Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Yazidi saints[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:Yazidi saints

Category:Sufism in Spain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:Sufism in Spain

Malikism in Algeria[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 09:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, empty category layers because there are hardly any topic articles by region. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2022 (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:American footballers' wives and girlfriends[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:American footballers' wives and girlfriends

Muslim historians of Islam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Muslim historians of Islam

Al-Andalus people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, consistently use a nationality denonym (as many subcategories already do, e.g. Category:Al-Andalus people by century and Category:Al-Andalus writers). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose This is a "by geography" tree structure, not a "by nationality" or "by race" tree structure. There is or was a geographic area called Al-Andalus. There is no nation or race called Al-Andalus. I would in any case have opposed it as the insidious use of denonyms to elide differences between races, nations, states and islands is a bad idea. Down with the tyranny of denonyms. In the English language, such sleight-of-hand is possible; in other languages, you would not succeed with such sloppy categorisation. Precision is preferable to convenience. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is as close to nationality as one can expect in medieval times. People were united by the religion and language of the ruling class. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. The sum of territories of the Iberian Peninsula under (a given) Islamic rule in the Middle Ages cannot "be close to nationality as one can expect in Medieval times", whatever that would be. Specific Islamic polities in the Iberian Peninsula (which Al-Andalus was not) may perhaps qualify for such motivation in principle (even if I am afraid their common names do not fit the change from a practical standpoint).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged and Asqueladd: in order to solve the inconsistenties in the tree (sometimes Al-Andalus as adjective, sometimes "from", sometimes "of"), would you support some other kind of alignment across categories, and if so which? (Note that "of" works poorly with some occupations, e.g. "historians of Al-Andalus" may mean either "historians who lived in Al-Andalus" or "historians studying Al-Andalus history".) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For preference Keep -- Except where we are dealing with expatriates "in" or "of" does well. There is an adjective Andalusian, but I think that refers more to the succeeding Spanish province. We should try to avoid forcing nouns into adjectival contexts. In this case we need to bear in mind that "al" is Arabic for "the". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2022 (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:Percussion instruments by tradition[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. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, both subcategories are already part of Category:Percussion instruments by usage as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is indeed work to be done on these categories, but this should be discussed as a whole and consensus sought on a structure. This piecemeal approach is just going to make the mess worse. Andrewa (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand what needs to be discussed "as a whole". Please explain. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Andrewa?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Andrewa: please reply. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Percussion instruments. This tree has multiple under-populated layers, which strongly suggests it is unnecessary. "orchestral" has to subcats for specific instruments. "latin" has two regional-related ones. All can usefully appear in a parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron, do they need to be in percussion instruments as well as percussion instruments by usage? — Qwerfjkltalk 09:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the only article has too many problems to be addressed here, and can be recategorized at the time it is fixed. The 2 subcategories are already represented under Category:Percussion instruments by usage. The interlocutors have failed to respond, this has been relisted twice, time to put it to bed.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2022 (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:World Junior Table Tennis Championships[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 09:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New official name "ITTF World Youth Championships" has been used since 2021. LLTT (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not really clear whether these are distinct competitions or not. The ITTF site describes the 2021 World Youth Championships as "the first" edition and a "new format" on its site[1], rather than the 18th edition of a renamed junior competition. The article follows suit with that in the editions and medals sections. The fact there are multiple age groups in the new competition and none of them align to the original age group suggests we should probably be treating these competitions as distinct rather than renaming the junior ones. SFB 14:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:59, 19 December 2022 (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:American settlers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: soft merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the scope of the categories is largely overlapping. I have tagged the targets as well, for in case of a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, but that nomination contained an entirely different target. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wondered about the distinction between pioneer and settler but American pioneer states that those who fit in that category were those who left the Thirteen Colonies to settle the western part of the continent.--User:Namiba 18:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 19 December 2022 (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.

Medieval scientists[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 13:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge/rename, with all due respect, science in the middle ages mainly consisted of mathematics and astronomy. We do not need an intermediate scientists category layer under scholars in this period of time. Merging needs to be done manually because articles may well be in another subcategory of scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should surely be added to scholars after renaming to scholars. Writers should be added too. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — first step in better organization.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: following my examination of Scholars noted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_27#Category:Scholars_of_the_Ottoman_Empire, I would rather keep the Scientists layer than Scholars. Medieval scientists includes not only mathematicians and astronomers but also geographers, physicists, physicians and zoologists. Where Scholars and Writers both exist, then Scholars should be a subcat of Writers, not vice versa. If any big change is called for, I would merge/rename Scholars to Writers; that would bring the categories for former countries into line with those for current countries. As for this nomination, if some of the nominated Scientists categories have neither a Scholars nor a Writers parent, then I would support renaming to Writers. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not Marcocapelle, but IMnsHO, Writers are a subset of Scholars. We don't think of fiction writers as scholars or scientists, although some are both. Although obviously all scientists and scholars must have written something, we don't usually categorize travelographers or historiographers as scholars or scientists. There are some well known philosophers whom we only know about from later writers, not their own writings. The change from scientists to scholars here is simply because for these eras the scientific method had not yet been established, so we don't call them scientists.
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is essentially because "scientist" is anachronistic before C16. This will not be obvious to everyone, so the old names could be redirected, and the "Scholars" by century could still be linked in Template:Scientists by century. Shouldn't we add 5th to 15th-century Indian scientists, 10th to 15th-century Chinese scientists etc to the nomination? Also Category:Ancient scientists and its sub-cats, as it makes no sense to take out the middle while leaving the earlier ages?– Fayenatic London 09:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: why rename Scientists while leaving Category:1st millennium in science and its other subcats unchanged? N.B. there is an article Byzantine science. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 2 January 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.

American people of European descent by occupation[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 most. No Consensus to delete "Category:American gangsters of X descent". Wrestlers, and writers/poets of X descent, should be relisted. (Listification was one option noted.) That said, this has been open a long time. So I'm just going to close this and address the ones for deletion. Anyone is welcome to "relist" the other categories at their discretion, per the normal process. And of course, if any category turns out to be "orphaned" due to losing a parent catetgory, please feel free to recategorise to an appropriate existing category. - jc37 06:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersections between ancestor's nationality and occupation. Note 1: I have deliberately not nominated Category:American gangsters of Italian descent. Note 2: I have limited the nomination to European descent because things may be different with other ancestries. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:OCEGRS. Italians, Greeks, Armenians, and other immigrants from southern and eastern Europe have definitely been "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic[s] in its own right[s]" distinct from other Europeans, especially prior to World War II. See the Philadelphia Greek Mob as but one example regarding organized crime.--User:Namiba 23:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the nomination. I believe these intersections are notable. Take, for example, the intersection listed by William Allen Simpson below. There have been numerous characters in professional wrestling whose main feature is being Italian. For example, the many members of the group Full Blooded Italians. In the context of their occupation, ethnicity is very important. There is even a published paper about professional wrestling and the immigrant experience in the United States. If you wanted to investigate whether some of these are distinct intersections and then nominate the ones which you find do not have academic research on the subject, that is something I would support. However, mass nominating them without doing cursory research into these occupation/ethnicity combinations is not helpful for Wikipedia. Nominations like this tend to encourage a view that the European experience in North America was a homogenous one, whereas numerous studies have demonstrated that Greeks, Russians, Poles, etc have had widely varying and unique experiences. Noting that none of the categories nominated are for non-Europeans, we should consider whether this makes sense in light of the extensive literature on this subject.--User:Namiba 18:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better to read citations before using them for an argument.
  1. While play acting is a feature of pro-wrestling, ethnicity does not change the activity itself. In the example of Full Blooded Italians, the premise is J.T. Smith adopted the gimmick of believing himself to be an Old World Italian (despite being African American). That example proves the rule that there is/was nothing distinct and unique about Italian-American professional wrestling.
  2. Having a category for white actors performing in blackface or yellowface wouldn't pass the smell test.
  3. Best to actually read the dissertation, rather than just the title or abstract. Nothing there validates any notion of a distinct and unique ethnic method of pro-wrestling. You don't have to be German to perform a German suplex.
  4. Contrast with the gangsters categories, where they must be that ethnicity for membership.
  5. The nominator is not required to prove that there can never be a head article for each category. It is impossible to prove a negative.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson, it would be wise of you to refresh yourself on what WP:OCEGRS says, as it doesn't mention, nevermind require a unique method. It says that categories should exist for intersections which are "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." As I have noted, Italian-Americans have been recognized as such in fields like professional wrestling.--User:Namiba 02:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 2009, after extensive discussion here, I'd added "ethnicity" to our guidelines.
  1. We don't have room for every possible example, so it has been updated from time to time. I'm familiar with what we collectively meant at that time, when the primary example read: "For instance, in sports, German-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans." See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 29#Category:German-American sportspeople and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 16#Category:American sportspeople of European descent. Prior to December 2006, that sentence read, "For instance, in sports, Christian ice skaters are not treated differently from Jewish or Muslim ice skaters."
  2. Your note is facially incorrect. The running gag of the group was that most of the wrestlers were obviously not of Italian descent.... An African-American mimicking supposedly Italian-American stereotypical mannerisms is not recognition, it is ridicule for laughs.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per WP:OCEGRS. People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. These "of foo descent" are the equivalent of "foo-americans" (and many of them were previously so named). For example, there are is nothing distinct and unique about Italian-American professional wrestlers (listed twice). Where is the substantial and encyclopedic head article?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are subject to speedy deletion as re-creation of previously deleted categories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would help if you were more familiar with the policy. It clearly states that "If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one. There does not need to be a head article, only that one could be written.
Re: Italian Americans in sports, there is a well-studied connection that demonstrates an encyclopedic value. For example, Sport and the Shaping of Italian-American Identity By Gerald R. Gems, Beyond DiMaggio: Italian Americans in Baseball By Lawrence Baldassaro, and The playing fields of St. Louis: Italian immigrants and sports, 1925-1941
GR Mormino - Journal of Sport History, 1982. Given the expansive treatment given to the Italian-American experience in sports, it is clear that an encyclopedia shouldn't ignore it. User:Namiba 16:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Italian Americans in trade unionsts, see From Margins to Vanguard to Mainstream: Italian Americans and the Labor Movement By Marcella Bencivenni--User:Namiba 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already documented, there are few around who are more familiar (as I'd helped write it).
  1. Those would be in Category:Baseball literature under Category:Works about sports. This is Wikipedia:Categorization of people.
  2. Also, this is not baseball.
  3. We require that the sport topic in its own right be distinct and unique to Italian-Americans.
  4. We require that the union topic in its own right be distinct and unique to Italian-Americans.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My final statement on this is that Italian-Americans and many other Euro-American groups have been recognized in scholarship as a distinct and unique group. Therefore, I still recommend keeping them for now. This discussion shows that there is no consensus to delete.-- User:Namiba 15:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the rest, but please keep Armenian-American writers, a distinct cultural topic about which it would be reasonable to write a head article. The section at Armenian Americans could definitely be expanded using sources like The Theme of Genocide in Armenian Literature (more on Americans than is clear from the title), Contemporary Armenian-American Drama, and works published in or about Ararat Quarterly. Many of the writers included in the category—all the ones I checked—have their ethnic identity connected to their work. The novelists and poets explore diasporic identity and "becoming American", and the historians and memoirists often focus on documenting the genocide, sometimes from personal experience. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC) striking 04:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the category contents,
  1. very few are writing about the Armenian genocide. That seems reasonably well covered by Category:Armenian American literature.
  2. this is a strong example of category creep. What exactly is the distinct and unique Armenian-American writing in films Awakenings, Gangs of New York, Moneyball and The Irishman?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Fayenatic london.
  1. Though not a guarantee, the existence of Category:Armenian American literature is a point in favor of keeping this cat. It seems untenable to take the position that an intersection of ethnicity and literature is a distinct and unique topic but that the writers of such literature are not. Also, if we deleted the writers cat and merged upward, the literature cat would be mostly biographies (it's already 2:1 biographies). A literature cat would be a poor fit for Armenian-American non-fiction writers, like Richard G. Hovannisian.
  2. Per EGRS: "People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of a category" and should just be removed. There are writers that solidly belong in the category, including William Saroyan, Peter Balakian, David Kherdian, Diana Der Hovanessian, and Garin Hovannisian. The last two are not in the cat, but should be. I'm not sure if it's considered out of process to add to a category during a CFD.
I found more sources with significant coverage of Armenian-American writers: The Magical Pine Ring: Culture and Imagination in Armenian-American Literature, a great chapter in New Immigrant Literatures in the United States: A Sourcebook to Our Multicultural Literary Heritage, and Forgotten Bread: First-Generation Armenian American Writers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that we are in substantial agreement:
  1. WP:COP-HERITAGE requires These categories should not be created without a substantial and encyclopedic well sourced head article describing the contents (not just a list). Since there is none, delete it.
  2. Most of Category:American writers of Armenian descent should just be removed in any case. There is no distinct and unique Armenian-American writing in films.
  3. As to the other external coverage, look again: we are not discussing removal of Category:Armenian American literature; moreover, decent categories are not for "first-generation" at all! WP:COP-HERITAGE should not also contain any individual migrant, emigrant, nor immigrant ....
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per WP:OCEGRS, Marcocapelle and William Allen Simpson. The trouble here is the triple intersection of being American, of such profession and of a certain ethnic or cultural background. In previous discussions, we had argued that it was not because a writer is of Greek or Italian background that the entirety of their life and work will be assigned in some sort of ethnic literature. For those who do work predominantly in a field related to their own diaspora culture, the specific work can be categorized as part of Fooian-American culture. The trouble with categories such as Armenian-American male actors is that users will add any actor with an Armenian great-great-great-grandparent regardless of the actual relevance to the individual biography. See for instance how Cher is currently in American musicians of Armenian descent, although she arguably does not sing Armenian music (her article mentions some public statements in support of Armenia in the context of the 2020 Karabagh war, though). Place Clichy (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As this discussion stands, there is now sufficient consensus to merge and delete, following policies and precedents. I have listified Category:American film directors of Italian descent to List of Italian-American film directors. This is a lot easier to do before deletion (using User:DannyS712/Cat links.js) than afterwards, so I'm not rushing to close this in case others may want to convert further categories to listings. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note how ridiculous it is to delete certain categories, such as the trade unionist one. There is extensive literature documenting how Italians in America had a unique experience in the labor movement. They formed their own organizations and often faced intense discrimination. All of this is widely documented. Being an Italian in the US labor movement is as defining to Luigi Antonini as being African-American was to A. Philip Randolph. I note that ONLY categories for certain European groups are nominated here, not for African-Americans or other ethnic groups in the US.--User:Namiba 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The importance of literature in relation to the Italian-American identity and the intersection of sports (especially boxing) with Italian ethnicity in the United States is very well-documented. As for the trade unionist category, Italian immigrants in the US and Italian-Americans notably fought adamantly in support of unions and workers' rights, as seen in the influence of Carlo Tresca, the Lawrence Textile Strikes, the aftermath of the Triangle Waist Factory fire, and the Palmer Raids. These categories are indeed relevant and incredibly useful, especially in regard to Italian-Americans in the boxer and trade unionist categories. Why specifically target only the Italian-American boxer category? It just seems strange and unnecessary, especially when one considers how much influence Italian-American boxers have had over American pop culture. The Italian diaspora and Italian-American history are unique and not-insignificant areas of diasporic, ethnic, and sociological studies; these categories are certainly not superfluous or unwarranted. Deleting the "American boxers of Italian descent" category but none of the other "ethnic" American boxer categories seems especially absurd; the vast amount of literary works, essays, and films focusing on Italian-Americans and Italian immigrants in the US who turned to boxing would seem to render obvious the idea that Italian-American ethnicity and boxing are intertwined (not to mention how, unfortunately, ethnicity has historically been emphasized and shamelessly exploited in boxing promotion). MallonsTalons (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / delete per WP:OCEGRS. Trivial intersections. Kbdank71 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFUSE. I don't even want to imagine how overpopulated the categories would be if they were merged into categories that are already overpopulated. Also per User:Namiba's arguments in terms of ethnic distinction. SuperSkaterDude45 20:38, 4 February 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:Kremlintarians[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 09:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No corresponding article on Wikipedia. Category is being applied to living people without sourcing. The main reference here is to a WP:USERG wiki site. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:53, 19 December 2022 (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:Universal Classic Monsters films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:Universal Classic Monsters films

Category:Russian traditional[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 09:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match other Russian folk categories. Category:Russian traditional music was recently speedily moved back to Category:Russian folk music.
Nominator's rationale: This (and the main article) was moved without discussion. The main article does not translate as "traditional"; it translates as "folk".
This has played havok with commons categories, and other related categories such as:
All of the other changes from folk to traditional have been reverted.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, quite a lot of the category content is related to traditional music of ethnic minorities in Russia, so I am not sure if the adjective "Russian" in the category name should be kept this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that the (mostly reverted) changes from "folk" to "traditional" were part of an effort to subsume all these Russian Empire conquered ethnic groups into being something Russian by tradition. "Folk music" has a very specific meaning in the folklore academic literature. We shouldn't be amalgamating that into a less specific genre. Better to split the others into Lithuanian, Ukrainian, etc.
    Also noting that this change was done without discussion (via category redirect) by a user with rather contentious views, such as insisting that Lithuanian wasn't an actual language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and some arbcom referrals for disruptive editing. Thus, I've brought this to our formal process to revert.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. But we're not supposed to empty categories during discussion. Also, this is complicated by the category renaming a few years ago from "Imperial Russian" prefix to "of the Russian Empire" suffix.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had discussions with the user who renamed these objects and I also support the renaming them back (and this user himself has also already changed his views). His reasons for renaming these objects into "traditional" - mainly relate to the fact that there is also a so-called staged/scenic/concert folk dance imitating folk dance. I was building a hierarchy for these objects on wikidata and here it is - concert folk dance (Russian subtype is Russian concert folk dance). Back then, the author of the renaming believed that it should be a subspecies of traditional dance, but he and I have come to the conclusion that it is still only a subclass/subcategory of contemporary dance, but not a subtype of folk dance (as it is only inspired by it). The category "traditional" itself is a little bit meaningless, because any classical dance school (ballet) is also based on traditions (but they are of art/studied sphere). So I prefer to split item into "traditional folk" and "classical/art" instead.
Regarding the division into "of Russia" (country) and "Russian" (ethnic group) - such a division does make sense as well. In general, for objects describing the country we use names like "Dance in Russia", which can already include all ethnic minorities subtypes. Solidest (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:51, 19 December 2022 (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:Political slurs for people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:Political slurs for people

Category:Muslim encyclopedists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:Muslim encyclopedists

Category:Works based on the Quran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: soft merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:44, 19 December 2022 (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:Scholars of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:Scholars of the Ottoman Empire

Category:Muslim scholars by period[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 09:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, based on the actual content the scope of the two categories appears to coincide. "By state" is more accurate than "by period". Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:43, 19 December 2022 (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:Albanian gestures[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 09:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT that is not part of an established scheme. Both entries are already in Category:Hand gestures, and one is already in Category:Albanian culture. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:19, 19 December 2022 (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:Bitcoin mixer[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 09:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless - contains only one redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:51, 19 December 2022 (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:Bitcoin theft[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 09:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three entries. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:51, 19 December 2022 (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/2022_December_19&oldid=1139074772"