Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24
August 26 >

August 25[edit]

Category:AfCFTA Mechanisms[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest changing the title to widen the scope a little bit and remove the word "mechanism" which is somewhat vague. (Added bonus: expanding the not-so-well-known acronym AfCFTA.) The wider scope gives more opportunity for growth and allows inclusion in categories such as Category:Economy of the African Union and Category:Pan-African organizations. Pichpich (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, nominator provides no less than three good reasons while one could have been enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 27 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:Tommy Fury[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name clarifies the contents of the category, and there's not enough to keep an eponymous category. Another possibility is to simply delete per WP:SMALLCAT but Fury is young enough to imagine that there's potentially room for growth for this category. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:56, 26 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:Poems by writer's nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Remove the possessive form which was chosen for this category alone at CFD 2016, since there was no consensus to rename the rest of the hierarchy likewise at the better-attended Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_25#Works_by_writer_nationality, leaving this one as an outlier. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. fgnievinski (talk) 23:39, 25 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:Filmmakers from Austria-Hungary[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Film directors from Austria-Hungary. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT of unclear necessity. Austria-Hungary was never a single unified country with a single unified nationality that all of its residents possessed -- it was a multinational empire, under which Austria and Hungary and Croatia and Slovenia and Galicia still existed as their own things with their own standalone ethnic identities and nationalities. So a filmmaker "from Austria-Hungary" was still specifically an Austrian, Hungarian, Slovenian, Croatian, etc., film director regardless -- and indeed, the one person filed here is already correctly catted as a Croatian film director alongside this.
There just isn't a pressing need for this, if everybody who could possibly be added to it would still have to keep another "Country film directors" category alongside it anyway -- and furthermore, the entire concept of cinema coincided only with the very last few years of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's existence, meaning that there isn't a particularly large number of film directors who could even be filed here in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, I had not seen that this target exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 27 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:Post-1808 American slave traders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:19th-century American slave traders. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that this is an interesting category. However, it uses nationality "American" instead of country "in the United States". As written, it would include all 19th-century American slave traders regardless of whether they were trading in the United States. As written it doesn't include non-Americans who are trading illegally. There's some conversation about this on the talk page between jengod (talk · contribs) and Lightiggy (talk · contribs) as well. [1] Mason (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a myriad of thoughts on this (which remain muddled) as I've been doing a lot of work on List of American slave traders and derivative biographies (Ziba B. Oakes, Alonzo J. White, Louis D. DeSaussure, et al). I think there are multiple dimensions to consider:
  • NATIONALITY: American nationality vs non-American
  • PLACE: within and without the borders of the U.S.
  • CRIME: Slave trading in violation of criminal law of the time (importation post-1808, kidnapping into slavery in the United States, buying and selling in a free state, selling an indentured person as a "slave for life", etc)
  • TIME: I find the 1808 cutoff logical but also a little weird bc the vast majority of slave trading (750,000 people sold, probably thousands of individual slave traders, not to mention assorted enablers) in the U.S. was perfectly legal until 1865. Like yes it bringing people from Cuba was now frowned upon and patrolled by the U.S. Navy but countless U.S.-flagged ships carried cargoes of people from Baltimore harbor to New Orleans (and no one blinked). Anyway yes the internal slave trade ramped up after 1808, but there was a massive amount of American and United States slave trading going on from 1776 to 1808 as well as from 1808 to 1865.
The frameworks I would personally recommend:
Category:Slave traders of the United States
Category:Slave traders of the Thirteen Colonies
Category:Slave traders of New France
Category:Slave traders of Spanish Florida
etc.
OR
Category:19th-century American slave traders
Category:18th-century American slave traders
etc.
OR
Category:American slave traders
Category:American criminal slave traders
etc. jengod (talk) 18:07, 25 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:Toy Story Productions[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At the very least, this deserves a renaming. "Productions" (especially with a capital "P") is a bit vague and the intent seems to be to have a subcategory of Category:Toy Story containing only the films (shorts and feature films) in the Toy Story universe. I'm not entirely sure this is needed though so outright deletion could also be considered. Pichpich (talk) 17:20, 25 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:Alumni of University of Mosul[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:University of Mosul alumni. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one person. As always, every university does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one alum of that university with an article to file in it -- there would have to be at least five people to categorize as such before a category for them was warranted.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge about this university can find at least four other alumni with articles to file in it, but it's not necessary for just one person. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 25 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:Universitat Popular de Valencia alumni[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one person. As always, every university does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one alum of that university with an article to file in it -- there would have to be at least five people to categorize as such before a category for them was warranted.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge about this university can find at least four other alumni with articles to file in it, but it's not necessary for just one person. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't an article about this university either (not even on Spanish wp). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The university's existence can be verified but there's very little coverage of it, and it's not even clear that the university would pass WP:GNG (which is actually quite rare for a university). The category should go per WP:SMALLCAT. Pichpich (talk) 19:39, 25 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:Films set in Nagpur[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one film. As always, every city does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one film set in that city with an article to file in it -- this would be fine if there were at least five films, but is not needed for just one.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge about Indian film can find at least four other films to move from the Category:Films set in Maharashtra parent, but it can't stand as a single-item category.
Upmerging not needed, as the one film here was left in the parent category alongside this new one. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not aid navigation. But without prejudice to re-creating the category when there are a handful of articles about films set in this city. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 25 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:China Twenty20 International cricketers[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two single-entry WP:SMALLCATs that exist solely to contain essentially eponymous lists. As always, the existence of a list does not automatically mandate the creation of a corresponding category to pair it with -- this would be fine if most or all of the people in the lists had articles to file here, but both lists consist entirely of unlinked people who do not appear to have articles at all, so these categories are not needed just to hold one list each. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not aid navigation. But without prejudice to re-creating the category when there are a handful of articles about China Twenty20 International cricketers. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful for navigation. I'm adding Category:Hungary Twenty20 International cricketers and Category:Indonesia Twenty20 International cricketers which face the same problem. (There might be a few more, I was too lazy to check all categories of this type!) Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:SMALLCAT. It's unlikely that cricketers for these teams are generally notable, but if enough notable people are found in future, then and only then can these categories be re-created. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. If more candidates for these categories become notable, then they can just be recreated then. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:08, 28 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.

Greek Orthodoxy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 4#Greek Orthodoxy

Category:Political prisoners in former countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Follow-up to:
Category:Romanian political prisoners being Renamed today to Category:Political prisoners held by Romania; and
Category:Hong Kong political prisoners being Renamed today to Category:Political prisoners held by Hong Kong. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm not nominating Category:Polish political prisoners yet, because that tree is complicated. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Categorisation of Category:Polish people of the partition period, where discussion is currently taking place. Anyone interested is invited to join, and suggest ideas. But simply re-parenting it from Category:Political prisoners by country to Category:Political prisoners for now would not be incorrect for the time being.  Done per WP:BOLD to make the category consistent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw I think it would be best practice to ping all participants of the prior related CfD which ended as no consensus IIRC. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Fair enough. Pinging @Marcelus, Nihil novi, Buidhe, Laurel Lodged, Biruitorul, and Darwinek: for your information. This nomination does not include Polish/Poland, which was a major component of the failed bundle. The categorisation of "Polish" political prisoners from times when there arguably was no "Polish" state (or in fact many non-sovereign "Polish" successor states under Russian, Prussian, Austrian and French control) is being discussed separately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Categorisation of Category:Polish people of the partition period; you are invited to join that discussion over there if you so choose. It's a complicated but important topic on its own, for which CFD is not well-suited. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw Thank you. For the record, I don't think this was a good idea (removing Polish prisoners from Category:Political prisoners by country). Adam Michnik for example was a Polish political prisoner in Poland. The solution I proposed before, creating 'by country (of detention)' and 'by ethnicity/nationality trees, separate, would be much better. In Poland case, which I don't think was unique, we had Polish prisoners in Poland, non-Polish prisoners in Poland (Ukrainian ones in Bereza Kartuska) and of course Polish prisoners outside Poland. I really don't think Poland is as unique as you insist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a temporary move, pending the discussion at WikiProject Poland, as well as pending the outcome of this discussion. As long as it is unclear whether a Polish country existed during the Partition (you have said both simultaneously, which seems a contradiction in terms), it is better to not put that category in a "by country" parent category. I'm always open to moving it back if we reach consensus on it, but for now it's better not to place it there. I hope you understand. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Poland clearly existed during the Adam Michnik era. You could argue that the 'partition-era prisoners' categories don't belong in by country (Poland) tree, and I'd agree. But this is not the case for Poland as whole. There were political prisoners held in Poland, Polish and non-Polish (Ukrainians in BK I mentioned). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we agree on that. But in order for Michnik and Król to be included in the Political prisoners held by [country] category, we would have to remove the 'partition-era prisoners' subcategories first (because they were not "held by Poland"), and that is what our discussion at WikiProject Poland is about. Once we figure that out, we can decide what to do with Michnik and Król. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards "don't fix what's not broken", i.e. don't move/remove until new categories are created. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming Category:Russian political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners held by Russia and similar Fooinan pp to pp held in Fooland per prior discussions - those are not identical concepts, folks are notable and can be categorized as pp both based on their ethnicity and on the state that is helding them. I support creating the new categories and I have no objection to renaming some to 'held by', but I repeat - do not delete Fooian pp (i.e. pp by ethnicity/nationality). It is useful and defining, and some folks (not just Polish, prior discussions had examples of other ethnicities) can have one ethnicity/nationality and be pp in another country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Russia in particular is an example of a country which has held a lot of political prisoners which were/are non-Russians (either not ethnic Russians, or people without Russian nationality). By extension, the same goes for the Soviet Union (although Russia was not the same as the Soviet Union, there is strong overlap). There is a Category:Polish people who died in Soviet detention, for example; I suspect that most of them (unfortunately) could probably be classified as political prisoners, but that is something we would have to check manually. Darnewek also said: Dozens of Estonian politicians ended up in Soviet prisons as political prisoners, for example. I fear that many of those are amongst Category:Estonian people who died in Soviet detention.
    So it is very possible to build up a larger category tree of Category:Political prisoners held by the Soviet Union by nationality (or something like that). I would support that. There is already a Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by the Soviet Union, including Balys Gajauskas (a Lithuanian) and Semen Gluzman (a Ukrainian); they are only the tip of the iceberg. The Polish and Estonian examples above demonstrate that. Maybe there is also potential for a Category:Political prisoners held by the Russian Empire by nationality and Category:Political prisoners held by Russia by nationality? I'm open to it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those sound worth creating. I generally support creating new categories you come up with, I just don't think we should rename or recategorize stuff before that happens. We need multiple category trees, switching from one bad system to another one (perhaps just slightly better) seems inefficient to me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The proposal will change the scope for the Indonesian, Omani and Russian categories, which will need to be manually cleaned up to reflect the new scope and re-parented accordingly. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of these are recent creations that largely overlap with existing Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Foo categories. This shouldn't preclude their existence since the scope is broader, but most of the Amnesty categories still need to be subcategorised under each country's political prisoners category. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose (as someone who worked for a while on articles about Dutch political prisoners) the new wording, while it has the goal of clarifying the concepts a bit further in terms of assigning responsibility for the imprisonment, is more wordy and will exclude some fringe cases (in destabilized regions, wartime etc.) for reasons whose importance are not entirely clear to me. Yes, defining it as within the border of a particular country simplifies things a bit, but it's not always bad to have clear simple categories in a mass public encyclopedia. However, if people seem to feel strongly that the element of which state is detaining people needs to be highlighted more, I won't cause a fuss. Dan Carkner (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan Carkner Thanks for your contributions! The proposed renamings seek to clarify the detaining country as opposed to the detainee's nationality. The easiest way to do that is to be consistent with established naming conventions per WP:C2C. Two precedents already renamed Category:Romanian political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners held by Romania, and Category:Hong Kong political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners held by Hong Kong. Many closely related category trees also already used "held by", such as Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Belarus and Category:Prisoners of war held by France. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand the change being made, I just think we should be clear about its implications and necessity. It actually involves changing the way we are categorizing all of them, it's not just a rewording of the same concept. There may be benefits to focusing on the responsibility but we may lose things like geographic grouping of prisoners of different regimes in particular territories. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that. I actually first began with the observation that the prisoners in Boven-Digoel were not "held by Indonesia", but by the Netherlands. I found it important not to blame the wrong country. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The nominator has not given a reason why he thinks the change is appropriate. For procedural reasons, it should be rejected because the proposed new name format does not describe the content of the currently existing categories.Marcelus (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed renamings seek to clarify the detaining country as opposed to the detainee's nationality. The two previous renamings of Hong Kong and Romania demonstrated that the community agreed such a clarification was a good idea. This is just a follow-up to that community consensus. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:29, 25 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:Dutch stadtholders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Stadtholders in the Low Countries. General consensus is to do something over nothing; future splits can be discussed separately. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To align with List of stadtholders in the Low Countries. (I didn't know this category existed, I have only just categorised the List of stadtholders in the Low Countries as its main article, so WP:C2D does not apply in this case and I can't speedy-rename it. But I think that list is an important reason for renaming.) Although one can argue various dates for the establishment of the Dutch Republic (the 1581 Act of Abjuration is probably the earliest), many of these stadtholders died before the Eighty Years' War even broke out in the 1560s, and/or governed provinces outside of the current Netherlands (like Charles II de Lalaing governed the County of Hainaut and died in 1558), and therefore cannot reasonably be called "Dutch". The category can be further populated with governors / stadtholders mentioned in the list. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that Stadtholders in the Foos is a more convenient wording than Fooian stadtholders in this topic area, because the overarching political organisation of these provinces was in a rather constant flux between the 15th and 18th century, and the appointers of these stadtholders / governors as well (Burgundian Valois, Guelderian Egmonters, Guelderian de la Marckers, Spanish Habsburgers, Austrian Habsburgers, French Valois, the States of the provinces of the Dutch Republic etc.). Meanwhile, the provinces themselves remained largely the same, and the stadtholderate / governorship roles remained largely the same (although in the Dutch Republic it would become a hereditary position in 3 of the 7 provinces in the late 17th century, and the appointment methods and competences evolved). It makes more sense to put the provinces of this region at the centre, rather than trying to put the dynasties (or since the late 16th century the various States of the provinces of the Republic) which appointed stadtholders over them at the centre. The latter risks inviting all sorts of anachronisms, often fuelled by modern nationalism, or by simply misunderstanding of the historical context, by superimposing modern borders back into historical times when and where they did not exist yet. That is how people like Charles II de Lalaing mistakenly get categorised as "Dutch stadtholders". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, we better categorise them by the province they governed than the sympathies they had for both sides in the war. A lot of Wikidata items are already organised this way, e.g. Category:Stadtholder of Artois (Q29032828), Category:Stadtholder of Namur (Q29033328), Category:Governors of Hainaut (pre-1800) (Q18913047), Category:Governors of Luxembourg (pre-1800) (Q18913044). These stadtholders/governors aren't "Dutch", but they are Category:Stadtholders in the Low Countries. Compare Italian Wikipedia: it:Categoria:Statolder dei Paesi Bassi: This category contains stadtholders who have governed in one or more provinces of the historical region of the Low Countries. The provinces are at the centre, not the dynasties/States. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a war going on between Spain and the early Dutch Republic, and stadtholders were involved in that war, they weren't merely spectators. They had to take a side as a military act, which is more than merely having sympathy for one side or the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Observations about a country-based split Hmmm you might have a point. I just found nl:Categorie:Stadhouder in de Verenigde Provinciën (created by AGL on 1 January 2015), which does seem to take the same scope as your proposed Category:Stadtholders in the Dutch Republic (translated for our non-Dutch-speaking colleagues): The category Stadtholder in the United Provinces provides an overview of articles on stadtholders who no longer acted [as governors] for the monarch, but for the States-General. The first ones, who were appointed during the Revolt, did not yet, strictly speaking, do so for the Republic. I could agree with that, but...
Arguments about a country-based split ("in the Habsburg Netherlands" & "in the Dutch Republic")
  • It does raise the question which year we regard as the start of the Dutch Republic; we'll have to establish that as a convention if we were to create such a category. I would propose two options:
    1. The Act of Abjuration / Plakkaat van Verlatinghe of 26 July 1581, usually interpreted as the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, because they regarded the throne of the monarch (de jure Philip II of Spain) as "vacated" ("verlaten"), although not yet as a "republic", because they enthroned Francis, Duke of Anjou as their new sovereign shortly thereafter.
    2. The nl:Instructie van 12 april 1588, the formal decision of the States-General to transfer sovereignty from the monarch (de jure Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester) to the Council of State. This is what modern historians often interpret as the States-General de facto legally making the United Provinces a republic without formally, solemnly proclaiming it. (Unlike the dramatic fashion of the French Revolutionary proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy two centuries later).
  • Now, the nl:Categorie:Stadhouder in de Verenigde Provinciën itself doesn't make its time scope clear.
  • So AGL either didn't have a clear idea of when the Republic began, or mistakenly included these two pre-Act stadtholders. Otherwise, everyone else in the category seems to have been a stadtholder answering to the States-General after 26 July 1581 (e.g. Adolf van Nieuwenaar), but it still does not include several people we should also expect to see then:
    • Joost de Soete, pro-States stadtholder of Utrecht in 1584
    • Charles III de Croÿ, pro-States stadtholder of Flanders in 1583/4. By the way, he would later serve as the pro-Philip II stadtholder of Hainaut (1592–1606/1613) and Artois (1597–1610), so he would have to be in both categories.
    • Pierre de Melun, pro-States stadtholder of Tournaisis and Mechelen (15??-1594?)
    • possibly others I have missed.
The easiest solution is to explicitly include 26 June 1581 as our point of departure, purge Joost van Schaumburg and Jan van Nassau, and add Joost de Soete, Charles III de Croÿ and Pierre de Melun. But that doesn't yet solve everything. (to be continued...) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments about province-based categories ("in the Low Countries")
  • Incompatible with nlwiki. Semantically, "Voor de vorst" would still include the 1581–1588 period with Francis of Anjou and Robert of Leicester as sovereigns of the United Provinces, whilst "in the Dutch Republic" would exclude those same years until 12 April 1588 at the earliest. Therefore, these categories would be conceptually incompatible.
  • Incompatible with all other wikis. It does not have any equivalents in other language Wikis. nl:Categorie:Stadhouder voor de vorst in de Nederlanden is connected to Wikidata item Category:Stadtholders in the Netherlands (Q9877587), but the interwikis are:
    • fy:Kategory:Steedhâlder yn de Nederlannen. Cat desc: Governors of all Netherlandish regions, both before and after the separation of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands from the rest of the (Spanish) Netherlands. It includes subcategories for Artois, Hainait, Luxembourg, and Namur.
    • it:Categoria:Statolder dei Paesi Bassi. Cat desc: This category contains stadtholders who have governed in one or more provinces of the historical region of the Paesi Bassi (Netherlands / Low Countries). It includes subcategories for Artois, Flanders, Hainait, Luxembourg, and Namur.
    • lmo:Categoria:Statolder di Paes Bass. No cat desc, only includes William the Silent.
    • nl:Categorie:Stadhouder voor de vorst in de Nederlanden. Cat desc (as mentioned above): The category Stadtholder in the United Provinces provides an overview of articles on stadtholders who no longer acted [as governors] for the monarch, but for the States-General. The first ones, who were appointed during the Revolt, did not yet, strictly speaking, do so for the Republic.
    • vls:Categorie:Stadhouder in de Nederlandn. No cat desc, only includes Lamoral, Count of Egmont, who only ever served Philip II as stadtholder of Flanders and Artois, and was executed in 1568.
    • Incompatible subcategorisation. While fywiki and itwiki subcategorise all stadtholders by province, nlwiki only subcategorises nl:Categorie:Stadhouder voor de vorst in de Nederlanden, while all nl:Categorie:Stadhouder in de Verenigde Provinciën are thrown together.
      • Pragmatically speaking, that may not be such a bad idea after about 1588/1589/1590. After all, the Orange-Nassau, Nassau-Dillenburg and eventually Nassau-Dietz lineages would accumulate all stadtholderates simultaneously by 1747. If we follow a province-based approach, we end up with WP:NARROWCATs in the 17th and especially 18th century.
      • But it does suggest these were all the same office and the same province, while the States of the 7 provinces remained constitutionally sovereign until 1795. Hollandocentric Dutch and non-Dutch historiography has often made the mistake of saying or implying the First Stadtholderless Period and Second Stadtholderless Period applied to every province, and affected every province equally, which just isn't true. There's a reason why I created Template:First Stadtholderless Period and Template:Second Stadtholderless Period, exactly to avoid this confusion, and to show Holland isn't the entire Dutch Republic. Given that the Second Period covered almost the entire first half of the 18th century in 4 out of 7 provinces, but was shorter in all others (with Frisia being without a stadtholder for just 11 days instead of ...uhm... 45 years), this is not an insignificant fact.
      • So, for better or worse, I think William IV, Prince of Orange and William V, Prince of Orange should be in all 7 province subcategories rather than all their predecessors in one big hollandocentric Dutch Republic category that doesn't differentiate between the provinces.
  • Category:Stadtholders in the Habsburg Netherlands does not suffice for all non-Republic stadtholders. As main article List of stadtholders in the Low Countries shows, some stadtholders were in French service. What it doesn't yet show explicitly, but its Dutch equivalent nl:Lijst van stadhouders in de Nederlanden does, is that in Drenthe, Frisia, Guelders and Zutphen, Groningen, Holland and Zeeland, and Limburg and Overmaas, some stadtholders were in Burgundian, Guelderian, or Albertine Saxon service. Even the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, which was located in the Low Countries, but never became part of the Habsburg Netherlands at any point, had stadtholders such as Guy of Brimeu. So we can't neatly split all "Dutch" stadtholders into those in Habsburg service and those in Republic service. We'd be missing lots of stadtholders who served neither.
In other words, the nl:Categorie:Stadhouder in de Verenigde Provinciën, and the Category:Stadtholders in the Dutch Republic you propose, are not only incompatible with each other, but also incompatible with all other language versions of Wikipedia. The phrase "Voor de vorst" or "in de Verenigde Provinciën" isn't used anywhere else. It is best to make the (sub)categorisation province-based to address all these issues. That is the approach chosen by most Wikipedias, and the one I am proposing with this CfR. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've included Marcocapelle's country-based alt proposal in the nomination for everyone's consideration. It's not my favourite option, and I think it creates more issues than it solves, but it is a legitimate one I'm willing to consider seriously. I'm quite knowledgeable about this topic, and spent much of my early Wikipedia years on exactly this topic, so I think it's important to understand how complex the context is. But I'm not always right, of course. I've listed the pros and cons that I see, which will hopefully help us make a good decision. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/split either way to improve precision and remove abiguity. Slight preference for Nederlandse Leeuw's proposal over Marcocapelle's. Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 18 September 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:Illyrian movement[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 4#Category:Illyrian movement

Category:Games with tank controls[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Acknowledging this as a WP:GOODFAITH category creation, I nevertheless am not sure that this new category satisfies WP:NONDEF. Just think of this being applied to other situations: "Video games with dodge rolling", "Video games with parrying", "Video games with health potions", etc. - these are basic gameplay elements that would not specifically define a work, even if they are a hallmark of certain genres. Survival horror games, for example, tend to have tank controls, but I'm not sure specifically categorizing by tank controls is correct. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge with Category:Tank simulation video games. Whatever doesn't fit in there (e.g. one 10-minute tank control scene in a 100-hour playthrough game) is probably WP:NONDEFINING and needs to be purged. I think nom is making good points. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: This refers to "controls for human characters that are sort of like tanks", rather than literally controlling or simulating tanks in a video game a la War Thunder, although it does raise a good question about whether tank controls is WP:SURPRISE and should be disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say that? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait... tank controls has something to do with... not quite first/third person view but something to do with controls versus camera? I didn't recognise the term. I thought it literally meant being able to step into a military vehicle called a tank, and controlling it. And that's before we get to MMORPGs featuring tanks, damage dealers and healers. Haha. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the term "tank controls" in a video game sense tends to be used for a certain control scheme. Pretend you can't turn unless you stop walking, and can only move on a straight line, and you have the idea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I think I get it. It's like really old games in which you never really see your own face from the front because you're always looking at your character from the back? You can't turn the camera view? I guess I'm so used to being able to control movement and camera independently and simultaneously (especially with Xbox or PlayStation remotes where these are separate knobs, but the same goes for pc games) that it is almost a foreign concept to me that I can't control the camera. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait what? That's even worse!! Lol. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tank Controls Explained does he explain it correctly? It makes sense, but it does feel like it only exists in games I haven't played in a loooong time. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that sums it up. It's either forward, back, or turn, like the movement of a tank. It's normally seen as based on technological limitations, and newer games have removed it (i.e. RE4 Remake having omni-directional movement), but some people enjoy it and don't want it to be totally phased out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I can understand / imagine the vintage nostalgic feel to it. I'm not sure why but I keep thinking about Rayman 2 (to which it does not apply, it just has infamous little control over camera view, which changes while you're walking and so the direction in which you're walking changes, so if you're walking across some kind of beam and the camera view changes while you're walking straight, you'll fall off. Annoying!).
    Does GTA 2 have tank controls? I seem to remember that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I could see this working as a list article, but I agree that this doesn't meet the burden of NONDEF. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes listification might be a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I would just insert them in tank controls as a list of examples, I wouldn't make it a standalone list article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me too. The page is pretty barebones as is and could use something like that to bulk it up a bit. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given jc37's vote below (and me forgetting that was an option), I've decided to strike my delete vote and vote to listify directly instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category, but figured it would have a slim chance of survival. I'm excited to learn more about Wikipedia via the deletion process for the entry. Spellbinding Nitwit (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't meant to be anything personal, as I know you intended good faith. I just felt that the category was somewhat out of the norm. A game would generally not be introduced with "X is a game with tank controls..." but rather "X is a survival horror game with a retro feeling..." or something similar. Something as specific as tank controls would only be mentioned later, IMO. Categories are solely for aspects that define a work. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended in any way. I had a feeling that the category I created was janky and unlikely to persist, but I wasn't sure why, so I just did it anyway as an experiment. And you make a good point. WP:NONDEF does seem to rule it out. So, a learning experience for me. Spellbinding Nitwit (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - The concept has an article, and I don't see how this is that much different than others listed at Lists_of_video_games#By_feature, Lists_of_video_games#Other, and other groups of lists on that page. - jc37 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This here thing Lists_of_video_games#By_feature seems like a fun place to put it. I would try and move it over there myself, making a new article along the lines of "List of video games with PS1-style tank controls", but I feel like the deletion proceeding should reach some sort of final conclusion before anything is done. Spellbinding Nitwit (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per jc37 and QuietHere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:00, 25 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.

Wikipedians interested in seas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in oceans and seas. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these are SMALLCATs, each containing only the same user. * Pppery * is begun... 23:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle, but merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in oceans and seas. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The categories are compliant with relevant guidelines and do not constitute the over categorization that SMALLCAT infers. Those guidelines are concerned with article categorization that results in reader facing excess and clutter. The appropriate shortcut for these categories is USERCAT and those guidelines measure the clarity and scope of a category along with their potential. Merging the categories into their parent will create a vague grouping with far less collaborative potential.--John Cline (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that WP:SMALLCAT has not been designed for this. But still, unless the creator and single editor in these categories (who has been notified of this nomination) comes up with a substantive reason to keep the categories, I can't see why we would. They are apparently very narrow interest categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But for different reasons. WP:SMALLCAT doesn't obviously apply but WP:USERNOCAT does. That editing guideline requires that user page categories "assist collaboration between users". I rarely !vote on User Categories because I have no opinion on whether silly, narrow, or off Wikipedia issues are meaningful for collaboration. But I can't see how a bunch of 1 editor categories can possiblyu aid collobaration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, the guidelines at WP:USERCATYES expand on the requisite goal of collaboration in saying: "Quite simply, a user category is appropriate if it has the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration ...". They continue with much detail and many examples that clearly show these categories (created in good faith) are appropriate. Bear in mind that a category's "capacity to facilitate" is not a time sensitive measure focused (only or even primarily) on the here and now; as, in fact, we are a project unconstrained by deadlines and arbitrary benchmarks of worth. This is precisely why our matrix of editing guidelines (specifically regarding user categories) state, over and again, that singularly populated categories are not precluded. At the risk of belaboring this point, please allow me to address your stated inability to see how these 1 editor categories can aid collaboration. Aside any future potential (being sufficient in itself) it is always possible that a category non-member can seek the collaborative assistance of a category member. I have thrice availed myself to user categorization for this very ability. 1.) I approached a user categorized as fluent in German for collaborative assistance with a German translation. 2.) I approached a user (3 or more times) categorized as having a college degree to teach English, for advanced help with my own native language (to improve my writing abilities). 3.) I approached a user categorized as living in New York City for collaborative assistance to obtained a free image file (unavailable at that time) of a specific outdoor area of the United Nations complex (now available). I maintain collaborative contact with all three of these editors to this day and in no case could I be co-membered with them in the relevant user categories that spawned our collaborations. If I had a collaborative need specific to the Baltic Sea, guess who i'd probably contact? Unless that ability doesn't exist when such need is given rise. Thank you for considering this reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 05:05, August 18, 2023 (UTC)
    The premise of all of this is that the sole member is actually interested in a Wikipedia-relevant way in these seas. Given the sheer number of "Wikipedians interested in foo" categories their userpage is in, I'd say that's likely not the case. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:USERCAT#Overly narrow - Looking at the category, it looks like all the "sea" subcats could be UpMerged except the Mediterranean. - jc37 19:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:38, 25 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:Alpine Railways connecting Italy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Cross-border railway lines in Italy. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is inappropriate and it duplicates the existing categories Category:Cross-border railway lines in Italy and Category:Mountain railways. Similar to the issues with Category:International Railways connecting Italy. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 25 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-fiction works by L. Ron Hubbard[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. Nothing left to keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Contained ostensibly religious texts (now removed). Religious texts (bible etc) are not categorised under "non-fiction" elsewhere on Wiki, and the books were nowhere in RS characterised as non-fiction. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think there is a major objection moving some of Hubbard's works to this category. The comparison with the Bible is not adequate, as the Bible contains many sections that can be characterized as novels and short stories when you look at it from a strictly literary point of view. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not empty categories out of process, nominator @Cambial Yellowing. CatChangeViewer log:
− 2023-08-25T11:05:35Z diffhist Affirmations (L. Ron Hubbard) Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
− 2023-08-22T09:37:39Z diffhist Clear Body, Clear Mind Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
+ 2023-08-20T14:08:10Z diffhist Clear Body, Clear Mind MartinPoulter talkcontribs No
− 2023-08-20T09:14:36Z diffhist Clear Body, Clear Mind Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
− 2023-08-20T09:14:16Z diffhist Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
− 2023-08-20T09:14:03Z diffhist Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
− 2023-08-20T09:13:20Z diffhist Science of Survival Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
− 2023-08-20T09:12:51Z diffhist Scientology: A History of Man Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
− 2023-08-20T09:11:56Z diffhist The Way to Happiness Cambial Yellowing talkcontribs No
Emptying categories out of process like you did may be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in a personal essay. As categories are required to be verifiable, the removals were appropriate regardless of the discussion here. Retaining unsourced categories goes against consensus policy, rather than merely not according with someone’s personal musings. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambial Yellowing It's not just a personal essay, it contains policies, guidelines and sanction precedents. If you don't want to end up blocked or banned per WP:DISRUPTIVE like this guy (2018) or this guy (2011, 2011, 2013), I suggest you take it seriously. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thinly-veiled allusion to what is presumably meant to be a threat of sanction is amusing, thanks. Neither of those individuals were topic banned for removing from 6 articles categories that were inappropriately added and lack support in reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a threat, it is an explanation why you should take the rule to not empty categories out of process seriously after initially dismissing it as "a personal essay" and "someone’s personal musings". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t want to end up blocked or banned like [this person to whom your actions bear little or no similarity] is a pretty common way to phrase an (ignored) threat; it’s a very odd way to phrase an explanation. The page you link to is a personal essay, that’s why it’s inside your user area and has the words “This is an essay” as the first words on the page. Yikes. To review the relevant facts, there is no unqualified rule not to empty categories, but rather that one should not do so while they are listed on this page. I removed numerous unsupported articles several days ago, not even realising that I had all but emptied the category (save one article). That article turned out to be unsupported too. I then realised I ought to do something about the category, and a search of the labyrinthine process pages brought me here. I now realise I should have used C1 to avoid being harangued by users very keen for me to read their lengthy user pages. Read mine if you like – I used three words. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [edit] - ping @Nederlandse Leeuw: Cambial — foliar❧ 09:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Works by L. Ron Hubbard per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Whether religious texts are or contain fiction or non-fiction is evidently a matter of dispute and opinion, one that cannot be resolved through categorisation (WP:NPOV). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied by User:Cambial Yellowing. But given the discussion here, I guess folks are aware. I just don't understand why editors start a CFD discussion and THEN empty the categor(ies). If you want the community's opinion, then why make it irrelevant? Don't waste editors' time on a discussion that is rendered useless by then empting the category. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, the articles (all except for one) were moved out of the category several days before this nomination. Grorp (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is possible, Grorp, because if the category had been emptied, it would have shown up on the Empty Category list and it only appeared there the day I posted this comment. If the category had been emptied days before, it would have shown up as empty days before. And if it WAS empty, then why have a CFD discussion and not just tag it CSD C1? Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Like I wrote: "all except for one" (see list above with the timestamps). Also, I don't know why nom did a CFD versus CSD C1; can't answer to that. I only got involved here because I was involved in communicating to Cambial a few days prior to this nom on a related subject (see my comment below). Grorp (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz, the simple answer to your question is that I was totally unaware of any speedy deletion criteria for categories – I’ve only used the general, files, and articles ones. Useful info thanks for the point. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cambial Yellowing|, the general point is that if you want to take editor's time to debate whether or not a category should exist, do not remove all of the contents. This defeats the purpose of having a CFD discussion. If editors think the article should be deleted, then it could have just be tagged CSD C1 as an empty category and no discussion is necessary. If editors want to keep this category, then they have to spend time and repopulate it. I understand you are new to CFD but the important thing to consider is that the editors here are very knowledgeable about categories, they spend time considering all of the proposals that are made and you don't want to waste their time. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz: Any editor is free not to comment on any individual entry here, as they are free not to take part in anything else on this website. If an editor has wasted their time that is of their own volition. In fact I have no desire to "take" anyone’s time, but given their free will I will rest easy in not having done so. A simple “wrong venue, this should be tagged speedy deletion not posted here” (of the kind used, including by me, at myriad other noticeboards), would suffice to signpost unfamiliar editors (I wrote those 11 words in ~ 12 seconds). Or they can simply ignore it, thus avoiding any perception of wasted time. As I indicated in my previous post, you’ve cured me of my egregious unfamiliarity with category deletion procedure for categories in which no articles’ categorisation is supported by RS - abstruse enough that in four years I’ve not had cause to understand it until a couple of days ago. Given my and Grorp’s experience of the very knowledgeable editors here, I’m glad to know there is a less tiresome route to removing inappropriately created categories for which there is no available supported content. Thank you again for the point to the appropriate method. I hope that the simple collegiate courtesy found at other central discussion boards can at some point migrate to this one. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion: Several days ago I noticed Cambial Yellowing moving some of the Hubbard books from a non-fiction category to a fiction category. Here is one example. I inquired with Cambial on the Scientology wikiproject talk page, here. The result was that Cambial moved the books to Category:Works by L. Ron Hubbard, which frankly made more sense. I am quite familiar with the books and they didn't fit either fiction or non-fiction. Therefore, I support the removal of the non-fiction category in favor of using just the 'works' category where all the book articles are now placed. Grorp (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, the correct procedure is to upmerge, not to empty an undesired category out of process. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: Well, I don't know what those two terms mean, and have no desire to get involved in the intricacies of wiki category esoterics. I added my commentary and rationale which is more important than use of the word "deletion" or "upmerge". Those more familiar with the process can do with it whatever they want to do as long as the category is gotten rid of where it doesn't sneak back into use because someone thinks the category is useable. Grorp (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grorp Ok, I agree with your goal. But the method used here is not appropriate. If you think all items in category A should be in category B, you should not just throw all items out of category A and put them in category B, leaving category A empty. I can explain why if you really wanna know. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: Not really interested. I tried to read the two WP articles on the topic; gibberish to me. However, it seems like you're more focused on how we got to this point than on how we proceed from here. Grorp (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not interested how the rules of the game work, fine, but then at least follow the rules when someone points out what they are if you wanna keep playing. So if you'd like to proceed correctly, then please follow my example and !vote Upmerge to Category:Works by L. Ron Hubbard. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? My first CFD experience and you treat me like I can't utter shite unless I fit your little mold. No, NL, I'm not required to become a perfect bureaucrat just to suit you, so quit pestering me about it. Grorp (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've only been trying to help you, offering to explain how this works. Apparently I've not been welcoming enough, so I apologise. But being a newcomer and not knowing the rules is not an excuse to dimiss the importance of having rules, and be rude to regulars who offer to explain the rules so that you can play by them. You've been around for 1.5 years. The fact that you cite WP:BITE yourself suggests you're no longer the newcomer you claim to be, and cannot use it to avoid criticism of your own actions, see Wikipedia:Don't cite bite. Good day, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never claimed to be new to Wikipedia, merely to CFD. After no desire to get involved in the intricacies of wiki category esoterics and then not really interested, you continued to push the matter. And after quit pestering me about it, here you are doing it again. Please stop! I get it; you think you're right, you think I'm wrong, you want to set me straight. But I don't care. Just stop! Grorp (talk)
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:Central Committee of the League of Communists of Macedonia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The category should come after the articles. Once the articles are created, this category can be recreated. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article in the category. No objection to re-creation of the category once it can get populated better. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 25 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:Years of the 20th century in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for brevity, the entire history of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia was within the 20th century so it is not needed to mention that explicitly. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 25 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 the Socialist Republic of Macedonia[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_25&oldid=1180194804"