Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18[edit]

Category:Infobox person using boxwidth/influence/ethnicity/religion/denomination/home town parameter[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) 03:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These were temporary tracking categories to find uses of a deprecated parameter. All of the categories have been emptied by fixing template transclusions in articles. All such parameters have been removed from {{Infobox person}}, and the code that created these tracking categories has been removed from the template, so the categories can be deleted. Articles with new usages of any of these parameters will appear in Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they served their purpose. --Salix alba (talk): 13:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obsolete. We did a great work in infobox standardisation using these categories. Now things are in a manageable scale. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they have been emptied. The fields do still occasionally get used but the "Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters" cat will capture those for cleanup. MarnetteD|Talk 23:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process note: I have added Category:Infobox person using residence, which qualifies under the same rationale. If this is out of process and should not be done, feel free to revert this change or do a procedural relisting to allow more time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete G6 deletion would be appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:34, 26 April 2021 (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:Bilateral relations of U.S. states[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bilateral relations are relations between two sovereign states. U.S. states are not sovereign, so by definition, there cannot be bilateral relations. The articles used to populate these categories are trivial, and not defining. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not familiar with the contents of each of these categories, but I would imagine they could be sub-categories of Category:Paradiplomacy. The topic of sub-national diplomacy in the USA is certainly notable, and on that basis I'm inclined to keep. But is it defining to the articles in question? I don't know. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they are almost completely articles on bridges and railroads. There is nothing related to diplomacy at all about almost all of these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the stuff here involves bridges and railraods that span multiple states. This is not what bilateral relations are, and makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and restructure -- Most of these are about border bridges etc, but there are a few items relating to boundary disputes. This will fill "bilateral relations of Boo and Foo" with articles (rather than these being containers). These should then be merged to the relevant state category of Category:Borders of U.S. states by state. This will have the effect of disposing of a wholly unnecessary tree, without the need manually to check that we are losing nothing in the process. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2021 (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:Empire of Austria (1867-1918)[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) 02:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These category have been created with a hyphen instead of a dash as required by MOS:DATERANGE, and could be renamed Speedily, but I thought it would be useful to have a full discussion on record. These categories have been created by emptying many single-year establishment categories out-of-process, such as Category:1882 establishments in Austria. [1] [2] I believe it would have been best practice to list those categories at CFD for merger to "Empire of Austria", especially as there was no consensus to merge these at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_22#Establishments_in_Austria_in_prior_to_1919 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_1#(dis)establishments_in_Austria – Fayenatic London 21:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It is not true to say that i made no reply. I created two discussions on two talk pages and pinged @Liz and Fram: who complained. See Talk:Gaming Charterhouse. This nomination is an abuse of WP:CFD as the nominator has already confessed. It is nothing more that WP:POINTY finger pointing. By the way, I have also created "establishment" categories for many states of the Holy Roman Empire. It is likely, for example, that Category:Establishments in the Archduchy of Austria is probably a better home for many articles that are erroneously tagged to 18th and 19th century establishments in Austria.Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea if it worked for Liz, but for me the ping at that page didn't work. In any case, when you are contacted on your user talk page about edits to many pages, it is better to discuss it there, instead of on some disparate article talk pages: and reverting changes after you have been contacted and without replying is wrong. I'll repopulate the categories you emptied against consensus, and I would urge you very strongly to stop reverting this, as it would mean that a WP:ANI discussion would be necessary to force you to stop. Fram (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus to leave articles in incorrect categories. There was a suggestion to create categories for more precise geographic and time periods. This I did with the creation of these 3 nominated categories. The articles you complain of are now correctly categoried. Please stop the reversions of those articles to categories that are now unnecessary and incorrect. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, simple spelling fix and (even while created out of process) I do not see a reason to discuss the existence of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2021 (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:Market towns[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 Category:Market towns in the Czech Republic; delete Category:Market towns in Norway and Category:Ottoman market towns; no consensus on the rest. The discussion was impeded by procedural issues. Amongst other problems, Category:Market towns in England, Category:Market towns in Wales, and Category:Market towns in Scotland were not nominated so it made little sense to delete Category:Market towns in the United Kingdom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Confusing to have this for England in particular though if I look at Category:Ottoman market towns they aren't in a towns (or other settlement) category so maybe those should be kept. So I'd be fine with keeping some of the non-UK. In terms of Category:Market towns in England most towns in England appear to be market towns but only some are categorized as such anyway meaning that this largely duplicates Category:Towns in England making it harder to find towns if only some of a county's towns are in the market town's category, see WP:OVERLAPCAT. If deleted the articles should be checked to make sure that they are in an appropriate towns category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at Category:Towns in Derbyshire, there are 29 such, a few of which are (well-known) market towns; what is the problem? In any case deleting the top category will do nothing for the ones in England. (WP:OVERLAPCAT does not apply to subcats, as there is inevitably a 100% overlap.) Oculi (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But aren't all of those in Category:Towns in Derbyshire also market towns? Along with England's other towns, that's a bit redundant when we can use the simpler term "Town" instead of "Market town" though a few villages might be market towns it seems easier to have them in the towns or villages category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bedford: "Bedford is a historic market and the county town of Bedfordshire, England". Most towns are not market towns. Oculi (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which ones aren't? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "A market town is a European settlement that obtained by custom or royal charter, in the Middle Ages, the right to host markets (market right), which distinguished it from a village or city." The ones (most of them) which did not obtain this right are not market towns (and will not be described as market towns, or having a historic market). Eg Staveley is not and Chesterfield is. Oculi (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area note that there is a long-standing geographic concept, undocumented and not on any to-do list in Wikipedia these two decades, of double towns a.k.a. town couples. I've cited a professor of geography there explaining that usually one is a market/port town and the other is usually residential/industrial, and noting a bunch of examples. You can find various other experts explaining how towns like Bedford started out as double towns, using a slightly different but related definition of the concept. (Page 1921, p. 22) You can even find people trying to form a more global perspective bemoaning this difference, and the confusion with twin towns. ☺ (Joenniemi & Jańczak 2013) (Hesz & Joszkin 2019, p. 127) Page also explains market towns specifically. (Page 1921, p. 21)
            • Page, William (1921). "Forms of Medieval Settlements in England". The Geographical Teacher. 11 (1): 20–23. JSTOR 41553248.
            • Joenniemi, Pertti; Jańczak, Jarosław (2013). "Theorizing Town Twinning — Towards a Global Perspective". Journal of Borderlands Studies. 32 (4): 423–428. doi:10.1080/08865655.2016.1267583.
            • Hesz, Roland; Joszkin, Bence (2019). "The Emergence of Twin Cities in de-bordering European Union space". In Jańczak, Jaroslaw (ed.). Old Borders - New Challenges, New Borders - Old Challenges: De-Bordering and Re-Bordering in Contemporary Europe. Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH. ISBN 9783832548759.
          • So the numerous industrial/residential halves of double towns are not market towns. No, we didn't know that we didn't have bridge-head town, either. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, the subcategories are neither listed nor tagged, and we cannot just delete the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the request of Crouch, Swale, I have gone through and tagged the subcategories. In theory this was meant to be done by my bot, but I was having some issues, so I did it manually. The following subcategories have been tagged for this discussion:
  • Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sub-sub-cats need to tagged, eg Category:Market towns in Bedfordshire. Oculi (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please specify the merge target for every of the subcategories. That information is needed if only for the closer of the discussion in order to implement the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Norwegian and Ottoman categories, the Norwegian category contains electoral districts, the Ottoman category contains bazaars. I have not made up my mind yet about the others. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: my procedural oppose does not apply to these two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A good many years ago, we resolved the city/town/village issue by merging them all to populated places. That was a good solution in that it avoided semantic arguments as to status. An English category might be viable as there are published lists of places with market charters, but this would not be useful as there are many places that have long ceased to have an active market. Conversely, there are places where a market operates (or did so in modern times) without any charter. My inclination is to merge to populated places. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the Category:Market towns in the Czech Republic. Market town (městys) is a distinct legal administrative term in the Czech Republic. Settlements in the country are categorized (from top down) into cities and towns, market towns and municipalities (villages). This categorization has broader implications, e.g. the money they receive from the government, the institutions they should have within their borders etc. Market town is therefore not a subjective wikipedia term here. - Darwinek (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep United Kingdom and subcats thereof as market towns have a specific meaning in the UK and only a minority of towns are market towns. Keep Czech Republic per Darwinek. No opinion on the others. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2021 (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:Collaborators with Nazi Germany 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorising Nazi collaborators by ethnicity is a highly inappropriate ethnic intersection. This tree was created by an indefinitely banned user and the ethnic categories present are notable in that they are exclusively of oppressed communities, which presents a highly selective view of Nazi colloraboration. The drivers of Nazi collaboration were typically political, thus this intersection of Nazis and ethnicity is not even historically useful or accurate. SFB 17:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Subwayfan1998, User:RedEye98, User:Kingstowngalway, User:Peacemaker67 and User:Lysy created these categories, none of whom are blocked although they aren't all active. The parent category WAS created by a blocked editor, User:Zoupan though. I hope you notified all category creators of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated, a merge target should be specified in order to keep the articles in the tree of Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany, or else the categories should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated a merge cat is needed. A related issue is that in some parts of the world, there is a bit of confusion in terminology regarding nationality and ethnicity. The former Yugoslav countries, for example, where Serbian (both a nationality proper (since 2006 and pre-1918) is also an ethnicity. So we have "Serbian collaborators with Nazi Germany", despite the fact that they were of course of Yugoslav nationality at the time. The same applies to Slovenians, Croats etc in WWII, and therefore this is related, and perhaps that branch needs to be examined in the same light. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly move to "Breton nationalist collaborators with Nazi Germany‎") the Breton category at least since Bretons would consider themselves a nationality, not an ethnicity, and in these cases their collaboration was motivated by Breton nationalism. See Breton nationalism and World War II. Delete (don't merge) the Jewish category since collaborating was obviously not motivated by Jewish identity, and this terminology is considered problematic by many Holocaust scholars (eg. see here [3]). (t · c) buidhe 10:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also recommend merge Chechen and Circassian -> Category:Soviet collaborators with Nazi Germany and Arab -> Category:Middle Eastern collaborators with Nazi Germany. (t · c) buidhe 10:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per buidhe--SoaringLL (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון[reply]
  • Various I generally Support Buidhe -- Basque is a single item and should be upmerged. Breton and Jewish seem viable (as adequately populated). The Bosnian one may be problematic and may be better repurposed as Yugoslav; this would be supporters of the movement promoted by the Nazis and supported by many Croats. Chechen and Circassian -> Category:Soviet collaborators with Nazi Germany looks good and this could probably be populated further. The Arab category is viable: merging it with Iranian and Turkish feels wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were several collaboration Jewish organizations in occupied Poland during the WW2. The Thirteen Dos drajcent (jidish) and Zagiew (Polish) were some of them. Their Jewish members were cooperating with Nazi German secret police Gestapo and SD. Jewish Zagiew Organization was supervising Judenrats including lists of Jewish Poles to be sent to the German concentration camps during the WW2.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.94.10.200 (talk • contribs)
    • You may consider that to be collaboration but many scholars contest this terminology,[4] and since it is contested, it's not appropriate to use as categorization. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In reading the above discussion, I find it interesting that those who oppose or who suggest keeping, also seem to support merging to various subcats of Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by nationality. So there does not seem to be much in the way of support for keeping a "by ethnicity" tree for this. So with that in mind... - jc37 12:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Deprecate the "by ethnicity" tree for this. I do not oppose Upmerging all to Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany, to allow for subsequent editorial diffusion to whatever appropriate subcats of that category, on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 12:22, 26 May 2021 (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:Heavenly Records artists[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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nomination per Speedy#C2D: Consistency with main article's name. As well the correct name of the record label webpage and company is 'Heavenly Recordings' instead of 'Heavenly Records'. (Not being aware of the latter I accidentily started a new cat 'Heavenly Recordings artists'. It should be merged.) Just N. (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (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 autonomous community in Spain[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, though not the Basque ones or the conquistadors ones: there was no consensus to rename these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andalusian categories
Aragonese categories
Asturian categories
Basque categories
Canarian categories
Cantabrian categories
Castilian-Leonese categories
Castilian Manchegan categories
Catalan categories
Extremaduran categories
Galician categories
Madrilenian categories
Valencian categories
Nominator's rationale: The Spanish people tree breaks from traditional naming convention of "fooian people" for countries and "people from foo" for other locations, by using forms such as "Andalusian people". The autonomous communities of Spain, while of significant historic relevance, are not countries therefore these should be renamed to "people from Andalusia" etc.
The principal basis of the renames are to rename to a category matching the article title of the relevant community. This is relatively straight forward for all except the Catalan and Basque categories (presumably the complications are the reason for this difference lasting so many years).
In the case of Catalan categories, I have proposed a rename to the styling "from Catalonia", though unlike other regions Category:Catalan people is listed under Category:Ethnic groups in Spain. However, the content of the category is largely location-based therefore I suggest we proceed in styling this as a non-ethnic category. Ethnic-specific categories can be created later if that is desirable.
In the case of the Basque categories, these are problematic because it is ambiguous whether "Basque fooers" refers to people from Basque Country (autonomous community) or Basque Country (greater region). Categories distinguishing those two are few. To prevent miscategorisation I suggest to rename the current Basque categories to "Basque Country (greater region)" then subcategories for "Basque Country (autonomous community)" can later be created to refine this categorisation, where appropriate. I appreciate this is a big nomination so any input is much appreciated, and if some aspects of the Catalan/Basque remain unclear I'd prefer if the less complex renames proceed separetely, rather than dropping the whole nomination as one. SFB 15:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. There is strong regionalism in Spain and many people consider themselves to be part of a regional ethnicity, so I can understand how these category names originally emerged. However this regionalism is a POV that should have less weight when put in international perspective like here on en.wp. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most of them as they are at best regional identities within Spain. Oppose changes in the Basques-related categories. The Basques are an ethnic group, and a long-standing ethnic and linguistic minority within both Spain and France. Not everyone within the Basque Country is a Basque. Dimadick (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: Yes there are definitely complications there! The problem is that there is often no distinction of Basque ethnic/Basque region/Basque Spanish autonomous community within the current structure so we have things like Category:Basque tennis players serving as a mix of all three. I'm open to a clean-up approach on that problem. Yet the issue is that leaving all Basque categories as an ethnic grouping puts many at risk of deletion. Things like "Basque ethnicity" and "tennis player" are probably not relevant intersections for categories (while renaming per location would be). Note that the key ethnic categories, like Category:Basque people and Category:French-Basque people, have been excluded and the nomination is focusing only on occupational Basque categories. SFB 18:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except the Basque categories as proposed due to the aforementioned problems of how these have been applied. It's clear that this proposal goes along the lines of Autonomous Community. Therefore the Basque ones would correctly be assigned to FOOERS from the Basque Country (autonomous community). However it is clear that in certain cases this is not applied as such. This would require each person's article to be checked and confirmed whether it should be placed in the Autonomous Community cat or not. This task would become more contentious the further back in history one goes due to the history of the region. And as has been mentioned above, this issue possibly also applies to the Catalan ones, where an idea of ethnicity has been used which may not correspond to an origin from somewhere in the current Autonomous Community (rugby players is one I'm already aware of, with players from Perpignan currently included in the Catalan cat and Biarritz etc in the Basque cat). Not sure whether this mass check should happen before the name change or after. But in terms of consistency here, the name change that should be applied is to fit under the existing umbrella Category:People from the Basque Country (autonomous community). Crowsus (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now removed the French players from the Catalan and Basque rugby union cats which as far as I'm aware was the main area of overlap among the modern era categories - stuff like 'Basque explorers' dating back to the 1400s would obviously need to be looked at differently. Unfortunately, for those rugby players there is no direct equivalent on that side of the border for anyone looking for a quick list. Although the French-Basque contingent is significant in rugby, and the Perpignan area too to a lesser degree, there are no other regional groupings of French players at present so I think it would be pushing the boundaries of categorization to create one for these specific, geographically small areas (the Catalan side at least has a department, one could attempt to get away with Category:Rugby union players from Pyrénées-Orientales, but the French Basque Country is only half a department, obviously it exists to an extent but it would almost be SYNTH to categorise the rugby players alone to that degree IMO - there is Category:French-Basque people which several of them already had, but that's getting back to the main Basque issue of it being a cultural identity – often self-defined – rather than a geopolitical location of origin which is more straightforward to demonstrate and apply). Crowsus (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further update, I have now gone through all the Basque and Catalan sportspeople cats, ensuring they refer to the autonomous communities (tbf apart from the rubgy it wasn't too bad). So although the wider issue remains, the sports ones can be renamed without a problem. BTW, apologies if these updates are delaying the moves actually happening, that's not my intention. Crowsus (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, except Basque -- These are locations, not ethnicities. This moves them to a well-established WP format, where the "from" is purposely allowed to be interpreted in multiple ways. I understand that there are some regional languages in Spain, but assume that these are in the nature of dialects. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but 'Basque' is also one of the locations under this same official definition, you can't just ignore it entirely (I think that's what you're suggesting? Sorry if I misread it) because some people innocently added it to a wider, older ethnolinguistic sphere, and some other people carelessly misapplied it in modern contexts. Crowsus (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, except Basque and Catalan per the voices above.--Darwinek (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Moving all of these (not just some) to their corresponding autonomous communities is the way to go. It would be useful to keep as historical region/ethnic categories those which apply only to people from before the establishment of the autonomous communities, especially the conquistadors categories. For example, the CyL and CLM conquistadors categories should be merged into Category:Castilian conquistadors (or Category:Leonese conquistadors if any were ethnically Leonese). I would also keep all the other conquistador categories as they are (Andalusian, Asturian, Catalan, etc.). It doesn't make any sense to organize people from the 1500s by autonomous community. This is especially important since historians always treat conquistadors from a regional/ethnic perspective (as with any diaspora):
"La primera conquista la hicieron principalmente castellanos, extremeños, andaluces guerreros del centro y sur de España." Rufino Blanco Fombona, Ensayos históricos, 1981.
"Procedencia: en gran proporción procedían de Extremadura, región pobre, ganadera. Cortés, Pizarro, Valdivia, Orellana, fueron extremeños. Los castellanos propiamente dichos procedían, en parte, de tierras contiguas a Extremadura." Antonio Domínguez Ortiz, Hisoria de España, 1974.
It seems most commenters think that only Catalonia and the Basque Country somehow have their own language, culture and ethnic history? Galicians, Asturians, Cantabrians, Castilians, Leonese, Aragonese, Valencians, Murcians, Andalusians, Extremadurans, Canarians, etc. are historical ethnicities going back many centuries. Spain is a multiethnic country and it has been for as long as we know. Surely we can have geographical and ethnical categories, but it makes no sense to mix them both here. Neodop (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neodop: I avoided the more historical categories (e.g. Category:11th-century Catalan people) for that reason. I thought about excluding the conquistador categories, but the proposed names all share names with the historic regions too (except Castile and Leon which need separating).
I definitely agree that Spain has been multi-ethnic for many centuries, but that fact makes the conquisator ethnic/nation overlap more problematic. For example, in Andalusian conquistadors we have people like Beltrán de Cetina and Hernán Pérez de Quesada who are not of ethnic Andalusian descent, and are also partially of converso/Sephardim descent. In this way, the proposed Category:Conquistadors from Andalusia is much more accurate in describing the multi-ethnic nature of conquistadors. Any thoughts? Would Category:Conquistadors from Kingdom of Granada (Crown of Castile) be better?
This distinction highlights the deeper issue of the Spanish ethnicity categories also serving as the historic nationality categories. The latter is better served by things like Category:People from the Kingdom of Navarre rather than Category:Navarrese people. The current mix up causes people like Louis X of France to be placed in ethnic Navarrese categories, which is simply incorrect. SFB 15:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with categorizing conquistadors by ethnicity. Pérez de Quesada was undeniably andaluz. He is described as such by Diego Barros Arana and is featured in the encyclopedic volume Los Andaluces y América (RAH, 1991). Again, ethnicity is the defining characteristic of conquistadors, not their Kingdoms or Provinces, which is why passages like this are commonplace:
"Los primeros conquistadores europeos que pasaron por los mencionados valles fueron Iñigo de Bascona, vasco (1531); Juan de San Martín, castellano (1531); Hernán Pérez de Quesada, andaluz (1541)..."
The Cetina brothers were also andaluces; Gutierre's pen name and main character was named after Andalusia (Vandalio) and his poetry is set on the margins of the Betis river. Almost everyone in Andalusia has Arab, Jewish and even some gypsy blood; it's part (if not the essence) of the Andalusian identity and culture.
Having additional categories for historical kingdoms within the Crown of Castile is fine, although of limited use given their changing boundaries. There is little benefit to categorizing Pizarro and Cortés as conquistadors from the Reino de León when they are universally said to be extremeños. The problem with using e.g. Category:Conquistadors from Extremadura rather than Category:Extremaduran conquistadors, is that it would create inconsistencies, like in the case of Francisco de Bobadilla, who was Aragonese, but from modern-day La Rioja, not Aragón. As mentioned before, "Castilla y León", "Valencian Community", etc. are anachronistic. Similarly, Andalusia, Extremadura and Cantabria were not political entities back then, yet people were (and are) qualified as andaluces, extremeños and cántabros due to their ethnicity. PS: Navarrese people is not an "ethnic category". The predominant ethnicity of the people of Navarre & Basse-Navarre has been Basque for millennia, plus minorities of Aragonese, Occitan and to a lesser extent Castilians. The Basque Navarrese dialects differ as much from each other as they do from other Basque dialects, so it is hard to argue for the validity of "Navarrese people" being a single subgroup of the Basque. Neodop (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the points above have merit. I feel overall the issues with the many historic territories, all of which deserve to be treated respectfully) would be better resolved after the re-naming. It will look much clearer, in my view, to look at cats for each bio and judge whether the assigned cat is glaringly wrong for the relevant period when the cat reads FOOers from [modern day] BAH rather than the more ambiguous BAHian [of any period] FOOers. It may be that some new cats have to be created for the Age of Discovery kingdoms to properly reflect the identity of the conquistadors etc and that's fine IMO, there aren't a huge amount of bios and there weren't a huge amount of kingdoms. For my part, over the past week I've been looking through the Basque cats and have appropriately re-assigned the modern day Navarrese and French folk plus those actually born and raised elsewhere leaving the Basque autonomous community natives, as well as assigning the generic 'Basque people' to an occupation where possible, with the exception of medieval figures for whom the category clearly relates to their pre-Spanish Ethnicity/linguistic culture. There are always a few debatable ones in terms of the categories' definition and hopefully I've not put anyone's nose out of joint with the changes - no reversions or arguments so far that I'm aware of. I started doing the same with the 'Catalan people' one but there's actually so many occupational and geographic subcats there that it was taking me too long to check and define them, unlike the Basque ones that I either already was, or became, pretty familiar with to make the process a bit quicker. Crowsus (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. I disagree that moving the conquistadors has any benefit, it is entirely anachronistic. Currently, they are classified by their ethnicity which is in line with historical usage, the scholarly literature and their own self-described identity. This proposal would leave Category:Castilian conquistadors as is, while changing the perfectly valid Category:Andalusian conquistadors to Category:Conquistadors from Andalusia, which essentially erases the ethnic identity of these people while assigning them to a then non-existent geopolitical entity (as valid for them as it would be for Trajan and Arganthonios). These cats need to be left just like Category:Leonese infantes and hundreds of other historical/ethnic cats have been excluded from the move. Neodop (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, an easy solution for that is to remove the FOOian people by occupation category from the vocations which only refer to centuries ago, particularly Conquistadors and Explorers and also I think Sailors, although that will include some modern day mariners. Then they aren't included in the renaming proposal. To be honest, the insistence on this ethnic classification is a bit concerning to me. The conquistadors is actually a fairly straightforward one from the ones I've looked at, since they mainly seem to be raised in a military or naval tradition in a specific town or region and so its fairly safe to classify them. But the monarchs etc, while easier to trace, often had multiple ethnicities, were raised somewhere else and ruled over somewhere else again. Then we have cases like Englés, categorised under 'Navarrese people' but unlikely to be confirmed in sources as to his ethnicity, and in fact the article states that his nickname suggests he had some kind of English background or connection. Using a 'from' cat rather than an '-ese' cat ensures it is based on fact rather than assumption. But I suppose that's a different argument. But anyway, if what it takes for the modern age occupations to be renamed is for those which realistically only existed in a previous age to be removed in all cases (e.g there are 11 within Category: Spanish conquistadors), I'd support it. But I'm worried this is gonna rumble on further due to the vocations which are both ancient and modern (though the articles are usually on modern persons): Category:Andalusian painters, Category:Andalusian musicians, etc. Crowsus (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I only refer to the conquistadors/explorers categories because they all predate the autonomous communities by centuries. It would be very worrying to come across a category called Category:Conquistadors from the Basque Country (autonomous community). I agree that this shouldn't be applied to other occupations. Neodop (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neodop: That is exactly the situation my proposal seeks to avoid (note the renames refers to the Basque Country (greater region) which can refer to the region both historically and present day). I see this issue is present in a few nominations like Category:Madrilenian painters and Category:Valencian painters, both of which explicitly contain the modern day region name which is not the same as the historical one. Do you have any proposals to improve upon that? I am not aware of what the historic region of Madrid was referred to as. I see pre 1700 Valencia people could be placed under Kingdom of Valencia instead, which was a distinct entity until 1707.
On the point of ethnicity made above, I think it is easy to read modern senses of ethnicity and nationhood in older sources where the original writer did not have the same intent and meaning of those ideas. Wikipedia categories on ethnicity are typically in the modern sense, with a significant genetic component, whereas the historical senses of Spanish regions are much closer to political units rather than any specific ethnicity in a genetic sense. A similar discussion in 2011 resulted in the deletion of Category:Sicilian people in favour of Category:People from Sicily, and a historic category at Category:Kingdom of Sicily people. It feels that kind of outcome would be useful here. SFB 20:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: You really need to drop the idea of using 'FOOers from the Basque Country (greater region)'. It is not the name for any of the autonomous communities and therefore completely out of sync with the rest of your proposal. As I've stated above, I have gone through all of the 'Basque FOOers' categories of the modern era and replaced the Navarrese and French-Basque ones as appropriate. So there is no concern over mislabelling. 'FOOers from the Basque Country (autonomous community)' is both consistent with the geopolitical basis for these categories, and accurate for the background of all modern-era persons concerned. Crowsus (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crowsus, Dimadick, Peterkingiron, and Darwinek: I have struck the proposed Basque category renames from this nomination to allow the rest to proceed. I expect there is further discussion needed on how to balance ethnic Basque categories with categories for the Spanish autonomous community, but happy to leave that to a subsequent discussion. SFB 23:44, 21 May 2021 (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:Moksha-believing religions[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) 03:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, Moksha is a term in Hinduism and Jainism, but not a defining characteristic of other religions. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moksha comes up in Buddhism and Jainism as well, but a lot of the articles like Platonism and Orphism don't mention the term and are in the category because of similar ideas. This category may be more of an issue of WP:OR with Wikipedia editors exploring common religious themes rather than using secondary sources. Such informal comparison are interesting to me but not encyclopedic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of the Palestinian refugees[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 in favour of this discussion running its course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See this discussionSelfstudier (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, having an identical discussion at two different places is far from helpful. If you prefer a reverse merge, you can simply indicate that in yesterday's discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the linked discussion, this merger will delete an unnecessary category that overlaps with the category Nakba, a more accurate, clearer and simpler navigational aid. The other discussion is a second argument for deleting the Nakba category, this is an argument for not doing that while still resolving the alleged overlap. If the argument in the other discussion fails as it did in the initial deletion discussion, then this one needs to follow in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- Nakba is not an English word. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, disruption by Selfstudier creating a duplicate discussion to already open one from yesterday. Reverse merge is obvious because Nakba is not in English, and is a recently created category disrupting the existing tree.Free1Soul (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nakba can not cover more than 70 years in the life of the Palestinian diaspora, and not everything about the history of this community can be depicted as an aspect of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose/Speedy Close There is already an open merge nomination for these categories going the other way right here. A vote of "reverse merge" there would be constructive. This nomination may be in good faith but it is not constructive. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted reverse merge in the other, I didn't know that was a thing. How do I close this one? Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn/Combined per nominator; see above. Please place your input (pro/con/other) on the original nomination located right here - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2021 (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:Christianity in the Republic of Ireland by denomination[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) 03:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the Ireland and Northern Ireland recent decisions and all other states. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "wee frees" are only organised in Northern Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title is confusing. Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2021 (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:Irish expatriate archbishops[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/do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Irish expatriate Roman Catholic archbishops Rathfelder (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None were archbishops when they were in Ireland Rathfelder (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see none were bishops when they left Ireland. Maybe these should also be renamed as emigrant clergy. Very few ever returned to Ireland, and it seems very likely that most became citizens of their destination country. I dont think any of the articles say anything about nationality or citizenship. Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not seeing a consistent rationale in these proposals. For "Irish expatriate archbishops", the rationale offered is "Only content is Category:Irish expatriate Roman Catholic archbishops". So? Is this a crime? If I find any Irish men of the Church of Ireland who became archbishops in Darkest Africa, I will be sure to add them to this category. For the other 3 categories, the rationale offered is "As far as I can see none were bishops when they left Ireland." So? Is this a crime? It is implicit in the word "expatriate" and explicit of the scope defined, that the men in the category served their episcopate in the country that was not the country of their birth. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any Irish man in the "Irish expatriate archbishops" category is already tagged as a "Roman Catholic Bishop of Foo Irish Diocese", is addition to his expatriate tagging. He is also tagged as "Roman Catholic Archbishop of Darkest Africa". So there is no information loss. "Irish expatriate archbishops" just acknowledges the fact that his archepiscopacy was served abroad. It's not an alternative fact, it is an additional fact that is worthy of conservation. I have no objection to the creation of a new expatriate clergy category. Such a creation is not incompatible with the retention of the nominated categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nigeria has plenty of expatriates, who are not Nigerian and would not be entitled to citizenship. Beckham doesn't become an American footballer by playing in the States. Oculi (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beckham was a footballer before he went to the USA. These people were not bishops when they were in Ireland. Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You insist on missing the point, as is often the case. The person is (a) a bishop; (b) Irish; so he is an Irish bishop. Many such will return to Ireland on retirement, eg Patrick Kelly (bishop of Benin City) (retirement). It's completely irrelevant when or where he became a bishop. And why cannot you learn to indent like everyone else does? Oculi (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We decided to categorise bishops by the location of the diocese. You may not like it, but that was the decision. It's not becoming a bishop that matters. Its being a bishop, which happens, for the vast majority in a diocese. If returning to Ireland is crucial to the definition we could purge the majority, who didnt. Rathfelder (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'We' made no such decision. I agree that Bishops should be categorised by their diocese XXX ('Bishops of XXX') but this does not imply that they should not also be categorised by their nationality. It is not either/or as we can have both. (Thomas Carr (archbishop of Melbourne), mentioned below, was a bishop in Ireland before going to Australia.) Oculi (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no objection to categorising them by nationality, but in general they were priests in Ireland. I dont think you will find any archbishops who migrated after they had become an archbishop, and Carr is very unusual in being a bishop in Ireland before he moved. If being a bishop in Ireland is the criterion he may be the only member.Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Note Despite this discussion being live, @Rathfelder: has removed Thomas Carr (archbishop of Melbourne) from the Irish expatriates category. I have discussed it with him and restored the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That these people were Irish and that they were archbishops elsewhere are both notable things worth categorizing by. We might want to merge to Caegory:Irish expatriate Roman Catholic bishops but an outright delete is not justified. I make no comment on how accurate any particular categorization is. I suspect that some people are in here inapropriately here who were clearly Irish emigrants to the US, Canada, Australia or Britain, and not in any meaningful way still expatriates when made bishops, but some were clearly expatriates and belong in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination is made based on a minsuderstanding of what the requirements for being an expatriate are. I would say generally if they were advanced to the priesthood while still in Ireland, or advanced to the priesthood somewhere else with plans to not stay in that locality, they would remain expatriates. It takes a lot of looking deeply into the particular biography in some cases, but there are clearly people who this category applies to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well Patrick Delany (archbishop) had never been to Australia at all when he was appointed a bishop there. He had lived all his life to that point in Ireland, except for periiods of time as a student in Italy. He was clearly and without question an expatriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Delany moved to Australia in 1885. ... in 1907 he succeeded Bishop Murphy as the third Archbishop of Hobart." He seems to have stayed in Australia for the rest of his life. Is he not more accurately described as an emigrant than an expatriate? Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now James Duhig clearly does not belong, he emigrated to Australia while a child. However the fact that he does not fit the parameters of the category does not prove that it does not apply to anyone. In the same way I would argue that Vai Sikahema was not a Tongan expatriate player of American football. He emigrated to the US well before high school. He is a Tongan emigrant to the United States, and later became a notable player of American style football, he is not a Tongan expatriate player of American football, but his not fitting that term does not mean there are not Tongans recruited to play at BYU just after graduating from Liahona High School in Tonga who do fit the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not proposing to delete the basic categories, but to make them more accurate. Generally young men became priests in Ireland and then emigrated and became bishops. It's very rare to find anyone who moved from one country to another after they had become a bishop after 1800. The vast majority stayed in their adopted country for life, so are better described as emigrants (or possibly missionaries) than expatriates, though hardly any of the articles mention them changing nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2021 (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.

Active ships[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prospose merging:
entire category tree
Nominator's rationale: merge, it is always a bad idea to have a category with "Active" and this is no exception. Maintenance would require huge efforts and it is highly unlikely that anyone would persist in that. Consensus at WikiProject Ships is to have the tree deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge etc. We have long resisted a current/past category split. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With few exceptions, we don't typically distinguish between current and former entities within a category. Dimadick (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not a useful breakdown. Thanks for taking on such a large nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge will help with maintenance, can't see any downside. (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 19 April 2021 (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.

Philosophy of religion literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Philosophy of religion literature

Category:Buddhism in culture[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, container category with only three subcategories, it would be more obvious to find the three subcats directly under the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2021 (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:Pederastic heroes and deities[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) 03:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is another pederasty category from editor Haiduc who was blocked by ArbCom. I think pederasty is pretty well-defined but I question what "heroes" means here and if this is a useful category for navigation and organization of articles. I think the parent category Category:LGBT themes in mythology serves an educational purpose but I question the subjective identification of "pederastic heroes" and I don't think Wikipedia will be the poorer for the deletion of this category. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hero has a distinctive meaning in mythology, as a type of semi-divine warrior. They were the subjects of worship in Greek hero cults. Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, do we categorize heroes by who they prefer having sexual relations with, in this case, children? Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The meaning of "heroes" is really beside the point. Haiduc was basically a highly-active WP:SPA who wrote reams of propaganda exaggerating the prevalence and social standing of practices that in today's world, are called child sexual abuse by non-WP:Fringe sources. Part of this effort involved purposely conflating relationships between grown males that really are part of gay history together with abusive relationships between a grown man and a young boy, and calling it all "pederasty". A lot of his crap was deleted shortly after his ban in 2010; the rest (that I know of) has been cleaned up more recently, and this includes the network of pederasty categories created by him, and which were mostly CfD'ed recently (as can be seen by the notices on his talk page history). This one should go too. We don't need this to categorize myths that involve consensual relationships because we have LGBT categories for that. Crossroads -talk- 05:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crossroads (t · c) buidhe 09:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "pederastic" is not a defining characteristic of heroes and deities. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Category:Pederastic literature. Crossroads -talk- 03:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crossroads. gnu57 19:03, 23 April 2021 (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:Pansexual actresses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although all the current pages in the category are female, this category's name assumes that only women are pansexual. In addition, "actor" is a more acceptable gender-neutral term these days, so I believe this category should be renamed to include any male actors who may come out as pansexual in the future. Tom Danson (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We categorise female actors in Category:Actresses and its category tree. I see no reason for a scope change in the category. Dimadick (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have seperate actor and actress categories. This categories name assumes nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2021 (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:The Karate Kid characters[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) 03:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category. ★Trekker (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2021 (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:The Karate Kid films[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) 03:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To follow parent categories. ★Trekker (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2021 (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:Video game characters in television[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Video game characters in other media

Category:Video game characters in literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Video game characters in other media

Category:Video game characters in anime and manga[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Video game characters in other media

Category:Video game characters in comics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Video game characters in other media

Category:Video game characters in other media[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Video game characters in other media

Category:Video game characters in film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Video game characters in other media

Category:Recipients of the Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defence of the Czech Republic[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) 03:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
The Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defence of the Czech Republic with the stated purpose of recognizing heroism and other support to Czech defence. In practice the award is often given to visiting American military officials (General David Petraeus, General Wesley Clark, Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, Under Secretary Marshall Billingslea, & General Gregory S. Martin) and visiting Romanian royalty (Michael I of Romania & Margareta of Romania). The only 4 Czech people in the category consist of two diplomats (1 & 2) and two Czech generals (3 & 4) who are already well categorized under Category:Czech generals. This doesn't seem defining to any of these groups and the category contents are now all listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of articles are non-Czech. The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (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 Order of Diplomatic Service Merit[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) 02:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)
When high ranking international people meet with the government of South Korea, the Order of Diplomatic Service Merit is given out as a souvenir. U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, King Gyanendra of Nepal, and Russian Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin are not remotely defined by this award. Ambassadors to Korea Lee Khoon Choy and Zoila Martínez are defined by their role which is why they are already under Category:Ambassadors to Korea. (None of the people in this category are Korean.) All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a single Korean biography article in this category. It's not that it was given to "some others"; foreign people receiving it based on their roles is the whole category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2021 (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:Federal buildings in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category? Name of target category needs to be harmonized with wherever the two categories in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Category:Federal_buildings_in_Canada will be merged. Some items can be placed in a subcategory of the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A "Federal Building" is a distinct thing, having a separate Wikipedia article, it is not just any building of the U.S. Government. A salient one was the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, destroyed in the Oklahoma City bombing. There are a few historical precedents which were named "Federal Building" which tried to consolidate together a few separate offices/departments, but nowadays these are very large office buildings with some special features and architecture, which all include multiple U.S. government offices such as Internal Revenue Service office audit offices and other not-usually-front-facing-type departments, i.e. they usually are all back office-type places with limited public access. So usually not including U.S. Courthouses or U.S. Post Offices. The List of Federal buildings within the Federal building article is a list of places specifically named "Federal Building". The category for "Federal buildings in the U.S." is a type of, should be a subcategory of, "Buildings of the U.S. government". All or most proper Federal Buildings are administered by the General Services Administration. Maybe the term should be capitalized, so Federal building article should be moved to Federal Building, which would properly be considered at a wp:MV discussion first, and if that went through then the category should then be renamed similarly (without requiring a CFD). But the thrust of this deletion nomination is to ignore/eliminate distinction between the very real thing that is a "Federal Building" versus all other buildings of the U.S. government, which would be a mistake. --Doncram (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me when I am wrong, but it looks like this is a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. I do not (yet) see a "real" difference with other government buildings. Possibly rename to Category:Buildings administered by the General Services Administration. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As an Englishman, I do not know the fine nuances in the classifications of what is federal in US. However if the two are not the same, Americans need to work out what kinds of buildings fall into the one but not the other. Someone should then create a subcategory for the rest. It may be that "Buildings administered by the General Services Administration" would be an appropriate criterion, but (if so) that should be stated in a headnote, not a category name. Presumably US army bases are federal facilities, but without being part of the federal government administration in the way that federal courts, post offices, etc. are. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Comment In American usage, a "Federal Building" is one designed to be open to the public with a lot of different agencies in one place and located in the downtown of large and medium sized towns to be accessible. Other federally owned buildings (stand alone post offices, tax processing centers, office buildings for a single agency, military installations) are not ever called that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose for the correct reasons stated above. The 'Federal Building' in a city is a known entity throughout the United States. Separate from other buildings that may locally house a federal agency, such as Social Security, for whatever reason. Maybe the local Federal Building is too small. Hmains (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (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/2021_April_18&oldid=1033189933"