Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6
June 8 >

June 7[edit]

Category:People by educational institution in Audrain County, Missouri[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 both. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 22:56, 7 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 or corpses dragged behind a vehicle[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. No prejudice against creating Category:People or corpses in whose presence Laurel Lodged is not allowed lest he be tempted to try and drag them behind a vehicle.[Joke] (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT and rather non-defining for lynching. Other merge targets are also possible. Brandmeistertalk 19:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised how large that category would be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 14 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:Uses of leather in Judaism[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More succinctly conveying the same meaning. I've moved the main article accordingly per WP:BOLD rather than RM, so didn't put it as speedy C2D. Brandmeistertalk 19:04, 7 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:1st-century rulers in Africa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:1st-century rulers in Africa

Category:African American military units deployed in the UK during World War II[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 17:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The specific location of a a deployment of a military unit is non-defining. As far as I can tell, this is only such quadruple intersection of its kind.--User:Namiba 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm you seem to be correct. Category:Military units and formations has by country, size, type, war, period, but not area of deployment. Alright, Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:08, 7 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: per alt proposal:

(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B/WP:C2C/WP:C2D (Flora of Great Britain and Ireland). In practice this only includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, as the main article and other items show. In the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD), the Channel Islands are part of region 12 Southwestern Europe, and the political term "British Isles" (Republic of Ireland + UK) doesn't really apply in this biological context. The description of Category:Flora of the British Isles is even arguing that the current category name is inappropriate, because The British Isles is not a recognized division in the WGSRPD scheme., and the Channel Islands aren't part of the same regions according to the scheme. Instead of having arguments in the category description about how the name is inappropriate, we should just rename it to address the issue. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rationale: per Peter coxhead. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An issue is that both "Great Britain" and "Ireland" in a geographical context are ambiguous. In one definition of each they refer to an island; both our articles open with "... is an island", so they exclude the off-shore islands. Even if you take a political definition, whereby "Great Britain" = the political territories of England, Scotland and Wales, and "Ireland" = the political territories of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, there is a problem because this excludes the Isle of Man. If "Great Britain" means the WGSRPD level 3 unit "GRB" then it does include the Isle of Man. But in this case, why have a category combining the WGSRPD's GRB and IRE? Simply categorize plants in both Category:Flora of Great Britain and Category:Flora of Ireland.
I propose deleting Category:Flora of the British Isles and down-merging to Category:Flora of Great Britain and Category:Flora of Ireland.
The only other fully accurate name for the category for list articles would be Category:Lists of the vascular plants of Great Britain, Ireland and offshore islands, so I oppose the proposed renaming. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could come up with very WP:PRECISE names like Category:Lists of the vascular plants of Great Britain, Ireland and offshore islands, that is to say, the Isle of Man, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, but not the Channel Islands, and we're not counting the Principality of Sealand as an island, but I think we may need to be a bit more WP:CONCISE in this case. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:16, 7 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:Television episodes written by Eric Martin[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eric Martin (writer) has incoming links so seems a good target. Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I agree with the renaming. The links related to the redirect make moving the category logical. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:59, 7 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:Flora of Central Europe[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions name is 11 Middle Europe. Equating it with "Central Europe" is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and may lead to problems. (The Benelux countries, for example, are usually considered part of "Western Europe"). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added Northern and Southern America to the nomination for the same reason per Peter coxhead. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support When flora categories were set up using the WGSRPD, it was apparently decided to use names based on geographical articles that already existed rather than the names used in the WGSRPD. This has caused and continues to cause endless confusion. "Central Europe" vs. "Middle Europe" is a minor problem compared to using Category:Flora of North America when what is meant is the WGSRPD's "Northern America" and Category:Flora of South America for "Southern America" – but it's definitely a problem worth fixing. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll CfR those too. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Peter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all three moves. Especially the Americas ones: using the WGSRPD names will emphasise their differing scope from the geographical continents. Declangi (talk) 01:57, 9 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:Flora of Northwestern Europe[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OR. Unlike its parent Category:Flora of Northern Europe, which is an officially designated flora region named 10 Northern Europe according to the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD), this category has been wholly made up 11 months ago. Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands do not even belong in its parent; only Sweden and Denmark should be put back into it as on 28 July 2022. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The creation of arbitrary flora distribution categories that don't follow the WGSRPD causes confusion as there is no source for their definition, making them difficult if not impossible to use consistently. As in this case, they often don't fit into a proper hierarchy, with their supposed parent not including all of the children. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad you agree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as not part of the WGSRPD system. While a case could be made for a new subcategory of a 'terminal' node in the hierarchy, this was an arbitrary creation in the middle of the hierarchy. I also support restoring Denmark and Sweden to Category:Flora of Northern Europe. Declangi (talk) 01:48, 9 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:Surnames of Northwestern European origin[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:OR. Long story short (already confirmed by precedents): there is no consensus on how Europe should be divided in "North, East, South, West, Central", let alone "Northwestern" etc. This is a containercat anyway and has no value of its own, but Upmerging to Category:Surnames of European origin makes sense. (I originally filed this as part of the "Category:Northwestern European countries CfD", but because this nom cannot directly build on the same precedents, and Upmerging is better than Deletion, I'm filing it separately as a first test case. Nevertheless, similar problems apply.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:51, 7 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:Northwestern European countries[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OR, see precedents Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 9#Category:Northern European people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 21#Category:Western European people. Long story short (already confirmed by precedents): there is no consensus on how Europe should be divided in "North, East, South, West, Central", let alone "Northwestern" etc. All items are already in Category:Countries in Europe anyway, so this whole category tree is entirely redundant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say either yay or nay to this suggestion, but what I would like to remind of is that there are lots of categories on the Wikipedia category tree that are of functional value in the namespace, rather than of pedagogical and articulate value (in the same way that you would expect from an article, which is in a sense made for notability. Categories have no formal requirement of notability ..)
We've had the same discussion about outlines where they have been proposed for deleting because of arbitrary aspects but the point is not mainly to keep the information structured, but to keep Wikipedia structured (for example for editors)
Therefor while I am not against the idea itself, I do not like the argumentation as to why because there may be functional value in having an extra layer of recursion for countries (see for example Central American countries as a subset of North American countries). The categories exist in a namespace context and relate to other articles and trees of categories
If someone were to be stupidly bold enough to remove entire categories solely based on the notability of their name then the entire EnWiki category tree would very soon become useless.
So, TL;DR I am not against the idea but the argumentation frightens me a bit because you're equailising the value of a category with an article and that is a big mistake, in my opinion. Danielsltt (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I say this because I've seen some of this editor's other category discussions and at the micro level it can make sense to judge the necessity of a category or category tree by its articulate value (notability for example) but at the macro level that strategy can very quickly go from smart to very risky .. Because the categories are primarily to keep the structure of the Wikipedia back-end as utility-value oriented as possible, which is an entirely different discussion than that of articles .. One can't use WP: ARBITRARYCAT as an argument for categories that may be of large-scale importance to the Wikipedia project (and I say "may be" because I am neutral in this particular case)
Because I see Northwestern Europe as itself being a rather "loosely defined" region one may extend this type of argumentation to include the deletion of Cat:Northwestern Europe altogether and that's why I am voicing this concern - simply because Wikipedia project's internal organization does not primarily concern the external nature and factuality of its article content .. So from a top-down based reasoning, this type of thinking can end up with having no category tree altogether, see for example Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy. Another example is the Cat:Categories by topic which is of no notational value whatsoever yet it is very foundational to the EnWiki category tree .. So I rest my case in this particular CfD but I would like to pinpoint that the main utility value of a category tree on EnWiki which is the Global wikipedia and therefor subject to substantial amounts of data is to make the software platform that is Wikipedia easily navigable Danielsltt (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Danielsltt, thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I can follow or agree with all the points you're making, but I would like to understand how you see things.
there are lots of categories WP:OTHERSTUFF.
of functional value WP:ITSUSEFUL.
there may be functional value in having an extra layer of recursion for countries Unless you can show that it is more than just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT redundant layer, it is WP:NONDEFINING.
The categories exist in a namespace context and relate to other articles and trees of categories That doesn't mean anything.
remove entire categories solely based on the notability of their name Notability is not the problem; lots of terms that are notable, are useless for categorisation purposes because they are ambiguous or poorly defined (as a currently relevant example, see Category:Rulers), which may lead to an WP:ARBITRARYCAT (or a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT). On the other hand, we have category names that no dictionary would contain, but serve the purpose of categorisation on English Wikipedia really well.
you're equailising the value of a category with an article Which article? I'm not sure where your fear is coming from, but I would like to take it seriously, because I do value your opinion and contributions.
Because I see Northwestern Europe as itself being a rather "loosely defined" region one may extend this type of argumentation to include the deletion of Cat:Northwestern Europe altogether and that's why I am voicing this concern Well, doesn't that highlight the fact that "Northwestern Europe", as a term, has trouble meeting the requirement of being WP:DEFINING and WP:CATSPECIFIC as long as it is "loosely defined"? It may well be that we will eventually decide that Category:Northwestern Europe and categories like it will eventually also be deleted, but why would that be a bad thing?
So from a top-down based reasoning, this type of thinking can end up with having no category tree altogether. Such concerns are really overblown. As I've pointed out, all items are already in Category:Countries in Europe, there is no need for further subcategories, especially not based on loosely/poorly defined regions. If your concern is to make the software platform that is Wikipedia easily navigable, then the last thing you will want to do is put something like Category:Luxembourg in an arbitary sub-sub-category of Category:Countries in Europe (where it already is), wouldn't you? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:Nondefining only works for the lower levels of category trees is my argument, and that is easy to prove using the reasoning of recursion, which is that so long as the main purpose of categories is to contain articles, WP:DEFINING is applicable
But once it starts concerning (and again, now we're speaking in general, I am not discussing this particular case because it is not that "far up" in the overall category tree) categories which have the main purpose of containing other categories or entire category trees, WP:DEFINING becomes a lot more vague because how are you supposed to define a category tree which itself contain names that have no formal definition or notational value?
See my point .. You're in deep waters with that line of thinking, especially when you say that category trees are to be defining when sometimes they can't. But it is applicable so long as the contents of categories are mainly articles .. Not much further than that Danielsltt (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of what you're saying, nor connect it to what we were saying about these arbitrary regions of Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:13, 7 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:Feeney family[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 without prejudice. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only 2 articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 7 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:Romanian-speaking countries and territories[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 & purge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of countries and territories where Romanian is an official language. WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language, recently renamed siblings about German, Greek, and Portuguese, and recently renamed nieces in Slovakia and Croatia (most recently Italian in Croatia). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:08, 7 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:Sports teams in American Samoa by sport[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer (1 C). Note that the target is up for speedy renaming. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:18, 7 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:French-speaking countries and territories[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 and purge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of countries and territories where French is an official language. WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language, recently renamed siblings about German, Greek, and Portuguese, and recently renamed nieces in Slovakia and Croatia (most recently Italian in Croatia). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, the article list four territories "that grant certain constitutional rights to the French language" - is that official enough? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it. Further down the list it says that French is "unofficial" in Lebanon, a "minority" in Louisiana, "de facto" in Mauritius, and Guernsey is never mentioned again. Main article Guernsey's infobox claims Official languages: English Guernésiais French; Recognised regional languages: Sercquiais Auregnais, but it's all WP:UNSOURCED, just like the "constitutional rights" section in the list. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: While I favor this overall approach to avoid subjectivity, I don't recommend overly strict inclusion criteria. Different jurisdictions will reflect official status in different ways and Wikipedia articles are of imperfect quality. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect Fair enough. As far as I know, there is no consensus yet in English Wikipedia when we count a certain language as having the status of "official language". (Austronesier and I discussed this at Talk:Dutch language, without really reaching an agreement. TL;DR I think we need to be able to point to a legal text declaring Dutch the official language of the Netherlands (de jure); Austronesier thinks is it sufficient if multiple RS say "Dutch is the official language of the Netherlands", even if there is no law we can necessarily point to, but the government uses Dutch all the time (de facto)). We are still figuring this out. I would not be opposed to including the four countries mentioned in the list for now until there is a consensus. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If linguists recognize a French dialect or creole from a region, and it isn't categorized, that doesn't seem to make sense either. A variety of French exists and is academically recognized, but the region isn't good enough to be categorized by Wikipedia? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination isn't about linguistics, but about law. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Purge to avoid WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the United States has no official language, so it would need to be purged from Category:Countries and territories where English is an official language (where it is currently not categorized), so if the purge is for countries with official dejure languages, most countries would be left out of categories where the only language they ever used wasn't declared official. This doesn't seem to be a good way to convert the category tree over, as there should be a second category tree, where the official language category is a subtopic, and where actual use is used to indicate language of a territory. Per the U.S.A. example, is not in the official language category. This makes a defining and important categorization missing from articles. The defacto official language of many countries is not the dejure language. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you plan on "purging" an item from a category it is not in? I can't make sense of your comment. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update siblings about Azerbaijani, Hungarian, Somali, and Tamil have recently been renamed to ...where Fooian is an official language for the same or similar reasons as in the rationale. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:08, 13 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:Italian-speaking countries and territories[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 and merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of countries and territories where Italian is an official language. WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language, recently renamed child Category:Populated places in Croatia where Italian is an official language, and recently renamed siblings about German, Greek, and Portuguese. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:56, 7 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:Earthquakes in Kentucky[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (2 P). Was somehow missed in the last discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 11:26, 7 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:Fraser Island[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:Fraser Island

Category:Assassinated Byzantine 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: delete. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, people in this category weren't politicians and one was borderline Byzantine (to be precise he lived in the Empire of Trebizond). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 7 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:Assassinated caliphate 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: delete. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, "caliphate" is not a country and people in this category weren't politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article caliphate, "the caliphates were polities based on Islam which developed into multi-ethnic trans-national empires."
According to the article country, "A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity." According to the article politician, "A politician is a person who has political power in the government of a state". According to Merriam Webster, a politician is "a person experienced in the art or science of government". Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Caliphate" is not a particular country and we do not categorize people by type of country. Dictionaries aren't history books and the quoted definitions are far from precise (civil servants could fall under those definitions, as well as monarchs, both of which are not actually regarded as politicians). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:No original research, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not added anything. You created the category, not me. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Your rationale for deletion is that ""caliphate" is not a country" and that "people in this category weren't politicians". Then I think you need to cite reliable sources that back your statements. I showed you with sources where my rationale comes from. You only showed your personal opinion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not how it works. When you add something in article space (in this case, category tags) the onus is on you. If you have reliable sources that call these people politicians then you have refuted my argument, otherwise it is WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, my point was that you proposed something by personal opinion, not by reliable sources. But, I am failing to find "caliphate politicians" in reliable sources as well. Therefore, even though you did not back your opinion that caliphate is not a country and that opinion is a matter of debate, I concede that the term caliphate politicians is not used generally by reliable sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for that acknowledgement. In most cases, it's better to start with a main article on a new topic to Wikipedia complete with sources, then to add categories as appropriate from there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:39, 10 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:Theories of gravity[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The later is the correct name; the former sounds like some weird high-school joke. Whenever one wishes to talk about "Blah Blah gravity", one calls it the "Blah Blah theory of gravitation" -- if you look at the current category contents, you will see this naming pattern in the current articles. Calling something a "theory of gravity" is both silly and a mis-use of the English language. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The category has not been tagged. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The category has still not been tagged. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How should I react to what you wrote? Are you not aware that Einstein did not propose his theory of gravitation until the 20th century? Or are you trolling? How can I react in good faith to what you wrote? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose theories of gravity is the WP:COMMONNAME, the proposed name theories of gravitation is the least used of the three. Nom has not given any substantive rationale other than personal opinion, made claims that are evidently untrue, and still not tagged the category. I see no reason to take this nomination seriously. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nederlandse Leeuw. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There's not a clear main article here, beyond potential redirects. If and when a main article is created with reliable sources, this category should match the article name per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:45, 10 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:Society of Cornwall[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete and move Category:Religion in Cornwall to Category:Cornwall, for consistency: no other counties are diffused like this. The two other subcategories do not have to be moved, they already are in Category:Organisations based in Cornwall as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 7 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:Society of England by county[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete (and move Category:Society of Cornwall to Category:Society of England if it is not deleted in the above discussion), redundant category layer with only one county subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:34, 7 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:Romanesque architecture in the United States[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominating on behalf of ɱ who brought this to RfD with the following rationale Category should be deleted: Romanesque was a style of medieval Europe; the proper category for these buildings is Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in the United States, all now moved. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rosguill: was there consensus about it? Because if there was, the category can be tagged as WP:C1 or maybe even WP:G6 instead of WP:CFD and this discussion can be speedily closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus in the RfD discussion was that it was the wrong venue. signed, Rosguill talk 03:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever the procedural history here, there is no true 6th to the 11th century Romanesque architecture in the United States, just newer buildings inspired by that heritage. See here for a similar conversation about Norman architecture. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:51, 10 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_7&oldid=1162127592"