Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 19

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

June 19[edit]

Category:Military of the Republic of Karelia[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... 19:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think Karelia (currently part of Russia) has (or ever had) its own military. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 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:Hindutva Terrorism[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 as per nom. Pppery's proposal can be considered in an additional nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe the two categories have the same scope. I'm choosing the older category as the merge target. Pichpich (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portwoman (talk) 03:20, 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:Jahangir Tareen[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... 19:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough content (just one article plus the main article) to justify an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 21:33, 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:Quotations from philosophy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's already a lot of overlap between these two cats, and I can't think what kind of article would belong in "Quotations" but not in "Phrases". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, very similar type of content in the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The target is the far older category. - jc37 09:26, 28 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:Broods[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 08:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only two interlinking subcategories, this is an unnecessary parent and overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can we add this situation (main article + songs subcat + albums subcat) as a speedy criterion? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - what is the rationale? WP:OCEPON is about people, not musical groups (and even so it mentions " unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist" - there 17 directly related articles, and how many subcats are 'enough'? is 2 enough? We are not told). Not needed seems to be the rationale, if the 2 subcats are interlinked. I don't think this is a speedy as I'm sure similar categories have been kept at cfd. We don't AFAIK even have a speedy criterion for such a category with just 1 subcat (which I would support) - but even then there is an argument currently at cfd about potential, for a 2nd or 3rd subcat, eg tours, band members etc. (This is a duo, for which we don't do members and no tours are mentioned.) Oculi (talk) 23:09, 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.

National Basketball Association venues by team[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#National Basketball Association venues by team

Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent[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 the first and China, rename the rest to Category:Assassinated heads of state in Africa etc. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories contains a single article, all of whom are already in the parent Category:Assassinated heads of state. Not included is Category:Assassinated Pan-American heads of state and the five layers below it, which is already completely empty and woll therefore be speedy deleted per C1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DEL-CONTENT If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. My plan is to populate these categories as they have actually many instances of assassinated heads of state in each. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 I have populated Category:Assassinated African heads of state. Thoughts? I don't want to start working on the other categories yet if they gonna be deleted. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Can I withdraw this category, now that the creator has populated it with 25 pages? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now populated all the listed categories. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per nominator wanting to withdraw proposal and WP:SMALLCAT "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't an urgent reason to diffuse and creator of the categories is apparently not populating them. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stricken my own comment, it is no longer applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder I am a volunteer editor not a full time worker here, as everyone else. I edit according to what I get motivated for the day and I made the categories with the idea that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder that we are all volunteers. It just does not make any sense to create a category and not populate it. That is counterproductive. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I concede I am kind of new in categorization, but categorizing one thing led me to create diverse categories in the same tree. Notice that all my work in this has been maybe exclusively circumscribed to the category:assassinated politicians. I really don't understand this effort to undo my work instead of giving me time to work on it. I sincerely consider that these categorizations have the potential to help readers.
      As I wrote in a thread below, there are currently 98 pages of assassinated heads of state. If a reader wants to find out about assassinations in a specific continent, say for example is curious about who else got assassinated besides Kennedy in North America then a category for North American assassinated heads of state would help. Did you know there are 10 assassinated heads of state in Bolivia alone? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems unlikely to aid reader navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:Assassinated heads of state in Africa etc per Category:Heads of state in Africa (and add the 'Heads of state' parent if necessary - the creator is only supplying one parent). Oculi (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oculi The problem is that some African heads of state were not assassinated in Africa. Also, there was the opposite argument of yours when I actually created the categories by place instead of by nationality. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: Difference between revisions#Opposed requests Rename Category:Assassinated politicians in North America to Category:Politicians assassinated in North America. Thinker78 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop creating categories as you are making things worse. Oculi (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is that you should comply with existing naming conventions when creating (sub)categories, which in this case is that of Category:Heads of state by continent. 'Assassinated heads of state in Africa' does not imply that they were assassinated in Africa. Oculi (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oculi Again, I named them that way as a direct result of the discussion I mentioned. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently all have 10+ articlews, except for the container cat and Category:Assassinated Oceanian heads of state (which has 1).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per Oculi. There isn't something like an African nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle That makes no sense. Certainly, there is no African nationality, but African is a word that denotes someone from Africa. The intention is to categorize assassinated people that at some time were a head of state in Africa. A few former heads of state from an African country were assassinated in other continents. In addition, when I proposed "Category:Assassinated Central American politicians" instead of Category:Assassinated politicians in Central America, you stated, "That makes perfect sense when you look at the subcategories."[a] Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename per Marcocapelle. @Thinker78: Thanks for populating these! - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ See discussion Category:Assassinated politicians in UN Central America to Category:Assassinated politicians in Central America
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:Before Common Era assassinated politicians[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: split to Category:Ancient assassinated people and Category:Medieval assassinated people. The subsequent dates can go into Category:Assassinated politicians by time for now, pending review of other categories by millennium. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and arbitrary split that is not practiced anywhere else on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a first, therefore it is arbitrary to say it is not practiced anywhere else. It is not unnecessary because one may be interested in only politicians assassinated Before Common Era. In fact, if you notice history is divided in Common Era and Before Common Era. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaundryPizza03: do you mean rename instead of merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because I am combining two existing categories into a single one at a name that is currently vacant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Assassinated ancient politicians and Category:Assassinated medieval politicians or something, if we really need to put this into major timeframes. BCE/CE as a fundamental categorisation divide is never used anywhere else on English Wikipedia. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting because history itself is divided in BCE/CE. The idea of this categorization occurred to me when I was looking for some info in the common era but I kept seeing before common era pages or some other situation with time, which kind of frustrated me. Then I thought it would be useful for readers to categorize according to BCE and CE. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thinker78 That is creative of you, but there are many ways of dividing history. And BCE/CE is not commonly used here on English Wikipedia.
    If you look at Category:Ancient people by occupation, you'll see it contains Xth-century BC(E) people by occupation and just Xth-century people by occupation. Ancient is the parent category, and there is no division at the transition form BC(E) to CE. The same goes for Category:Medieval people by occupation, which goes from 500 (CE) to 1500, the commonly accepted periodisation of the Middle Ages.
    Almost nobody categorises by millennium. The parent is Category:People by period and occupation, which only has "Ancient", "Medieval", and the rest. In fact, lots of "People by millennium" categories were recently deleted because Millennium categories serve no useful purpose.
    The takeway is: Before creating new category or set of categories, you should probably look at whether it doesn't already exist, hasn't already been deleted or rejected, and if not, whether it is a logical extension of what we already have. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link. Well, I see the result of that discussion was labeled as delete, but in my opinion it was not properly closed. There was no summary of the discussion and the closer did not write their rationale. And the discussion itself showed no consensus. I think it should be appealed, discussions are not supposed to be closed haphazardly but rather closings should reflect the discussion, which is not a majority vote either. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thinker78, no summary of the discussion and the closer did not write their rationale, that is true, but there still was consensus to delete. You can review it at WP:DRV if you want. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and split to Category:Ancient assassinated people and Category:Medieval assassinated people per Nl Leeuw afterwards. Hypthetically we could split by millennium instead, but generally the distinction "ancient" and "medieval" is used more often, not the least because we have many topic articles about antiquity and middle ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Incidentally, you might also want to look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 31#Category:7th-millennium BC people. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The current one suffers from WP:ARBITRARYCAT. I'm open to either combining them or keeping 2 cats per the discussion above, whichever gains a consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have populated the category with mostly BC murdered monarchs‎ and there may be other types of assassinated politicians in the millenium. Thoughts? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78, as a closer, I won't get involved in the discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to that. Monarchs are not politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Are heads of state politicians? Thinker78 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess the same applies to monarchs. A ruling monarch is probably a politician (mostly before the democratic era). A constitutional monarch barred by law from meddling in politics is probably not a politician. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of any good example. In most parts of history monarchs were absolute rulers (i.e. there were no politicians), later they became ceremonial rulers (i.e. no role in politics). And even in the phase in between, e.g. in 17th-century England, monarchs weren't considered politicians. Part of the politicians were the opponents of the monarch, another part supported the monarch, but that did not make the monarch a politician himself. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        1 A person experienced in the art or science of government especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
        2 a : A person engaged in party politics as a profession b often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons."[1]
        I think you are overlooking definition 1. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • This does not say anything about monarchs, you are merely presenting a piece of WP:SYNTH. What we need is either reliable sources stating that monarchs are politicians (in general), or multiple examples of reliable sources calling a particular monarch a politician. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politician Definition of politician in Merriam Webster

(Just putting a reflist here for technical reasons.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:BBC 100 Women[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I've saved the contents on this page's talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Pages in Category:BBC 100 Women (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 16:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An earlier CFD nomination was also no consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAWARD. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOPTEN and WP:OCAWARD. The articles don't treat this as defining and this is part of the widespread over-categorization by award. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Suggestion The different list articles in Category:Awards honoring women can be a great place to find missing content to add more biography articles for women. While I don't see this as helpful for readers, if editors at Women in Red or any other WikiProject find this grouping helpful as editors, I'm fine with this being converted to a WikiProject category and moved to the article talk pages. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:35, 26 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:100 Sacks Club[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: procedural close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. User:Namiba 15:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As creator. I created this category when I was a relatively new user and I agree that it's arbitrary and not particularly useful. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I G7 tagged the category and it has been deleted. I've gone ahead removed all the pages that were added to the now deleted category. Someone should feel free to close this discussion (not going to do so myself since I'm involved). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 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:Karnataka Premier League[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... 19:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, the main article is now at Maharaja Trophy T20 (new competition name), but as we're unlikely to have specific season articles for this tournament, there are no more valid articles for this category. No need to upmerge, as the one article in the category is in all the parent categories already. It probably meets the spirit of WP:C2F as only 1 eponymous page (though category uses old tournament name) Joseph2302 (talk) 13:49, 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:Universities in Magelang[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 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:Sanctioned due to Russo-Ukrainian War[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 10:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More standard naming. The category contains both individuals and enterprises, like Prominvestbank or Port of Yalta, so "individuals" doesn't seem to fit here. Brandmeistertalk 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename per nom, but this seems a prime example of recentism. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Marcocapelle, I'm not sure we should keep this as this does not seem like a defining characteristic. But if kept, I support the proposed renaming. Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've had long-standing concerns about some of the sub-categories in Category:United States sanctions not being defining and I don't think this one is either. (Obviously, if kept, rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gaslamp fantasy[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 08:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Almost none of the included articles mention "gaslamp fantasy", a debatable genre in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do not even have an article on gaslamp fantasy as a genre. We describe it as one of the variants of steampunk. Per the main article: "Kaja Foglio introduced the term "Gaslight Romance", gaslamp fantasy, which John Clute and John Grant define as "steampunk stories ... most commonly set in a romanticised, smoky, 19th-century London, as are Gaslight Romances. But the latter category focuses nostalgically on icons from the late years of that century and the early years of the 20th century—on Dracula, Jekyll and Hyde, Jack the Ripper, Sherlock Holmes and even Tarzan—and can normally be understood as combining supernatural fiction and recursive fantasy, though some gaslight romances can be read as fantasies of history." Dimadick (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure, I recently redirected the article in question, but it was almost entirely (entirely?) original research and contained largely the same information as the section you are talking about. However, none of the articles in this category mention any reliable sources saying they are in a "gaslamp fantasy" genre. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:11, 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:Wikidata redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Category:Wikidata redirects

Category:Maccabiah Games footballers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Category:Maccabiah Games footballers

Category:Rulers of Thuringia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Category:Rulers of Thuringia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_19&oldid=1164468683"