Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20
May 22 >

May 21[edit]

Category:Greek-speaking countries and territories[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:Countries and territories where Greek is an official language. Contents will need to be purged later. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language. Category description: This category lists countries and territories where Greek is used as an official language. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:40, 21 May 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:German-speaking countries and territories[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:Countries and territories where German is an official language. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of countries and territories where German is an official language. WP:C2C parents Category:German as an official language and Category:Countries and territories by official language. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to be less subjective. Open to removing articles if German is unofficial. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:54, 28 May 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:Portuguese-speaking countries and territories[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:Countries and territories where Portuguese is an official language. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of countries and territories where Portuguese is an official language. WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:33, 21 May 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:Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh[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. Open to further discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the eponymous article Disclosure: I renamed the article to its current name. The current name makes it sound like an independent denomination or a sui juris particular church of the Catholic Church. It is not. It is just a metropolitan province of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was more concerned to avoid the possibility that it might be perceived as a totally different entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:15, 22 May 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:Types of scientific fallacy[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. After resolving all the issues, it seems this can be deleted now. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MADEUP, "scientific fallacy" appears to refer to a specific informal fallacy in the terminology of Ludwig Wittgenstein, not a category of fallacies that has broad recognition in academic literature - car chasm (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Alt - rename to "Discredited scientific theories" as no such category exists - car chasm (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the articles do have something in common: they are about poor scientific practices, so deletion is not the most ideal solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would rather accept nom and delete than leave it as it is - there is no "scientific fallacy", while "scientific errors" are part of the scientific inquiry process, which makes proposed new name quite an awkward.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm, @Marcocapelle, how about Category:Discredited scientific theories for a new name? On first look I noticed that few of the articles are just that - discredited science. ౪ Santa ౪99° 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works, this would also make an upmerge of Category:Pathological science (also currently at CFD) to this category seem appropriate, and "discredited scientific theories" seems like an appropriate subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience, I've updated the nom to match. - car chasm (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seem reasonable - we just need to be sure to know the difference between science, which is a science even when it makes errors or even when it is lazy and bad science based on bad methodology in inquiry which can lead to discredited theories; vs. misused and abused science which stops being science at that point and turns into pseudoscience and/or fringe, or even propaganda, so whatever direction we take on this caution is advised, especially with knowing the difference.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I snooped around a bit and found that we have list-article on Superseded theories in science which is categorized in Category:Obsolete scientific theories, in it we have Category:Disproved conjectures. So, @Carchasm, we already have cats we need, and the best way to deal with this is to scratch the Rename proposal and stick with Delete and merge, where we can move articles into existing appropriate cats (some may end up in fringe cat, some in obsolete, and some in pathological, and so on. ).--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, I struck through the alt to make it clear. - car chasm (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds reasonable to me as well. It will require manual work to implement this. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already removed all 4 articles about Idola fallacies (Idola tribus, Idola specus, Idola theatri, Idola fori) and article Politicization of science along with a sub-cat Category:Cognitive biases - these really don't belong there and I didn't see any reason to further include them anywhere else since they are more-less already properly categorized.Those few that remained should be checked, so if any of you have time and energy, go ahead... ౪ Santa ౪99° 13:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just checked the other four articles and the subcategory and added other relevant categories, should be good to delete this category now. - car chasm (talk) 23:19, 24 May 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:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reflects the contents of the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:35, 21 May 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-speaking territorial units in Croatia[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:Populated places in Croatia where Italian is an official language. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C sibling Category:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language, cousin Category:Municipalities in Slovakia where Hungarian is an official language, parent Category:Regions of Europe with multiple official languages, grandparent Category:Countries and territories by official language. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, because right now it is very unclear whether the articles in the category satisfy the "official" criterion at all. Articles in the category do not mention it, at best they mention a recent figure of Italian-speaking people, and I was not able to find a list of officially Italian-speaking municipalities either. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Well fortunately we can again rely on [the 2013 Croatian govt document, pages 34 and 35. Page 35 lists exactly which populated places where talijanski jezik ("Italian language") is official:
    Općina Brtonigla – Verteneglio
    Općina Grožnjan – Grisignana
    Grad Buje
    Grad Cres
    Grad Novigrad
    Grad Poreč
    Grad Pula
    Grad Rijeka
    Grad Rovinj
    Grad Umag
    Grad Vodnjan
    Općina Bale
    Općina Fažana
    Općina Funtana
    Općina Kaštelir-Labinci
    Općina Ližnjan (naselje Šišan)
    Općina Motovun
    Općina Oprtalj
    Općina Tar-Vabriga
    Općina Višnjan (naselja Višnjan, Markovac, Deklevi, Benčani, Štuti, Bucalovići, Legovići, Strpačići, Barat i Farini)
    Općina Vrsar
    A few items do not seem to match, but the overwhelming majority does. It's just a matter of correcting that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, then there is no longer a reason to wait. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome! Perhaps I should have brought up the document in the nomination itself, but alright, it's there now. Thanks for also mentioning it in the category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and describe per nom.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Less subjective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:59, 28 May 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.

Agricultural buildings and structures in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge, excpet that greenhouses will be merged into the appropriate child category Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state, instead of Category:Agricultural buildings and structures in the United States by state, due to uncontested objections. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging the greenhouse categories into agricultural categories. Most of the articles in those categories about about botanical gardens and conservatories, and don't belong in an agriculture category. - Eureka Lott 16:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, if not merged to Agricultural buildings and structures, then just to Buildings and structures. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the contents of the agricultural buildings cats aren't agricultural building articles, that's a separate issue beyond this nomination. (But I support whichever target category has a consensus.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now With no objection to recreation if any ever reach 5+ articles. (And support whichever target category has a consensus; see above.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:02, 28 May 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:Ancient Greek statesmen[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) 04:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2C parent Category:Greek politicians it should be Category:Ancient Greek politicians. Category:Statesmen was deleted already in 2009 per non-neutral term--classify as Category:Politicians or Category:Diplomats). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On hold Resumed I just found out that there is a conflicting series of CfRs going on at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_17#Ancient_Greek_statesmen. Perhaps these two CfRs should be fused into one? I am also in favour of that proposal, and the two proposals are probably compatible. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Just wanted to let you know. I'm going to comment on your proposal now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two of the above categories have not been nominated in the other discussion. They should simply follow what is being discussed there, assuming the other discussion will be closed earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've modified the third nominee by dropping "Ancient" as you proposed in your CfR, and Resumed my CfR. The two CfRs can proceed simultaneously without conflict, and reach a compatible result. Glad to be cooperating with you in this effort. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer The outcome of this nomination should follow whatever the outcome is of the earlier nomination, whether I agree with that naming or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:03, 28 May 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:Lists of European rulers[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) 04:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Rulers in Europe etc. (renamed yesterday). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:27, 21 May 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.

Political conventions in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 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:Historians of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo[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:Historians of Canada. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 14:44, 21 May 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:Churches in Solomons, Maryland[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:Buildings and structures in Solomons, Maryland. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles in the category. No need to merge to county-level category as the articles are already located there. User:Namiba 12:08, 21 May 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:Croat sportspeople from Bosnia and Herzegovina[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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity per WP:OCEGRS; we don't categorize sportpeople of a Foo country by ethnicity, religion, etc. ౪ Santa ౪99° 02:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find this very counterintuitive, it does not make much sense to me - if we can categorize footballers (soccer players) per Ethnicity of Foo, we should be able to cat them as Ethnicity sportspeople of Foo, which makes my nom irrelevant just as erroneous. But then our entire guideline WP:OVERCAT / WP:OCEGRS should be revised, notwithstanding whole a lot of problems concerning WP:CAT main premise "knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category. Here's one example of overboard categorisation, Edin Džeko - it has more ethnicity, religion and this kind of background-related categories than actually needed ones; for instance, in Džeko's BLP example, cat Category:Naturalized citizens of Croatia has much more sense than Category:Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims or Category:Croatian Muslims, all of which are not footballer's BLP defining characteristic for the categorization per our project's guidelines, ౪ Santa ౪99° 21:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there are more than one hundred of articles subjectively included into nomed cat; how we supposed to know who is ethnic Foo , who among 100+ footballers consider himself this or that ethnic Foo, and so on? ౪ Santa ౪99° 21:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same apply to ethnicity - it is even less objective parameter than religion (since ethnicity is less conspicuous, especially in this particular case), so we can't objectively label 100+ sportspersons ethically (not to mention in places where ethnicity is so sensitive and contentious issue). I also think that you are reductively reading WP:OCEGRS and out of general WP:CAT context. These players included into Ethnicity sportspeople of Foo simply can't objectively be merged into Ethnicity of Foo, nor it should ever be as ethnicity is not their defining characteristic - I'll repeat my question: how we supposed to know who among 100+ footballers is ethnic Foo , who among them consider himself this or that ethnic Foo? ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just take one other example, say, Fabio Quartararo (you know who he is, no doubt) - his ethnicity does not play any role nor inject any relevance into our categorization whatsoever, and that's exactly how should be. ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of WP:OCEGRS specifically mentions that it is about "intersections". I wouldn't have a problem with expanding WP:OCEGRS but that will require a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:OCEGRS states people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. To take the very first example: Bruno Akrapović's BLP never mentions that he is a "Croat". The only time the word "Croat" comes up is in the fact that he has been a coach for a football club in "Croat"ia, the country, which is unrelated to the ethnicity of Croats in BiH. Besides, he also played in a team in Germany, was a coach in Bulgaria, Gibraltar, North Macedonia, Saudi Arabia and Cyprus, has an Italian wife and their son used to play for an Italian national youth club. I very much doubt being a Bosnian Croat has significant bearing on their career. Nom is spot on. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles with unsourced ethnicity can obviously be purged, but categorizing by ethnicity in general is accepted. Note that the WP:OCEGRS according to its title limits itself to "intersections". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, it's not generally accepted for sporspeoples BLP's if topic's defining characteristic is unrelated to their ethnicity, not to mention unsourced - only nationality is generally accepted: Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics...standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality. I offered you Fabio Quartararo as an example that we do not categorize sportspeoples BLP's by ethnicity that easily, even if they are a high-profile sportsperson, because it is not their BLP's defining characteristic, which is a staple for inclusion.
    It's not just WP:OCEGRS, it concerns WP:CATDEF (The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place), WP:NONDEFINING (central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics...categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided) and WP:COP (with special regard to WP:COP#N and WP:COPHERITAGE). (As a sidenote, just for practical reasons, if we merge en masse 100+ sportspersons BLPs while not knowing if they have sources, who is going to purge them.)
    Now most importantly - WP:ETHNICRACECAT says:Citizenship, nationality (which country's laws the person is subject to), national origin, and national identity (which country the person feels closest to), although sometimes correlated with ethnicity, are not the same as ethnicity and are not addressed on this page so it refer us to WP:COP#N which says: Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics...1) standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality.2) the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for.
    It is preposterous to include them into foo ethnicity against all that these guidelines suggest, unless they turned their prominent high-profiles into something that servs ethnic or religious promotion, but even in this imagined case we are advised to avoid secondary characteristic. Ethnicity is not objective parameter in any case. ౪ Santa ౪99° 07:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I understand that you are adressing a different and much bigger problem than stated in WP:OCEGRS. What do you suggest as a next step? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have a middle way here, if that's what you ask (and I am not going to check hundreds of players BLP's to make sure if there are any basis for their individual merger). I would suggest delete nominated cat, and let editors decide on individual players' BLP's if they warrant inclusion into -in this concrete case- Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina or not. This may take time, of course, or may never happen in most cases at all, which is also likely possibility, but beside putting us on the safe side, it is all-around much more reasonable move than blindly merge en masse with huge probability that we are going to make many mistakes by subjectively ethnic-labeling without sources or defining characteristic notability within the merged BLP's, and I mean, like 90-99% of the said BLP's probably do not warrant this inclusion on both of said grounds. (By looking at just few randomly chosen articles I realised there are players included into nomed cat that are actually of mixed or different ethnic origins altogether - say, this guy, Almin Kulenović, is 99% of Bosniak/Bosnian Muslim origin, not Croatian, (he may be Bosniak citizen of Croatia, but he played for Bosnia, anyway) although we have no ref's to confirm either way - so, you see the extent of predicament this kind of subjective ethnic labeling create, and how en masse merger may stray into massively inappropriate BLP categorization.) (I apologize for these longish posts all day; at the very least I hope I succeeded in conveying my points.) ౪ Santa ౪99° 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds reasonable enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I certainly hope so. Thanks, Marco, I sincerely apologize fro dragging you through this ugly but crucial issue for so long. ౪ Santa ౪99° 08:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In that country, being a Croat, a Bosnian Muslim, or a Serb is highly defining: they fought a civil war over that in the 1990s. Once again this is an ethnic division, not an expatriate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument and its explanation, with all due respect to you as a participant in the project, has nothing to do with the.set of project's guidelines and policies which are supposed to regulate categorization of articles. It comes a bit as a shock that someone of your experience would state something this much out of sync with practices of following policies and guidelines. ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bosnia-Herzegovina is a divided society, someone being described as Bosnian simply doesn't give enough information about the person. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like previous, this argument has no bearing on the matter, whatsoever. Besides, Wikipedia does not bend its rules to accommodate every social phenomenon, positive or negative deviation, however, in all cases such as this, proper place to give information you are so concerned of is article body, not category. ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Bosnia-Herzegovina definitely has ethnic tensions, the articles don't make it clear how that ethnicity interplays with sports careers. I take a pretty case-by-case view of WP:OCEGRS and the triple intersection of nationality, ethnicity and occupation doesn't seem defining here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the above disputes, WP:NARROWCAT applies, and is one reason why many similar categories were deleted prior to the recent WP:COP RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 29 May 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_May_21&oldid=1160724948"