Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 6
July 8 >

July 7[edit]

Category:Swahili furniture[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:African furniture (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 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:Islands of the Kuril Islands[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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT and straightforward tautology. The categories on individual islands would be subcats of Category:Kuril Islands rather than current one. Brandmeistertalk 19:18, 7 July 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:F.C. Edinburgh[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. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club has been renamed (see Talk:Edinburgh City F.C.). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 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:Russian city-states[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B, especially all categories connected through Wikidata. c:Category:Rus principalities has existed on Wikimedia Commons under that name since 2009. Rus' principalities is the WP:COMMONNAME for post-1240 principalities which continued to exist after Kievan Rus' disintegrated. See also Armies of the Rus' principalities (recently renamed after consensus reached on the talk page).
  • Note that even though "Novgorod Republic", "Pskov Republic" and Kirov are historiographically labelled "republics", they still had (elected) princes (see Prince of Novgorod) and are also simultaneously labelled "Rus' principalities"; these terms aren't mutually exclusive. "City-state" also doesn't quite capture what they were; especially the Novgorod Republic controlled a huge territory and other major cities (including initially Pskov).
  • Note that it is also not the same as Category:Subdivisions of Kievan Rus', which only includes principalities that were already part of Kievan Rus' before 1240 (including ones which disappeared before 1240 such as Principality of Terebovlia), and not those which were founded after 1240 (such as Principality of Tver, Grand Duchy of Moscow and Principality of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The description seems to imply Category:Rus' principalities after 1240. You know that Rus includes Kyivan Rus, and everything called Ruthenia up to Carpathian Ruthenia at least as late as the early 20th Century, don’t you? Not sure, but there may have been princes there much later than medieval times. The intended scope should be more clearly defined and the chosen name should reflect it.  —Michael Z. 22:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you're right. I thought Rus' principalities was only used for principalities that survived the collapse of Kievan Rus' in 1240 until somewhere in the 16th century, by which time they had all been absorbed into either the Commonwealth or the Tsardom. The latter still seems true (e.g. Carpatho-Ukraine may also have been known as "Carpathian Ruthenia", but it was a republic, so it wouldn't "count"). But I now see that Janet Martin 2004 p. 94 also uses the term for a wide-range analysis from the 11th to 13th century: ...law codes introduced by Prince Iaroslav and his sons in the eleventh century but also adopted widely in the early thirteenth, reflect the existence of a common culture binding the Rus' principalities together. On p. 103 she writes about the relations of Novgorod with other Rus' principalities in the 11th and 12th century. On p. 162 and 163 she talks about the Livonian Brothers of the Sword being founded in 1202 ...west of the Rus' principalities. However, all other references to "Rus' principalities" in her book refer to post-1240 events, developments or situations.
    Looking at some linked categories and lists:
    If there are any patterns here, it is that it should include all East Slavic language dominated Rus' principalities between th 9th and 16th century, excluding Lithuania, the Commonwealth, the Tsardom, Perm, and Vyatka, but including all pre-1240 principalities and all post-1240 principalities which could reasonably be called "Rus'" due to linguistic, cultural and partially legal/institutional/dynastic succession/continuation, such as Tver, Muscovy and Novgorod-Suzdal. That scope encompasses both Category:Subdivisions of Kievan Rus' and the Category:Rus' principalities I would like to have.... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, the usage of the term "Rus'" becomes blurry after the fall of Kievan Rus'. "Ruthenian" has of course the same meaning, technically, but is mostly used for the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the later Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, although few would extend it as far as 1795 or even 1938. E.g. Lithuania was arguably a Principality (more commonly called Grand Duchy), but apart from adopting a lot of Kievan Rus' law and customs and having lots of Rus'/Ruthenian subjects, I wouldn't call it a Rus' principality (ltwiki doesn't). Carpatho-Ukraine certainly could be called Ruthenian, but not a principality. Tver, Muscovy and Novgorod-Suzdal never were Kievan Rus' principalities (as dewiki rightly shows), but through their predecessor Vladimir-Suzdal, pretty much everyone would still call them Rus' principalities (even ukwiki). I don't see major disagreements there. The problem for us is that we still need to decide what our category scope(s) is/are.
      I think we've got 2 basic choices:
      (A) the whole period from 9th to 16th century, no distinction between before and after 1240, but rigorous in making sure every item is both Rus' and a principality, or
      (B) the same as (A), but a split at 1240 (thus creating a lot of overlap, but making sure that people understand that e.g. Tver, Muscovy and Novgorod-Suzdal never were Kievan Rus' principalities). Because Muscovy, and later the Tsardom of Russia, Russian Empire, and Russian Federation (up to Putin in 2021), have each claimed to be "the rightful successor of Kievan Rus'", even though Muscovy was founded only after Kievan Rus' was already gone, this claim is highly controversial, and one which we should treat with great care. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or (C) stop using the term "Rus'" in category names after the fall of Kievan Rus' is also a serious option. The article Rus' people only discusses pre-Kievan Rus', not post-Kievan Rus', while the successor term Ruthenia was used as early as to refer to Kievan Rus'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm so that comes down to Delete then? (Or rather Upmerge to Medieval Russia, as you suggested). I don't know. I think "Rus' principalities" has some added value because it is so frequently used in literature, even if not everyone agrees which states are in or out. There is consensus on a large number of them. If you like, I could start creating a list of Rus' principalities similar to the one found on German Wikipedia, but with a separate section for post-1240 principalities like Tver. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Then it is done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason we can't get more participation in this. I know several editors who might be interested, but they've got an Eastern Europe restriction and shouldn't be pinged...
For me it is evident that this category should be renamed in accordance with all the interwikis at Wikidata. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:16, 20 July 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:Welfare state in the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a tree for Category:Welfare state by country. This is the only category we have on Wikipedia for "Category:Welfare state in Fooland". I think there is no need to differentiate between welfare and welfare state in this context for categories. This category shoud be upmerged to Category:Welfare in the United Kingdom. Related discussion: Talk:Welfare_state_in_the_United_Kingdom#Requested_move_18_June_2023 (and Talk:Welfare#Social_security_articles?, the latter may result in many category mergers/renames in the long run). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the category clearly distinguishes itself from its parent, and is well populated. Just the fact that other countries do not have a similar tree is not convincing, because diffusion by country usually starts with the United Kingdom or the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Do elaborate where do you see the "clearly distinguishes" part, because I don't see the difference? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw oppose, in retrospect I am convinced by the content of Welfare. There is still the problem that some content in the parent is not directly related to government support but - as I do not have an immediate solution for it - that issue may be kept for a later (split) discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems reasonable to merge.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 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:Tucana (constellation)[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 09:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation, compare main article Tucana. Contested CFDS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there is Tucana (disambiguation) and we normally keep a disambiguator in the category title if a dab page exists under that name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle ; We should enforce a naming scheme for constellations to be CAT:X (constellation) to make it a speedy rename for schema -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The other meanings seem unlikely to be have articles for a category and we should defer to the main articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. With multiple possible meanings it is better to disambiguate. Hot Cat users in particular will make errors without the DAB in the title.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obvious primary meaning, with two other entries in the DAB page (Tucana Dwarf and Tucana (Chinese astronomy)) already belonging to the same constellation category. None of the other altenative meanings are suitable for generating a category. Cavarrone 06:13, 20 July 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 from Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, California[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 09:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alta Loma has been part of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California since 1977. No need for a separate neighborhood subcategory here. User:Namiba 23:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be slightly controversial, it seems that people from Alta Loma have a strong own identity. ("Residents of Alta Loma and Etiwanda finally agreed to incorporation provided their identifying community names would be kept along with separate post offices and ZIP codes. In addition, businesses are permitted to use either Alta Loma or Rancho Cucamonga on letterheads, business permits, and other records.") Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: The US Post Office has a long list of "vanity cities" they tolerate for specific zip codes that differ from the official city listing they recommend. See here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. This is part of Rancho Cucamonga, even if some people have misgivings. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient content to justify a subcategory of the parent town. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, California is a clearly definable neighborhood that is the subject of multiple RS. We have a stand alone article that passes GNG so I don't see any reason for not having a category under our cat policies.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 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:Two-time VFL/AFL Premiership players[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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is unencyclopaedic to create a category just for winning a premiership twice. We don't do that for any sport in WP. What next? A category for three time winners? LibStar (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per Pichpich, I could accept upmerges to Category:VFL/AFL Premiership players and Category:VFL/AFL Premiership coaches, but would prefer for them all to just be deleted. The-Pope (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged all the additional categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all as proposed by Pichpich, per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. I think this could be closed now with a consensus to merge.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 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:Novels set in fictional villages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I have listed the current contents at Talk:List of fictional settlements. – Fayenatic London 11:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: So many novels are set in fictional villages that this doesn't really seem to be a defining category. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many comparable categories with huge numbers of entries (for example, Category:Films set in country houses has 546 articles, and Category:Novels set in New York City has 613 articles, and Category:Novels set in London has 1,035 articles); but being set in a village is a distinctive features of novels so set, and is in keeping with novel categorization on Wikipedia. It is also consistent with similar categories, like Category:Novels set in fictional countries, Category:Novels set on fictional islands, Category:Novels set in fictional cities, and Category:Novels set in fictional towns. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you created Category:Novels set in fictional towns and "Novels set in fictional cities" less than a week ago, I feel you're arguing a bit disingenuously here. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Such was not my intention! I brought them up because they had not been nominated. But more importantly, all the other categories I listed (and I could list many more) were not created by me. I have been creating a few more categories, such as the one under discussion here, to better round out the novel topic categories, since there were many of them already in use but they have inconsistent coverage. Since categories exist for nonfictional cities, towns, and villages, it seemed obvious we also needed to cover fictional ones. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'd been aware of them at the time I created this CfD I might have added them to it. As it is, I hope that the outcome of this CfD might be used to set precedent as to whether those categories are appropriate.
    I find the larger-scope categories less problematic because I suspect they're less common and consequently more defining. Per my example below, The Stand is set in fictional villages but not in fictional countries (per se). DonIago (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your thinking, but I really do think these settings are defining for most works so set—certainly as defining as London (for example) is as a setting for the vast number of works so categorized. And I created the category not just for kicks, but to fill a serious gap I felt in the categorization. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nonsensical rationale. So there are enough novels to make this a viable category, and this makes you suggest its deletion? Have you been drinking while editing? Dimadick (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in my nomination, I don't believe that being set in a fictional village is really a defining category, and as at least one other editor agrees with me, perhaps you could cut back on the snark? We could have Category:Novels that contain words, but we don't. Should we put The Stand in this category because it includes fictional villages? DonIago (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The word used to describe the setting of a place (i.e. city, town, village) is not defining of a novel. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered instead making Category:Novels set in fictional populated places (on the basis of Category:Fictional populated places), but that I thought would be too expansive of a category. So I broke it down to the most common descriptions used in novels—cities, towns, and villages. I think the village setting of a novel is, in fact, a defining characteristic for many (most) novels so set, as are city and town. It is also in keeping with similar categories, like Category:Novels set on farms, Category:Novels set in swamps, Category:Novels set in deserts, Category:Novels set on fictional islands, etc. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Set in a swamp is very specific, set in a village not at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Novels set in fictional populated places" might work as a parent category, but I'm not advocating for it at this time, and I'm not sure whether something like it may not already exist. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your perspective, but respectfully I disagree. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3 Set in an unspecified place where there are other characters nearby? I appreciate there is sincere disagreement here but this one seems too generic to be defining to me. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Category:Novels set in fictional towns. I am not sure we really need to differentiate between a village and a town. To my mind they are pretty much the same thing. That said. We have a large category tree for Category:Fiction by setting. The fact that a large number of works use this particular setting device does not make it useless. I’d further note that many of these could get more specific such as “Novels set in fictional villages in Canada” for Anne of Green Gables. Many times we know what real country or geographic region the fictional town/village exists in. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this idea of more specific categories. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep or Merge I second this. "Set in fictional villages" does feel a bit too generic for me, but "fictional villages in Canada/England/Russia" seems like it could useful to users. ForsythiaJo (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, too generic Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am concerned that this discussion is being had about Category:Novels set in fictional villages but not also about Category:Novels set in fictional cities or Category:Novels set in fictional towns. Are we going to have this discussion all over again for those? It seems like this should all be dealt with together. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago, The Man in Question, Dimadick, Aidan721, RevelationDirect, 4meter4, and Kaffet i halsen: I have added the siblings to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete additional nominations by Marcocapelle as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer This is obviously meant as an expansion of the earlier iVote by @Aidan721:, not an additional iVote. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
@Marcocapelle: Took the liberty of adding these to the header of your nomination to make the change clearer without digging through the comments. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete additional cats per nom. The only reason I didn't include them in my original nomination was because I was unaware of them. DonIago (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. This is to be understood as an expansion of the original deletion nomination by @Doniago: and not counted as an additional vote. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Further note: I would have no objection to a category Novels set in a particular fictional place, but Novels set in any fictional place is just meaningless. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give an example or examples? — the Man in Question (in question) 18:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, e.g. I would not have an issue with Category:Novels set in Castle Rock. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I thought you meant something more like @4meter4:'s suggestion of "Novels set in fictional villages in Canada". I think what you're saying would be hyper-specific, as with few exceptions the same fictional places would not recur in the works of different authors, and thus it would be more a 'category of curiosities' or serve the same purpose as franchise categories. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely did not think of "Novels set in fictional villages in Canada", that would still be hyper-vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the rush to delete all of these categories is a mistake and is ill conceived. There is scholarly writing on the choice to use fictional towns as a setting, and as it is an academic area of interest in literature/writing studies I think a category is both useful and appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment " I think the rush to delete all of these categories is a mistake and is ill conceived." Well, many useful categories have already been deleted. It is one of the ways that Wikipedia keeps getting worse in the last few years. Dimadick (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep additional cats per nom. The setting is the most defining aspect for a novel. Dimadick (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer This is obviously meant as an expansion of the earlier iVote by @Dimadick:, not an additional iVote. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer The 2 additional cats were formally added to the nomination just before the time stamp of this comment. Please leave at least 7 days from this point before closing. (@4meter4: This addresses your valid procedural concern about leaving enough time to reach consensus.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify/Delete - The problem here is that we're grouping the works, without any idea whatsoever what the fictional village/town/city is. This is MUCH better represented as a list. I think all 3 could be listified to the same list. If no consensus to listify, then just delete. Categorising these works in this way doesn't seem helpful for readers or navigation. - jc37 12:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:58, 7 July 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:Places of local interest needing cleanup[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 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear subject. What does "of local interest" mean in a global encyclopedia? User:Namiba 22:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a maintenance category, it doesn't have to be exact as long as it helps users find what they need. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:49, 7 July 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:European chronicles[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 09:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:CROSSCAT. :Background: Talk:Rus' chronicle#Title.
It looks like certain category trees have been mixed up. E.g:
The problem is that language and location can be independent. Language is evidently important and defining for literature, but why does location matter? If someone in Denmark publishes a book in English tomorrow, and that gets distributed online or appears in hardback and paperback copies in countries around the world (where it may even be sold and read more widely than in Denmark itself), what makes it "European literature"? The "Denmark" part? The "English" part? Europe seems to be WP:NONDEFINING for the book in question.
It is telling that the "main article" List of European literatures [sic? I don't know if "literature" even has a plural] is just an WP:UNSOURCED sum of language-based articles for literature in languages widely spoken and written in Europe, but not only in Europe (English literature, Spanish literature and Portuguese literature probably have a much greater presence/influence in the Americas than in Europe, so what makes them "European"?). Moreover, European literature just redirects to Western literature (which is incredibly interesting, suggesting there is no such thing as "European" literature).
Anyway, my suggestion to untangle the mixup between the category trees of literature by language and literature by location is to eliminate literature by location altogether. But to keep it simple, I'm just gonna start with this one single category where we noticed this problem for the first time as a test case. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt Rename rationale: See below under (As nom) Support Alt rename. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll grant that the issue you've pointed out, of categories being categorized in supra-categories in a way that seems to conflate language and region, is a genuine one (but an easy one to fix). However, the location of a book is certainly relevant—less so, perhaps, in the modern era (but certainly not irrelevant), but very relevant in the past. For example, in medieval Europe most books were written in Latin. Thus by removing the location we would be lumping together all these Latin texts, when in fact it is highly relevant that a Latin text is also a German text or a Spanish text or a Dutch text. (I myself have used these categories extensively as jumping-off points for research.) This is particularly apparent with chronicles, since chronicles are texts devoted to locations. But, since you say you want to expand this to all literature categories, I'm addressing that when I say: With all respect, I emphatically disagree. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Man in Question You make an interesting point. There have been some developments in the meantime at Talk:Rus' chronicle#Title, where I sort of found out that it was a bit more complicated than I thought, and that the adjective in the children of Category:European chronicles can refer to location, setting, language, or a mix of all three. Especially language and setting are legitimate category trees, e.g. Category:Works set in former countries.
    About location I am not yet sure whether it is defining. Do you find it important to categorise that a Latin book was published in Germany or Spain (location)? Or do you find it more important that that Latin book tells a story which happened/happens in Germany or Spain (setting)? Because I think the former is not defining, but the latter probably is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: In other words, I am considering whether this category should be split into Category:Chronicles set in Europe (re-parent to Category:Works by country of setting?), and Category:Chronicles by language (re-parent to Category:Literature by language; its children should have names such as Category:Hebrew-language chronicles, which already exists). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting is still insufficient; many works have no setting—for example, scientific works. It is still relevant where they were written, as in my example of medieval Latin works above. Also, while it works with chronicles, with most historical works setting is less relevant than the place the work is associated with through its writer. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case of chronicles, if they are about a specific country or city, the chance that they are written in that same country or city is extremely high. So I think here we can suffice with a categorization by topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @The Man in Question @Marcocapelle I agree with your comments and appreciate your feedback. There have also been developments in related categories which have led me to the conclusion that a Rename as proposed by Marcocapelle and rescoping to Category:Chronicles by topic is a better idea than Delete, or a rescoping "by setting". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this parallel discussion, we may re-purpose this category to Category:Chronicles about Europe. An overarching European parent seems useful in any case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (As nom) Support Alt rename to Category:Chronicles about Europe. I have been thinking this, too. I may have been a little too early with nominating it for deletion. I have now found re-purposing the existing Fooian chronicles categories to Chronicles about Fooland (and thus from by location to by topic) a much more useful alternative. See also closely related CfS Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Category:Manuscripts by area. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 7 July 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 area[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 09:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CROSSCAT in practice.
A: Location tree: Category:Categories by location. (compare Category:Books by country)
B: Topic tree: Category:Works about countries > Category:Works by topic)
C: Language tree: Category:Manuscripts by language > Category:Works by language)
The fact that it is a WP:CROSSCAT is not necessarily its own fault, but more that of the ambiguous meanings of the adjectives (like "Czech") in the names of its subcategories. For example, are Category:Czech manuscripts
A) written in the Czech lands (Codex Gigas)?
B) about the Czech lands (Gelnhausen Codex)?, or
C) written in (old) Czech (Zemské desky)?
Answer: All of the above! (not picking on Czechia, Czech history or the Czech language in particular; it's just the alphabetically first good crosscat example.)
Many subcategories are often simultaneously in Category:Manuscripts by area and Category:Manuscripts by language, such as Category:Arabic manuscripts, Category:Dutch manuscripts, Category:German manuscripts etc.
Other subcategories seem unambiguously language-based and have nothing to do with area/location, e.g. Category:Hebrew manuscripts, Category:Aromanian manuscripts, Category:Slavic manuscripts etc.
Therefore, I think we should split this category up by location (per WP:C2C parent Category:Categories by location), and by topic (as a child of Category:Works by topic). All subcategories and items based on language should be manually moved to Category:Manuscripts by language. This process will probably require further splitting and renaming of the subcategories (e.g. Category:German manuscripts might need to be split into Category:German-language manuscripts and Category:Manuscripts about Germany). But I think it's better to first address this at the parent level to see the bigger picture.
Alt rationale I'm still thinking location is actually WP:NONDEFINING for works (see the "Category:European chronicles" CfD). Because what does "area"/"location" really mean for manuscripts? Where the manuscript
(a) was first written,
(b) was discovered/found, or
(c) is currently being preserved?
(a) is often impossible to definitively establish and hard to categorise, (b) isn't very defining, and (c) is more for a category like Category:National Library of Russia collection, in the Category:Manuscripts by collection tree. I think people have often just confused area/location with topic; e.g. manuscripts about Poland belongs in the topic tree, not the area/location tree, even though Poland is also an area/location.
So as an alternative to splitting, we could just rename the whole category to Category:Manuscripts by topic, and manually move all subcategories and items based on language to Category:Manuscripts by language. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Rename to Category:Manuscripts by topic. I think the "location" is generally covered by Category:Manuscripts by collection. (That tree has some of it's own quirks: Schechter Letter is both in the collection where it was found and the collection where it is being conserved.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've found that as well. Location = collection. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Category:Manuscripts by topic might be useful for splitting or renaming the extant Manuscripts by works contained, I oppose using it in this nomination, because all the subcats are by country, region or language. I suggest renaming to Category:Manuscripts by region and splitting to new Category:Manuscripts by country & existing Category:Manuscripts by language. 4 of 6 pages held directly are already in Aztec codices within the Mesoamerican subcat; Pacific Manuscripts Bureau can go to "by collection". – Fayenatic London 22:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is area/location/region/country WP:DEFINING for Aztec codices? Main article Aztec codex says: Aztec codices are Mesoamerican manuscripts made by the pre-Columbian Aztec, and their Nahuatl-speaking descendants during the colonial period in Mexico. (emphasis by me). Granted, "Mesoamerican" indicates area, but only the area of the larger group which the Aztec codices are part of. So, what sets them apart from those other Mesoamerican Codices? Mostly: language. Nahuatl is the most defining element here, although in some cases the later colonial-era codices were written by Aztecs whose native language was Nahuatl, but they wrote a mix of Nahuatl, Spanish and sometimes Latin. (As an aside, these Aztec codices aren't always "about the Aztecs" either, e.g. the Codex Barberini was about botany and medicine, and the Codex Vergara is about agriculture, so 'topic' is WP:NONDEFINING for the whole group).
    On the other hand, the Borgia Group is mostly defined by topic: They are distinguished by their religious content, while the pre-Columbian codices of the Mixtec Group are principally historical. The place of origin and the linguistic identity of the creators of the codices have been subject to debate. (emphasis by me) So neither area nor language can be WP:DEFINING in this case, and that of the Mixtec Group (although the latter does seem to have a close relation to the Mixtec languages, an entirely different family than Nahuatl).
    Finally, what sets the Maya codices apart from the other Mesoamerican codices? They are folding books written by the pre-Columbian Maya civilization in Maya hieroglyphic script on Mesoamerican bark paper. (emphasis by me). The primary defining element seems to again be language, not area, nor topic.
    So it seems to me that none of the subgroups of the Mesoamerican Codices is actually defined by area. Only the parent Category:Mesoamerican codices, which describes rather diverse sets of codices in a rather large area - probably (b) where the manuscripts were first discovered, not (a) where they were first written, because each of these articles emphasises the authors (written by) rather than their area. That's a rather shaky basis for an entire category tree full of items for whom area is otherwise WP:NONDEFINING.
    And just because all the subcats are [currently] by country, region or language doesn't mean they are correct (e.g. for the Borgia Group they are clearly WP:NONDEFINING), as the "Mesoamerican" examples and the examples I've given in the rationale demonstrate. Nor doesn't it mean we can't or shouldn't correct them. Hence this nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the objection. Of the six directly-held articles, Aztec codex and 3 others are already in a Mesoamerican sub-cat, so can re removed; Ethiopian manuscript collections is by country; and Pacific Manuscripts Bureau could go in "by region" (as well as "by collection"). Category:Mesoamerican codices, Middle American pictorial manuscripts, Central Asian manuscripts, South Asian manuscripts and Scandinavian manuscripts are all valid subcats to go in "Manuscripts by region". I think Arabic manuscripts, Aromanian manuscripts, Hebrew manuscripts and Slavic manuscripts are clearly "by language". The other subcats are by country. What's wrong with this outcome?
    If you think the subcats by country/region are non-defining, then nominate them; but they are not the ones under discussion here. But the article Borgia Group says "mostly pre-Columbian documents from central Mexico", so Mesoamerican codices seems defining for Category:Borgia Group to me.
    Although we could split to "Manuscripts by location" over "Manuscripts by collection" & "by country" & "by region", that would conflate location of origin and location of collection, and IMHO would be an unnecessary layer.
    As for "Manuscripts by topic", if you want to build that, I would have no objection; by all means, start from scratch, with new categories using unambiguous names. But the current contents here are essentially by language or by place of origin. – Fayenatic London 18:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise some good points. I'll try to address them in turn.
    Ethiopian manuscript collections is by country Why? This is evidently a case of Category:Manuscripts by collection, it's in the title itself. Similarly, the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau's aim (..) is to help with long-term preservation of the documentary heritage of the Pacific Islands, in other words, to build and maintain a collection.
    Category:Middle American pictorial manuscripts seems to me to be the Mesoamerican equivalent of Category:Illuminated manuscripts, in Category:Manuscripts by type.
    What is "Central Asian" about, say, The General's Garden (Tangut translation)? Found in Mongolia, preserved in London, written in a language which is not prevalent in Central Asia. What is "Central Asian" about Maitreyasamitināṭaka? This whole Category:Central Asian manuscripts seems an WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
    Similarly, Category:South Asian manuscripts just combines 3 manuscript collections with a language-based category, so yet another WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
    Category:Scandinavian manuscripts is a WP:SMALLCAT that is already in Category:Swedish manuscripts, another WP:SMALLCAT (and WP:ARBITRARYCAT because both items are in Latin, not Swedish, and the Annals of Lund are preserved in Denmark and Germany, not Sweden, so the only thing that makes them "Swedish" would be "Manuscripts by topic").
    If you think the subcats by country/region are non-defining, then nominate them. Yes, I intend to.
    Although we could split to "Manuscripts by location" over "Manuscripts by collection" & "by country" & "by region", that would conflate location of origin and location of collection, and IMHO would be an unnecessary layer. I agree; my thinking has evolved since I first nominated this category for a split "by location" and "by topic", but now I realise only the latter really has added value, and the former has turned out to be WP:NONDEFINING.
    As for "Manuscripts by topic", if you want to build that, I would have no objection; by all means, start from scratch, with new categories using unambiguous names. But the current contents here are essentially by language or by place of origin. I'm glad you agree. Of course we will have to sort a lot of things out, and perhaps this means I should have gone for a bottom-up approach instead of a top-down one. (So I essentially made the same mistake as with Category:Rulers - sorry - but fortunately at a much smaller scale this time). But I could make a list of suggestions how to sort all these items and subcategories out to make this clear. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest moving Category:Manuscripts by area to Category:Manuscripts by provenance Grouping manuscripts by provenance is standard in reliable sources and therefore WP:DEFINING. Works that would go into categories for Andalusi manuscripts or Ottoman manuscripts would not all go into the same topic or language (there are manuscripts in Arabic, Hebrew, Romance, Persian, Turkish, Armenian, etc.) but they are examined together according to provenance in scholarly sources and there is value in doing so. إيان (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Ok, to start with, opposing' "by topic" and "by area/location/region". Neither seems to cover the intent here. The use of provenance is interesting, but that could be a list of people and places, from creation to the present. How about Renaming to Category: Manuscripts by original provenance? I did a search for "original provenance", and that seems to be what is used - this, for example: "The collection is sorted according to the original provenance." Collection sorting. Sounds an awful lot like what we're doing here too... - jc37 12:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_5 to see what happened to various categories that were mentioned above and are now red links. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that link.
    I'm looking over those and see a mixture of things. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_5#Category:Spanish_manuscripts in particular seems a situation where a category was intended for one thing, but where, per the nom, they "cleaned it up" to be something else. I don't know. I think having ancient manucripts by original provenance would be a good idea, especially, as we now know, that's how those who hold said manuscripts sort/catalogue them. So maybe those discussions (well-meant though they mayhave been at the time) might have been incorrect due to what we now know. - jc37 14:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "original provenance", exactly? How do we know which provenance was "original"? For instance, could you indicate what the "original provenance" of the Khlebnikov Codex would be? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By whatever is said in the sources... - jc37 05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what it even means yourself? Because I don't. I can't find a definition of "original provenance" anywhere; I only get definitions of "provenance", and examples of the "original provenance" of item X, without explaining what that means as opposed to just "provenance" (e.g. "The museum’s original provenance records showed that painting was sold in 1935 at the Graupe auction house in Berlin." Lisa Reynolds 2008. Yeah that's interesting and everything, but what does that mean? And how do we categorise that? Category:Paintings sold in Berlin?). I hope we're not creating a category we don't even understand ourselves. That solves nothing, but just creates more problems. We can follow whatever is said in the sources, but how do we know that the source is correct or incorrect when we don't know what they're talking about?
    Incidentally, the very first hit I get on Google Books is a list of texts with "original provenance unclear". Not very encouraging. We should remember that whatever we categorise by should be WP:DEFINING. If this is data that is frequently unknown (even unknowable), contested (or contestable), or arbitrary/subjective, it's not helpful for categorisation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thinking aloud, but if we don't understand the source material, perhaps we houldn't be editing said material?
    I would guess that if this is the widespread way that organisations (ones that we would typically call reliable sources) catalogue, organise, and sort, such manuscripts, then using that would seem to make more sense, than arbitrarily making up our own .
    As for what it means, wikt:original and wikt:provenance would seem to be the answer to that? - jc37 15:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for what it means, wikt:original and wikt:provenance would seem to be the answer to that? Seems like the definition of WP:SYNTH. Let's not do that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I say this with polite sincerity - I suggest you may want to re-read WP:SYNTH. We're talking about the basic definition of 2 words. Not the melding of two sources. And even if we weren't. SYNTH applies to original research (where that abbreviation links to). And I've already shown that reliable sources use those words together. So it is in no way WP:OR...
    All that aside, I guess I don't understand what you are arguing against, or why, for that matter. The answer is the word "provenance" (take your pick - definition #1, 2, or 3), but because that can also mean wikt:chain of custody (again, per wikt:provenance), I'm suggesting using the term that museums use, which is "original provenance".
    What's the issue? - jc37 22:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not trying to be annoying on purpose. Sorry if that seems so. I'm just slightly frustrated because I don't see how this solves the issues we would like to solve.
    We have three competing definitions of wikt:provenance:
    1. Place or source of origin.
    2. place and time of origin
    3. history of ownership
    So which one is "original"? Where it was produced? Where it was found? Who owned it first (and are we referring to the original owners (often those who wrote or commissioned the manuscript), or to the first one(s) to find the manuscript after it had gotten lost?) I don't know, I haven't got a clue.
    I just read (for the first time, I must admit) in the related entry wikt:provenience that provenance is everything from production, storage/original ownership, going lost, artefact finding by anyone (archaeologists/historians, or common people), selling to a trader, acquisition by scholars/antiquarians/private collectors, and being acquired by some museum/archive/gallery/library etc. but provenience only the place where the artefact was found. provenience might actually be a good idea, as it is more specific, but where would that place, for instance, the Khlebnikov Codex I mentioned above? I only know it was 'unexpectedly discovered in 1809' somewhere in Russia , but not where. Moreover, this is a codex which was lost and retrieved/rediscovered several times over. Which of these rediscoveries do we consider its provenience? The 1809 one? The acquisition by Pyotr Khlebnikov somewhere in the mid-18th century? The retrieval around 1610 in Krosnyk by "father governor of Ustia"? I think the 1809 one, but I'm not sure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we need to pick only one, as the current name is "by area", I presume that we're talking about "place or source of origin"? (origin..., original..., form of the word...)
    As for the rest, it sounds like the answer, per you, is "in Russia". (I'm not going to even try to parse Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia...) But if you are saying that that actually cannot be determined, then maybe we shouldn't be categorizing these this way at all.
    I'm also wary of deciding on a category scheme based upon only 1, or a few, examples. - jc37 09:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. Well, your guess is as good as mine. I've been trying to figure out what "by area/location/country/region/provenance/place of origin/etc." means ever since I found this Category:Manuscripts by area on 27 May, and decided to nominate it because I couldn't figure it out. I haven't been able to figure it out since, and nobody else seems to be able to make this category WP:DEFINING.
    I think that your words that [if place of origin] actually cannot be determined, then maybe we shouldn't be categorizing these this way at all are very wise. This is why I have included the option Alt rename to Category:Manuscripts by topic if we can't figure out what "area" actually means, so that in practice, it is simply WP:NONDEFINING and doesn't help us with categorisation at all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I agree with you that we should be wary of deciding on a category scheme based upon only 1, or a few, examples. I've only given the Khlebnikov Codex as an example here for you, just because we were talking about provenance, and I recently read and wrote a lot about that codex, and still haven't been able to figure out its full provenance (scholars haven't either, and Wikipedians can't do better than scholars). But if you're interested, I've given many other examples above of cases where I don't know how to connect a certain (group of) manuscript(s) to a certain area either. (The Category:Mesoamerican codices may be an exception, but Mesoamerica is extremely large and vague as an "area". All other child categories are arbitrary to connect a specific "area", whatever that means.) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which is moving us towards Delete all territory. (And shifting inclusion criteria to "by topic" doesn't seem appropriate at all in this case.) I do still think "original provenance" can work, with a note at the top of the cat making clear that these are categorised based upon "earliest known location"/original provenance. But if you're saything that that still won't work for categorisation (and thus a WP:LIST would be more appropriate, so to be able to explain these things), then I'm not opposed to Listify/Delete, either. - jc37 10:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Listify/Delete may be a good idea for all items and subcats which do not fit the Category:Manuscripts by topic target. But this target remains the most appropriate solution for e.g.:
    Some of these cats were already in Category:Manuscripts by works contained. I've also temporarily "parked" other cats (usually from Category:Manuscripts by area) there for now. But I think they deserve their own Category:Manuscripts by topic, because the other subcats of Category:Manuscripts by works contained are about textual witnesses of specific texts, not just random works about a shared topic (like Category:Medical manuscripts). (At Category talk:Church Slavonic biblical manuscripts#Textual witnesses we're currently discussing about how to better organise these categories). Moreover, pretty much all these categories are already in the Category:Works by topic tree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can create Category:Manuscripts by topic without removing anything from any other cat. Maybe do that, and then let's see where we are with this cat. - jc37 14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 I guess you're right. I've been wanting to create that category for well over a month now, but I thought I had to discuss it and agree with everyone first, and that a rename/split from "by area" would be best. But it is pretty evident now that this has not been the best tactic. Then I'll Boldly create it at your suggestion, and we'll see what happens indeed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Category:Manuscripts by topic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Many issues have been addressed by moving or splitting off several child categories and items, but others remain. For example, why are many of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri categorised both as Category:Egyptian manuscripts and Category:Byzantine manuscripts? Is it because they were found in an area that nowadays is in Egypt? Is it because they were produced in (=country of production) or lost in (=provenience) an area that at the time was in the Byzantine Empire (somewhat contestable, depending when we date the start of the Byzantine Empire as the successor of the Roman Empire in the Eastern Mediterranean)? Is it because the "Byzantine" ones carry copies of the Byzantine text-type of the textual variants in the New Testament? Is it because the "Byzantine" ones were written in Byzantine Greek? It's all ambiguous. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pinging everyone from above: RevelationDirect, Nederlandse Leeuw, Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london, إيان - So at this point, based upon the current members of the category, does anyone oppose renaming to Category: Manuscripts by original provenance? I look at Category:Illuminated manuscripts of Welsh origin, for example, and that seems to be exactly about original provenance. - jc37 12:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: I'm fine with the original location being one set of categories and the current location of storage/conservation being at Category:Manuscripts by collection . I wonder if Category: Manuscripts by original context or something similar might be a better wording for your intended meaning though, since "provenance is the chain of custody. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provenance is the chain. Original provenance is the first link in that chain. - jc37 12:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll defer on the exact naming then. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 If Original provenance is the first link in that chain, why not just Category:Manuscripts by country of production? Especially if you're using the "of Welsh origin" cat as an example, which is currently defined as illuminated manuscripts that were either certainly produced or are thought to have been produced in Wales., the produced part seems to be the defining factor. On the other hand, the phrase are thought to have been produced in Fooland seems rather problematic to me, because this raises the question are thought[by whom?]. This is just WP:WEASEL. If the guy down the street who recently launched his own ShitCoin cryptocurrency thinks that Manuscript X was produced in Wales, that evidently carries a little less weight than if the scholarly consensus is that Manuscript X was produced in Wales with about 80% certainty. The latter may be categorise-worthy, the former clearly isn't.
    But even for the latter, where are we going to draw the line of certainty/uncertainty? At 60% certainty that Manuscript X was produced in Wales? At 40%? And how strong must the scholarly consensus be? E.g. do we need to find 90% agreement amongst scholars that it was produced in Wales with about 80% certainty (while e.g. 9% maintains it was produced in England with about 60% certainty)? Whichever percentages we go for, this is almost bound to be an WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
    I do appreciate this effort, and I don't have better answer (yet) either, but I don't think this is gonna be the solution we need. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why this and not that? Because, after seeing one commenter mention provenance, I did google search, and I found that that's the term used out there in the world beyond Wikipedia. And when we can, I prefer to default to that, rather than making up our own. - jc37 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) "Provenance" = place of origin, so "original provenance" seems redundant to me. I suggest Category:Manuscripts by country of origin, matching others within Category:Country of origin. If "country" is too specific, with other categories being for regions etc, then I suggest Category:Manuscripts by place of origin either instead or as a parent. – Fayenatic London 14:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see wikt:provenance for the different ways it can be used. Country of origin is interesting. But looking at that category and its parents, the category seems more about trade than historical study. Due to that, I'm still leaning towards the original provinence direction, per current usage. But, I have to admit, that's a very interesting find. - jc37 14:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, it sure is an interesting find! It has children called Category:Lists of films by country of production and Category:Lists of television series by country of production. So "by country of production" is already a thing. Similarly there is Category:Ships by country of construction. If we agree that this is what we mean, then I prefer Category:Manuscripts by country of production. Some people may still think "origin" refers to the place where it was sold / stored / lost / found / acquired; remember the painting example I gave above, which identified a Berlin auction house as the "original provenance", so that's several steps away from the actual country of production. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nom observed himself, this appears to be a too high-level discussion. We probably agree that by language, by collection, by topic, by place of production and by place of finding are potential candidates to split by, we may disagree on whether some of these are good characteristic to split by, but we will really need to discuss it at a lower level before any action can be taken. For that reason, I propose to have a procedural close of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with this - a procedural no consensus close. Let's give people a chance to clean up more the manuscripts tree (there have been several other nominations), and take care of some of the "manual" work in the meantime. And then we can start anew once the picture is (possibly) clearer. - jc37 12:19, 15 July 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:Italian sports directors[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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category refers to sporting directors, a management role. A sports director is a role in TV broadcasting. Nehme1499 09:32, 7 July 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.

Ancient assassinated people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Ancient assassinated people

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_7&oldid=1166405271"