like the per-region category be expanded. --PanchoS (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think we need both by-region and by-location categories (as well as, for the moment at least, by-country categories) then can you explain what the difference is between a by-location and a by-region category? DexDor (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Self-explaining, see Category:Beetles by location or parent Category:Insect orders by location. --PanchoS (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"by-region" and "by-location" are (if not synonyms) so close in meaning (in this context, which is about areas rather than points) that any distinction between them is unclear. None of the 2 categories I linked or the 2 categories you linked contain any category text so they are not "self-explaining". DexDor (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an explanation of this in the discussion below, and added a header template to the category page. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wouldn't object to that (especially as we may be able to delete the by-country category at some point in future), but shouldn't that really be a separate CFD discussion (in which the by-location category is CFD-tagged)? DexDor (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True but if there would be agreement about that we may keep Beetles by region. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Beetles by country. The sole content concerns British Isles. I agree that is two countries, but I do not think that matters unduly, save perhaps to pedants. Nevertheless, we are (probably) merging another biota category to a Europe one, so that I am unsure whether the one sub-cat should survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that, but would still prefer a merge to the by-region category. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Beetles by country as per the above. Yes, the British Isles aren't technically a country, but we have to balance semantics versus sensible categorization. An extra subcat tree just for the British Isles doesn't make much sense. I agree that the by-location discussion is broader and should be handled in another nom. ~ Rob13Talk 22:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to say, but IMO that's even (a bit) worse than the original nomination. :/ IMO the whole nomination doesn't improve anything, but clearly the least disruptive merge would be the one Marcocapelle proposed. Btw, Category:Beetles by region now holds a second subcategory (which I created and populated yesterday), and more should be introduced to properly cover biota by relevant bioregions. --PanchoS (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with PanchoS, even more after this second subcategory has been added. If merged the original nomination is better, but in case of flora and fauna articles it's very common to categorize by region. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2016 (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:Rodents by region[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 have been a few proposals made, but each has been met with enough opposition so the status quo will remain.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category (it contains just one article). It's unclear what (if any) distinction there is between a by-location category and a by-region category. DexDor (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending to oppose Central America is a proper transcontinental mesoregion, so this is a valid container category, small but with sufficient room for expansion. More often than not, it will be a good idea to categorize species by region rather than by country, so I'm inclined to keep the per-region container, which would indicate to users that we'd like the per-region category be expanded. --PanchoS (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See reply in similar discussion above. DexDor (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rodents by location isn't the category being discussed here (and hence isn't CFD-tagged). I suggest you (!vote and) let this discussion complete before proposing that upmerge. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True but if there would be agreement about that we may keep rodents by region. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- For biota, countries do not work well as many species have a range that straddles boundaries. Conversely, continents are too big. Here we have a category for Central and a list articles for the Caribbean. Actually, I like the concept of region, but this will need to be defined as a subcontinental mesoregion in a headnote, so that we do not get "rodents of Sinai", which one response to another recent discussion would imply. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the Sinai suggestion (in another discussion on this page) has been struck. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Rodents of North America, since Central America and the Caribbean are sub-sections of North America. I'm guessing everyone can get behind this, so pinging all participants: @PancoS, DexDor, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron:. This gets rid of the small subcat tree while being fully correct from a classification standpoint. As for the broader question of upmerging "location", that can be handled in another nom. ~ Rob13Talk 22:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized I butchered PanchoS's username, so here's a second attempt at pinging him. ~ Rob13Talk 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a better merge target indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy with that (as long as at the time of merge the contents still fit that parent). DexDor (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pinging me, Rob. I still believe that this category should stay. It is a legitimate subcategory of Category:Animals by region and has room for expansion. While the Caribbean in whole is often regarded part of North America, the Lesser Antilles are much closer to South America. We often put the Caribbean in the North America category – I also do – but if more specific categories already exist, we shouldn't delete it. And if a by-region container exists, we should embrace it rather than dismantling it here and there. I'm not going to cry big tears, if stubborn PanchoS' disagreement doesn't save the category from being deleted, though. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PanchoS, my main point is that (when we are talking about areas rather than points) the words "region" and "location" are pretty much synonymous (if you think there is a significant difference then please explain). The category tree seems to (with no obvious pattern) use a mixture of "location" and "region" - e.g. in some places there's a by-region category under a by-location category and in other places there's a by-location category under a by-region category. Hence, this CFD isn't dismantling a by-region category tree, but removing pointless complexity from the by-region/by-location category tree. DexDor (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Then we should rather upmerge Category:Rodents by location, as the by location containers rarely hold more than two or three subcategories, so are quite superfluous. --PanchoS (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I (and Marcocapelle - see above) would probably support such an upmerge of the by-location category, but this discussion is about the by-region category (which also has only 2 members). DexDor (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: The difference is that "location" usually contains categories by continent and by country; if there are any with sub-continental, sub-national or sub-oceanic coverage, these are "regions" in the category structure. This is used all the way through Category:Animals by location. So, they are not the same. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that these categories are often arranged like that, but why is that needed? E.g. Category:Fauna of Southeast Asia is perfectly well categorized by Category:Fauna of Asia and Category:Environment of Southeast Asia - how does also having it in Category:Animals by region help anyone? DexDor (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, PanchoS, Peterkingiron, and BU Rob13: I looked in Rodents by continent and added Category:Rodents of Southeast Asia to this one, so it now has two sub-cats and a list. Does this make any difference to your views? – Fayenatic London 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't. It just means we merge the Southeast Asia one to Category:Rodents of Asia. ~ Rob13Talk 22:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BU Rob13: Why would you do that? It's part of Mammals of Southeast Asia. Would you delete the whole Environment of Southeast Asia hierarchy? Well, maybe you would; but as long as such regional fauna categories exist, and there is more than one regional category for a particular classification of animals, it makes sense to me to collect such categories in a "by region" structure. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pretty much yes, I would. As it exists, this is what the category structure looks like:
          1. By location
            1. Continent categories
              1. Regional categories
                1. By countries, etc.
            2. By region
              1. By countries, etc.
            3. By countries
          It just doesn't make much sense. Why do we need the parallel categorization? I'd do away with the "By countries" one as well. ~ Rob13Talk 11:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is more than that. The regional categories are required for two reasons: (i) there are articles covering supra-national regions, e.g. Fauna of Borneo (a large island which covers one country and parts of two others), and Category:Southeast Asian haze; more importantly, (ii) many organisms have a range which is regional rather than national, and over the last couple of years many CFD decisions have upmerged "Foo of country" categories to the regional level, because it created category-clutter to categorise e.g. a bird by every country in which it is found. (I accept that some of these mergers were to the continental level.) Also, they allow flexibility in navigation; some people's interest will be in a smaller area than a continent, especially in such a huge and diverse case as Asia. As for abolishing the Category:Categories by country structure, to insist on navigating only via the hierarchy of continents, I very much doubt that that would gain consensus. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't about removing any region categories (e.g. Category:Fauna of Borneo); it's about combining some by-location and by-region container categories (to remove unnecessary complexity from the category structure). Regarding by-country categorization of species: The individual country categories (e.g. Spiders of Monaco) are (slowly) being deleted. DexDor (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2016 (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:11th-century BC Hebrew 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: Renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I started this one, but the entire series from "10th-century..." and onwards, see examples: Category:10th-century BC Judaism etc, etc, etc, need to be changed from "BC" to BCE" since this is about Judaism that does not believe in Jesus hence the choice of "BC" needs to read as "BCE" as per the article Common Era. IZAK (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in Jewish related articles, the terms CE/BCE are used as per what Izak wrote. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Please list every category by name that you propose actually changing. tahc chat 18:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the scope to be renamed is 11 "BC" categories within Category:Jews by century and the 11 within Category:Jewish history. I agree that they should be tagged and listed if the intention is to rename them all after this discussion. – Fayenatic London 19:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IZAK: Thank you for listing the categories to be renamed. I have added 12th-century, stated the target names, and tagged the category pages. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Normally I wouldn't bother with the CE/AD BC/BCE stuff but, with Jewish topics, CE and BCE are consistently used in any recent scholarly articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per consistency with Category:11th-century BC people. Also, not all Jewish related articles have CE/BCE - Solomon, for example, does not. Also, it's a bit POVish to say these are "Judaism"-related as the people in the category, (e.g. David) are also venerated in other religious traditions. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When relevant articles are missing from categories, it means the categories are underpopulated. And in this case "CE"/"AD" is irrelevant. We have many BC categories such as Category:11th century BC and its subcategories, but all centuries following the 1st century do not actually get a marker. Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this kind of resembles issues with WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per StAnselm. Categories should be named with consistency whenever possible. tahc chat 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support consistency is a good thing, but not when it leads us to impose a system from one religion onto another. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as scholarly articles on the Israelites and Judaism uniformly use CE and BCE. Dauster (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reference religion should correspond to calendar era nomenclature. Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. BC is not valid nomenclature for this population. JFW | T@lk 12:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This should be a no brainer. Articles that are specifically about Jews should not be labeled according to Christian theological dates. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The same should be applied to all non-Christian related articles and cats.GreyShark (dibra) 18:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Articles that are specifically about Jews should not be labeled according to Christian theological dates. --Yoavd (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ---Davidbena (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- BC and AD are insensitive to Jews. However, do not change any parents as BC and AD are common usage elsewhere. Note, Jesus was a historical figure who is mention in the Talmud, but non-Messianic Jews will deny him the title of Christ or Lord, inherent in BC and AD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NPOV. WP:ENGVAR enables to apply this terminology (for starters) to the Judaism articles and directories but I would also support applying across the board. gidonb (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think I would also support just switching all categories to BCE in the interests of consistency. Redirects can be kept on the BC versions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per USer:RevelationDirect, User:Dauster, and User:Lisa. -- Avi (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: the category pages were not tagged until today, so this discussion needs to be left open until 11 July. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an accepted consideration for people of non-Christian religions. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (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:Burials in the Netherlands by province[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 to rename. While other stuff does exist and uniformity is desirable in categorization, there is enough opposition here to that entire category scheme that we really need a broader discussion about the whole tree. I encourage someone to create that. ~ Rob13Talk 22:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Compare with Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands and Category:People by province in the Netherlands. Wwikix (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In English the grammatical structure permits a word order from left to right that goes from general to more specific to even more specific. This is good logic and good word order. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not according to similar categories. Wwikix (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you create one of the two similar categories yourself? Wouldn't it be misleading to provide nonstandard examples? gidonb (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – this is the standard format, see eg Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision. Oculi (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above objections sound like WP:Otherstuffexists. I know that this is not the standard, but i think that the standard is wrong per my argument above. Pushing a big boulder up the hill I know. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Laurel Lodged is right about the proper format. Problem is that the other categories were also created by Native Dutch speakers or copied from these. The following examples were all constructed correctly:
Burials in the United Kingdom by cemetery
Burials in the United Kingdom by city
Burials in the United States by cemetery
Burials in the United States by city
Burials in the United States by state
gidonb (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 29 § Category:People by province in the Netherlands, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 29 § Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands
gidonb (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2016 (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:Dutch musicians by province[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: don't rename. There is clearly not consensus to rename. The argument that Category:Dutch musicians by province is a sub-category of Category:Dutch musicians, which has a stronger claim on the naming conventions than unrelated "by province in the Netherlands" categories, is particularly convincing and well-founded in typical CfD outcomes. ~ Rob13Talk 22:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Compare with Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands and Category:People by province in the Netherlands. Wwikix (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 29 § Category:People by province in the Netherlands, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 29 § Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands
gidonb (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2016 (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:People by ethnicity[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. Consensus that CfD is not an appropriate venue for such a discussion. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is likely going to be big, but here goes: Ethnicity is a non-defining characteristic for the vast majority of biographies (i.e. not a key trait they are noted for) on Wikipedia. Even for any subjects where it is defining, it can easily be discussed within the article body. This category and all of is sub-categories should be deleted as WP:Overcategorization. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion/Comment @SNUGGUMS: I think your purpose is to start a larger conversation, which is fine. I do wonder if Village pump or WikiProject Biography might give you more input on th topic than CFD though.
My concern here is that the impact of this actual nomination wouldn't remove any ethnicity categories from actual biography articles though (your stated goal), it would just orphan all the subcategories under it. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample of what that kind of trial balloon nomination could look like. Good luck! RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O_O didn't see that coming. Not sure whether village pump could delete this entire tree and its sub-categories, though tagging them all for one nomination would take forever. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: You seemed to be suggesting a policy change so I thought VP might be a good spot. In any case, you're getting plenty of feedback here. (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not defining? This sounds like a proposal to delete every category that Wikipedia has, since nothing tends to be more defining than ethnicity. What else are these people noted for? Dimadick (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It most certainly is NOT a proposal to delete every single category that exists on Wikipedia, only those that involve ethnicity. It also is nowhere close to the most defining trait people have. Things like their occupations and work are far more defining than ethnic background. Let's not kid ourselves. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding? That someone is a doctor, a general, a mob boss, or a writer hardly provides enough material for categorization. We could add every single quack to Category:Physicians and make huge and frankly useless categories. But I sincerely doubt that this is defining. Defining traits for a biographical article are his/her/its time period, descent, ethnicity, nationality, etc. These actually provide the necessary context. We currently have 178 subcategories of Category:Physicians by nationality and 19 subcategories of Category:Physicians by century. They belong to well established category trees which actually help in researching a topic or era. Who could possibly want to research the topic "physician" with a category which does not distinguish between Olympicus (a Greek in the Roman Empire) and Joon Yun (a Korean-American physician who finances research in extending human longevity)? Their occupation is the same, the era and context are entirely different. Dimadick (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see anything contradicting my reasoning there. It states that we categorize by "standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality". Have you actually read the page? Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I have, or I wouldn't have linked it here. I'm specifically talking about the "Categorize by defining characteristics" part which says the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for, which include one's occupations much more often than they do ethnic background. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say ethnicity in standard biographic details; nationality is definable (what passport do you carry?), ethnicity is both undefinable and not standard. What other encyclopedia says Joe Bleau was a French-American pilot, or Jane Do was a Korean-American physician? no where and for good reason. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, ethnicity isn't a defining characteristic for everyone, but it is defining for people who belong to specific well-sourced ethnic groups such as Jews and Native Americans. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before, such detail can easily be discussed within article body for any subjects where it is defining, but that is definitely a small minority of pages and could never possibly hope to even come close to the number of instances where it's irrelevant to one's notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. If ethnicity and nationality fall out of line, forming a defining part of our multiple respectively intersectional identities, ethnicity regularly is a WP:DEFINING characteristic and may be actually more defining than someone's nationality, which is regularly approximated by citizenship. This is mostly the case for ethnic groups with a substantial diaspora (most certainly Jews, but also Armenians or Turkish), those lacking their own nation-state (such as Kurds or Uyghurs), for indigenous people forming a somewhat distinct minority (such as Native Americans).
    Some fellow liberals and lefties won't like it, but while, for example, ethnic Turks who gave up their Turkish passport to acquire the German one, clearly are Germans, they might still be Turkish by their social identity, and might even still be primarily Turkish. Yes, this argument is regularly perused by xenophobes, but denying the complexity of reality doesn't do any good either. (The opposite exists just as well: people born in Germany, holding only a Turkish passport, who neither speak proper Turkish nor have ever identified with being Turkish.) --PanchoS (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all you have to say in response, then, as Marcocapelle said, then we just disagree. --PanchoS (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ethnicity is not static, not definable with any certainty, and is subject to interpretation, as such it's trivial and it's ghettoizing when applied to people. Ethnicity is hopelessly vague: Take WP's article on ethnic group (where ethnicity redirects) which says in the lead: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences. Unlike most other social groups, ethnicity is primarily an inherited status" (emphasis added) So common language (Spanish speakers form a single ethnic group), ancestry (the descendants of Queen Victoria form a single ethnic group), social (the country club set form a single ethnic group), cultural (those who prefer watercolors to oils form a single ethnic group), or national (all US citizens are a single ethnic group). Ethnicity is "primarily" inherited according to WP's article, but its not exclusively so. Barack Obama identifies as African American, although neither of his parents had that ethnicity; do adopted kids have the ethnicity of their birth parents or their adoptive ones or some different one entirely, and then we have the cases where people self-identify as a particular ethnicity without any inheritance (perhaps because of the the cultural or social aspects above, or perhaps for some unknown reason; dress the part, do your hair the right way and not "pass", but actually adopt the ethnic identity) - apparently defining and changing one's ethnicity is much like adopting or changing one's hairstyle, making the entire category as meaningless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that ethnicity is "trivial and it's ghettoizing when applied to people". Ethnicity can only be applied to people. And "ghettoizing" is highly value-laden. You go on to question the validity of ethnicity (correct me if I am misinterpreting you). Does it matter if ethnicity is applied where insubstantial? What matters is what the abundance of good quality sources tell us about this dimension of people. The sources are not only telling us what they feel objectively applies but also what they feel is noteworthy. If they felt that ethnicity were "trivial" wouldn't they simply not mention it? Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These categories also aren't ghettoizing at all. Nobody will (or should be categorized only by ethnicity, but will also be categorized by nationality, profession, and many other things. More importantly, we're usually not intersecting ethnicity with deeper levels of other facets like profession. So the main category a biography article might be excluded from, simply doesn't exist. --PanchoS (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bull. Look at the daughter categories of this one, like Category:Chechen people‎ or Category:Kven people, or nearly all of them; they are articles on people there's no Kven doctors, Kven lawyers, Kven anything. Purely ethnic categorization and thence ghettoizing - like that's what this person is about - let's not look beyond his or her ethnicity because we needn't because WP has categorized them elaborately than South Africa's apartheid government. Really disgraceful - no reputable encyclopedia does that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are notable people of a given ethnic origin. We have articles on Chechens and Kven people. Those articles do not mention notable people of Chechen and Kven origin. That is because their focus is on the ethnicity, rather than notable people of that ethnicity. We do have List of Chechen people but we do not have List of Kven people. It is not inconceivable that we could have an article on "List of Kven people". But in the absence of an article "List of Kven people" it seems that Category:Kven people is defensible. And I don't see the offense or ghettoization in categorizing this way even in the case in which a "List" article exists. It is not demeaning. It is one more means of navigation. A reader can look the contents of such a Category and navigate to an article that seems as though it might hold information that may be useful to that reader. Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: LOL, you're barking "Bull", but then you beautifully confirm what I said before: There's no ghettoization, exactly because Category:Kven people is not further subcategorized by profession etc, and the same holds for most other categories by ethnicity. Adolf Lindstrøm, to pick one example, would be ghettoized, if he was only categorized as a "Kven chef". But in fact he's categorized as a Category:Norwegian chefs together with all other Norwegian chefs, and is separately listed under Category:Kven people. --PanchoS (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a well populated category dealing with people-groups that are not nationalities. Many counties (including US) have ethnic minorities, which are extremely defining of those people: members of native American tribes in US; First Nations in Canada; Basques in Spain and France; Kachin and Rohinga in Burma; Armenians in Turkey, Syria, and Iran; etc; etc. In some cases, members of a profession from an ethnic minority are few and they get upmerged to [ethnic] people and [national] profession, bit that does not invalidate the ethnic scheme. Most of the world is not a melting pot, which is why we have ethnic categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2016 (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:Hong Kong pan-democrats[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Category:Hong Kong pan-democrats

Hauts-de-France geography 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: merge/rename as per nom. I'll conduct these merges later today after consulting with another editor about how to go about the merge. ~ Rob13Talk 22:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28#Hauts-de-France. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Rename per nom, but I would also go further and merge up to the France level - only editors are interested in finding stubs and they can look for articles at the intersection of (for example) Category:Hauts-de-France and Category:France stubs. Hence, we don't need such fine-grained stub categories (which sometimes appear to be attempting to shadow every normal category with a category for stubs) with an inevitable maintenance overhead. DexDor (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename per nom. @DexDor: I wouldn't merge up to the France level. Sure stub categories are for editors, but we shouldn't mistake editors for experts or freaks like us. How can ordinary people (IP users, occasional editors) make an intersection where there is no category? Secondly, even as an experienced editor: if you happened to come by a stub, without being very interested, would you say: Oh, let me make an intersection to see what's in there? I guess you wouldn't. We're not yet at semantic categorization and on-the-fly intersecting, and we still have a long way to go there, and many things to figure out, so we clearly shouldn't start unbuilding our category tree. --PanchoS (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "where there is no category" or "make an intersection to see what's in [a stub]". Category intersection has (using various tools) been available for several years - I've used it a lot (albeit mainly for namespace-category intersection rather than category-category intersection, but it's the same tools) and it provides a general way to find pages on topic X that are in maintenance category Y (of which stubs are an example). I've put a link at Category:Hauts-de-France to show one way to generate a list of the stubs in that category. Note: There's also the tagging of article (talk) pages as stubs by wikiprojects. DexDor (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Therer has been a category intersection tool, but it's outside of Wikipedia - it's on the Tool Server, which is down some times. It's not reliable enough for us to say "If youy want an intersection, try there". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most maintenance categories aren't subcategorized by topics. So, for example, an editor looking for articles about France that need rewrite would be well advised to use category intersection. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most maintenance categories have nowhere near the number of articles that are covered by Category:Stubs. Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite contains about 4000 articles including its subcategories. Category:Stubs contains over a million. And even some of these smaller maintenance categories have some for of differentiation by topic in order to assist editors (Category:AfD debates, for example). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename per nom - but I would definitely NOT follow DexDor's suggestion of merging up as far as the national level, for numerous reasons, the most important of which would be the likelihood that the parent category would balloon to an unnecessary size and swamp those articles which require the more generic stub template. You are right that "only editors are interested in finding stubs" - it is for this very reason that such fine-grained categories exist and are kept at manageable levels. Consider the extreme case. You have an editor who wants to find small articles on Hauts-de-France to edit. Which is easier, to find them in a specific stub category for that reason or (if your suggestion became the precedent) find them in Category:stubs, which would contain (at a rough estimate) around one million stub articles? Sure, they could use the not always reliable external intersect tools. If they're up and running, and if they're working properly. Also, the maintenance overhead is phenomenally lower categorising stubs in this way than it would be if they were not - it enables stub sorters to check other things about individual stub types as they go. Sure, you can't expect stub sorters to be experts in everything, but we have a lot of stub sorters, and between us we cover a large number of areas of expertise. I generally deal with New Zealand geography because I do know a lot about it. There will be stub sorters who are similarly versed in French geography, and can edit or further deal with articles as they go. Furthermore, as PanchoS points out, a lot of new editors or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's systems put stub templates on articles without also putting permanent categories on them. As such, there is no intersection because there is no permcat. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 June 2016 (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:Business class airlines[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: withdrawn. I have created Category:Airline services and moved the three articles about airline products to this new category. SSTflyer 10:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of these articles are not about individual airlines, but about products offered by airlines. Although I created the category, C2E does not apply because it has been more than six months since this was created. SSTflyer 06:42, 21 June 2016 (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:KF Turbina Cërrik[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains just one article (that is in plenty of more suitable categories) and has no parent categories (so it has no navigational purpose). DexDor (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- The one article is well categorised already; so no need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (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:Cultural depictions of Queen Anne[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:Cultural depictions of Anne of Great Britain. In a next step, when the two quoted articles are harmonized with each other we can also rename one of the two involved categories speedily. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The head category and article are Category:Anne, Queen of Great Britain/Anne, Queen of Great Britain, but the main article for the cultural depictions is Cultural depictions of Anne of Great Britain. Either format is a possibility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Queen Anne may be too vague anyway. The Queen Anne (disambiguation) page lists other 19 Queen Annes. Anne is not exactly a rare name for royalty. Dimadick (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- Anne of GB to match the main article would be my preference, but either would do. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2016 (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:Mormon socialists[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Mormon socialists
  • Nominator's rationale It is not demonstrated that this category exists. Some Mormon practices are at times called "socialist" but the fact that they have been advocated from a non-governmental standpoint makes this categorization problematic. The one person in this category, is not based on what is said about him in the article a socialist at all. He is a sociologist who studies the family and the impact of work on it. Nothing in the article really says anything about his personal philosophical views. This is just far too narrow a category to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although a lot of Mormon scripture has quite a socialist vibe to it, I'm not sure that "Mormon socialism" is really "a thing". This appears to be just an attempt to create an intersection of religion and political viewpoint, or perhaps to carve out Mormons from the general "Christian socialists" category tree. Mormons who are also Christian socialists are better described as Christian socialists, not Mormon socialists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure, but keep in doubt. There are some Google hits on "Mormon socialism", such as this and that. On the other hand Yorgason: Transformation of the Mormon Culture Region at Google Books states there was no explicit Mormon Socialist movement. Then again, Antolic: The Road to Salvation at Google Books says there was a first attempt of Mormon Socialism in 1831, suggesting there might have been more of it. Also, I'm not sure all of the denominations listed in Category:Christian socialists had a distinct Socialist movement rather than being – IMHO acceptable – intersections of Christian denomination with Christian Socialism. And there's a good point to carve out Mormons from Category:Christian socialists. --PanchoS (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were some attempts within Mormonism at what some has been called "socialism": see United Order. Mormons generally reject the comparison of the United Order to socialism, and there's certainly no organized movement that self-identifies as "Mormon socialism". Mormon scripture has some language that in a modern sense sounds pretty socialistic, but I fear that this category is bordering on the neologistic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Bible, which I understand the LDS movement has adopted as scripture, contains items that are "socialist" in some viewpoints doesn't make categorizing people on the intersection of their religious beliefs and political beliefs a good idea, regardless of how bound up they may be together. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to limited population potential. gidonb (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2016 (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:Cow welfare organizations[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Some of these may be limited to (female) cows, but many of them are not. PanchoS (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree cows in lit to cattle in lit, as the cat creator i wish to apologise for using the narrow feminine term rather then the broader one. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2016 (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:Member schools of the Independent Association of Preparatory 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: listify and delete. ~ Rob13Talk 22:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article is at Independent Association of Prep Schools. I have brought it here rather than speedy rename in case someone wants to make a case for deletion; I'm not sure how defining this is for the member schools. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify as WP:NON-DEFINING of many/most of the schools (e.g. it's not mentioned in the text of Ludgrove School). Schools are also in plenty of more appropriate categories that form a comprehensive categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify as WP:NON-DEFINING. I looked at a random 10 or so articles, none of which mentioned IAPS; so this categorisation is dependent upon extrinsic info. Oculi (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify (Rename if Kepts) Accreditation source is defining, industry trade groups are not. If kept, then speedy per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining per DexDor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete -- WE have removed categorisation of universities by association-membership and should not allow it here. However, we need to check that all are in a Prep School category (unless there is a good reason why not). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete membership in a particular association is not defining to a school. Due to various factors they will change association, and many of the schools have most of their cumulative history before this organization was formed. This sort of thing is much better covered by lists than categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2016 (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:Member schools of the Society of Headmasters & Headmistresses of Independent 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: listify and delete. ~ Rob13Talk 22:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is at Society of Heads, and the longer name is a former name of the organization. I have brought it here rather than speedy rename in case someone wants to make a case for deletion; I'm not sure how defining this is for the member schools. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify per my comment in the above CFD. DexDor (talk)
  • Combine The outcome of this nomination should match the one above, whether I agree with that outocme or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nondefining, and per DexDor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete -- WE have removed categorisation of universities by association-membership and should not allow it here. However, we need to check that all are in an appropriate School category (unless there is a good reason why not). I suspect that this concerns what used to be called the Headmasters Confernece, which covered British Public Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being in this organization is not defining to the schools. Also, from the name it appears that the head of the school, and not the school itself, is a member, and so the naming is just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_21&oldid=1197940258"