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.
Nominator's rationale: Having only a single entry. - The9Man(Talk) 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least it should be merged to Category:Polo clubs. However I would say keep as there is potential for growth and it is part of a geographical scheme in Category:Polo clubs.--Mvqr (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Polo clubs. No objection to recreation if there should be adequate population in future. --Just N. (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Just N. Most siblings should be nominated as well, it is far too soon to diffuse Category:Polo clubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 5 February 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 10:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational These are meant to group people who were subjects of/nationals of the Ottoman Empire. The current name could be interpreted to mean the things they painted were the Ottoman Empire. While this might seem an odd interpretation, some might thing this would be meant for painters from other countries who came to the Ottoman Empire and painted subjects there, or even painters elsewhere both by place and time who represent the Ottoman Empire in their painters, be they a 19th-century painter who never left London but still painted subjects in the Ottoman Empire, a 21st-century Turkish painter who creates paintings to stir Turkish hearts to the glory days when they ruled half the known world, or a 21st-century Korean painter who creates paintings set in the Ottoman Empire for reasons that we cannot quite fathom from the sources even though he is remote from the Empire in almost every conceivable way. The new names will make it clear that these people need to be nationals of/subjects of the place as used in by nationality categories. We could have a painter who was born in Bristol, Chicago, Moscow or Paris in the category, but only if their residence in the Ottoman Empire made them connected to it in a way that we would likewise class that person as an Astralian painter if they worked and painted in Sydney, a Brazilian painter if they worked and painted in Forteleza or Manaus, or a Kenyan painter if they worked and painted in Nairobi.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is based on an illogical understanding of the English language. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, "from" is slightly less ambiguous and it is not wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support much more prefereable to "Ottoman painters". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The present name implies they painted the empire. I would also oppose "Ottoman painters", as ottoman was a dynasty, not a nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was also a nationality, in that people were Ottoman subjects vs. having Russian, Iranian, or some other nationality. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above reasons. --Just N. (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'of' is problematic. 'from' makes more sense. Segaton (talk) 02:19, 5 February 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 10:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale of the 4 entries in this article, only 2 seem to have been subjects of the Ottoman Empire. The other two are an Italian and a French/German person who came and did painting at the Ottoman Court, but do not seem to have been subject/nationals of the Ottoman Empire to a level we would general put them in a by nationality category. We have other court painter categories that are also named to indicate the people are being grouped by the court, not by nationality per se.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is based on an illogical understanding of the English language.
Support An improvement. Strictly speaking, it was known as "The Sublime Porte". Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:36, 31 January 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 10:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is a particularly poor formation. While thinking this means the thing invented was the Ottoman Empire is not that likely, it is probably the most obvious meaning here, and so a more clear name is warranted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is based on an illogical understanding of the English language. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, "from" is slightly less ambiguous and it is not wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'of' is problematic. 'from' makes more sense. Segaton (talk) 02:18, 5 February 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 10:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale When we say "inventors of", it makes it sound like the thing they invented is what is indicated. While reading this as "the people who formulated the concept of the Russian Empire and brought it into being" may not be expected, it still does seem a plausible reading, and since we have other categories that use the "from" form (assasins, geographers, historians and a few others) there is nothing wrong with using it here, where it will be clearer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is based on an illogical understanding of the English language. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, "from" is slightly less ambiguous and it is not wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'of' is problematic. 'from' makes more sense. Segaton (talk) 02:19, 5 February 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 10:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is a truly confusing formation. We have Category:Explorers of Siberia and a whole tree above that by continent and other feature that are all about the places the people explored. This is not meant for people who exploered in the Russian Empire and its domains, but people who were nationals/subject/agents of the Russian Empire doing exploering. In this case we are trying to categorize by the place these people were subjects of/nationals of/agents for/etc. all of which can be summed up as "from". There are at least 3 other sub-cats of Category:Explorers by nationality that use the "from" form, and the only other sub-cats of the category that use the of form as far as I could tell are categories like Category:British explorers of the Pacific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is based on an illogical understanding of the English language. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is my understanding illogical when we actually have other categories that use the "of" in exactly the way I mention in the nomination. It is not an illogical understanding, it is an understanding that we use in many categories, including the Siberia one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "from" is definitely less ambiguous in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'of' is problematic. 'from' makes more sense. Segaton (talk) 02:19, 5 February 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.
Sculptors of the Russian Empire, Illustrators of the Russian Empire etc[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 all. – FayenaticLondon 10:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale any of these could with the current name be construed to mean that the people had the Russian Empire as the subject of their artistic works, not that they were people who were subjects/nationals of/operating in that domain as is intended. We have done this in other cases that could be confusing such as Category:Critics from the Russian Empire and Category:Assassins from the Russian Empire. We also have similarly named categories such as Category:Sculptors of Alexander the Great that use the of form to indicate what the works they were creating were, so this is a very real possible confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is based on an illogical understanding of the English language. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, "from" is slightly less ambiguous and it is not wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes to clarity. Precision is one of the WP:criteria for article titles, and it’s just as beneficial to category names. —MichaelZ. 01:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'of' is problematic. 'from' makes more sense. Segaton (talk) 02:19, 5 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: According to drongos, a drongo is any bird in the family Dicruridae. So the two categories are identical. The bigger category is Category:Drongos –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:39, 31 January 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: English is the language of Jamaica, so every Jamaican film is an English-language Jamaican film. 2003:DD:C71F:2436:5479:EA54:5FDA:8FDE (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- pointless, unless there are also Creole Jamaican films. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently applied it is totally wrong. While I would not be shocked if some filmmaker in Jamaica at some point may have made some film that was not in English, this is not going to be common, and in cases where we have over-whelming overlap such by language categories lead to clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 2 February 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.
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.
Support as duplicate. The article for the genus is at Amazon parrot and Amazona redirects there, so using the parrot one is consistent with the base genus article.--Mvqr (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:41, 31 January 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.
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.
Merge per nom. Convincing reasons. --Just N. (talk) 20:43, 31 January 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 10:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, these categories only contain redirects and the real articles to which they link are already together in a category. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @SecretName101 and Johnpacklambert: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need to group redirects when the target articles are adequately grouped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that target articles are not “adequately grouped” in any way which indicates that they contain content explicitly pertaining to state-level treasurer elections. This categorization helps users easily locate content on this project pertaining to treasurer elections for these particular states. Additionally, many of these redirects are easily able to be expanded upon and spun into independent articles. WITHOUT these cats, it could take anyone great time (searching through 50 states year by year) to determine which states have such non spun-off content pertaining to individual state treasurer races and for which years. The removal of this category, therefore, would negatively impact the navigability of this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quickest way of navigating from one article about Illinois elections (containing a section about Treasurer elections) to another article (also containing a section a section about Treasurer elections) is via Category:Illinois elections by year. It is impossible to navigate from one article to another via Category:Illinois Treasurer elections because there is no article in it. And by the way, navigation would become even quicker when all articles would simply be in Category:Illinois elections. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with SecretName101. Useful redirects such as these should be categorised just the same as individual articles. Oculi (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We only have redirects-only categories as hidden maintenance categories, see the tree of Category:Wikipedia redirects, exactly because they are not useful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between categories explicitly limited only to contain redirects, and one which currently only contains redirects, but can contain articles in the future as redirects are spun into articles or new articles are created under the category. Very very different. None of these cats being discussed are explicitly redirect-only. Many of them may contain articles in the near-future even. SecretName101 (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are useful for category tree consistency; and many of these redirects could be expanded into valid articles in the future. Deletion has no benefits here while keeping the categories does. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 2 February 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.
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.
Comment (Category creator)how does it fail WP:USERCAT? Is it because i'm the only one in it? For sure after time there will be a few other people in the category. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the number of members. It has do to with not ha[ving] the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia, on the grounds that creating a start-class article requires too little skill to be a useful basis for collaboration. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a category that could possibly contain every active editor which makes it essentially meaningless. LizRead!Talk! 02:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as Liz said. --Just N. (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have 3 of these under my name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:03, 4 February 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.
