Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9[edit]

Category:Vertebrates of Algeria[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 The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That e.g. Egyptian mouse-tailed bat (currently in 19 geographical categories) is found in a particular country is non-defining. Example of previous similar discussion.  Note: The articles are all in a category such as Mammals of North Africa so no upmerge is needed. DexDor (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't generally upmerge in cases like this because (per non-defining) the intent of the CFD is to stop categorizing the articles by the specific country. As we go up the category tree we find categories/articles that do belong under Category:Algeria (e.g. Category:Endemic fauna of Algeria and lists) so purging rather than deletion may be appropriate at that level (plus possibly adding category text or even renaming the category to make it clearer). DexDor (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If we should be dividing fauna it should be by habitat, not country. In this case north African litoral and Sahara. National categories create category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Few, if any, articles describe the distribution of an animal as "north African litoral" (i.e. the area between the Med and the Sahara) (although in some cases there's a map). Articles typically (example) describe the animal's (approximate) geographic range (e.g. as a list of countries) and then the animal's habitat(s) - dry grassland, rocky areas, near watercourses, abandoned buildings etc. DexDor (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2020 (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:Corsican nationalist assassins[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:Corsican nationalists and Category:Nationalist assassins. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one. There is a second parent, Category:Nationalist assassins, but its sparse. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Agree the other parent is sparse but at long as it exists we should not depopulate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure of the utility of this tree. Yes, assassins often have motives, which we may know from reliable sources, but is this detail of classification really meaningful or helpful when each category has only a few members. Not convinced but may be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, other small sibling categories have been nominated here. Thereafter we might also discuss the deletion of the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2020 (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:Nord-du-Québec in fiction[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 The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just three films, with a significant subjectivity issue. The problem here is that the phrase "nord du Québec" can mean two different, overlapping but not identical, things depending on how it's rendered: if it's capitalized and hyphenated as Nord-du-Québec, then it refers to a very specific administrative division of Quebec with defined boundaries, but if it's rendered as the generic "northern Quebec" or "le nord du Québec", then it isn't just limited to that one region alone, but can also include Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Côte-Nord, and parts of the Outaouais, Mauricie and Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean regions. So when I found this it had five films in it, but two of them had to be removed because they sourced as being out toward Saguenay/Côte-Nord rather than up James Bay way -- and even among the three films that have been left behind, one is still questionable, as the only specific geographic marker identified in its plot description is a highway that is partially in Nord-du-Québec and partially in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and nothing in the film actually identifies all that clearly which side of the dividing line it's set on.
Simply put, just because you can source that a work of fiction is set in "northern Quebec" does not automatically imply that it's specifically set in "Nord-du-Québec" -- there are at least five other "northern" regions that it can still be set in, making this category a potential error magnet for people who aren't deeply knowledgeable about what they're doing. And since Nord-du-Québec is a sparsely populated region that really doesn't have a whole lot of notable works of fiction set there in the first place, the need to have a dedicated category for them isn't critically important enough to overlook the extreme fustercluck potential. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2020 (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.

Imperial Russian principals[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 The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 17 December 2020 (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:Ediacaran biota[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 The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Devonian life, Category:Paleozoic life and many others. DexDor (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2020 (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:Outright Scotland 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 The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just two people, on the basis of having been involved with an organization -- and further, one of the two people filed here is just a redirect, rather than a standalone article. There need to be a lot more than just two people to be filed here before a category for this is warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2020 (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:Higher-level bird taxa restricted to the Oriental 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: rename to Category:Endemic birds of East Asia The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have any other categories (or even an article) about the Oriental region (of Asia). Note: The category could also be renamed to bring into the more normal "Endemic birds of ..." format. DexDor (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2020 (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.

Establishments in Slovakia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia did not gain independence from Czechoslovakia until 1 January 1993, putting these categories in conflict with Category:Establishments in Czechoslovakia by year Gjs238 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, during large parts of the existance of Czechoslovakia, Slovakia was a first level administrative subdivision, namely from 1928 to 1948 and since 1969. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. How are these categories "in conflict"? The Slovakia ones are subcategories of the Czechoslovakia ones, so they are part of these, not "in conflict". Deletion, what you are asking for, would lose the information. What you probably want is an upmerge, but I see no need for this. With the current setup, the pages are immediately categorized both as in Czechoslovakia at the time, and as part of the history of Slovakia, whether it was at the time a country or a part of a larger country. Fram (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, although I do notice some empty categories (which ironically have not been proposed for deletion) which should probably go: for 1904, 1908, 1909, 1911, 1912, & 1916. Grutness...wha? 11:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • These empty ones were emptied by the nominator here, Gjs238. See e.g. here, where the article was moved from a more informative subcategory to the more general parent category. These edits probably need to be reverted. Fram (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: 1904, 1908, 1909, 1911, 1912, & 1916: The area being referred to as Slovakia was Hungary. See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_26#Category:1470_establishments_in_Slovakia Gjs238 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: 1918-1992: The area in question was Czechoslovakia. In the very least, the nominated categories are not eligible for inclusion in the various "establishments by country" categories since Slovakia was not a country. Gjs238 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then change Template:Estcatcountry to Template:Estcatsubcountry|Slovakia|Czechoslovakia (or equivalent) for these, and be done with it. Establishments in subdivisions of countries are allowed and used quite often. Oh, and between 1939 and 1945, we have Slovak Republic (1939–1945), so these years should in any case be removed from this nomination. Fram (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would not then the nominated categories for 1939–1945 be renamed "XXXX establishments in the Slovak Republic (1939–1945)"? Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason to split out establishments in Czechoslovakia more finely than the country. This division reeks of presentism. If it was 1988 we would never do this type of subdivision, so we should stop this impostion of later events on the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Fram pointed out correctly, deletion is certainly not an option. If not kept, the categories should be merged to their Czechoslovakian parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I picked one category at random, the 1939 one, and found that the Communist Party of Slovakia (1939) was in that category, which seems like a perfectly valid entry/category structure. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly keep 1939 to 1945, per Fram and Lugnuts, as Slovakia was not part of Czechoslovakia in that period. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per Slovak Republic (1939–1945), the entity in existence during that time was known as the "(First) Slovak Republic" or the "Slovak State" and was not a fully recognized country, many regarded it as a Nazi invention. Indeed, the current Slovak Republic does NOT consider itself a successor state of the wartime "Slovak Republic", instead tracing its lineage to the Czechoslovak government-in-exile. Gjs238 (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not really matter who considers what, the only thing that counts here is that the establishments in Slovakia in this period cannot be upmerged to Czechoslovakian categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't understand why. The recognized name of the area was Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovakian government in exile at the time considered it Czechoslovakia. The current Slovakian government considers it Czechoslovakia. Gjs238 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, what do we do with the likes of 1933 establishments in Texas, 1933 establishments in Croatia, 1933 establishments in British Columbia...? Grutness...wha? 02:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just clicking on the first one shows that the U.S. State of Texas was admitted to the Union on December 29, 1845. Prior to that, it was the Republic of Texas, with it's own separate Category:Establishments in the Republic of Texas by year. Gjs238 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • The point Grutness is making is that we sometimes do categorize by country subdivision. See also my first comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • That was never questioned. No one, that I am aware of, has questioned the name of the U.S. state of Texas in 1933. The issue at hand is categorization of the Slovak Republic (1939–1945), the name of which appears to be questionable. 1) Is/was it a recognized country? If yes, then perhaps the proper country name should be used for categorization. An example I gave above for this possibility is "XXXX establishments in the Slovak Republic (1939–1945)". If no, then it needs to be removed from categories for countries. 2) Is it a country subdivision? If yes, what type of subdivision was it? Was it the equivalent of a U.S. state like Texas? Is it the equivalent of a county within Texas? Is it the equivalent of a "region"? The answer may help determine how it is best categorized. Gjs238 (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We are having two different discussions now. In 1939 it was not generally recognized but still functioned as a country. In 1933 it was a first level country subdivision (krajina) but not in 1923. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • With the name of the area changing multiple times it may seem that way. If for 1933 the area was known as Krajina, would not the category be named "1933 establishments in Krajina"? Gjs238 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The name of the region has not changed multiple times, at least not in modern history. It was called Slovakia by the Slovaks, called Upper Hungary by the Hungarians, but the latter name became obsolete after 1919. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • If I understand your earlier post correctly, you said the area was called "krajina." Hence my question, If for 1933 the area was known as Krajina, would not the category be named "1933 establishments in Krajina"? Gjs238 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I think you misunderstand - it wasn't known as Krajina, it was a Krajina - the local equivalent of a state or county. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Correct, a krajina in lowercase. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Most of these are rather small categories and may need upmerging to e.g. 1930s in Slovakia and 1932 in Czechoslovakia. However, Slovakia (with Bohemia and Moravia) was a constituent part of Czechoslovakia (except 1939-45), so that there is no reason in principle why the categories should not exist. This would apply equally in USA to Iowa and in England to Kent. The only problem is the need to populate to at least 5 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question How far down do these categories go? For example, while state categories in the US are established, do we continue down to the county level? Gjs238 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have generally resisted going lower than the first level below a country, and we have generally only accepted that level in places that are clearly federal units. However there are some New York City organization cats, which I really think we should nip in the bud. For England we have always held subdividing that is not sustainable. I believe to date attempts to subdivide Nigeria and India have all been defeated. Only the US, Canada, Spain and Iraq have clearly subdivisions of their current boundaries, Iraq because of how autonomous Kurdistan is, and Spain I think only for Catalonia, and not for the other federal units. All other sub-national subdivisions seems suspitiously linked to the fact that these correspond to current independent countries or reflect places with some level of de facto independence. No one will convince me otherwise when we lack a structure for Voivodina or the short lived mainly Finnish unit in the USSR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To take one example in 1999 the only countries we have multiple geographical subdivisions of are the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Which reeks of giving preference to English speaking areas. We do have the Catolinia subdivisions for Spain. Under the Netherlands and France we have one subdivision, but these are both overseas units. New Zealand we link the Cook Islands. Nigeria only has 27 entries, so a division by state might not be justified, but India has 255 (plus 34 entries in topical sub-cats). Denmark has the Greenland sub-cat. To be fair the California sub-cat from the US has 388 articles, which is more than exist for any specific country article directly in the tree, so upmerging for the US I do not think would work. It does help that all current US state boundaries have existed as they are now since about 1910 when Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory merged to form the state of Oklahoma. Before that you have to go back to Dakota Territory splitting to North and South Dakota in 1889. Spain I just learned is not a federation, but a decentralized unitary state (my head spins at this concept) and the current autonomous communities only date to 1978, we should not apply such a breakup of the Spanish organization tree anytime between 1940 and 1978, and how to apply such before 1940 or so is messy. India and Nigeria have seen lots of states formed and boundaries realigned in the last 70 years and before 1947 India has a dizzying array of subnational units with very complex legal standing, many of them very small. To me the strongest additional candidates for seeing this type of subdivision would probably be Germany and Australia, although Mexico, Brazil, and maybe Argentina and China could also have this applied. On further thought Mexico and Brazil might be the biggest contenders. In 1999 Brazil has 65 articles directly in its organization category, which is below the numbers for 8 US states, Mexico has 42 which is below the numbers for 16 US states. So there is clear good reason to split the US category on size. Whether there is for the Canadian category is harder to tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another issue is some things are established in a way that it is hard to point them to something more specific than a country. Thus even with all the subcats of the establishments in the United States tree, we still can end up with in some cases over 200 articles in the parent category. Some of this is a result of inprecise articles, but some is because of the process of their creation making it harder to be more specific. This same issue will apply to other countries, and so makes calculating the proper point at which a split to subcats is justfied harder. On the other hand, the number of articles that we have even now that could fit in some of these categories tends to be higher than the number that have been categorized. In the US a huge number of our articles on high schools do not give the year they were established, and in many cases when they do they have not been categorized under the specific state and year or organization tree that would apply as a result.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2020 (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:Articles with validated CAS Registry Numbers[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. MER-C 10:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
This visible category was created on 17 October 2008 and, on that same date, 2-Chlorophenol and 2-Oxazolidone were added to it (edit). 12 years later, that's still where we're at.
The intent of this category is to track the unique chemical IDs in infoboxes which is legitimate WikiProject effort but it's tagging articles that are correct. The only similar categories under Category:WikiProject Chemicals articles are hidden category and track articles that need to be fixed. I just added this to Category:CAS registry number tracking categories but, again, everything else there needs to be fixed not ones that are correct. I tagged WikiProject Chemicals to be sure, but I don't think this administrative category serves any administrative function. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a maintenance category for articles that do not need any fixes seems purposeless. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although in principle a valid category, is pointless unless maintained. Chemboxes individually now have CAS validation flags marked as |CASNo_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} which a bot could seek out and use to populate this category but I doubt that would be helpful these days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hardly used and there is no plan to use it, so it is just a time waster at present. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2020 (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:Tributes by person[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: do as nominated (no opposition, open for almost a month). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and, if kept, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT & WP:OVERLAPCAT
The vast majority of articles in this tree are musical tributes: tribute albums, tribute bands, tribute songs and tribute concerts, some of which have their own subcategories. There are 13 non-musical articles which would require selective merging, as noted above. Having broad non-musical "tribute" categories would be subjective and overlap with both Category:Cultural depictions of musicians and Category:Monuments and memorials by person. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note After I submitted this nom, I noticed that I had not looked at The Beatles category closely. I added two new subcats for the Beatles (musicals and monuments) and reduced the number of articles that were in multiple Beatles subcats. My goal was to improve the categorization but that reduced both the musical and non-musical direct article count in the tribute category which is reflected in this nom without strikethrus/underlines as no one had !voted yet.- RevelationDirect (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional victims of kidnapping[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. MER-C 10:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. ★Trekker (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case "damsel in distress" should be a category, not this generic one which includes all kinda of random characters. No one is keeping track of the overuse of these overly allowing categories.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This makes the category gender neutral. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, articles should be put in these categories only if they are defining to the character, therefore the problem lies within the articles, not the categories.(Oinkers42) (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gender neutral shouldn't be above having competent categorization.★Trekker (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, limit its scope, rename to e.g. Category:Victim characters in fiction about kidnapping and purge, in order to improve the definingness. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Restrict in some way (e.g. as proposed by Marcocapelle) so this doesn't categorize e.g. soap characters that have hundreds of storylines or e.g. Walter White (Breaking Bad). DexDor (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See my comments re: fictional child abuse victims above. How far does a kidnapping have to go, and how long does it have to last, for it to be defining to a character? Should a character be particularly prone to being kidnapped or will just one abduction do? Categories should be more about what a character is and less about what happens to them. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe in order for a character to be in this category, or any category like this, it has to be a major part of their character and story. Look at Princess Peach, who is constantly kidnapped and spends her time in captivity over several games. Another example would be Rapunzel, whose main story arc is escaping her captor. These two characters are partially defined by being victims of kidnapping. It is a major element of their story. Someone who was kidnapped for one episode of a television show and then never again would not be defining. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (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:Period post Ninth Crusade[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:Military history of the Crusader states after Lord Edward's crusade. There was a strong consensus to rename, but the issue that was never really resolved was what name should be selected. Since there was a consensus to rename to something, I have used the form that matches those selected in this discussion. As with the previous discussion, future nominations can be made to tweak the names, if desired.
Nominator's rationale: this matches the article section Lord Edward's crusade #Aftermath, covering events in 1271–1302. However, this was also opposed by Johnbod on the Speedy page, stating "needs a proper discussion, in which disagreement is highly likely. Again, a 30 year period is covered." Lord Edward's crusade, also known as the Ninth Crusade, was the last in the "Holy Land"; the following were the Smyrniote crusades in 1343–1351, and the Alexandrian Crusade in 1365, which was also known as the Tenth Crusade; therefore I have not proposed the same naming format as the others above. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rename needed, but I prefer "Category:Military history of the Crusader states 1271–1302" or similar. We recently moved the article from Ninth Crusade to Lord Edward's crusade, which apparently is what specialists use, but will not be recognised by many non-specialists. I don't like the "Aftermath of Foo" style, and as with those above, the 30 year period covered seems too long for an "aftermath". My proposal would of course be consistent with the other post-Crusade cats in the section above, assuming that passes. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the alternative, but as above, we may drop 'military'. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, as above. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the alternative, but as above, we may drop 'military'. Just N. (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2020 (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/2020_December_9&oldid=1073192482"