Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26
June 28 >

June 27[edit]

Psychics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Psychics

Category:Borders of Vatican 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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, only two subcategories with largely overlapping content. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 27 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:Trans men[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Category:Trans men

Mass shootings in Canada by year[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Mass shootings in Canada by year

Category:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene[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 over redirect. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hygiene is a subtopic of health, so saying health and hygiene is redundant. Reverts an undiscussed move from 2018. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete - and please revert the edit to the CfD post-closure - [4]. - jc37 14:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is unclear which target is being suggested in the Merge !votes, as the target proposed by nom is a redirect to the nominated category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:27, 27 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.

Mass shootings in Mexico by year[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Mass shootings in Mexico by year

Active shooter incidents in the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Active shooter incidents in the United States

Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe

Category:Austrian knights[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: containerise. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize, purge articles directly in this category who aren't real knights. This is merely a case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubts How would we define "real knights"? Which ones are we going to purge? I would suppose the Austrian nobility has been abolished in 1918 (concurrent with the fall of the monarchy) and that these titles are now only in pretense? In that case all people born after 1918 carrying the title of "Ritter" (as part of their name) seem WP:NONDEFINING and should be purged. As a sidenote, if it's merely a name thing with no legal importance post-1918, isn't this something we could group into Category:People by name or something (or does that category only exist on Commons?)? Just some suggestions, I don't know what is best. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Knight#Decline, articles about the 17th century and beyond should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well "the 17th century" seems rather arbitrary for a poorly sourced subsection. Their military function probably did cease to have meaning around that time, but the legal meaning continued for much longer. E.g. there was a Rittersturm in the HRE in 1802-1804, and their position was formally abolished in 1806 upon abolition of the HRE. That's why I'm looking at 1918 as cutoff for Austria. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clicking through the articles, the "Ritter" title seems undefining and is generally described in a footer. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rank of Ritter is a distinct rank of the Austrian nobility system, next to e.g. Baron/Freiherr, Count/Graf etc. There is little reason to delete this single category and not other nobility titles, or other knights categories in other countries. Note that article Austrian nobility compares the rank of Ritter to that of Baronet, as both were hereditary, and we have plenty of content in Category:Baronets. Place Clichy (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Containerise & purge per nom. The Austrian nobility is a status group that was officially abolished in 1919 after the fall of Austria-Hungary. The nobles are still part of Austrian society today, but they no longer retain any specific privileges. At the very least, the category should be purged of all people born after 1919, because after that having the rank of Ritter has become WP:NONDEFINING for an individual person's career. They are only WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH other people (their ancestors) for whom it used to be significant for their career. So I think nom is right. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Place Clichy: note that for many articles in this category it merely functioned as an award, granted to famous artists, scholars etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also support renaming since it will help with maintenance. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:03, 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:BBC Idents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:BBC station identifications. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not only is the current title is vague and incorrectly capitalized, but the proposed title provides covers the wider subject of television presentation and matches the parent category "Television presentation in the United Kingdom". —theMainLogan (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is indeed populated solely by idents then renaming to Category:BBC station identifications would make more sense given the name of station identification. There's nothing vague about that (although "ident" is a common enough industry term). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:BBC station identification would work better, but I definitely see where you're coming from. —theMainLogan (t•c) 04:12, 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:St. Anthony's High School (South Huntington, New York) alumni[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE Category:Nipomo High School alumni, Category:Paul W. Bryant High School alumni, [[:Category:Uvalde High School alumni], Category:Woodcreek High School alumni, Category:Notre Dame Academy (Staten Island) alumni, Category:Michael J. Petrides School alumni, Category:Ralph R. McKee CTE High School alumni, Category:Staten Island Technical High School alumni; keep others. I have listed the deleted ones in the school articles, and added members to "People from" where this seemed appropriate. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two people each. As always, every high school does not automatically get one of these the moment one alumnus of that high school has an article to file in it -- there would have to be five or six alumni with articles before a category for them was warranted, not just one or two. Bearcat (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm for 5 articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some years ago I have tried to formalize at 5 in the text of the guideline (carefully phrased something like "in most cases 5 will do"), but including any number in the guideline was dismissed as unnecessary. That also means we can develop a new cut-off here on CfD per precedent. Personally I do not have objections to 10 because in most smallcat cases we are simply upmerging the content to the parent categories, so we are still keeping the content together. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    5 suffices IMO. It is the usual number mentioned at cfd (eg in this very nom by Bearcat). Oculi (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having some concrete number would really help editors who don't frequent CFD who sincerely think 3 is enough, or an entire tree of 1 articles is well established. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am strongly against setting a hard value to this. We talked about setting it at 4 in times gone by, but the truth is, this is smething that really can vary on a case-by-case basis. Our goal is navigation here. And sometimes it's better to have a tree of subats and sometimes not. But a hard number would stand in the way of consensual discussion. If it's obviously a smallcat, CFD tends to take care of these things fairly well. - jc37 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I've sorted / created many high school categories and I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of high schools have five or more notable alumni, especially those in metropolitan areas of the United States. Our efforts should be to populate categories like this, not delete them. For example, Category:Raleigh-Egypt High School alumni had one article until just now. It now has 6 after I spent approximately 3 minutes populating it.--User:Namiba 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have taken the liberty of changing 'lc' to 'clc' in the table, so current numbers now appear. There are still several with 1 or 2 which should be deleted - I looked at some of them and could find no more members. I have added the school article for the small categories, should editors wish to look for lists of alumni (per user:Sionk, above). Of course the school needs to be in the article of the supposed alumnus, preferably sourced, not just in the list. I see that one (Crowley) has gone up from 1 to 7 since I made these remarks. Oculi (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just added several more to Category:Bishop Verot High School alumni. The ease by which these are found is an indication as to why they all should be kept. Some may be below 5 articles, but they all can be easily expanded over time. Note that WP:SMALLCAT states that categories with a "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." Active high schools should fit into this exception since they will continue to add alumni year after year.--User:Namiba 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's nothing notable about going to school, otherwise we would all have articles. THe exception is intended for the likes of Category:Prime ministers of Ghana. Oculi (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EPCATPERS specifically says "Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution and People by company, as well as numerous more specific categories." One's educational institution is considered inherently defining by current guidelines.--User:Namiba 23:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPCATPERS does indeed say that (Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_association), since 2007. However that does not reflect current consensus at cfd and should be changed; we have deleted hundreds of small high school categories at cfd. (It should be changed to 'People by higher educational institution' perhaps; I don't recall university alumni categories being deleted.) It does not say that one's high school is WP:DEFINING; that would seem an extraordinary claim. Oculi (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are all subcategories of Category:People by educational institution, which is specifically cited in the policy. If you want to define one's high school as less defining than their university, that is an argument to make but should be made elsewhere.--User:Namiba 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A primary school (for under 11s) is an educational institution, and I haven't noticed any proliferation of alumni categories for these. — Oculi (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary school of most people is not known but their high school/secondary school is typical for a biography.--User:Namiba 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories with fewer than 5 articles (5 as a minimum). There has been plenty of time for any relevant articles to be added. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:14, 17 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:Former polities in the Netherlands[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 action - This has been open quite awhile, and several different ideas have been tossed around, but nothing really had consensus at this point. I'm doing this as a procedural close of "no action" rather than a "no consensus" close, simply due to the age of discussion. No prejudice against renomination for any of these or other proposals. - jc37 06:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In practice, the category also includes areas outside the current Netherlands (Nederland) such as in modern Belgium and Luxembourg, including areas that were never part of the Habsburg Netherlands (Nederlanden) or the Dutch Republic, such as the Principality of Liège. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional rationale: WP:C2C Category:History of the Low Countries is already the common ancestor of Category:Former polities in the Netherlands (5 generations) and pretty much all subcategories in it; e.g. Category:Habsburg Netherlands‎ and Category:United Kingdom of the Netherlands‎ are its children; Category:Burgundian Netherlands and Category:Seventeen Provinces‎ are its grandchildren etc.
WP:C2B Low Countries is the WP:COMMONNAME in English for this region, and consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. In its parent Category:Former countries by region it sits alongside Category:Former countries in the British Isles, Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula, Category:Former countries in the Balkans etc. This grouping by region is also consistent with established conventions also used on other-language Wikipedias such as nl:Categorie:Historisch land in de Nederlanden, fr:Catégorie:Anciens Pays-Bas, de:Kategorie:Historische Niederlande etc. to which this category is Wikidata-linked. All that is wrong with the current category is the English term Netherlands instead of Low Countries, really. This should clear up some confusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle and I are both from the Netherlands. Until I nominated the Rulers category, we had barely interacted, we got to know each other here, just like I got to know you. (And I quite like the cooperation so far).
  1. Yes, 'polities' is indeed rare.
  2. The relevant parent is Category:History of the Low Countries, which existed since 2014. I didn't create it, and I didn't create Category:Low Countries, so why should that be 'suspect'?
  3. Irrelevant. Low Countries is the WP:COMMONNAME of the region (certainly for pre-1944 history; the Benelux was created at a time when the 3 current modern countries already existed, and there have been no state establishments or disestablishments since 1944).
  4. Yes, 'states' is better. @Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson, and Laurel Lodged: I've change the target to Category:Former states in the Low Countries
  5. Normally I would agree, but in this case, the modern-day countries didn't exist yet. Category:Former countries in the British Isles is a good comparison.
  6. Categories should aid navigation. They don't display more than 200 entries for that reason. Most of the Low Countries entries are already in this hardly navigable clutch of 1,800 entries in Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire. More importantly, this category just serves a different function, namely the political history of this region (that's why it's in the Category:History of the Low Countries tree, and has Category:Political history of Belgium and Category:Political history of the Netherlands as its parents). That is broader than 862 to 1806, and includes states that were outside the HRE during this period.
  7. Any split (or deletion) would only make it harder to navigate the Category:History of the Low Countries tree and between different language versions of this category connected through Wikidata.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the above three periods are relatively short and dispersed and the items in this category exactly refer to duchies and counties etc while they had no shared history yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to have a shared political history in order to be a region.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is obvious we do not agree anyway but I will add a late comment to the Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee: this is referring to the county of Holland, not to Gelre, Namur or whatever we now consider to be part of the Low Lands. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not quite. J.M.C. Verbij-Schillings, "Heraut Beyeren en de Clerc uten Laghen Landen", (1991) Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. indicates the chronicle is dedicated to a certain William of Bavaria, the count of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, but it's unclear whether he was William V = William I, Duke of Bavaria OR William VI = William II, Duke of Bavaria. There is a question when exactly it was written, since both Williams have also been count of Hainaut, but aren't called that by the text, and Hainaut isn't really a subject in the text. On the other hand, the chronicle is apparently closely related to the post-1393 Holland-Utrecht chronicle (Croniken van den Stichte van Utrecht ende van Hollant) in contents and style. It's indeed unlikely that uten laghen landen bi der zee means all Low Countries as we understand them today, but evidently, the chronicle is not just about Holland either, but also around the surrounding provinces, especially those where this William of Bavaria reigned or had frequent or occasional interactions with (Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Hainaut, Utrecht, Flanders, Guelders etc. are all mentioned in Verbij-Schillings' quotations). But the toponym Nederland likewise didn't yet have its current form and application yet either at the time. The oldest reference to Niderlande by Berthold von Regensburg in c. 1275 equated Niderlande with Sahsen ("Saxony"), not with what we today know as the Netherlands: Die von Oberlant, dort her von Zürich, die redent vil anders danne die von Niderlande, von Sahsen. The meaning and application first shifted to the Rhineland and eventually to the Rhine/Meuse/Scheldt delta as we know it today. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, maybe it's time we tried to work out some sort of compromise, like we did with Category:Medieval Low Countries. There is actually quite a lot of overlap between the two. Perhaps we should manually merge some of the children and items to Category:Medieval Low Countries or its children? What we would be left with are pre-500 things like Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior (which may not need to be in this tree at all), and post-1500 things, which we might divide in some sort of North and South categories if we really wanted to. I'm afraid that 1580 will remain somewhat arbitrary, and the HRE category is a bit too big for our purposes here. But I'm open to a lot of options. We need some movement here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and add parent per nomination. Sometimes I find that we are taking ourselves too seriously, and treating category policies as if they were civil or scientific laws. They are neither; rather, to follow them well is an art. This is a category that has stood the test of time and has also been created in multiple other-language Wikipedias. Unless there is a nomination to delete History of the Low Countries, I would even say that this category is required – and should be at the target name. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 25 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.

Water polo people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
about 55 more
Rationale: these are WP:C2C speedies in theory, but speedy can be a misnomer, especially where demonyms (and an Ireland category) are involved. The subcategories all use 'fooian', eg Category:American water polo players. The only article not in a subcategory is William Wilson (aquatics) who invented the sport and is British. Oculi (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We generally use the national demonyms, even when they match ethnonyms, where they would not cause ambiguity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Not sure some of these are needed as a layer, e.g Bosnia and Herzegovina only has a players subcat which itself only contains 2 articles, in contrast to e.g Australia which has male, female and Olympic players, coaches and an official so merits the umbrella. But anyway, logic for the rename is sound. Crowsus (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not rename the categories from "people" to "players"? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 04:05, 10 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:Bandstands in Brazil[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... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Could not find any other articles to which the category would apply. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:11, 27 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.

Works by writer nationality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Works by writer nationality

Category:Films directed by Eché Janga[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... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Category:Films with screenplays by Eché Janga, here are three more categories for redlinked filmmakers on the same film as in that nomination (Buladó). I'm not sure whether categorising by director is always defining – in which case I would withdraw the first one – but I don't think that would apply to producers. Fayenatic London 09:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nelissen and Warrink have other producing credits on Captain Nova (both), Juze (just Warrink), and Cuban Love (just Warrink), which brings both categories up to three entries. Whether that negates SMALLCAT, especially for redlinked subjects, I don't know, but it's at least worth noting. Found no other credits for Janga. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:19, 27 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:Border crossings of Vatican 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: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Sole subcat also exists in Category:Italy–Vatican City border which is the only other subcat in Category:Borders of Vatican City. No need for both when they exist to complete the same job, especially when the other also does more than this could. Not sure what the appropriate redirect target would be, if any exist, but I imagine that would be preferred and I will accept that as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:36, 27 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:Voodoo texts[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... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the pages in this category pertain to books about Haitian Vodou. Renaming this category would more accurately describe the religion in question (Haitian Vodou rather than more ambiguous "Voodoo") and would also clarify that the category is for books about the religion, rather than authoritative texts or scripture (as a comparative example, see Category:Books about Buddhism versus Category:Buddhist texts. —Matthew  / (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on "books about", per nom. Not sure about "Haitian Vodou", does Jamaica fall under that too? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 27 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:Four Digit Wings of the United States Air Force[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Major command controlled wings of the United States Air Force. The RM being referred to is developing to a consensus to merge the article away (so the capitalization is moot), but nobody either here or there has argued in favor of capitalizing "Major Command", so the lowercase title stands. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proper use of capitalization and hyphenation. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this category be deleted per WP:SHAREDNAME, or renamed to Category:Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 27 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:Treaties of ancient Greece[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 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (ancient Greece): Possibly WP:NONDEFINING because ancient Greece was not a state actor nor a non-state actor. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world where similar factors are at play. If we choose to regard ancient Greece as a predecessor of the modern Hellenic Republic, known as Greece (per parent Category:Treaties of Greece), it might be different. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (al-Andalus): Similarly, al-Andalus was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, see above. If we choose to regard al-Andalus as a predecessor of modern Spain and Portugal (through parent Category:Military history of al-Andalus, grandparent Category:History of al-Andalus, great-grandparent Category:Al-Andalus, great-great-grandparents Category:Medieval Portugal and Category:Medieval Spain), it might be different. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Andalusi @Marcocapelle @Fayenatic london FYI because you have commented on the "Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, which led to this CfM. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entirely removing the content of these categories from the tree of Category:Ancient Greece and Category:Al-Andalus is not a good idea. Perhaps with the proposed merge the articles and subcats stay in those trees in some other way, then it would be fine, but I have not checked that yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 29 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) 02:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Aggressive clean up and removal based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). I don't see any of the alternatives suggested to be more helpful to wiki users than the existing categories. Al-Andalusi (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). Not true; the precedent "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM already concluded that a treaty is restricted to a state actor nor a non-state actor: "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, so this is WP:NONDEFINING for treaties, and medieval treaties categories are subdivided by country and the medieval Islamic world is not a country. This fact is why Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic was merged and no longer exists. This precedent has established a consensus that treaties can only involve state actors and non-state actors, which supports the current nomination (so it's not based on entirely spurious reasoning).
    You have already agreed with us (Marcocapelle, Fayenatic and I) that neither "al-Andalus" nor "medieval Islamic world" was a "country" (on my talk page, you said to me: I'm curious to know how you arrived at the understanding that a category with "medieval Islamic world" implies that it is a country? That was never the intention obviously...), and at the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, you added: I also see Category:Treaties of ancient Greece, which was not really a unified state. Which is correct, and exactly why I nominated both "Treaties of al-Andalus" and "Treaties of ancient Greece" for merging next.
    In the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, the "Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, and again in this CfM, your Oppose vote rests on the argument that treaties and foreign relations should not be limited/restricted to states / state and non-state actors only. But that train has left the station due to the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM precedent. You may not like the result, but it stands, and the precedent it has set has consequences for subsequent discussions, including this one. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous CfM (which you nominated) is hardly a precedent. Just because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. Since no specific guideline on the scope of the Treaties categories has been established, then everything remains open to debate. Especially considering the fact that Category:Medieval treaties and Category:Ancient treaties still exist in violation of the alleged state/non-state actor criteria. You're not being consistent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Andalusi Just because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. True, but do you have evidence that it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale" in this case? The nominator (me in that case), Marcocapelle and Fayenatic all Supported the merge rationale that "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, so this is WP:NONDEFINING for treaties. (while you Opposed this rationale with the argument that There is no requirement that a treaty category be strictly limited to a state). Nobody brought up any other argument in favour of merging, so there is no reason to assume it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale".
That means the precedent has been set to limit treaty categories to state actors (i.e. the Category:Treaties by country tree) and non-state actors (i.e. the Category:Treaties by organization tree), and that "the medieval Islamic world" was neither, even though it was (incorrectly) categorised as such. Similarly, Category:Treaties of ancient Greece is a child of Category:Treaties of Greece and thus in the Category:Treaties by country tree, and Category:Treaties of al-Andalus is a child of Category:Treaties by former country and thus also in the Category:Treaties by country tree.
Category:Treaties by period is a different tree, categorising treaties not by state or non-state actors, but time. Something like "Antiquity" or "the Middle Ages" obviously does not constitute a country/organisation and thus not a state or non-state actor, nor does the category tree claim them to be. This whole thing is a red herring. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 27 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:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles[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... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary definite article. See also Talk:List of the mosses of Britain and Ireland#Requested move 27 June 2023 which covers all the similarly titled lists in this category and one other list of non-vascular plants. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:33, 27 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:Latino sitcoms[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... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming convention of the parent category Category:Hispanic and Latino American television, which is a more clear scope then the current title as well. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:44, 27 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_27&oldid=1173558632"