Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21

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 User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gustave zédé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT, with no particularly obvious prospect of expansion. Also at a misspelled name, so even if it were keepable it would have to be renamed to capitalize the surname anyway. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If kept, it should at least be re-purposed to a works category, e.g. Category:Submarines developed by Gustave Zédé. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Misspellings are a reason for speedy rename per WP:C2A, not deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:14, 22 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.

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:1st-century women rulers to Category:1st-century queens regnant and Category:1st-century women regents

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. I checked them all. All were Category:Ancient queens regnant, except Empress Zhangde, Eunice (Bosporan queen), and Queen Mother Buyeo, who were Category:Ancient women regents. Follow-up to 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split, queens regnant and regents are quite different. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 21 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.

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. @Marcocapelle: Can you re-parent this category while it is being renamed? (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of medieval Rhodes to Category:Lords of Rhodes

Nominator's rationale: More WP:CATSPECIFIC. All 4 biographies indicate their titles as "Lord of Rhodes", so let's make it that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and re-parent per actual category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 21 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:13th-century rulers in Europe to Category:13th-century European people
• Propose upmerging Category:14th-century rulers in Europe to Category:14th-century European people
• Propose upmerging Category:15th-century rulers in Europe to Category:15th-century European people
• Propose upmerging Category:16th-century rulers in Europe to Category:16th-century European people
• Propose upmerging Category:17th-century rulers in Europe to Category:17th-century European people
• Propose upmerging Category:18th-century rulers in Europe to Category:18th-century European people
• Propose upmerging Category:19th-century rulers in Europe to Category:19th-century European people

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to "8th-century rulers in Europe" (Upmerged today), "1st-century rulers in Europe" (Downmerged); "4th-century rulers in Europe" (Upmerged); and "7th-century rulers in Europe" (Upmerged). All contain only subcategories, and can better be upmerged. Items which did not fit the "rulers" description, such as elected heads of state, military personnel, courtiers, magnates (sebastokrators), and governors, have been recategorised to more appropriate trees. People such as "voivodes/princes of Wallachia" have been recategorised as "monarchs in Europe", but nobility below the rank of prince (dukes, counts, lords etc.) have been recategorised as "nobility" rather than "monarchs" due to past objections. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, they contain more than one subcategory, but still merge for consistency as we are in the process of deprecating rulers anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah you're right. Corrected. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:54, 21 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.

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 to Category:Algerian culture and Category:Titles. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Titles in Algeria to Category:Algerian culture and Category:Titles by country

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but the second merge target should be Category:Titles as the article is not Titles in Algeria. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 21 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of mountains of Algeria to Category:Lists of mountains by country and Category:Lists of landforms of Algeria and Category:Lists of mountains of Africa

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 21 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:9th-century rulers in Asia to Category:9th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:10th-century rulers in Asia to Category:10th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:11th-century rulers in Asia to Category:11th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:12th-century rulers in Asia to Category:12th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:13th-century rulers in Asia to Category:13th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:14th-century rulers in Asia to Category:14th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:15th-century rulers in Asia to Category:15th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:16th-century rulers in Asia to Category:16th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:17th-century rulers in Asia to Category:17th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:18th-century rulers in Asia to Category:18th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:19th-century rulers in Asia to Category:19th-century Asian people

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Category:5th-century rulers in Asia (Upmerged yesterday). All contain only 1 subcategory, which is Xth-century monarchs in Asia. Items which did not fit the "rulers" description, such as prime ministers and governors, have been recategorised. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 21 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:6th-century BC rulers to Category:6th-century BC people by occupation
• Propose upmerging Category:5th-century BC rulers to Category:5th-century BC people by occupation
• Propose upmerging Category:4th-century BC rulers to Category:4th-century BC people by occupation
• Propose upmerging Category:3rd-century BC rulers to Category:3rd-century BC people by occupation
• Propose upmerging Category:2nd-century BC rulers to Category:2nd-century BC people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to the CfM 25th-century BC rulers (Upmerged 2 days ago), CfR/CfM 32nd-century BC rulers (Renamed), the 31st-century BC rulers CfR (Renamed), 4th-century rulers in Europe CfM (Upmerged), and 1st- to 19th-century rulers in Africa CfM (Upmerged). Items which did not fit the "rulers" description, such as military personnel and governors, have been recategorised. Category:Ancient governors has been created for this purpose. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 21 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Museums in Beni Abbes to Category:Buildings and structures in Béchar Province and Category:Tourist attractions in Béchar Province

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 21 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.

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 to Category:Buildings and structures in Oran and Category:Healthcare in Oran. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hospitals in Oran to Category:Buildings and structures in Oran

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but also need to add Category:Healthcare in Oran to the single impacted article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 29 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1st-century BC women rulers to Category:1st-century BC queens regnant

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. I checked them all. Almost all were Category:Ancient queens regnant; the few who weren't have been recategorised. (I've created Category:Ancient Greek female tyrants for all Ancient Greek women who were Tyrants but could not be classified as Category:Ancient Greek queens regnant). Follow-up to 2nd-century BC women rulers, 3rd-century BC women rulers and 4th-century BC women rulers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. For regents there is Category:Ancient women regents as an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah in this case there were only 2, so not enough for a split like in previous cases. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nederlandse Leeuw: What do you intend to do with the target title, which is currently occupied by a category with 2 entries? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03 Oh. For some reason Marcocapelle created this page 1 day after I redlinked it as the target of this nom. I guess this means the nom will change from a Rename to a Merge? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does mean the nom will change from a Rename to a Merge. When I created the category I was not instantly realizing it was a rename target here. When I did realized it just after creation, I thought it would not be necessary to have the category instantly deleted per WP:G7. But I can still have that done that if you think it is too confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it will be necessary. LP? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:53, 29 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.

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 and rename. Category:Iranian empresses regnant will be merged to Category:Queens regnant in Asia, while the others will be renamed as proposed by nom. Ultimately, I am not convinced that Acolex2 has made a solid argument for using empress or a Persian title instead of queen. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Persian queens consort to Category:Queens consort of Persia
• Propose merging Category:Iranian empresses into Category:Queens consort of Persia
• Propose renaming Category:Iranian empresses regnant to Category:Queens regnant of Persia
• Propose renaming Category:Iranian queens to Category:Queens consort of Iran
• Propose renaming Category:Queens of the Achaemenid Empire to Category:Queens consort of the Achaemenid Empire

Nominator's rationale: Following recent precedent Category:Queens consort of Bosnia. Category:Iranian empresses (created 3 days ago) just duplicates Category:Persian queens consort, so should be merged into it. "queens consort" is more WP:CATSPECIFIC. "Iranian" or "of Iran" only applies to people after 1500; before then, the country is commonly known as "Persia" in literature. "empresses" is WP:OR; in literature, the monarchs are commonly called "kings" and "queens regnant", the wives of kings "queens consort". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The titles Queen and Empress are to be distinguished. The title King of Kings/Queen of Queens of Iran is commonly seen as equivalent to that of Emperor/Empress. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi officially translated Shahanshah/Shahbanu as Emperor/Empress. Acolex2 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does not justify creating a deviant category. If you wish you should first propose a rename from "kings" to "emperors" and "queens" to "empresses" for the Iranian monarchs categories together. In English-language sources Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was simply referred to as shah, however. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike European languages, the title Shahanshah (king of kings) can also be abbreviated as Shah (king). However, the fact that it is an imperial title does not change. Asian titles are not inferior to European titles. Eurocentrism is not good. Acolex2 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid Eurocentrism if possible, but we do need to write an encyclopaedia in the English language. We can't make up our own words and terms. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "queens consort of" and "queens regnant of", these are quite different. "Persia" seems to be deprecated though, the texts mostly refer to Achaemenid, Parthian and Sasanid Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but that would mean Category:Iranian empresses regnant would have to be deleted instead of renamed. This is the best I could make of it. 'Persia' is just the overarching term for all these monarchies before 1500.

  • Ok let's leave that for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh btw should we merge Category:Wives of Pahlavi Shahs into Category:Queens consort of Iran? It's essentially the same scope. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree with you. The titles Queen and Empress are to be distinguished. A wife of shah ("king") is a queen, and a wife of shahanshah (lit. 'king of kings', "emperor") is an empress. For example, Farah Pahlavi was queen until 1961 and empress from 1961. Acolex2 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Manual follow-up: after the rename Tomyris should be purged. She is already in Category:Queens regnant in Asia and Category:Ancient queens regnant. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. She's also only "Iranian" in a language-family sense, which is WP:NONDEFINING as recently confirmed by a boatload of precedents. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt: propose merging Category:Iranian empresses regnant to Category:Queens regnant in Asia per WP:SMALLCAT. The articles are already in Parthian/Sasanian monarchs categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support this Alt proposal as nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Empires of Iran used imperial titles. Queen is a royal title and not a proper translation. I don't know why you downgrade it. Sometimes Europeans have racism unconsciously, because they made Africans and Asians their slaves. If imperial titles have to be translated, it is good to respect the official translation for each country. Acolex2 (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that you are quite a new editor, Acolex2. Your contributions are welcome, but I think it is a good idea if you make yourself familiar with how Wikipedia works, how we work together, and how Wikipedia:Categorization is done. You may not like the word "queen" because it is English/Germanic, but "empress" is a Latin/Romance word, it also comes from Europe originally. If you can show that the word Shahbanu is frequently used in English-language literature and dynastic titles from Persia/Iran, that would be interesting, and I would be willing to consider it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even in academic journals written in English, there is a distinction between Malekeh (queen) and Shahbanu (empress).

  https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12618131/index.pdf Acolex2 (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. But it's also the only result I get in Google Scholar. So we can't say these are WP:COMMONNAMEs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also only one single passing mention of these terms on Google Books. Not a lot. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You searched for Shabanu with Malekeh. Just search for Shabanu alone.

  And Malekeh means the famous title Malikah, the female version of Malik. It's not a title you don't know. Acolex2 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ijsoctu9&div=71&id=&page= Apart from this one, all Scholar results are about a book called Shabanu, Daughter of the Wind.

  Ah, yes I expected Malekeh to be an Arabic loanword in Persian meaning "queen". But that doesn't result in a lot of coverage in Scholar either. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509208.2022.2041347?journalCode=gqrf20 mentions in passing: '...Malekeh, meaning queen, is a significant name. Malekeh’s physical condition can symbolize the..' In all other cases it appears to be a proper name, such as Malekeh Khanoom in the book The Good Daughter: A Memoir of My Mother's Hidden Life. This can hardly pass as WP:COMMONNAME. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Shahbanu+empress&btnG=

  There are many results for Shahbanu as empress. You know that, but you seem to be deliberately ignoring it. Since you've been working at Wikipedia for a long time, you can't be unaware of it.

  I know that you are sorting the categories on Wikipedia. Would you like to simplify the categories? Be honest about your intentions. It is easier to change Iranian empresses to a queens than to change Iranian queens to empresses. If you're honest, I'll make a concession for you. Acolex2 (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The diversity of Asian titles should not be ignored by Europeans. Even in Asia, there is a distinction between imperial title and royal title. European histories are precious, but Asian histories are equally precious. Simplifying their titles is very disrespectful to Asians. Are you racist like your ancestors? Dutch colonial empire had done terrible things to Asians. The Netherlands should be ashamed of their history and not repeat it. Acolex2 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Acolex2 I must warn you that you cannot accuse fellow editors of racism based on nationality just because you disagree with their points of view. WP:No personal attacks. Let's discuss the content matter, and solve the issues at hand. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:42, 22 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.

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 14:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Secondary School Kanji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, secondary school is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Immanuelle: ... what was your thought on the inclusion criteria for this category? I agree with nominator that it's neither clear nor supported by content in the categorized articles. Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete it. I don't think it is really as useful as I thought it was. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Undefined category, possibly WP:SUBJECTIVECAT if it is about CJK characters typically taught at secondary schools in Japan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:17, 29 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.

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 to Category:Reefs of the South China Sea. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Atolls of the South China Sea to Category:Landforms of the South China Sea

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, while I just added a subcategory it still is a redundant category layer. Possibly merge more specifically to Category:Reefs of the South China Sea instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge following WP:SMALLCAT to Category:Reefs of the South China Sea as an atoll is a specific type of reef. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 29 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.

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:Walking simulators. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Exploration video games to Category:Walking sims

Nominator's rationale: I am putting this up for a CfD because I know the name can be a touchy topic. However, per the walking simulator article, reliable sources continue to use "walking sim" as the WP:COMMONNAME, therefore I believe this category should be retitled accordingly to match the article. I think it's sufficiently explained that despite its negative origins, it is now seen with ambivalence or support by numerous developers of such games, as shown in Kill Screen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The industry has secured "walking sim" as a non-derogatory term for these games, compared to when games like Firewatch and Gone Home first came out. Masem (t) 01:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Walking simulators" to match the parent article? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a bit more concise in a list of categories, but if people think it should be a precise match I have no real issue with it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a strong preference for exact matching. No reason for not including a category redirect of Walking Sims to the full name. Masem (t) 00:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Walking simulator video games. The Wikipedia article notwithstanding, there is other walking simulator hardware and software out there that isn't video games. See for example: [1]] and [2] and [3]. - jc37 12:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And I agree with Masem, above. Category:Exploration video games and Category:Walking sim video games could be category redirects. - jc37 12:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wouldn't all 4X videogames also fall within this category? Those are not walking/driving/first person video games, they have god's eye views -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We're following what the sources include in this genre. If we make up our own criteria, that would be original research. - jc37 23:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  IT is not original research, it is in the name of 4X video games. One of the 4 "X" is "exploration" (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate), therefore explicitly falling within this category, and they are not walking sims -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the link. To clarify then, that's a question of sub-categorization, not of re-naming. While 4X includes all 4 genres, this is only one of those genres. - jc37 00:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Walking simulators (which would be cat'd to gaming categories) as the Walking simulator article itself is only categorized to video game categories. If there were non-game related categories, I'd be of a different opinion. as an aside, I do think that Category:Exploration needs a split between "physical" and "virtual" and the virtual having a "fictional" subcat ... but that is another discussion altogether. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:15, 29 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.

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 due to concerns about infighting over WP:SMALLCAT that is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Fermanagh to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Fermanagh
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Kildare to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Kildare
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Laois to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Laois
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Leitrim to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Leitrim
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Louth to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Louth
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Meath to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Meath
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Offaly to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Offaly
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Waterford to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Waterford
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Westmeath to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Westmeath
• Propose upmerging Category:Police officers from County Wexford to Category:Irish police officers and merge to Category:People from County Wexford

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SmallCat since each of these has less than 4 members. Some are possibly mis-labelled. For example there is only one member each for counties Laois and Offaly: each member died before the creation of the current state so they would not have known their counties by those names; they would have used "Queens's County" and "King's County" respectively. Similarly, the occupants of the Tipperary category were born before the current anschluss; the county names in those days were North Tipperary and South Tipperary. The scope of the remaining categories would also benefit from a note to say that the scope is for people who were born in those counties; like John Cullen (police officer), they may not have served their police careers in their county of birth. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Ireland has been notified of this discussion.

• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, as part of an established series which is still being populated.

The objection on the basis of the names of the counties is beyond absurd. These categories have no timeframe, and we always name categories by the most recent name. f we were to purge Laos an Offaly categories of articles from before 1922, we'd devastate the categories.

As to North Tipperary and South Tipperary, that is nonsense. All the categories for North Tipperary and South Tipperary were merged to County Tipperary. There is reason to make police an eception. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only rationale offered is WP:SmallCat. The other obiter dicta is offered as a curious by-the-way. Regarding "we always name categories by the most recent name", why was that not applied in the case of Walter Edgeworth-Johnstone who was born, not in County Dublin (which is currently abolished as you know), but in the county of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged: Go READ WP:SMALLCAT. You don't even need to read the whole paragraph: Its headline is Small with no no potential for growth.

  Do you understand what no potential for growth means?

  You clearly did not do any WP:BEFORE. In the last hour, I added 100 articles to the 31 subcats of Category:Irish police officers by county. If you had made any attempt to examine the possibility of expansion, you would have bee, aware that these categories have potential for growth.

  Category:Irish police officers by county has 31 subcats (30 counties + the city of Belfast). Between them they now contain 278 articles, which is an average of 8.96 articles per category. That is a healthy size, and there is till room for growth.

  Of course, the distribution is not even, but WP:SMALLCAT has always allowed small categories as part of a series, which this is.

  The whole nomination is at best a act of unintended disruption caused by a failure to do WP:BEFORE. However, I find it very hard to believe that after all your years at CFD you are not aware that WP:SMALLCAT is for categories with "no potential for growth", or that it does not apply to established series.

  Please end the disruption by promptly withdrawing this nomination. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks I would like to offer my thanks to BHG for acknowledging that it was "unintended disruption". It's nice when she assumes that I work in Good Faith. Oh wait...did I just admit to being disruptive. Darn. Sigh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume good faith until the assumption becomes untenable, as it has here.

  But of course it is wholly untrue to say that I was acknowledging that it was "unintended disruption". I said that it is "at best a act of unintended disruption".

  Please stop abusing CFD as a platform to publish untruths as part of your taunting games. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that as a demonstration of LL's bad faith, LL made no response to the expansion of the categories, or to my comments about how WP:SMALLCAT supports keeping these categories. Instead, they just posted snark.

  A good faith editor would at this stage withdraw the nomination, and apologise both the failure to read WP:SMALLCAT and for their lack of WP:BEFORE, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, also merge to a "people from county" category. It escapes me what the encyclopedic value of grouping police officers (or any other occupation) by place of birth is. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Marco. Good suggestion. I've amended the noms accordingly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I agree about the by-county targets, However, any merging should bed one manually, because many of these articles are already in subcats of Category:Irish police officers or in subcats of the relevant "people from county Foo".

Tho of course per WP:SMALLCAT, no merge should happen.

As to occupation by place, the Irish categories for "people from County Foo" were unusably big until I started diffusing them 6 weeks ago. Category:People from County Galway had over 900 articles, and Category:People from County Cork had over 800. They were a jumble of wildly different articles, from medieval scribes to Youtubers to Jacobite soldiers to 6th century Abbots.

I am diffusing them by place and also by occupation ideally both, but rarely by the intersection of town/village and occupation. This diffusion creates more coherent groups of more manageable size which make it easier to find articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Diffusing by place makes sense, by occupation not so much. If they are diffused solely because they are too big then one diffusion criterion should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not the only reason. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - this is not part of "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" being neither large nor accepted; cfd is the place to challenge whether something is 'accepted'. In any case it suffers from WP:NARROWCAT: there is no connection between 'from county' and 'occupation'. This was discussed at length in Architects from Dorset, suggested by user:Johnbod, which was upmerged, nothing to do with smallcat. (It was one of the first appearances of user:Rathfelder's doppelganger user:Bigwig7.) Oculi (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colm Browne's membership of this category is unsourced. Adding unsourced categories is frowned upon. George Kingsmill left Ireland for Canada aged 21 having been in the army; this is categorisation by place of birth, which is discouraged (see WP:COP-PLACE: "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.") So neither of the members of Category:Police officers from County Laois is legitimate, and the category is founded on wishful thinking. Oculi (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, many articles are poorly-sourced. Feel free to add {{fact}} tags, missing refs etc. If the assertion is removed, the category should be remove too.

    WP:COP-PLACE applies only to place of birth, so if someone is born in Derry but raised in Kerry, they should not be be categorised as from Derry. But where the article offers only place of birth, with no assertion of being raised elsewhere, then it is reasonable to assume that they were raised in that place. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi: if you really believe that there is here is no connection between 'from county' and 'occupation', then nominate all the occupational subcats of Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision, Category:People by city and occupation so that the principle can be consistently.

  OTOH, if your objection is to subcatting police by county, then at least add the whole of Category:Irish police officers by county.

  But note that WP:NARROWCAT does not apply here. "Similar intersections can be made for related categories" applies here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Category:Police officers from County Offaly is the same: none of the 4 is notable as a police person in Ireland (the first 3 are sportspeople in Ireland) and none is sourced apart from the last. This appears to be a desperate attempt to avoid grey-links in the elegant by-county template (Category:AllIrelandByCountyCatNav with over 5 grey links) that adorns these unsupported categories. (This is not my nom. I have added nothing; besides one wishes to avoid a 'huge nom'.) I might well consider a nom similar to this, possibly quite soon, based on grey links; most helpful. Oculi (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Oculi, The decision to categorise as cops was not mine; I merely added the by-county cat.. All those I added today were already categorised (not by me) in Category:Garda Síochána officers, and I used a Petscan search to find those not in ay-county cat.

      Calling this a a desperate attempt to avoid grey-links is an unfounded assumption of bad faith. It follows a series if unpleasant and/or hostile encounters with you since I challenged your huge nominations in which you offered no evidence of having done any WP:BEFORE, and where you ignored my calls for it to be provided. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      It's also important to note that the intersection between police and Gaelic games is a notable hot potato: see Rule 21. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Most for Now with no objection to recreating later if they reach 5+ articles. (Meath & Kildare appear to have reached that threshold during this nomination.) The "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" doesn't apply here since so many of the cats are under-populated, although we might eventually reach a tipping point where 1 or 2 cats are small so it makes sense to complete the set to aid navigation. Some of the comments (pro and con) above seem pretty pointed which must be because of issues beyond this nomination, which is pretty mundane. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Having Second Thoughts "Diffusing by place makes sense, by occupation not so much". I'm beginning to regret that I did not nominate the entire "by county" tree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Okay, does that mean you're withdrawing this nomination, or just anticipating future ones? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just anticipating future ones Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep those cats with five or more individual entries. Merge the rest. No prejudice against future recreation if enough articles are created on policeman from a given county to justify re-creation.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend to withdraw nomination given subsequent conflicts between nom and participants over SMALLCAT interpretation and application. When issues have been resolved, the question may be revisited in the future. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend Closing Since the suggested ANI resolution to close all open SMALLCAT nominations was never implemented, there's no firm requirement that this one be closed. But, given that SMALLCAT issues are at ArbComm, closing this still seems prudent. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 24 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.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television stations in the Wheeling–Steubenville market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Television stations in West Virginia and Category:Television stations in Ohio, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I understand the concept of splitting between states, although as I argued below with greater knowledge of the Huntington–Charleston market, these often cross state lines, and I'm not sure why that isn't relevant in at least some cases. But something that makes no sense at all in this and several others is why hyphenation is a problem—many television stations explicitly serve multiple cities or metropolitan areas that are commonly described in a hyphenated (perhaps "en-dashed" would be more accurate) market. If a distinct market is known primarily by the names of two or more of its major constituents, then logically that name should be the name used for categories relating to that particular market. The fact that a particular market is usually known by a "hyphenated" name does not seem to be a valid reason for renaming it, as though the reality of a thing can be determined by how it's punctuated. And if we accept the reality of "hyphenated" markets, then none of the categories nominated for deletion or moving solely on the basis of being "hyphenated" should be moved or deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is the name of the real world media market. Categorizing media by the real world systems they exist in is both appropriate and preferable.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: where P Aculeius refers to as I argued below, they are referring to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 13#Category:Television stations in the Charleston–Huntington market which I closed as keep. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:45, 21 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.

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:Television stations in the Wilkes-Barre–Scranton market * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Scranton, Pennsylvania to Category:Television stations in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: More broadly defined; stations in multiple cities Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or Purge This title more accurately represents the current contents with multiple cities, although there are 5 articles of stations licensed to Scranton. I'll defer to others which direction to go. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Just purge, per RD, moving some articles to Category:Television stations in Pennsylvania. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:Wilkes Barre-Scranton market which is the real world name of this media market. See here.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Television stations in the Wilkes-Barre–Scranton market, per 4meter4. I'm not sure what the correct punctuation is, though, since this is a compound of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; and Scranton, Pennsylvania. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per 4meter4, purge otherwise. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 30 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.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television stations in the Mobile–Pensacola market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Television stations in Alabama and Category:Television stations in Florida, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the same reason in all the earlier nominations. Real world market names and their systems are appropriate ways to categorize media. However, the name in this case is inaccurate. Move to Category:Mobile-Pensacola-Fort Walton Beach market which is the real world name of this media market. See here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 21 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.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television stations in the Monroe–El Dorado market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Television stations in Louisiana and Category:Television stations in Arkansas, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is the name of a real world media market see here. It's appropriate to categorize media into the real world market systems in which they operate. Most of these nominations could have been avoided if the nominator had bothered to do a basic google search before nominating these articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:41, 21 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.

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:Television stations in the Grand Rapids–Kalamazoo–Battle Creek market * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Grand Rapids, Michigan to Category:Television stations in West Michigan

Nominator's rationale: More broadly defined; stations in multiple cities Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or Purge The proposed name more accurately reflects the current contents with multiple cities but I still got up to 5 articles of stations licensed to Grand Rapids. I'll defer to others which direction to go. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Just purge per RD, moving some articles to Category:Television stations in Michigan. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek media market which is the real world name of this media market. See [4].4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Television stations in the Grand Rapids–Kalamazoo–Battle Creek market. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per above, per LaundryPizza. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:38, 30 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.

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:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee–Virginia, market * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities (Tennessee/Virginia) to Category:Television stations in Tri-Cities, Tennessee

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Television stations in Tennessee, there is no Category:Tri-Cities, Tennessee to parent it too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is a clearly defined real world media market which encompasses both South West Virginia as well as part of Tennessee. Categorizing media by the real world markets they actually exist in is both appropriate and a defining feature of these articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: What is the official name of this television market? Would it be Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities market? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: It's Tri-Cities, TN-VA. Same as the current cat name. All of these cats were named after the officially recognized media markets which are used by the entertainment industry, data scientists, market researchers, government regulators for media like the Federal Communications Commission, etc. The likelihood that published RS will reflect the market regions is pretty high. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename to Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee–Virginia, market. Again, I'm not fully confident on the punctuation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per LP as above. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:40, 30 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.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television stations in the Greenville–Spartanburg–Asheville market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Television stations in North Carolina, Category:Television stations in South Carolina and Category:Television stations in Georgia (U.S. state), per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's a specifically defined and designated market area. See Greenville–Spartanburg–Asheville. It makes sense to organize media into the systems in which the media is in fact organized in the real world. Real world markets are not organized by state but by regions which cross state lines.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:41, 21 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.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television stations in the Paducah–Cape Girardeau–Harrisburg market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't make sense to group in a hyphenated market. Move entries to respective state categories. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Television stations in Illinois, Category:Television stations in Kentucky, Category:Television stations in Missouri and Category:Television stations in Tennessee. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's a specifically defined and designated market area. See Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg. It makes sense to organize media into the systems in which the media is in fact organized in the real world. Real world markets are not organized by state but by region which cross state lines.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:41, 21 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.

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 14:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ukrainian historical regions outside of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Regions that were never part of Ukraine and simply includes any territories that had Ukrainian settlers. Also WP:NONDEF. Mellk (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of articles is already in Category:Ukrainian diaspora in Russia, e.g. regions in the Far East. Other articles are about regions bordering to Ukraine with a sizeable Ukrainian-speaking population. The word "settlers" is inappropriate in the latter case, it is just that country borders have not been drawn exactly along language borders. Perhaps rename to Category:Geographical spread of the Ukrainian language. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of the articles are about regions that today are Ukrainian-speaking while others are about colonies that had Ukrainian minorities but no longer do. As a whole, they cannot be considered "Ukrainian historical regions". Dobruja is also included but I am not sure how this a historical Ukrainian territory, there were only some settlers for a brief period of time. Mellk (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that "Ukrainian historical regions" is inappropriate. But what about the rename? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it works for now. Mellk (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose that such a concept exists and all these regions have been inhabited by Ukrainians for a long time.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what do you think of the rename? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Marcocapelle, and because the proposed refactoring would be redundant to Category:Ukrainian diaspora. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:59, 30 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.

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 to Category:Star Wars Jedi and rename the latter to Category:Star Wars Jedi (series). (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Star Wars Jedi literature to Category:Star Wars Jedi

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Also added renaming the parent Category:Star Wars Jedi to Category:Star Wars Jedi (series). Which also matches Category:Star Wars Jedi (series) characters. This also to reduce confusion with Category:Jedi. - jc37 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question Why is it that video game series so often use only (series) as a disambuguator while film series and TV series always use the full terms? This seems odd to me. Also, there is no main article for this series, it only has two games, so I question somewhat if there even needs to be a category as there are only four articles.★Trekker (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are a lot of video game series articles or categories that you have seen, I guess? In general, we start with (series), and then add the type (film, video game, whatever), if necessary.

Once this merge and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_26#Category:Star_Wars_Jedi_(series)_characters are resolved we can look to see what is left. That said, I think it's fair to say that the main category probably would have enough to be a subcat of the Category:Star Wars video games tree. - jc37 23:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/Merge both. - jc37 13:50, 21 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.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video games about birthdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a WP:CATDEF whatsoever, video games that feature a birthday in some capacity. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be defining at least for some articles e.g. Blue's Birthday Adventure. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Marco. Many of the games explicitly mention "birthday" or are evidently about reaching a certain age, like Mary-Kate and Ashley: Sweet 16 – Licensed to Drive. Perhaps Keep & Purge? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A lot of these seems to explicitly be about birthdays and birthday celebrations, seems to meet WP:CATDEF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:29, 24 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.

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 14:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Political prisoners by country to Category:Political prisoners by country of detention
• Propose renaming Category:Hong Kong political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners in Hong Kong
• Propose renaming Category:Indonesian political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners in Indonesia
• Propose renaming Category:Omani political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners in Oman
  • Alt: Delete Category:Omani political prisoners per WP:SMALLCAT
• Propose renaming Category:Polish political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners in Poland (also per WP:C2D Political prisoners in Poland)
• Propose renaming Category:Romanian political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners in Romania
• Propose renaming Category:Russian political prisoners to Category:Political prisoners in Russia

• Convert All Fooian prisoners and detainees parent categories to a Template:Category see also: Fooian prisoners and detainees

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Category:Dutch political prisoners. The category tree is about the country where the prisoners have been detained, not the nationality of the prisoners. Therefore, all parent categories named Fooian prisoners and detainees also need to be converted into Template:Category see also messages at the top; this is relevant, but not a completely overlapping category type, because it is nationality-based rather than country-of-detention-based. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Object to deleting/renaming but would support creating separate tree based on location. Some individuals there are based on their nationality, not location. I know for a fact that many Polish political prisoners (see main article, also see Category:Poles - political prisoners in the Prussian partition by User:Wikibenchris) were imprisoned in Russia or Germany, during times Poland did not exist as a separate country, and/or outside any territories considered "Polish" (ex. Walerian Łukasiński, and yes, for him it is a defining category; he belongs in both Category:Polish political prisoners and Category:Political prisoners in Russia - or better, Category:Poles - political prisoners in the Russian partition which I'll create, and which is well populated on pl wiki). I am reasonably sure some Hong Kong political prisoners were imprisoned in mainland China too, not HK itself. Bottom lines, we need political prisoner categories both based on the ethnicity/nationality of the inmate, and on the location or other definining characteristic of the imprisoning authority. PS. I would not oppose renaming of the two "political prisoners in... partition" categories by changing partition to Kingdom of Prussia/Russian Empire, as has been done on pl wiki, and I am not sure if "Poles - " is superior to "Polish". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary I would strongly oppose having two almost duplicate trees. Poland is quite an exceptional case when it comes to duplication and the exception only applies to a certain period (end of 18th century to WW I). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus We've already got Category:Polish prisoners and detainees for Prisoners and detainees of Polish nationality. This category tree is country-of-detention-based, not nationality-based. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nederlandse Leeuw That category is for regular criminals, not political prisoners (although political prisoners can be argued to be a subcategory of sorts). I don't see how its existence changes anything. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hardly Polish only, I already commented on Chinese. We need Category:Ukrainian political prisoners (in Russia... [5]). And I guess Category:Lithuanian political prisoners (in Russia...[6]) (and in Lithiania...? [7]). Estonian, in Russia, again: Ints Cālītis for Category:Estonian political prisoners. Note all of those are from USSR period, not the Russian Empire. I am sure earlier ones can be found too. PS. I'll also note the existence of related Category:People imprisoned abroad by nationality, which contains some political prisoners, obviously. And overall separate trees for Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality andCategory:Prisoners and detainees by country‎. One's nationality and one's country of imprisonment are not always the same. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Object per @Piotrus rationale. It's not only about Poland, for example Romanian Horia Sima was a political prisoner in Germany, Buchenwald to be exact. OUN-B leadership was also detained there, as well as Stefan Grot-Rowecki and others. Category by nationality is by far more useful than category by location. Marcelus (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got Category:Polish prisoners and detainees for Prisoners and detainees of Polish nationality. This category tree is country-of-detention-based, not nationality-based. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, there were non-Polish political prisoners in Germany (and Austria). Ex. Czech [8], [9]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming. For example, many Poles have been political prisoners during various periods, in countries other than Poland.

And the proposed "Category:Political prisoners in Poland" could relate to non-Poles who were political prisoners in Poland, e.g., Ukrainians during the Interbellum at Bereza Kartuska.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another good point. Ukrainian political prisoners category, which I intended to create shortly, can contain both Ukrainians imprisoned in Poland and Russia (USSR). In the long run, we would probably need specific categories like Category:Ukrainian political prisoners in Poland, Category:Ukrainian political prisoners in Russia (subcat, USSR) etc. Related: Category:Inmates of Bereza Kartuska Prison. Famous example: Stepan Bandera, who was also arguably a Category:Ukrainian political prisoners in Germany (subcat, Nazi Germany; he died in Auschwitz; to quote from his biography in our article: "In January 1942, Bandera was transferred to Sachsenhausen concentration camp's special prison cell building (Zellenbau) for high-profile political prisoners"). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the proposed "Category:Political prisoners in Poland" could relate to non-Poles who were political prisoners in Poland, e.g., Ukrainians during the Interbellum at Bereza Kartuska. Yes, that's the point. The country of detention - Poland in this case - is what counts, not the nationality of the prisoners - Ukrainian in this case.

I see that almost all objections here are raised against renaming the Polish political prisoners to Political prisoners in Poland, despite the main article being called Political prisoners in Poland. Maybe we should make an exception in this case to have two parallel categories named Polish political prisoners AND Political prisoners in Poland? Instead of Renaming the former to the latter, we Keep the former and Create & Populate the latter. Apparently the differences between them are too great and I'm not actually opposed to having them both. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw Why not have both trees for all countries? Poland is not the only country for which this makes sense, as demonstrated by examples above. And we all know that folks will (re)create such categories anyway, unless we salt them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can. In that case we just need to clearly separate the trees of Category:Prisoners and detainees by country (of detention) (e.g. "in Poland) and Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality (e.g. "Polish"). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and as I noted earlier, I'd support that. Both trees should exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think there is consensus to create a new tree based on Category:Political prisoners by country of detention, but not to delete/depopulate the existing one. However, renaming Category:Political prisoners by country to Category:Political prisoners by nationality and making it a subcat of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality might be good to clearify any confusion about scope. Thoughts? @[[ User:Nederlandse Leeuw, User:Marcocapelle, User:Marcelus, User:Nihil novi. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a clear and comprehensive solution to the matter.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about this. I think Piotrus has made a sufficient case for a category for political prisoners with Polish nationality, but on the other hand I think Marcocapelle is right that there is a risk of two largely overlapping trees. I'm particularly opposed to creating an entire tree just for the sake of having a tree, even if we can't fill it properly. With the recent discussions going on about WP:SMALLCAT, I would also advise not to create any new category for political prisoners by nationality until we can populate it with at least 5 items (more if possible), especially if the nationality of said people cannot be unambiguously established (e.g. is there a "Polish nationality" after 1795, when the Polish-Lithuanian state was destroyed, and before the Interwar Period, when the Second Polish Republic was established?). So I would strongly recommend a case-by-case approach. With Polish nationals, we probably can populate it, and this can be our first cautious experiment. If we agree that this is a good idea, we could look carefully at other options. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly fine respecting SMALLCAT, but most if not all of the categories you proposed for renaming are not SMALLCATs. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree with two whole trees at all because they will largely be overlapping. At most we make an exception just for Polish political prisoners. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support by country is the existing tree and by nationality cats should only be created if not sufficiently overlapping and defining on their own, which I doubt. The Polish example does not seem like a good one because the individuals were political prisoners for following various Polish political movements, not for being Polish nationals/citizens as the nationality/citizenship trees are generally organized. Creating a separate tree of people who were made political prisoners according to the political movement(s) they were involved in seems reasonable. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the support. I don't think your last suggestion will be a good idea. E.g. Category:Murdered socialists is still being considered for deletion. I went through the whole category, and usually it seems they were "murdered" not for "being a socialist", but for publishing writings containing socialist or anti-capitalist ideas. I've argued that is more a freedom of the press / expression issue than it is specifically socialism-related.

  One Kazakh Soviet leader was executed during the Great Purge, but probably not for "being a socialist". At that time in the Soviet Union, everyone in power was a socialist by legal necessity. So that cannot have been a reason, and it's just misleading to categorise them as such. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renaming proposals as they offer greater precision; use of the demonym masks / fudges genuine underlying differences. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged To be clear, whose proposal do you suppose? Both the OP and me proposed some renaming, but they are not the same. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the original proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original proposal — it has been asserted without much evidence that the detaining country is the relevant aspect; it has been demonstrated with copious examples that in fact the prisoner’s nationality is often more important. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the original proposal. Piotrus, Marcelus and others demonstrated clearly that both category trees - "Fooian political prisoners" and "Political prisoners in Foo" are needed, as both are defining. And no, it's not only a "Polish problem". Dozens of Estonian politicians ended up in Soviet prisons as political prisoners, for example. - Darwinek (talk) 19:21, 26 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.

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 consensus is that the late additions to the category are not defining, so we fall back deleting the category and merging the main article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Asset stripping to Category:Corporate finance

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:C2F, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Asset stripping is generally considered malpractice, and it is surprising that there is only one entry for this Category. However, Corporate finance is not a category I would ever look for, let alone choose in lieu of the current Category. There are articles in the press about putative asset strippers, e.g. Jim Slater, Mitt Romney and Tesco, and WP articles exist about them. So for now, I would prefer to allow research to take its course if there are existing articles, and potentially future articles that could justifiably be included in the Category. Existing articles may need to add cited contributions dealing with Asset Stripping if there isn’t enough already in the body to justify addition to the category at present. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge for Now per WP:C2F with no objction to recreation if 5+ articles appear, as Chrisdevelop expects. (That growth might be challenging though since the claim is potentially libelous and so seldomly prosecuted.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I have added a few, with additions to each article with supporting citations: Bain Capital, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, CVC Capital Partners, Culligan, Permira, Mitt Romney, Jim Slater (accountant), The AA but it remains to be seen whether these will be challenged. Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection: asset stripping is not a defining characteristic of any of the articles that were added. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The recent addition of several articles has been objected. Previously, this included only the main article, Asset stripping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Thanks for relisting. Yes, I saw that, however on none of the 8 edited pages has any other editor flagged concern or reverted the addition of new material to the respective articles, or the additional categorisation for each. All 8 of these subjects have been involved in Asset Stripping controversies, and I have several more, pending the outcome of this discussion. Under WP:CAT, "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs," and "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic." Not every 'defining' characteristic has to be the main attribute or even the most significant of the subject, only that it is frequently associated. For each of the 8 articles, I easily found, and added references to reliable sources that comport with this requirement. While it is of course open to the objecting editor to go and revert every one of my additions, I would ask that they instead allow time to pass to see what response we get from other editors. Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm neutral on whether this should exist or not, or whether it has the potential for expansion or not, but I've removed the (newly added) articles of people from the category, as inappropriate. (See also WP:BLP.) I'll let others decide whether the companies should be removed as well. - jc37 12:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Then, if not deleted, the category should be renamed to Category:Companies involved in asset stripping. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Marco - non defining. Rename per Marco if kept. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - well, 2 questions. Even if this is renamed to a more precise name, a.) are we sure this isn't all WP:OR? and b.) if it can be determined that this isn't WP:OR, per verifiable reliable sources, would this be considered WP:DEFINING for these companies? - jc37 07:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jc37, I don't think it's OR, but it's also not defining. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Upmerge only the article Asset stripping. - So I spent some time looking around Category:Corporate finance and its subcats and parent cats. And I'm not seeing categories of companies based upon some action they may engage in. And I don't think that's a tree that should be started. This just begs for verifiable reliable sources, which as we all know, isn't possible in a category. Weak support for listification if there are references to support it. - jc37 12:25, 21 August 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.

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. It seems that the title and scope of 2015 European migrant crisis, including a possible missing broader article, should be reevaluated before any action can be taken. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Maritime incidents related to the European migrant crisis to Category:Maritime incidents related to the European migrant crises

Nominator's rationale: European migrant crisis currently redirects to 2015 European migrant crisis, but the category also includes incidents from other years (such as 2013 and 2018), so a wider scope may be warranted. Brandmeister^talk 17:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I stared at this longer than I care to admit trying to figure out what you changed! - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes happens to me as well... Brandmeister^talk 07:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Alt Rename This rename is fine but we could also rename it to Category:Maritime incidents related to the 2015 European migrant crisis and manually move some articles to the parent category, Category:Migrant boat incidents. I defer to other editors on the best approach. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @RevelationDirect: I think your alt merge is meant as something like Category:Maritime incidents related to the 2015 European migrant crisis, is that right? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, your right! Updated the proposed name (but didn't do underline or strikethru). - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, I am not sure whether this is considered as multiple crises. In 2015 there was a peak in the number of migrants, but it is an ongoing phenomenon. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps then the parent article's title should be discussed. An alternative solution is speedy renaming this to Category:Maritime incidents related to the 2015 European migrant crisis per C2D and then purging the category from unrelated incidents. Brandmeister^talk 07:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parent article's title need not be discussed per se, but a broader article European migrant crisis seems to be lacking altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other parent category should definitely be renamed from Category:Migrant boat incidents to Category:Maritime incidents involving migrants since many of the vessels are ships. (I was debating taking it to speedy but didn't want to disrupt this nomination.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Titles of associated pages, such as 2015 European migrant crisis will need to be evaluated before we can act on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not believe that speedy-renaming the parent will have any effect on this CfD, which is only about Category:Maritime incidents related to the European migrant crisis. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A late further comment: I notice that one of the parent categories uses the same format: Category:European migrant crisis, without a period attached to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:01, 21 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.

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, due to not serving a purpose. - Note that Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_20#Template:R_with_Wikidata_item was closed as "no consensus", with a potential possibility for deletion of the template. - jc37 06:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikidata redirects to Category:Redirects connected intentionally to a Wikidata item

Nominator's rationale: To ensure consistency with Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, I propose renaming the category to Redirects connected intentionally to a Wikidata item. The latter category is automatically assigned by the Mediawiki software when a redirect is connected to a Wikidata item. However, the category I am suggesting to rename is only applied when someone deliberately adds the {{R with Wikidata item}}. To execute this request, it would be necessary to edit the protected {{R with Wikidata item}}. Laxeril (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This tracking category, as well as the template that populates it, serve no discernible purpose, and the automatic tracking system should be sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom blocked as sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer to TfD for Template:R with Wikidata item. If that is deleted, then this category will be automatically deleted per G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TfD still open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I would still support deletion even if the template is kept. I can (barely) see value of using a template to document the fact that a redirect is connected to Wikidata, but really cannot see the value of a category listing only the redirects some human has decided to add the template to when another category listing all such redirects already exists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Pppery. The category documentation explains that "This is a maintenance category, used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project.", but it does not explain how the category is used for maintenance of Wikipedia. We should not be wasting precious resources on maintaining categories that serve no purpose. I'm open to changing my mind if someone can adequately explain the purpose. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:09, 28 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.

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:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe and Category:Archaeological cultures of Southern Europe. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Archaeological cultures of Southwestern Europe to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Category:Archaeology of Northwestern Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe and Category:Archaeological cultures of Southern Europe, southwestern Europe is a rarely used geographical term. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We've recently upmerged several categories with "Western Europe" or "Southern Europe" in it per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. The same happened for Category:Archaeology of Northwestern Europe, to which this is a follow-up. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you intend to object to the split, you'd need to nominate Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe and Category:Archaeological cultures of Southern Europe as well. As long as Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe and Category:Archaeological cultures of Southern Europe exist they are the proper targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. Then I'm sticking to my original plan to use this as a test case for later follow-ups. I'm not opposed to a split, but only as a temporary, intermediate step, which should not legitimise them as categories. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe and Category:Archaeological cultures of Southern Europe oer Marco. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per Marcocapelle's suggestion. I do not see a reason to have continent-wide categories for archaeological cultures, instead of covering specific regions. Dimadick (talk) 15:05, 21 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1st-millennium BC assassinated politicians to Category:Ancient assassinated people
• Propose merging Category:1st-century BC assassinated politicians to Category:Ancient assassinated people
• Propose merging Category:3rd-century assassinated politicians to Category:Ancient assassinated people updated 9 July
• Propose deleting Category:1st-millennium assassinated heads of state to Category:Ancient assassinated people added 9 July

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, apart from monarchs we know only few people who were assassinated in ancient times, not enough for a very detailed tree. The third category can just be deleted because Aurelian is already in Category:3rd-century murdered monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we hold on to 3rd-century assassinated politicians? I am still categorizing assassinated politicians by time from the by nationalities tree. It may take me a few weeks to finish. So far I have found a few others for the 3rd century. Thinker78 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Edited 00:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed "delete" to "merge". The third century was particularly unstable in China, so it is not too surprising that a few generals were assassinated. As I mentioned in another discussion, calling generals and government officials "politicians" (as happens a lot in Chinese biographies) is plain wrong. Perhaps it is a translation error. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it happens a lot in Chinese biographies, then probably that should stand if those are reliable sources. I have to point out I did not categorize those people as politicians, other editors did. I am simply working my way in the Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality. It would take me maybe a couple of years to verify each one of the entries whether they are politicians or not. Specially if there are discussions involved. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was not referring to reliable sources, but to Wikipedia biographies. It makes sense that you rely on previous editors' assessments, but if you start a project like this you should at least know that the term politician is rarely applicable in antiquity or in the middle ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Investigating the Relationships between Scholars and Politicians in Ancient China: Taking the Yuanyou Era as an Example".^[1] Thinker78 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We already have a category tree for Murdered monarchs, I don't think we need a separate one for "politicians". In some of these cases, as you say, they overlap. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, maybe Category:1st-millennium assassinated heads of state should be added to this nomination as there are no other century/millennium/time categories for Category:Assassinated heads of state and the category just holds four Roman emperors some of whom are also in Category:1st-century murdered monarchs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I will. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is not a viable breakdown. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:24, 21 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.

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:Medieval Irish-language texts and purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Texts of medieval Ireland to Category:Texts from medieval Ireland
  • Alt rename 1 Category:Texts of medieval Ireland to Category:Texts produced in medieval Ireland
  • Alt rename 2 Category:Texts of medieval Ireland to Category:Texts about medieval Ireland; re-parent to Category:Works about Ireland, and purge all items which are not about medieval Ireland
  • Alt rename 3 & purge (jc37 & Marcocapelle) Category:Texts of medieval Ireland to Category:Medieval Irish-language texts

Nominator's rationale: WP:CATSPECIFIC. Grandparent Category:Medieval texts is in Category:Texts by date, so we should interpret "of medieval" to mean when these texts were written, not that they are about "medieval Ireland" as a topic. It is not yet clear whether the texts need to be produced in medieval Ireland itself. For instance, Proverbia Grecorum is unsure: compiled in the seventh or eighth century AD in the British Isles, probably in Ireland. But this does seem to be the intention of "Ireland", because the contents of this work are not "about Ireland", but about sayings of the Ancient Greeks. For this reason, Alt rename 1 Category:Texts produced in medieval Ireland may be even better. At any rate, this category is not language-based, as child Category:Latin texts of medieval Ireland shows, so parent Category:Irish texts (in the Category:Texts by language tree) should be removed. I'm using this as a test case to see if similar categories should also be renamed to make this clear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt rename 2 rationale: Another approach would be to rescope this category to be about medieval Ireland, but that would require putting it in a different tree, like Category:Works about Ireland, and purging it. It's not the most obvious choice, unless we regard country of production as something WP:NONDEFINING. I currently lean towards this opinion, because items such as Proverbia Grecorum are of unknown country of production, so it can hardly be defining for them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: This relates to what we've been talking about. I think this is meant to be a "texts by medieval country of production" category (so I guess Category:Texts produced in medieval Ireland would be even better), but the name and one of its parents doesn't make that clear. Moreover, from some items such as the Proverbia Grecorum it is uncertain where they were produced originally. What do you think we should do with it? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered a similar problem at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 5#Category:Medieval documents of Norway: The current name is ambiguous. Are these medieval documents... Written in Norway? Found in Norway? Owned by Norway? Preserved in Norway? Or... about Norway? I think they are about Norway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Texts produced in medieval Ireland" is the most logical to me. Although I would regard "Texts from medieval Ireland" as equivalent, it is slightly less clear. ("Produced" could be "written" or "composed".) "Texts about medieval Ireland" is too broad. It encompasses books published this year. I assume the purpose of the category was to grab only medieval texts. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also assume that texts produced in the Middle Ages was the intended purpose, because it is in grandparent Category:Texts by date. But because we are talking not talking about manuscripts here, but even more abstract "texts" (which we may presume means the Autograph (manuscript)/holograph), which is in countless cases has been lost, we may have to Purge lots of items from this category on account of uncertainty of the country of production. E.g. some of the earliest manuscripts containing the Proverbia Grecorum have Old Irish glosses in them, but that doesn't definitively prove the original was "produced in Ireland". It could also have been England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall etc., as the article says all surviving manuscript [sic] have an Anglo-Saxon or Celtic connection. I'm not sure if we Wikipedians are in a position to decide it is a "Latin text produced in Ireland", just because that is the most likely candidate.

Moreover, what if it was produced in Northern Ireland? Category:History of Ireland is both in the Category:History by country (which suggests "Ireland" means Republic of Ireland, so the Proverbia would be out) and Category:Ireland (meaning the island of Ireland, so the Proverbia would be in).

More generally, Category:Medieval texts by region is quite a small and odd category, in which Category:Texts of medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina (obvious reference to modern country/borders) sits alongside Category:Texts of Anglo-Saxon England (the Category:History of England by period tree recognises "England" as a "former country"), Category:Texts of medieval France (ambiguous, does that include Corsica and Franche-Comté or not?), Category:Texts of medieval Ireland (this CfR), and child Category:Medieval documents by country. As far as I can tell, Category:Texts of medieval Ireland is the only subcategory of Category:Medieval texts by region in which "Ireland" could be understood as a "region" (namely, an island) rather than a (former) country.

I'm not sure if Category:Medieval texts by region really adds anything in particular to the other manuscript, chronicle, literature etc. trees we already have. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I've CfR'd Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 16#Category:Irish texts as well, because users evidently interpreted "Irish" as both "Irish-language" and "pertaining to Ireland". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments (copied from above) - I'm looking at Literature and Text (literary theory). And I'm wondering why we have separate trees for them. Semantically, one could argue that a "text" is the physical object, while the "literature" is what has been written upon the object. But, I think that's where we get manuscript categories. - jc37 08:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Medieval Irish literature or, if no consensus for renaming from "text" to "literature", then: Rename to Category:Medieval Irish-language texts to match Category:Irish-language texts. - jc37 08:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge to Category:Medieval Irish-language texts to match Category:Irish-language texts. This is a set category so it should be under Category:Medieval Irish literature if that would exist. (It would not surprise me when we would have enough topic articles to create Category:Medieval Irish literature but that is beyond this CfD discussion.) Keeping this as a category by location is problematic as nom has sufficiently explained before. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear, I as nom now support Alt rename 3 & purge (jc37 & Marcocapelle). That means us three agree. Srnec favours Alt rename 1. There are no other votes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:28, 21 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.

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. Users agree that it is well-defined, ulike Category:Conceptual systems which will be upmerged and purged. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Physical systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "physical system" is a WP:DICTDEF, and with the exception of Category:Thermodynamic systems the contents are more appropriate as parts of various engineering disciplines. The definition on the page also differs from the (likely more reliable) definition given by Mario Bunge here, which is "A physical system is anything existing in spacetime and such that it either behaves or is handled as a whole in at least one respect." - something far too broad for useful categorization - car chasm (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — this category was extensively discussed in 2007 when it was created. What Wikipedia policy has changed since then? Of course, this is a broad category, high-level categories are naturally broad. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "Hydraulics" and "machines" have in common that they are systems??? Come on. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Related Nom There is an open nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 16#Category:Systems and Category:Conceptual systems. Your input (pro/con/other) is welcome there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Remove Cat Header if Kept WP:SUBJECTIVECAT & WP:SYNTH. We have an actual main article in the article space at Physical system and header to the category that seems to rival the main article for inclusion criteria. And, if you are confused as to which applies for categorization, there is a WikiProject discussion from 2007 which seems to effectively downplay the importance of the WP:SYNTH policy. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Systems. Merge Category:Conceptual systems and Category:Physical systems to it, and prune as appropriate. While the latter seems a valid definition for categorisation, it does look like it was merely created to complement Category:Physical systems. But Systems itself, seems rather unambiguous. (Copied comment from here.) - jc37 07:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I struck physical systems. After reading Fayenatic london's comments below and re-looking over the categories and Physical systems, I think we should Keep Category:Physical systems. But Category:Conceptual systems still looks like it could hold anything called a "system". So I think that's still a Merge to Category:Systems. - jc37 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the other two former siblings, Biological systems and Social systems, were removed from Systems by the nominator, partly because they are parented by other sub-cats Systems science and Systems theory respectively. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting alongside related nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just for clarity, I support Keeping Category:Physical systems. - jc37 12:12, 21 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.

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. Category:Conceptual systems to Category:Systems. There is no consensus on Category:Systems, other than to purge the combined category. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Conceptual systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME, appears to have been created as a WP:SYNTH category for an ambitious project back in 2007 - car chasm (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was a long discussion on this in 2007 after the original versions of systems categories were deleted. The consensus then was to reinstate them. Has Wikipedia policy changed on this? In this case, we need evidence of the change in policy since 2007. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this section of that long discussion, it doesn't link to the WP:SYNTH policy or WP:SHAREDNAME guideline but the concerns are almost identical to the ones raised here. The policy and guideline have not changed since 2007; the question is does this "new" category do a better job of following them? - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was struck when reading that discussion on how legitimate policy concerns kept being brought up, which were then simply ignored by the members of the wikiproject! It seems like they just waited until everyone else lost interest and pushed their own ideas through. - car chasm (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While working on conceptual system, I found a citation (Anna M Borghi, Laura Barca, Ferdinand Binkofski, and Luca Tommolini - 2018, specifically section 3A) which disproves the charge of WP:SYNTH -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Remove Cat Headers if Kept Normally the problem with inclusion criteria is that there is not a main article, but here it's what Conceptual system does say:

In psychology, a conceptual system is an individual's mental model of the world. In humans, a conceptual system may be understood as kind of a metaphor for the world.

That's it! There are references and further links but that's the entire narrative of the article. The category then has it's own completely different definition in the header, but neither one is a clear inclusion criteria. Same issue with the parent category, dueling definitions in the main article and the category header and neither seems actionable.

In practice, both cats seem to rely heavily on WP:SHAREDNAME. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I augmented the article. (catmain for Conceptual system ) Got rid of the duelling definitions in favor of the article. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These two categories seem like useful container categories. They classify articles by content rather than name. Re the definitions, both may be valid, depending on the field and context. The article itself seems like a dictionary definition. --TadejM ^{my talk} 16:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the commonalities between the subcategories is utterly vague, apart from the names of course. Category:Systems science and Category:Systems theory should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Related Nom There is an open discussion about deleting Category:Physical systems. Your input (pro/con/other) is welcome right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as useful container categories; there are structures in mathematics which echo the thoughts and actions referred to, but which I do not name, as a precaution against attack either upon articles, or upon their containers. However in philosophy, the deductive-nomological model is a useful starting place. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Systems. Merge Category:Conceptual systems and Category:Physical systems to it, and prune as appropriate. (I guess I'll need to copy this comment there.) While the latter seems a valid definition for categorisation, it does look like it was merely created to complement Category:Physical systems. But Systems itself, seems rather unambiguous. - jc37 07:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I struck physical systems. After reading Fayenatic london's comments below and re-looking over the categories and Physical systems, I think we should Keep Category:Physical systems. But Category:Conceptual systems still looks like it could hold anything called a "system". So I think that's still a Merge to Category:Systems. - jc37 14:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the other two former siblings of Conceptual and Physical systems, viz. Biological systems and Social systems, were removed from Systems by the nominator, partly because they are parented by other sub-cats Systems science and Systems theory respectively. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't fault the conclusion of jc37. The current function of Conceptual systems is to remove clutter from Systems, but there is no positive shared connection between its contents. Merge and redirect Conceptual systems to the parent. We should redirect it to keep connections traceable, as so many other Wikipedias have copied the current structure from enwiki. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense. Hadn't thought about inter-wikification that goes on, especially for top-level categories. - jc37 15:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It still surprises that WP:SHAREDNAME does not play any role in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "But Category:Conceptual systems still looks like it could hold anything called a "system"." - aka - WP:SHAREDNAME  : ) - jc37 00:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerging Category:Conceptual systems, as proposed by User:Fayenatic london, does not solve the WP:SHAREDNAME issue, it merely moves the issue to a different place. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everything sharing the name is being collected in Systems, e.g. Category:Canadian television systems is not in it. It is for systems i.e. "groups of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole". Although that definition sounds as if it would includes organsations, I don't think the category is being misused in that way. – Fayenatic London 13:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just for clarity, I support Keeping Category:Systems, and UpMerging Category:Conceptual systems, to it. (And pruning at editorial discretion, as appropriate.) - jc37 12:12, 21 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.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Newbury Park, California to Category:People from Thousand Oaks, California

Nominator's rationale: As Newbury Park, California states, it is not an independent town but a neighborhood in another town. Newbury Park has a population of roughly 26,000 and does not need to be split off from the larger town. User:Namiba 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (leaving redirect) per nom. Without a redirect, I suspect this will reoccur. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What Newbury Park's article actually says is that most of it is a neighborhood in Thousand Oaks, but that it also includes unincorporated county islands that aren't part of Thousand Oaks, such as Casa Conejo and Ventu Park. So a person might very well be "from" one of those "islands", and thus from Newbury Park but not from Thousand Oaks per se, with the problem being that it isn't always properly sourceable whether the person is from the in-Thousand-Oaks part of Newbury Park or the not-in-Thousand-Oaks part of Newbury Park.
  For a similar example, there's a fairly large neighbourhood in the Greater Toronto Area called Thornhill which isn't its own municipality, but is half in the city of Markham and half in the city of Vaughan — but because it's extremely common for people to be identified in the media as just "from Thornhill" with absolutely no properly sourceable clarification of whether they live east or west of Yonge Street, we've had to maintain Category:People from Thornhill, Ontario precisely because we can't always find adequate confirmation of whether an individual Thornhill resident would belong in Category:People from Vaughan or Category:People from Markham, Ontario.
  This is like that: there are parts of Newbury Park that are in Thousand Oaks and parts of Newbury Park that aren't, and it isn't always properly sourceable which part is applicable. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't sourceable, then it is can be moved into Category:People from Ventura County, California. Newbury Park is governed by Thousand Oaks town government. As the article states, "Newbury Park is a neighborhood of Thousand Oaks, which has numerous times been ranked among the safest communities in the United States.[17][18]"--User:Namiba 22:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is from an unincorporated section the county, they should be merged into Category:People from Ventura County, California. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's almost always impossible to know whether any given person is from the Thousand Oaks part or the unincorporated part at all. People's specific street addresses are normally not given out in their media coverage on privacy grounds, so for people from split communities it's not generally possible to know which portion of the split is applicable — we almost invariably have no way to know whether a resident of Thornhill is from the Markham part of Thornhill or the Vaughan part of Thornhill, and we almost invariably have no way to know whether a resident of Newbury Park is from the Thousand Oaks part of Newbury Park or the unincorporated part of Newbury Park. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bearcat. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good point @Bearcat:, it's not like we'll getting out land records to see which side of the city line they ended up on. I struck my !vote and will defer to the other editors. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:32, 21 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.