Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1
August 3 >

August 2[edit]

Category:Sports coaches by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More WP:CATSPECIFIC, and to avoid confusion with Category:Sports coaches by nationality, as recently clarified on 29 May 2023. This is a test case for other related categories about the countries where people work, rather than the countries of their nationality/citizenship, as these trees tend to be mixed up a lot. This is because "by country" can mean lots of different things, and both readers and editors frequently get confused about it.
This an indirect follow-up to:
Precedents
I would like to first agree on a naming convention, before nominating the rest. The phrase Country of work seems the easiest, shortest and most intuitive, and is also a term used in the context of work permits. Alt names I could come up with are:
Possible alt names
  • country of service – especially good idea for Category:Olympic coaches by country, because the work doesn't necessarily take place inside the country whose team they are serving, as the Olympics are usually held somewhere else. A coach from country A could serve the team of country B at the Olympics held in country C; this happens all the time. While they worked in country C for the duration of the Olympics, the subcategories show we are interested in country B, the country they worked for: Olympic coaches for Fooland.
country of service may or may not work in several other fields. For military personnel, the verb "to serve" and the noun "srevice" are very common; after all, we call them service(wo)men. But we've got a problem, as our current trees usually assume one can only serve in the military of the country of one's own nationality. How do we categorise Guillaume Henri Dufour's Allegiance: First French Empire (1810–1815), for example? Dufour is currently only in Category:Swiss generals, Category:Swiss military personnel of the Napoleonic Wars, and Category:Military personnel from the Republic of Geneva, but no category seems to exist for soldiers who served in the French military but without having French nationality. There is a Category:French expatriate units and formations, including the famed Category:French Foreign Legion, but this tree is about groups, not individuals. The exception is Category:Soldiers of the French Foreign Legion, but its other parent Category:French Army soldiers is again in the French nationality tree, which foreign soldiers by definition do not have. Should we create something like Category:Foreign military personnel in French service, and then parent Category:(Foreign) military personnel by country of service?
The distant cousin Category:Bishops by country also speaks of "the country in which they served their episcopate". However, this is about serving in country X, not serving country X itself. After all, bishops probably believe themselves to be serving God, not the country they just so happen to be working in. So country of service may not be the best term here.
  • country of occupation – per parent Category:People by occupation and country. But "country of occupation" sounds more like something military-related than sports-related, so I recommend against it.
  • country of employment – sounds good, but it makes it seem like the country (or rather, its government) is the employer, which isn't necessarily the case. If a Fooian diplomat is hired by the Fooian govt to work in Barland in contact with the Barian govt, then the Fooian govt provides the employment, but Barland is where the employment takes place. Meh... too confusing. ;)
  • mission country – this is used for Category:Ambassadors by mission country and Category:Missionaries by mission country, but probably doesn't really apply to sports coaches. "mission" sounds like they have been given a task by a very high authority, national govts in the case of ambassadors, deities or high religious leaders in the case of missionaries. Sports coachs generally choose their own careers individually, so "mission" is not the right word.
I'd like to know what you think, and what your preferences are. Keep in mind I would like to use this test case to set a precedent, to ease future CfR nominations. If you believe this precedent might not work (pun not intended) for related (sets of) categories, please indicate which ones, and why. I'm open to good feedback. As stated, country of work may be a good idea in general, while country of service may be better for Olympic coaches and foreign military personnel in particular, and mission country should probably remain restricted to ambassadors and missionaries.
Note also that country of work is not necessarily the same as country of residence. If some sports coach with Swedish nationality lives in Malmö, but crosses the Øresund Bridge every workday to work in Copenhagen, then their country of work is evidently Denmark, but their country of residence and nationality remains Sweden. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional bisexual non-binary 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: merge to the proposed target and Category:Fictional bisexuals. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A very overly specific category. Only has two articles and they're the same character. As of now, there's not enough depiction of non-binary people in media to require splits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-binary video game 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: merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The one article initially in it was a huge stretch and removed. It's an empty category and as of right now, it's unlikely to expand soon. Maybe recreate in a few years if it actually becomes common. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Huge stretch"? The article itself states Toad (Nintendo) is genderless. That falls under a non-binary category, and not under the androgynous one you replaced it with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say that. It says "the gender of the Toads will remain a mystery". But it doesn't matter. Even if Toad was explicitly non-binary, that would just be one single article. We do not create categories for just a single article. Maybe in a few years there will be more nonbinary characters in video games and we can recreate the category then, but as of right now, there's not nearly enough characters that could possibly fall into to justify it as a split from the main nonbinary category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair assessment, though I will point out the category was also meant as a counterpart to the existing male and female categories and in the cases of any non-binary or genderless character (say Testament from Guilty Gear) getting an article, it would be difficult to properly categorize as the character would have to end up in the main Video game characters category.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many splits in the video game category outside of gender that I doubt that will ever be the case. For example, with Testament, after just reading the first line of their description, I see that they can be in Category:Orphan characters in video games. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: @JDDJS: You should not empty categories out of process. Moreover, the recent CfD already resulted in a consensus that this category should exist under this name. By emptying it out of process and nominating it for merging, you are potentially ignoring recently established consensus, and I think such a thing requires a strong justification. I do not see that in your rationale, and you appear to be in quite a deep disagreement about it with Kung Fu Man. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, the nominator emptied Category:Non-binary video game characters. Please do not do this if you start an CFD discussion. It wastes the time of the participants to discuss an empty category. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation Although I can't quite remember which items were in the category when it was renamed on 4 June, I do see that two of them were recently nominated for deletion, and closed as Merge: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Master (Fallout) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nights (character) (nominated by the same person). Lavos was already removed on 4 June. And now Toad (Nintendo) has been removed out of process. It's a bit difficult to say how we should interpret these developments. The community decided this category should exist, but can't quite populate it. Some critics think this category shouldn't exist, or that the examples don't quite meet the definition. And although the last one was removed out of process, the mergers have led to a more natural partial emptying of the category that may have been an unintended consequence of the mergers. Although I personally also agree the category should exist, we should also try harder to populate it with unambiguous examples, more than just a bare minimum to justify a category when the inclusion of various items is repeatedly question, otherwise it has no added value. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I have a absolutely no problem with the category itself, just that it's too small. Regardless of whether or not Toad belongs, you can't really have a category for just one article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Then the appropriate action would have been to nominate it for Upmerging per WP:SMALLCAT instead of first emptying it and then nominating it for Upmerging because it is empty (because you emptied it). It's possible you did not know this, that's why I'm explaining. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I added Asari (Mass Effect) to the category because they fit it. I still feel it should be deleted until it can actually be filled. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that's a good one! I was thinking about them but couldn't remember what they were called or which video game they were in.
    Marcocapelle's !vote below, to Merge for now with no objection for recreation when it can be properly populated (I recommend at least 5 items), makes sense to me at the moment. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, with no objection to recreation when it can be populated by at least a handful of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per WP:SMALLCAT. It's unfortunate the category was emptied out of process, but I recall that even before that, when I nominated it for deletion the first time, none of the entries in the category were provably non-binary and it seemed to have been original research on the part of editors. The Asari article does not state that they are non-binary, besides a single opinion from a possibly unreliable source. The development info says they may actually be mono-gendered (all female) and the parts of their life cycle are named in feminine terms (Maiden, Matron, Matriarch). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that mono-gendered would fall under the umbrella of non-binary. It definitely fits much better than the previous androgynous category in my opinion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per non-binary - "Non-binary and genderqueer are umbrella terms for gender identities that are not solely male or female". Mono-gendered is solely female. The Mass Effect ingame Codex states: "An all-female race, the asari reproduce through a form of parthenogenesis". Thus it would not fall under non-binary. While individual asari may in fact be non-binary, the article itself refers to the race rather than any one character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reservoirs and dams in India[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: complicated. Overall, there appears to be consensus for Nederlandse Leeuw's proposal. As to specific cases:

* Pppery * it has begun... 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: In general, we avoid "and"-categories. In total, we have six such cases in enwiki database:

Not sure about deleting/splitting of Category:Reservoirs and dams in National Park Service units Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Reservoirs and dams in Tibet, I see nothing wrong with this one. Dams and reservoirs usually go together, and in modern times also power stations, as the name of all but 2 items in this cat indicate. The Zangmu Dam mentions it has a reservoir and says The purpose of the dam is hydroelectric power production. The Hutoushan Reservoir doesn't say anything about a "dam" but it sure looks like it has a dam, and it may also have a power station, although that's harder to tell. Either way, I don't give a dam. ;) This category seems fine to me.
Merge or reverse-merge Category:Reservoirs and dams in Botswana to Category:Dams in Botswana because they have essentially the same scope and content. I don't have a preference for a title; per List of dams and reservoirs in Botswana "dams and reservoirs" can make a WP:C2D argument, but per actual category contents just "dam" will do fine. Edit: Category:Lakes of Botswana claims to be pertaining to lakes and reservoirs in Botswana, but none of the 3 items in it are actual reservoirs.
(to be continued...) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About Bulgaria. It's a complex tree with a complex relationship to main article List of dams and reservoirs in Bulgaria, which in practice does not list any dams, only reservoirs. As I expected, it was renamed in 2015 from List of reservoirs in Bulgaria As per other country pages, but the contents haven't been changed to include dams.
Unlike with Tibet, a serious effort has been undertaken to separate Category:Reservoirs in Bulgaria, Category:Dams in Bulgaria and Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Bulgaria, although that last one is a child of Category:Dams in Bulgaria.
At any rate, Category:Water supply and sanitation in Bulgaria and Category:Reservoirs and dams in Bulgaria are currently both redundant layers. I think we can Upmerge those. I think Category:Reservoirs in Bulgaria and Category:Dams in Bulgaria should refer to each other with a Template:Category see also, but otherwise kept separate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Czechia: Category:Reservoirs and dams in the Czech Republic is a redundant layer, Upmerge.
Category:Water towers in the Czech Republic is a 1-item smallcat, Upmerge.
Category:Water supply and sanitation in the Czech Republic is almost redundant, but with 2 P and 2 C Keep for now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Reservoirs and dams in National Park Service units, possibly Rename to Category:Reservoirs and dams in National Park Service areas; "areas" per WP:C2C due to parent Category:National Park Service areas. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nederlandse Leeuw's proposal, most of these categories are redundant layers with only two subcats. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1, and do rename Category:Reservoirs and dams in National Park Service units to Category:Reservoirs and dams in National Park Service areas —Alalch E. 23:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E., to avoid complicating this already complex discussion, I'd suggest leaving that until this discussion is cloaed, i.e. discussing it in a separate nomination. That said, if there are no objections to that I support that as well. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tale of Alexander Pushkin[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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is not grammatical or idiomatic English, and it does not reflect that Pushkin wrote a number of tales. Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Veiled statues[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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two of these are busts not statues, so I think it would be better if the category was renamed to be more broad. ★Trekker (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People murdered in an embassy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category seems to have been specifically created for the one page it currently hosts. There is hardly any scope for further pages to be added. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, with no objection to re-creation when the category can be populated by at least a handful of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice to recreation when the category can be populated by at least a handful of articles (I recommend at least 5 items). Personally, I seriously hope the number of people who will share or have shared the fate of Jamal Khashoggi will remain limited enough that such a recreation won't be necessary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former empires in Europe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:Former empires in Europe

Category:Timurid empresses[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:Timurid empresses

Category:Indo-European archaeological sites[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:Indo-European archaeological sites

Category:Irish astrophysicists[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) Withdrawn by nominator; see Incidents#Now_what. Oculi (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 article (10:43, 24 June 2023). An editor who creates a category has a duty to populate it if possible before moving on to other matters. A category consisting of one article is useless and gives the impression in this case that the Irish are not gifted Astrophysicists. I could populate the category quite easily (eg this elementary google search) but would rather spend my time trying to encourage editors to complete their self-allotted tasks properly. Note also that Astrophysicists are not explicitly gathered together by continent; a sad omission which someone contributing to this category tree might care to address. Oculi (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "Merge" on July 2. I am reopening and relisting per a request on my talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per WP:CSK #2 as an overtly vindictive nomination:
This is a highly problematic nomination of a category created by me:
  1. There is no policy or guideline to support the nominator's assertion that An editor who creates a category has a duty to populate it if possible before moving on to other matters. It is contradicted by SMALLCAT's focus on "potential for growth".
  2. The nom's claim that A category consisting of one article is useless is not supported by WP:SMALLCAT.
  3. The nom explicitly acknowledges that the category could be adequately populated, but instead of doing so, he takes the time of multiple editors to delete.
  4. The nom explicitly states his desire to punish: would rather spend my time trying to encourage editors to complete their self-allotted tasks properly
  5. Oculi used WP:TWINKLE to create the nomination[1]. By default Twinkle automatically notifies the creator, as it did for Oculi multiple times that week. See e.g. June 20[2], June 22[3], June 23[4], June 25[5]. But no notification on 24 June, to me.
    I did not even spot his nomination until 27 July, when checking Oculi's contribs for the SmallCats case.
Note that https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25489375 finds 5 articles which could populate Category:Irish astrophysicists. I had no chance to populate it it, because I was not notified of the nomination, and became aware of it only a few days ago.
If Oculi wants to use CFD to punish editors for not following a personal principle of his which contradicts the guideline, then he should open an RFC to seek a census to amend WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of notification is very unfortunate, especially considering the earlier clashes we had about WP:SMALLCAT. That said, I can't imagine why anyone would create a category and not immediately populate it to the best of their knowledge. We don't need rules for that, do we? It is obviously unhelpful to the community to create half- (or less than half-) populated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical fantasy 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: keep. No prejudice against a separate merge discussion. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A cross-categorization resulting in a made-up and ill-defined genre. When you get down into the "by decade" weeds, some entries are films of operas (which technically aren't films of musicals), some are films of stage musicals which someone decided had some fantastical element, and some apparently were categorized simply because they are animated. Even split back out to the parent Category:Musical films and Category:Fantasy films there are plenty of (IMO) inaccurate categorizations, but there's no parent article for this, and a quick search makes it quite plain that such a genre is a fantasy (as it were) of Wikipedian construction. I have not tagged the tree of subcats due to lack of time and Twinkle, so I would appreciate if someone better equipped for mass tagging could take care of that. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mangoe: if at least you list the categories that need to be tagged, that would help for the actual tagging. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are as follows:
Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the issue. Of course there are films that are of musicals, and films that have fantastical settings, but unless you are willing to advance the thesis that all musical films are fantasies by their nature (which isn't entirely implausible, but which also obviates this categorization), these are independent characteristics. There's no genre of fantasy musical theater, and there's no corresponding film genre, but that's what this category tree seems to be saying. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unless you are willing to advance the thesis that all musical films are fantasies by their nature Why would I need to? I don't understand you. Compare one of the more famous musical films, The Sound of Music (film). That is in Category:1960s romantic musical films, for example. Do you need "to advance the thesis that all musical films are romantic by their nature" in order to justify that category's existence? I really don't think so. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Oh well let me put a similar follow-up question to you. Is there something wrong with having a Category:Romantic musical films tree without having a Romantic musical films main article? I don't think so. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing, there need to be sources confirming that this is a well recognized genre. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion and mergers A perfectly valid category tree. And WP:SMALLCAT is ridikculous as an argument, since there is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of an article about Musical fantasy films gives the nomination the benefit of the doubt. It is up to the opposers to demonstrate that this is a valid genre after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a reversal of the burden of proof. It's always the nominator who needs to provide a rationale, and if no consensus can be reached, the category is kept by default. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a frequent nominator I am sometimes on the "losing" end of a discussion, and that usually means there was something wrong with my rationale, so I know what it's like hahaha . Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The burden of proof for creating an article lies with the creator, the burden of proof for a category too unless there is already a well accepted article about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. So why do we need to delete a well-established category tree created on 14 March 2007? If this category tree was created last week, it would be different, but this tree is really no stranger to Wikipedia; it's been around here longer than I have. The burden of proof now lies with the nominator. Not the opposers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The age of a page is not very relevant. We need reliable sources (of the genre's existence in this case), preferably incorporated in an article and else added in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only defender of this category tree, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs), has resorted to well-known arguments to avoid such as WP:OSE. However, we do have a main article for this genre: Romantic fantasy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Romantic fantasy follows the conventions of the chivalric romance. Where is the musical element in it?Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @LaundryPizza03 I (and apparently Dimadick aa well) think you are confusing several things:
      1. I am not the only "defender": with you, me and Dimadick that makes us three, so we actually constitute a majority.
      2. Categories do not require a main article to justify their existence (unlike on German Wikipedia).
      3. Obviously WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a sufficient argument, but it may help to draw insightful comparisons. Nom's rationale is "A cross-categorization resulting in a made-up and ill-defined genre." So I just made a comparison of another combination between "musical films" and another "[genre] films" tree. That just happened to be "Category:Romantic musical films" (which has not been nominated).
      4. I think you are confusing this nom (about "Category:musical fantasy films") with my comparison (about "Category:Romantic musical films") to produce something entirely unrelated (about Romantic fantasy film). If you deliberately brought it up as your own comparison, doesn't your own criticism of using WP:OTHERSTUFF undermine your own comparison? I believe you are just confused, because I can't make sense of it.
      5. Given all of the above, what are you actually !voting for? I'm at a loss. Do you agree with Dimadick and me in Opposing the nomination? Do you have your own reasons for Keeping Category:musical fantasy films? Or do you really want to Keep Category:Romantic fantasy films (which has not been nominated)?
      I hope you could clear this up. I assume you've just been a little confused about the nomination and the discussion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I intend to !vote Keep on the basis that the premises of the delete arguments are false, and that the existence of a main article that defines the genre is a valid reason to keep. I made no attempt to compare against the romantic musical tree, and in any event the redirect Romantic musical points to an existing section in Romance film. I do not foresee why either genre can be ill-defined if they are a combination of romance and, respectively, fantasy and musical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, thanks for that clarification. But that the existence of a main article that defines the genre is a valid reason to keep (which I agree with) seems to be irrelevant for this nomination, because there is no "main article" for Category:Musical fantasy films, like musical fantasy film or fantasy musical film. So I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indo-European law[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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between language group and ancient society. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another arbitrarily defined category based on a group of peoples. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Do not delete, this would orphan some children and items. (Heh, that sounds a bit dramatic, "orphaning children"? Oh well, I didn't invent this categorisation terminology). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But yes, you're both right. There seem to be lots of "Indo-European" WP:CROSSCATs we should look at. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Peterkingiron used the term "orphaning" a lot, he may well have invented the usage of the term for this context. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hah well no, I recently found out that this term dates back to at least 2004 (before he joined). But I suspect it is probably much older than that, predating Wikipedia, in the earliest days of computing when the categorisation of items was invented. But it could even stem from elsewhere, like libraries or archives. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marge/Delete per User:LaundryPizza03. Another dubious Krakkos creation. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what is the reason to delete over upmerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manuscripts by collection[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: containerize and create Category:Manuscript collections to hold articles about manuscript collections. (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 21:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Renaming to match such categories as Category: Museum collections. This isn't a category of manuscripts, it's a category of collections. - jc37 11:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as nom. - jc37 11:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't vote for your own nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. And closers are (presumably) not clueless. Commenting "as nom" has been done for years. - jc37 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is true, your nomination has already made your opinion on the category clear - all you've done here is repeat it unnecessarily. Grutness...wha? 17:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I have no problem with commenting as nom, I do that all the time. What I don't do is voting for my own proposals. At most I will indicate that I support an Alt proposal rather than my own original proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, it could have been ok as a container category but in fact there are also articles about collections. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer (edit: not opposed anymore, see comment below relisting) to await the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge, which might set off a chain reaction of renamings of this category's children. I think it's not a good idea to be renaming and possibly rescoping the parent category Category:Manuscripts by collection at this time. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This nom, doesn't affect that one at all. A collection can be a collection of any number, including 1. And the naming of this doesn't affect determining whether Cambridge may have 1 or more collections. And finally, this doesn't affect whether that nom changes its name to: in, of, held by, or whatever else. - jc37 13:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure about that. E.g. the Category:National Library of Wales collections aren't only manuscript collections, as subcategory Category:Paintings in the National Library of Wales demonstrates. I'm afraid we'll have to split such child categories first before we can rename the parent, while the current naming doesn't seem to lead to this problem. This is one of the reasons why I prefer to defer.
    Second, you can't vote for your own nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A category (or an article for that matter) can be multi-categorised. So if something holds 2 concepts (manuscripts and art in your example), they can have 2 parents. But that still has little to do with changing the name of this category name. This is about changing the inclusion criteria from grouping manuscripts to grouping collections - which matches what's actually in the category, currently. - jc37 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm maybe. One more objection I've got is that the proposal wants to turn individual manuscripts into groups of manuscripts, which may be a change of scope that leads to problems, but to be fair I cannot give examples of problems that might cause. I don't know. I just prefer to Defer to await the outcome of the other renamings that I think are coming, I worry it will disrupt the process. Your proposal may actually be fine otherwise, but I'm not sure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (as it is not a subcat scheme). Commenting as nom has indeed been done for years if not decades. Oculi (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I have no problem with commenting as nom, I do that all the time. What I don't do is voting for my own proposals. At most I will indicate that I support an Alt proposal rather than my own original proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the present example has been in use for many years without any problems. Eg 2008 August 25#Category:Comics-related websites. I've used it myself quite a few times. Oculi (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge has been closed in favor of renaming Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge to Category:Manuscripts held by the University of Cambridge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment, LaundryPizza. I would like to add that There is also agreement (...) that the wording "held by" should remain limited to manuscripts, and not serve as a precedent for future renamings of "other kinds of works in museums" (such as paintings).
Nom's rationale states Renaming to match such categories as Category:Museum collections. I think this does not necessarily contradict the agreement, but we should be careful to not be trying to match the subcategories of Category:Museum collections with the subcategories of Category:Manuscripts by collection to prevent exactly the precedent the agreement warns against.
With that said, I do not oppose the nomination anymore, although I still don't think it's necessary to change the current name. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom, the category name would work if it was a container category, but it also contains articles about collections. Second choice containerise and move the articles into a new category as described by Marcocappelle. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise the way it's done with sculptures; see Category:Sculpture collections --> Category:Sculptures by collection. I oppose "keeping all 3", i.e. creating "Collections of manuscripts". (Feels contrived.)—Alalch E. 23:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that in this case is there is only a handful of articles on "Manuscript collections" as such (unless we just add every big library with a short section on its manuscripts), and by & large the collections with articles are not the ones the individual MS with articles are in, so you would just be adding a pretty useless extra layer. In fact this is also the case with sculpture, & I would support changing the present containerisation, which isn't a good model, imo. In fact it is the wrong way round there, with the very big Category:Sculptures by collection as a sub-cat of the few puny items in Category:Sculpture collections. That should be the other way round, which I think is what Marcocapelle is proposing. But it would be better not to use this scheme at all. Note that the enormous Category:Paintings by collection, with 182 sub-cats, does not use this sort of scheme, nor should it. I don't see what exactly is supposed to be "contrived". Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I still support "per nom" (me : ) - but if no consensus for that, I can accept Marcocapelle's alternative of splitting. I don't support "Collections of", which I think broadens things. - jc37 05:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37, I suppose splitting can be done in addition to containerisation, i.e. move all the articles into the new category. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think a selective split and containerizing was what Marcocapelle was proposing. - jc37 21:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my !vote, I support that as a second choice to renaming. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Athos manuscripts[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a nomination in line with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge and the associated article Mount Athos, but it is unclear which preposition should be used: at, by, or in. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, it would probably require purging. The category page header says "Manuscripts discovered or preserved in Mount Athos (Greece)" (my italic). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to change the current name per precedent. Athos is not an institution which preserves all these manuscripts. This is a grouping of manuscripts by their common provenience. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NL. Several are now elsewhere (London, St Petersberg, Belgrade etc - in fact most of the more famous ones). Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge, except that the manuscripts listed are no longer in Cairo Geniza, so the applicability of the new naming convention is unclear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts "held by" seems inadequate indeed. WP:C2D would favour just Category:Cairo Genizah per Cairo Genizah. I would prefer Category:Cairo Genizah manuscripts to indicate what we are talking about. Preferably that would involve renaming the main article. After all, we're not interested in the "storage room" in Cairo, but the manuscripts held there. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main article uses the spelling Cairo Geniza. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This is one of those where original provenance would seem to apply... - jc37 19:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As the "held by" standard is just that, about manuscripts held in collection by some entity. These manuscripts were "found in" this location. So the "held by" standard is inapplicable in this case. - jc37 19:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others. The Cairo Geniza was not an institution, but a forgotten deposit of papers in an outhouse roof-loft. The current name is fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Manuscripts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge. Most of the subcategories of Category:Manuscripts by collection that are not named "Manuscripts of X" are collection categories that may contain non-manuscripts, and will need to be assessed separately. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per Cambridge precedent. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose to all I supported the Cambridge nom, but with an explicit caveat that I did not want this to be a general precedent, just a solution for a particular problem there. Libraries and archives may have "holdings", but museums have collections, as in the parent category names for most of these. These are works of art that happen to use the book format. There is no problem that this is designed to solve, and it would create unnecessary differences and confusion in museum trees. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an evident lack of standardization in the category names — some use in, while others use of. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is completely true, but it is a problem that runs through most of our "objects in collections" trees. Bits of it have been straightened out, but others remain. There is no need to confuse matterss further by bringing in a new phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod What we agreed to at the Manuscripts in Cambridge CfR was that the wording "held by" should remain limited to manuscripts, and not serve as a precedent for future renamings of "other kinds of works in museums" (such as paintings). You said But "held by" should not create a precedent for other works of art in museums, where it is not the right term. Well, all nominees above are about manuscripts. Is it the "museum" nominees which you object to? You seemed to be opposed to the "held by" wording when it came to illuminated manuscripts in museums (exactly the last 4 nominees above), saying I'd be against those. But most of the others are held by libraries, archives or universities (like Cambridge), so why do you oppose all? I am open to the argument made by you (and indirectly by @Ham II) that perhaps we should make an exception for museums, as they often put manuscripts (especially illuminated ones) on display rather than just "holding" them. But I think for libraries, archives or universities the "held by" wording for manuscripts is appropriate, and it was my understanding that we had all agreed to that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your understanding is wrong then. It would be ridiculous to have a set of category names using "of" (or, better "in") and another set using "held by", just depending on whether the institution is considered to be a museum or a library. Yet this where this sort of neurotic pedantry leads. In fact most "libraries" here have gallery spaces, often rather large and not just displaying books and MS, and could well be counted as "museums". The great majority of the actual articles in the nominated categories will be on illuminated manuscripts, I think you will find. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Standard terminology. "Manuscripts of" is very poor English. Apart from anything else, it implies the manuscripts are about the institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it is not the "standard terminology". only a few currently use "Manuscripts of", the rest use "Manuscripts in", which is the "standard terminology" - these are not archive holdings, or printed books. I'm fine with changing those to match. "Apart from anything else, it implies the manuscripts are about the institution" seems extremely far-fetched to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Archaeological cultures by ethnic group[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article Archaeological culture says in its opening lines: An archaeological culture is a recurring assemblage of types of artifacts, buildings and monuments from a specific period and region that may constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society. The connection between these types is an empirical observation, but their interpretation in terms of ethnic or political groups is based on archaeologists' understanding and interpretation and is in many cases subject to long-unresolved debates. (emphasis by me). The categorisation of archaeological cultures by ethnic groups (by which they appear to mean "language family") by a single editor in 2017 is deeply flawed, and should be undone. For now I just propose upmerging it to parent Category:Archaeological cultures. We might do the same later with its language-family-based subcategories as a follow-up. What the hell, we're doing all language-family-based subcategories right now as well, woohoo! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The rationale is contradicting the quote itself - both archaeological and their ethnic-linguistic groupings are based on the understanding and interpretation, they are not facts by which some are more relevant than the other. There exist a big correlation-causation of specific archaeological cultures with specific ethnolinguistic groups. The topic is much more complex to come to a fast conslusion with a short discussion as it is related to the unresolved debate between Culture-historical archaeology vs Processual archaeology, with the former representing more traditional academic ideas in the world. Deleting these categories would be more unconstructive than to keeping them.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean clan names of Vietnamese origin[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. Unopposed after 7 days. Can be reverted in the spirit of WP:RMUM. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names" toobigtokale (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the creator of the categories has consented to (presumably all of) the renamings; see User talk:Bamnamu toobigtokale (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean clan names of Mongolian origin[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. Unopposed after 7 days. Can be reverted in the spirit of WP:RMUM. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names" toobigtokale (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean clan names of Japanese origin[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. Unopposed after 7 days. Can be reverted in the spirit of WP:RMUM. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names" toobigtokale (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean clan names of Chinese origin[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. Unopposed after 7 days. Can be reverted in the spirit of WP:RMUM. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names". toobigtokale (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional military ranks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This fails SMALLCAT. I've just removed Grand admiral from it, Fleet admiral (science fiction) is about to be deleted at AfD, and what's left is a redirect to the Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology. Potential for future expansion - close to zero. Fancrufty category for stuff that is now effectively gone. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without objection to re-creating when at least a handful of articles can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice to recreation when at least a handful of articles can be added (I recommend at least 5 items). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem like a necessary category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of East Timor since independence[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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, category is largely overlapping with the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fooian culture to Culture of Fooland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Fooian culture to Culture of Fooland

Category:District attorneys in Vermont[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: soft delete. Unopposed after an relist. Undeletion can be requested at WP:REFUND, here's a list of the pages removed from the category. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominated by Billmckern for PROD with the rationale "Redundant. Federal prosecutors from Vermont are categorized as Category:United States Attorneys for the District of Vermont. State prosecutors from Vermont are categorized as Category:State's attorneys in Vermont" as categories cannot be deleted via PROD, I am procedurally turning it into a CfD. TartarTorte 20:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again editors have emptied this category that whose deletion is supposed to be discussed first. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a cached version on google from not long before the page was tagged and attempted to restore the categories to the pages from which they were removed and added them back. TartarTorte 13:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bohemian literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:Bohemian literature

Category:Empty tomb[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Empty tomb

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_2&oldid=1173193865"