Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 16
June 18 >

June 17[edit]

Category:Ancient Egyptian queens regnant[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 15:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one 3rd-century queen regnant next to the female pharaos subcat. Besides Zenobia was not queen of Egypt, she just conquered Egypt from her base in Syria, so I wonder if she should be put in the Egyptian parent categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Zenobia ruled the country, what title she used isn't relevant, if it was, we wouldn't have categories named "queens" at all for ancient Egypt.★Trekker (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case it does not make sense to keep a separate category for a single conquest. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 19 June 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:Top Government First Grade College in Mangalore[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: category clearly NOT required Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Top" is clearly subjective WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. An unnecessary non-neutral POV fork of Category:Government degree Colleges in Karnataka. Rupples (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category briefly had an article in it which was soon removed and then the category creator blanked the page. If I or another admin had seen it before this CFD was posted, we would have deleted the page as a CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The creator of this category, User:Ardo27, has recently been blocked for sockpuppetry. Rupples (talk) 09:14, 23 June 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:Nuns from the Russian Empire[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 15:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: AFAIK, we don't have any categories "by country" for nuns. We only have "by nationality" categories for nuns. The Tsardom / Empire is the exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged we do, see Category:Kievan Rus' nuns (currently in CfR). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from 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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This relatively-small category tree should follow the standard naming style of other nationality categories, even those for which a clear demonym is not available, such as Republic of the Congo people or Dominican Republic people. Northern Ireland uses People from Northern Ireland due to the complex status of the region and issues with using the term "Northern Irish". However, as a sovereign state no such issue exists with the Republic of Ireland. If this rename were to be opposed, Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers and its subcategories should then be renamed instead for consistency. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grammatical the proposed change feels wrong. "{CountryName} people" does not sound right, where as the current format does. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland football people categories which should be renamed if the main proposal fails
"no such issue exists with the Republic of Ireland" - you couldn't be more wrong. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What issue exists that sets it apart from Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people? The only other current region that uses this format is People from Georgia (country) due to obvious naming issues. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None actually. Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people is equally disgusting and should be renamed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "inventing" a demonym though, it's just using the name of the country as a substitute. Same with Antigua and Barbuda people, Bosnia and Herzegovina people, Central African Republic people, Dominica people, Liechtenstein people, Saint Kitts and Nevis people, etc. Per WP:NCCAT: Some states do not possess unambiguous (i.e., "Congolese" for Democratic Republic of the Congo) or universally-applicable (i.e., "Bosnian" for Bosnia and Herzegovina) adjectives. In these circumstances, the format "Country FOO"—where Country is the unamended name of the country—has been selected for use. As for "it's not broken so don't fix it", the naming within this category tree is currently inconsistent, so something certainly should be changed. The Republic of Ireland footballers category already used this naming style many years before the creation of People from the Republic of Ireland. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it's just using the name of the country as a substitute." This illustrates exactly why you should not wade into the Ireland / Republic of Ireland morass. This is a very long and very boring issue for many decades. In all kindness, I'd advise you to stay away from it. In a nutshell "Ireland" is the name of the state; "Republic of" is a description of that state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going by established category conventions per WP:NCCAT and the title of the main article/category, Republic of Ireland/Category:Republic of Ireland. The name/description of the state is not really pertinent to this discussion, as the status quo will still remain. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the established convention of Category:Sports teams by country and Category:Sports organizations by country and Category:Sport by country and Category:Tourist attractions by country and Category:Recreation by country and Category:Leisure by country and Category:Men by country and Category:Women by country? Women are people too you know. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are categories by country, while I was referring to the established category naming conventions for nationality as listed at WP:NCCAT. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop digging. You'll reopen The Troubles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose we have just been renaming lots of categories from Fooian people to People from Fooland, see the Category:People from the Russian Empire precedent and its dozens of follow-up renamings. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are all former countries; the precedent doesn't apply to current countries. Oculi (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is it written that the "People from..." form may only apply to former countries? Why not also, for example, to countries with compound names or names that are awkward to shoehorn into a demonym? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films about Asian Canadians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't know what the right solution to the problems identified at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Films about cultures is, but renaming these from "X-Canadian films" to their current names wasn't it.
The problem is that while the films here are all Asian-Canadian in creative context, they aren't all necessarily "about" Asian-Canadians per se: they're always either Canadian productions or Canadian-Asian co-productions, almost always by Asian-Canadian directors (but not always always, see Muybridge's Strings and the filmography of Claude Gagnon for some noteworthy exceptions), but what they're narratively "about" is much more of a mixed bag: some of them are genuinely about Asian-Canadians (e.g. Riceboy Sleeps, Tenzin, Queen of the Morning Calm), while some are about interactions taking place in Asia between non-Canadian Asians and non-Asian Canadian tourists (e.g. 14 Days, 12 Nights, Karakara, When the Storm Fades), and some are just plain about Asians with no Canadian aspect present in the narrative at all (e.g. In Flames, Summer with Hope, In Her Place).
So they need some form of categorization for their Asian-Canadian context because they most certainly are defined by that, but the current names don't cut it because the films aren't all "about Asian Canadians" per se, "films by Asian-Canadian directors" wouldn't cut it because that doesn't encompass all of the films here either (and additionally would rope in Asian-Canadian directed films about non-Asian topics, like Kim Nguyen's War Witch and Howie Shia's 4 North A) and just kicking the oddballs up the tree to the Category:Asian-Canadian cinema parent wouldn't cut it since that category needs a way to subcategorize the films separately from the Asian-Canadian film production companies and the Asian-Canadian film festivals and the Asian-Canadian film awards.
Moving these back to their prior names is the only solution I can think of that adequately resolves all of the imperatives here, though I'm willing to consider other solutions if somebody has a better idea -- but at minimum, the renaming that happened in January was a bad one that didn't adequately assess all of the issues that actually apply here. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an alternative. There is a genuinely defining context for Asian-Canadian cinema, which all films that belong to it do need to be categorized for. For instance, where else can the Afghan Canadian Bad Omen be categorized alongside the Afghan Canadian The Boxing Girls of Kabul and the Afghan Canadian The Forbidden Reel for the benefit of people who are looking for Afghan Canadian films? Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are interested in films about Afghanistan or films set in Afghanistan they can find them there. However the (Canadian or other) nationality of the director is trivial for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "films about Afghanistan" or "films set in Afghanistan" — I said Afghan Canadian films. A film directed by Ariel Nasr, for instance, is relevant to the Afghan Canadian community regardless of whether it's about Afghans living in Canada or Afghans living in Afghanistan, and a film directed by Zarrar Kahn is relevant to the Pakistani Canadian community regardless of whether it's about Pakistanis living in Canada or Pakistanis living in Pakistan, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not categorize based on assumptions what is interesting for whom. A film set in Afghanistan may be just as interesting to the Afghan Canadian community as it is to the Afghan Australian community, regardless of the nationality of the director. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say otherwise. But a film by an Afghan Canadian director is part of a specific identifiable thing called "Afghan-Canadian culture" — sure, the films may be interesting to other people, and nobody ever said otherwise, but any film can be of interest to anybody for any reason, so films are not necessarily defined by who might be merely "interested" in them. I'm talking about the fact that the films come from a specifically and distinctively Afghan-Canadian cultural context, and who might or might not be merely "interested" in any given film is not the same thing as what I said. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the film is neither about Afghan Canadians (for which we have this very category) nor about Afghanistan (for which we have another category tree) then the context (i.e. the Afghan ancestry of the director) is trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely nothing trivial about an Ariel Nasr film being relevant to Afghan-Canadian culture. That fact doesn't care whether the people depicted inside the film are Afghan Canadians or Afghan Afghanis — he's done both of those things in different films, so his films are still relevant to Afghan Canadian culture, and still need some form of categorization for that relevance, either way. They can't be split up on "some are relevant to Afghan Canadian culture and some aren't" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You apparently want to carry over the ethnicity of a person, like Ariel Nasr, to their works, but that does not make sense in case the content of the work is unrelated to ethnicity. We apparently disagree here, there is little point in repeating ourselves over and over again. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I want the films to be properly categorized for their relationship to the cultural context that they're part of. There is absolutely no acceptable argument that any Ariel Nasr film should somehow not be categorized for its relationship to the cultural concepts of "Asian Canadian cinema" and "Afghan-Canadian culture". Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question: shouldn't the participants of this previous discussion be pinged? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm assuming I read the nomination properly, but am open to the possibility that I've misunderstood the concerns. As stated at the original CfD, these categories, as one should be reasonably able to infer from their names, are for films about people of these cultures; if the film isn't about that culture then it shouldn't be in the given category, but that's a matter of clean-up and possibly discussion at the film's Talk page. Films where the cast/crew is of the culture indicated but where the film isn't about those cultures are consequently out of scope. If anything, to me it would seem that the optimal solution would be to create additional categories for films where behind-the-scenes individuals are of the respective cultures. DonIago (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point you're missing is that these categories were of the "optimal solution" type prior to January 2023, and then got moved to new "about people of these cultures" names without consideration of the facts that (a) some of the films were in them for the old reason and don't fit the rescoping, but were not removed from the categories at all, and (b) categories serving the old purpose are still necessary, and would literally involve recreating the very same former categories that these were renamed from in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That they were of the "optimal solution" before the move is a matter of opinion. Another opinion is that there should have been different categories to begin with rather than trying to fit films into the same category using different rationales, and that the move was a move in the right direction, if perhaps an incomplete or imperfect one. DonIago (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether they were "of the optimal solution before the move" — what matters is the fact that the categories you used the words "optimal solution" to describe are the very ones that existed before the move, which means the "optimal solution" is recreating deleted categories. But our deletion rules prevent me from unilaterally recreating previously deleted categories without gaining a consensus that the previous discussion was at least partially incorrect and needs to be revised, which means I can't do what needs to be done to fix the problem without a new discussion. I explicitly said "I'm willing to consider other solutions if somebody has a better idea" right in my nomination statement — but I can't just recreate the deleted categories without gaining a consensus to authorize the recreation of deleted categories, which means there has to be a discussion of some kind. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're really losing me here...you say it doesn't matter whether they were of the optimal solution before the move, but you were the one who claimed they were of the optimal solution before the move; I don't know why you brought it up if it doesn't matter?
You've criticized the previous CfD (now to the point that you've explicitly said the previous categories should be recreated and the new ones deleted; essentially a revert) and implicitly the judgment of the prior participants, rather than coming at this from the angle of, "I'm sure the folks who supported the prior CfD thought they were making the right call, but I think we should reconsider this...", which frankly, at least to me, comes off as a bit antagonistic, and pointlessly so. You also referenced the previous CfD without contacting the participants in that CfD, which I don't feel is a very good look.
As I said in my first message in this thread, I think the "optimal solution" would be to create additional categories that would meet your desire, if I'm understanding you correctly, to have categories for films where Foo Canadians were involved in the production of the film, but the film itself isn't necessarily about Foo Canadians. I'm not sure what else there is for me to say here unless other editors bring viewpoints to the table that lead me to reconsider my perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who used the words "optimal solution" to begin with, so I was simply repeating your words — and the thing you used the words "optimal solution" to describe was and is literally what the categories that got deleted were. I didn't say a damn thing about what was or wasn't "optimal" before — but the thing you used the words "optimal solution" to suggest now requires recreating the deleted categories, which is a thing I have to propose for discussion because deleted content cannot be recreated without a consensus. If I could have just created new categories on my own to fix the problem, I would have — but the issue is that the categories that need to be created to fix the problem were and are the very categories that CFD deleted in the process of performing this category move in the first place, which means I can't create them without consensus that their recreation is allowed. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me be more clear then I apparently was in my initial post. I oppose the re-creation of the deleted categories. I have no strong opinion on creating supplemental categories such as "Films directed by Asian Canadians", to complement the current categories in cases where the production crew were of the nationalities in question but the films themselves are not about said nationalities. I hope this is helpful. DonIago (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Films by Asian-Canadians" doesn't cut it at all. That would rope in things like Kim Nguyen's War Witch and Pavan Moondi's Diamond Tongues that aren't contextually relevant to Asian Canadian cinema just because they were technically directed by Asian Canadians, while roping out things like Claude Gagnon's Karakara and Jean-Philippe Duval's 14 Days, 12 Nights that are contextually relevant to Asian Canadian cinema because they're Canadian films set in Asia. It's not the nationality of people involved in the production that matters, it's the fact that they're Canadian films with Asian content in the story that matters. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you considering a Canadian film here? Because the standard definition that I've seen employed when ascribing a nationality to a film on this site is determined by the nationality of the studio(s) that own the film, but it doesn't sound like you're suggesting creating categories that would employ "Canadian films" in that context, so what is your criterion for what you're describing as a Canadian film? DonIago (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When in this conversation have I ever implied that I was using anything other than the standard definition? Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. So you're talking about something like Category:Canadian films set in Asia then? That's the wording that you used and emphasized when you used it. I checked the various American films categories though, and unless I missed something, we don't really categorize films in that manner, though we do more broadly do categories such as Category:Films set in Asia. I'm not personally averse to that level of categorization necessarily, but it seems as though it would be best to discuss that at WT:FILM first to see how other editors feel about it. DonIago (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I'm talking about. There's no need or value in a category that lumps Claude Gagnon's Karakara alongside Jean-Philippe Duval's 14 Days, 12 Nights on a broadly continental criteria — the need is for a category that gets Karakara filed alongside In the Shadow of the Pines and Muybridge's Strings and Obāchan's Garden and Things I Do for Money on "specifically relevant to Japanese Canadian culture" grounds, and a category that gets 14 Days, 12 Nights moved out of the inaccurate Category:Films about Vietnamese Canadians while still keeping it in another category that groups it alongside Flowing Home and The Greatest Country in the World and No Crying at the Dinner Table on grounds of relevance to Vietnamese Canadian culture.
I never said that "continent of setting" was a defining characteristic in and of itself — I said that the films' relevance to hyphenated-Canadian cultures doesn't change based on whether the film is about hyphenated-Canadians of that culture or non-hyphenated Canadians visiting that culture. 14 Days, 12 Nights maintains the same relevance to Vietnamese-Canadian culture regardless of whether the film is about Canadians of Vietnamese ethnicity in Canada or about Canadians of non-Vietnamese ethnicity visiting Vietnam; Karakara maintains the same relevance to Japanese-Canadian culture regardless of whether the film is about Canadians of Japanese heritage in Canada or about Canadians of non-Japanese heritage visiting Japan; and on and so forth. I didn't say that a category for "Canadian films set in Asia" was what was needed here — I said that the question of whether a film is "about Asian-Canadians" or "about non-Asian Canadians visiting Asia" doesn't constitute the determining factor as to whether a film is relevant to Asian-Canadian culture or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it's clear that I'm not understanding your ideal end goal here (a clear and explicit statement of exactly what category names/structure you'd like to see could help), nobody else is particularly weighing in, and I've already expressed what I believe to be my underlying views regarding this matter, I'm going to bow out at this point. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful to you; good luck moving this forward in a direction that addresses your concerns. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been entirely clear all along, and have been persistently misunderstood in ways not explained by how clear I've been, but sure, what the hell, I'll summarize again.
The category moves that happened a few months ago resulted in a number of films that were correctly categorized under the old names but are now misfiled in categories that they do not fit. 14 Days, 12 Nights, for example, is a film about a white Canadian travelling to Vietnam and interacting with Vietnamese people in Vietnam — so it is a "Vietnamese-Canadian film" as it was formerly categorized, but it is not a "Film about Vietnamese Canadians" as currently categorized. And by the same token, Karakara is a film about a white Canadian travelling to Japan and interacting with Japanese people in Japan, so it is a "Japanese-Canadian film", but it is not a "Film about Japanese Canadians".
So what's needed is categories that can get films like those out of categories that are not accurate descriptions of the films, and back into categories that are accurate descriptions of the films. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have entirely failed to illustrate, to me, what your ideal category name/structure would look like. The prior category syntax fell out of favor some time ago for exactly the reasons outlined in the prior nomination. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the "ideal name/structure" would be, that would resolve the problem I'm talking about while simultaneously being in line with the prior discussion. That's why I proposed them for "renaming" to question marks, because I don't know what the answer is.
The only thing I know is that I'm raising a real issue that needs a solution of some sort; I don't know what the most viable solution to it is, which is why I initiated a discussion. What's necessary is something that gets the films that did fit the old category names, but don't fit the new ones, out of the categories they don't fit while getting them back into a category that they do fit. If it's not the old categories that these were renamed from, then I'm open to other alternatives that actually work, but I don't know what the solution is. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like the solution is to purge them from the current categories that they don't belong in and come up with appropriate categories that they would belong in, assuming such categories would be either consistent with existing scheme or amenable to other editors as part of a new schema. DonIago (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what would the appropriate categories that they would belong in be? You yourself said I can't recreate the old categories that these got renamed from, but I can't think of any other alternative that solves this problem in some other way. If I was able to think of another way, I'd have just done it already — but I can't, so I requested some input into figuring one out. So what's the damn alternative? Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you expect me to answer that when I don't feel that you've clearly articulated what the scope of such categories would be, and from the limited participation at this CfD, there's not much of an indication that other editors consider this a significant issue at this time either. If you feel this is such a large concern, perhaps you should raise your concerns at WT:FILM or a similar venue. DonIago (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 17 June 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:SVG Bleiburg players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that the club is notable, plays in the fourth tier of Austrian football. There is no article for the club on English wiki. Geregen2 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple entries so SMALLCAT doesn't apply, the fact there is (currently) no parent article does not matter. GiantSnowman 20:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ClydeFranklin (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- I sampled 4 or 5 of the articles and most did not even mention the club. Is this a professional club? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 17 June 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:Independent shrines[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 13:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCMISC. No need to merge, the articles are already in other subcategories of Category:Shinto shrines. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more input from WikiProject Japan on this one Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I don't feel competent to comment on this topic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WT:WikiProject Japan will be notified shortly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It appears no more input is coming, and there's been no real refutation of the nominator's rationale. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't see how WP:OCMISC applies here. There is only one Association of Shinto Shrines, whose membership encompasses the vast majority of all shrines, so these are not the leftovers from a bunch of other categorizations which together collect up all the other shrines. This grouping is notable because none of the other shrines need to be categorized, because they belong to that one association, and these are the few exceptions. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly the point of the nomination, there are shrines of the Association of Shinto Shrines, and there are others. We do not usually categorize articles by what they are not (not of the Association of Shinto Shrines). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a number of "not-X" categories in religion (e.g. Category:Independent Catholicism) where there is one dominant body and the question of staying out of this body is notable. As I understand it, staying out of the shrine association is notable because it means not endorsing the association's political lobbying; nearly all of the 20K+ shrines are members. Mangoe (talk) 01:22, 20 June 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:Toronto Maple Leafs (International League) players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: alt rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
added 17th June
Alt rename
Nominator's rationale: The name of the league in parentheses should be abbreviated per convention. See Category:Baltimore Orioles (IL) players, Category:Miami Marlins (IL) players and Category:Newark Bears (IL) players. The same applies to Category:Toronto Maple Leafs (International League) managers. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The undisambiguated category is for a hockey team, while the one under discussion here is for a (defunct) baseball team. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An editor has suggested that the naming convention in this tree is faulty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added and tagged other categories for an alt rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 17 June 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:Swedish Hockey League players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Swedish Hockey League players

Category:People with polio[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. A Category:Polio survivors could be defining; this is not.(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previous discussion result: Linkify/Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 18#Category:People with polio 73.93.5.246 (talk) 22:51, 9 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) 23:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I've given this matter some more thought and have arrived at a possible solution. Given the variable impact of polio - some find it life-altering due to its potential disabling effects as per WP:CATDEF, while others experience it as a fleeting condition (WP:TRIVIALCAT) - a category redefinition seems appropriate.
This way, we can acknowledge individuals for whom the condition has had a substantial impact, without including those for whom the condition was relatively insignificant. Mason (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 17 June 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:Vancouver City S.C. players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Vancouver City S.C. players

Category:Vancouver Halecos players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Vancouver Halecos players

Category:Vancouver Spartans players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 11:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence provided that the club is notable. Article does not exist. Geregen2 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact there is no parent article does not matter - 4 entries means this is a valid category. GiantSnowman 20:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 17 June 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:Vancouver St. Andrews players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence provided that the club is notable. The club's name is a redirect to the article for the league the club played in. Notability is not inherited, therefore playing in a notable league does not automatically confer notability on the club. Geregen2 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact there is no parent article does not matter - 4 entries means this is a valid category. GiantSnowman 20:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 17 June 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:Ayr Raiders (1946 — 1956) players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Ayr Raiders (1946 — 1956) players

Category:Track and field by city[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) 13:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only thing here is a Category:Track and field in the United States by city subcategory -- and while I'm not suggesting that should be renamed, as it's a legitimate ENGVAR issue in American English, I'm not seeing a compelling reason why it would warrant Category:Track and field by city as a separate single-item subcategory of Category:Athletics by city if it's never going to pick up any other "Track and field in [Other Country] by city" siblings. We can always consider renaming the target category to Category:Athletics (track and field) by city if people feel that's warranted (though I'm also not initiating such a discussion here), but we don't really need "Track and field by city" and "Athletics by city" to coexist as separate parents for what's otherwise the same thing just because of the US-specific ENGVAR. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (Leaving Redirect) WP:ENGVAR doesn't mean we create separate trees for what is the same thing. Just that we name certain country/regional cats appropriately. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 18 June 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:Track and field by country[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) 13:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory without a very clear differentiation from its parent. In nearly all world countries, "track and field" articles are just filed in "athletics" categories without a separate "track and field" subcategory to file here -- of the just three countries that do have "track and field in Country" categories, two have been listed for deletion or merger below as misconceived, and the third is a unique ENGVAR issue where the "track and field" category exists instead of an "athletics" category rather than as a subcategory of one, and thus wouldn't be out of place in the target category.
And the only other things here, Category:Athletics (track and field) venues by country and Category:Athletics (track and field) by dependent territory, are using both terms in a disambiguatory format, and thus wouldn't be out of place in the target category either. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 17 June 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:Track and field in Canada[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 26#Category:Track and field in Canada

Category:Track and field in the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory that effectively duplicates the parent Category:Athletics in the United Kingdom, comprising a random partial sample (but not the bulk) of articles that are already in other subcategories in the same tree anyway. I wouldn't stand in the way of a redirect if consensus would prefer that, but full upmerging of the contents isn't needed since they're all already in one or more UK athletics subcategories as it is. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Newbury Park, California[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:People from Newbury Park, California

Category:Independent politicians in Curaçao[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 16:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 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:Health specialist centres in Singapore[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 16:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Health specialist centres" is unique category name. Even Health specialist centre or Health specialist center is missing Estopedist1 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not for the nominator's reason, but because the category is almost entirely redirects without enough content for a separate category. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:42, 17 June 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:Rugby union players from Monaghan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Rugby union players from Monaghan

Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus

Category:Hip-hop albums released posthumously[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Hip-hop albums released posthumously

Category:Units of linguistic morphology[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed rename is short and correct, and it is the name of the main article Morpheme. --Karim talk to me :)..! 05:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while not all articles are about a particular type of morpheme (so it is not a set category) they are all about the topic "morphemes". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 17 June 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:FA Cup final players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT. Similar categories, such as Super Bowl champions and Men's Final Four participants, have been deleted over the last two years. User:Namiba 02:04, 17 June 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:Bonneville 300 MPH Club members[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DNWAUC, WP:N (WP:NLIST, WP:LISTCRUFT), and WP:OC (WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:PERFCAT, WP:NONDEFINING).
These categories are meant for people who have gone faster than 300 or 200 miles per hour at least once at the Bonneville Speedway in Utah which isn't defining. But the biggest issue here is that this is really a list article written in the category space: the top of the first cat has paragraphs of narrative explaining the lists complete with citations. None of those citations satisfy WP:NLIST though, so immediate listification isn't an option. (I did copy all the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants find reliable source and create a list article.) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People included in New York Society's Four Hundred[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TOP10
On February 16, 1892, The New York Times published the official list of the most important people in New York high society circles, as the "The Four Hundred". You probably already know this, but who was on the list and--more importantly--who was left off became the talk of the season, in between eating caviar at the opera. But these socialites made the cut because they were already notable; the NYT article and this category both just reflect that pre-existing fame. There is already a list right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 17 June 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_June_17&oldid=1163788669"