Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

February 12[edit]

Category:People with type 2 diabetes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT and maybe WP:PERFCAT)
I certainly can't argue WP:SMALLCAT here since there is definitely growth potential for what was formerly known as adult-onset diabetes. According to the Type 2 diabetes article there were 392 million people with the disease in 2005 and the World Health Organization classifies it as a global epidemic. Wikipedia is not a place for medical records for every medical issue encountered in a person's life. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't recall the reason why I created this, but suspect it may have had something to do with there being a category for people with type 1 diabetes. That category in itself probably doesn't include everyone with the condition, and should probably also be reviewed. In any case, I tend to agree with the nominator. We're not a medical records database. This is Paul (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Too common to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defing. Especially since many of these people will only develop the condition long after they retire from public view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Place names of German origin in Romania[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:V, and WP:SHAREDNAME)
Two of the these towns were founded by Danube Swabians which is absolutely defining but they are already categorized under Category:Former Danube Swabian communities in Romania. Pătârlagele may have been named by the Teutonic Order. The rest of the article titles aren't even place names of German origin but, rather, had a former German spelling/name that is listed parenthetically in the lede, like with Holbav aka "Holbach". Even though this isn't quite a standard WP:SHAREDNAME category, it sure seems non-defining. (We recently deleted French named suburbs of Pittsburgh right here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background This category came during this open nom; tagging all earlier participants regardless of !vote: @Good Olfactory, Carlossuarez46, LevitatePalantir, William Allen Simpson, Marcocapelle, Place Clichy, and Johnpacklambert: - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete German and Saxon settlement in areas now in Romania is historic and notable, whether over the years the settlements thus founded retained German/-ic names is not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify. This is not a WP:defining feature of these places. German and Saxon history in Transylvania and Banat is important, and there are articles of lists of place name etymologies, but this makes a bad category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — they are already mentioned in various articles, there's no need for yet another duplicative list, unless somebody finds a broader list for them as happened with Pittsburgh->Pennsylvania.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the linguistic origin of place names is non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I thought I would be opposing this one and perhaps suggesting a rename and purge on the basis that a German name implied German (colonial) settlement during Hungarian rule, but sampling fails to support such action, so that SHAREDNAME is directly applicable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional stars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT as unlikely to expand. Only one entry in the category actually qualifies as a fictional star and is not a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mandalay Bay Events Center[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the name of the arena has changed. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not tagged Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional regions of space[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT as unlikely to expand. Some of the ones that are already there are dubiously notable. Dual merge also with Category:Fictional regions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People on postage stamps[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: purge and rename. bibliomaniac15 03:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete trivial characteristic; presumably one is notable first for something else than being depicted on a postage stamp. It's not well populated but could probably be expanded many-fold with hereditary monarchs, and people who died long before postage stamps were invented. Almost a WP:OCAWARD type category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead rename and purge per discussion below. Admittedly I had not looked very well what is actually in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just added them somewhere under Category:Cultural depictions of people (except for The Dubliners) if they weren't there already. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Lucanian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#People of Abruzzese descent, I nominate this and the following categories to be merged into the parent category:
  • Make your response here as you've agreed to do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for being willing to listen to my concerns. What it boils down to is that your essay as well as the guidelines on categorization to do cite any sort of sociological or anthropological scholarship before making claims like “no evidence a Catholic does sports different than a Methodist”.—Prisencolin (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our guidelines says otherwise at WP:OCEGRS. "For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist." You can disagree with the guideline but don't be disappointed to find that not everyone agrees with your position. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the talk page of that WP page, I gave an counter example suggesting that this claim may not be entirely true. While there is not policy that requires source citation for guideline pages, I do believe that some citations for claims may be necessary.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible to prove a negative. It would be up to you to prove that your counter example is true. Rather, your speculation is self-evidently not true on at least 8 critieria. I've responded on that Talk.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, the province of a different country that ancestors of immigrants lived in is unnecessary detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For many years people could only be made in the Sicilian Mafia if they were of Sicilian descent.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all This is not defining in the articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all subdividing Italian descent is not justified. Considering Italy was unified before most Americans' Italian ancestors emigrated to the US, this is not al all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sicilian at least, there is a well sourced and stable head article Sicilian American and a longstanding list: List of Sicilian Americans (created in 2005).--Prisencolin (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is rather speculative, and a bit short on citations. Was Frank Capra in movies because he had Sicilian parents? He moved here at age 5, so he was an emigrant, not of "descent". Were there Sicilians in jazz because of a Sicilian culture, or were they merely settling in neighborhoods where jazz was already prevalent (due to being created by African-Americans already present)?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be completely honest, I'm not sure of the applicability of the category to most of the individuals other than the hundred or so in Category:American gangsters of Sicilian descent. As far as Capra is concerned, this article says: " Like so many other Sicilian immigrants in 1903, the Capras travelled steerage, the cheapest possible class.More than merely survive, Capra was inspired to rise above poverty from an early age [...] Part of what made, and makes, Capra’s movies such a success is their depiction of the America Americans wanted to believe in.. [cites Mr Smith Goes to Washington as example of this] . this article appears to discuss the differing perceptions of Northern vs Southern Italian peoples and how they influenced Capra. He" I'll have to read over the structure guidelines but it may also not be a good idea to delete the parent category of this other category.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all — do not categorize by regional descent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have always heard Capra described as being Italian, so at least in his case the part of Italy his parents were from was not really defining. I think if we keep Sicilian, which is very borderline anyway, we leave a bad precedent to just see all these categories reappear. Sicily is not an autonomous region, and so there is no good justification for it being seperate. In fact, for much of its history during disunited Italy, it was part of polities that included parts of mainland Italy as well. Plus, most Italian immigrants came to the US after unification, and almost all of these people lived in the US completely after unification. I grew up in a suburbs of Detroit with a large population of people of Italian descent, some of whom tried to highlight Sicilian ancestry, but even those normally described themselves as being of Italian ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dafina Zeqiri[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Category:Dafina Zeqiri

Category:Foreign relations by administrative division[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The topic here is dependent territories which have a foreign policy in their own right or in their history (e.g. Greenland, Hong Kong etc.). We have an coherent category structure for them at Category:Dependent territories. This term should be used rather than administrative divisions which was recently picked for a speedy renaming. Place Clichy (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, this is what the current category content consists of. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename — the speedy renaming was based upon the existing parent. Place Clichy removed every existing parent in the nomination itself, so very hard to judge the change. These aren't countries, so these should NOT be under Category:Foreign relations by country; Category:Foreign relations should be restored. This was also in Category:Regionalism (politics).
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this exist at all? -- Almost by definition dependent territories do not have foreign relations, because that is managed by the parent country. They have no diplomatic missions of their own, though they may have a representative office in the capital of their parent country, to deal with relations between the national and the territorial governments. The scope seems to include treaties by the parent that extend to the dependency. In some cases an embassy might be entitled as of Denmark & Faroe Isles [etc], but it is actually the Danish embassy and reports to the Danish foreign minister and monarch. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union armed conflicts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge, except those articles discussed that were not "post-Soviet". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. The first category is a 2020 creation overlapping the long-standing second category. However they are not parented to each other and do not even have a parent in common: Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union for the first, Category:Post-Soviet states and Category:Warfare post-1945 for the second. There is a dedicated article at Post-Soviet conflicts, which are defined as "the violent political and ethnic conflicts in the countries of the former Soviet Union since shortly before its official dissolution in 1991." Therefore armed conflicts immediately ca. 1991 are included in the definition of the older category. Place Clichy (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, Dimadick, and K.e.coffman: pinging contributors to a previous discussion about the target category. Place Clichy (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but the first subcategory and first article (both about the 1991 coup d'etat) should be moved to Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only post-Soviet conflicts (after 26 December 1991). "April 9 tragedy", "Black January", "1990 Dushanbe riots" and similar articles need their own category; for instance: Category:Conflicts in the Soviet Union.--Russian Rocky (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Communist genocides[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recent rehash of a previously deleted cat.PailSimon (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anti-communist POV and OR combined in a single title. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep removeal of this an the hate categories against those who stood up against Stalin and Lenin are clear examples of people trying to impose an anti-anti Communist bias on Wikipedia. There is no way to see genocides in Cambodia and Ukraine as other than genocides carried out in the name of communism, unless you have a blatnat bias against anyone who stood up to Stalin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 — Category:Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was previously speedily deleted WP:CSD#G5 and again after discussion in August 2009. Making it plural didn't make any difference in 2020.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with Labs accounts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "Labs" is outdated and ambiguous. From context, this appears to be talking about Toolforge. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:02, 12 February 2021 (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.

Scheduled monument categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The fact that the article Scheduled monument does not capitalize is near determinative here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Scheduled monument is a general term, not a proper noun, and should not be captalized. Scheduled ancient monument is not the correct term (see the scheduled monument article). Mauls (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I guess the term comes from Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, but even that doesn't specify what would be the cutoff between 'ancient' and not-so-ancient. Capitals per nom, and general interest in clear and simple category names. Estheim (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support. Support change from Scheduled Ancient Monument to Scheduled Monument, as the earlier term is obsolete. Oppose illiterate removal of caps used to indicate a formal designation, which is a term of art and has meaning beyond the individual words. This is a legitimate and recognised usage of capital letters, which (contrary to Mauls' rather simplistic statement) are not restricted to identifying proper nouns. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 'Terms of art' are not one of the cases for capitalized of words according to WP's style guide: MOS:CAPS. Mauls (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia categories named after regions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Category:Wikipedia categories named after regions

Category:Lists of administrative territorial entities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The reasons for the emptying of the category was worked out in the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus soft redirects:
Nominator's rationale: WP:CSD#G5, WP:NEO, WP:OR, and WP:DENY.
Created by User:Derianus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Eldizzino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), some of 150+ sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi.
After emptying, has only 1 sub-Category:Lists of dioceses‎ created by Place Clichy that would be better in Category:Lists of places.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as is, revert out-of-process emptying of the category. Too many wrongs in this rationale. WP:CSD#G5 is only for edits done in violation of a ban, it is not intended for blanket deletions at face value for which nothing better is proposed. WAS's recent changes on administrative/political divisions seem to have brought more confusion. At this step I am unable to see a clearer structure emerging form these changes. I would welcome indications as to what such a structure would be. In the present case, I see little reasons to delete established categories for lists of administrative/political divisions/territories/whatever you name them. WAS's apparent disagreements on the common name to give to such entities should not result in blanking these categories altogether, or moving them to Lists of "places". WP:POINT comes to mind. As an example that showed up in my watchlist, dioceses, both in the ecclesiastical and the civil sense, are administrative entities in charge of a territory. They are not places. They therefore definitely belong in the category as it stood before the unnecessary out-of-process disruption. Place Clichy (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories were created in violation of a ban on Tobias Conradi.
    1. Diocese are not territories under the jurisdiction of a sovereign state (the Vatican is not a nation, although it has observer status at the UN).
    2. Where they were historically Roman dioceses, then they might be under Category:Former administrative divisions of countries. However, nothing in this category is about civil diocese.
    3. Just about everything in the world is an "entity" of some kind, but diocese are not a Legal entity.
    4. Now you are arguing diocese are not a place? Do they exist exclusively outside physical reality?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dioceses are definitely administrative entities. In many cases they are incorporated and have legal personality. They may not be divisions of a sovereign state, but this type of division is notable enough WP:N that we have a coherent Category:Dioceses structure. Indeed there may not be many other non-state entities for which territorial administration is as notable, but ecclesiastical geography certainly is, and is also extremely stable in time. Military districts and judicial districts may be somewhat comparable. I see no reason to remove these from a hierarchy about territorial administration, at least without suggesting something better to replace it. BTW Roman dioceses are probably better in Category:Subdivisions of former countries (or anything named after former countries if subdivisions requires renaming) than just Category:Former administrative divisions of countries. Surely we would not put everything that has a "physical reality" in Category:Places. Place Clichy (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About you #5, it is precisely why there is no such parent category (and there should not be) that we need to keep parent umbrella categories for territorial administration of any kind. Category:Diocese and Category:Ecclesiastical provinces serve as the bridge with such a parent category, and should not be placed merely at Places. Also about #1, Wikipedia is universal and deals with universal concepts. There is no law for that, and legal terms are usually associated with one country only. Actually, Diocese was very much a legal term in the Roman and Byzantine empire (and Church usage is directly derived from that). This exact word (Greek διοικήση) is actually still used for administrative entities in Greece, translated in English on Wikipedia as Decentralized administrations of Greece, so yes diocese is a legal term, and not only in canon law. Place Clichy (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: there's nothing else to restore. This has been gradually manually emptied as a result of prior decisions. The remaining entry is sub-Category:Lists of dioceses‎. It has already been determined that there is no such thing as "administrative territorial entities" or "territorial entities" or "territorial entites" (the previous names). It is wikipedia policy and practice to delete them. I'd thought the parent Category:Lists of places was the best fit. Place Clichy reverted. So we are discussing now where Category:Lists of dioceses‎ belongs. It has been established that dioceses‎ are not territories, and they are not entities. They are arguably administrative. So are many of the places. Do you have an alternative other than lists of places?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Afsharid Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency and per precedent. Category:Safavid Empire was recently renamed to Category:Safavid Iran (see this earlier discussion) per article name Safavid Iran, we have Category:Qajar Iran per article name Qajar Iran and we also have Category:Pahlavi Iran which was recently created per this discussion. While there is no article Afsharid Iran, I would nevertheless suggest to rename to Category:Afsharid Iran as a case of WP:C2C, treating it similarly as its predecessor category and its successor categories. And, by the way, we do not have an article Afsharid Empire either, because that redirects to Afsharid dynasty, so the nomination does not conflict with WP:C2D.
@Laurel Lodged, Amir Ghandi, Dimadick, Peterkingiron, Johnpacklambert, and LouisAragon: pinging contributors to the two earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename by nom. Place Clichy (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Am not convinced that any of those categiries ought to contain the word "Iran". What did that word mean at that time period? Would those people have self-identified as Iranian? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They would not have self-identified as Afsharid for sure, since this was merely the name of the ruling dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but perhaps to Iran, rather than Afsharid Iran. This dynasty ruled Iran 1736-96, a period in which Iran occupied a rather larger area than now, due to subsequent encroachment by Russia, Ottoman Empire and others. Iran (or Persia) has had a continuous existence since at least 1500, though its borders waxed and waned at various periods. It had a previous existence before the Mongol conquest. Afsharid Iran is merely one period of Category:Iran in the 18th century, not a separate country. Thus Category:Military history of Iran in 18th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your reasoning but then we would have to discuss that in conjunction with all dynasty-related sibling categories in the whole period from 1500 to 1979. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2021 (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.

People from Argolis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Argos, Peloponnese (22,000 people) and Nafplio (14,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge by nom. None of the places or recently created municipalities here seems to have the notability to justify a dedicated people category. Place Clichy (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a good start. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All For Now These mostly 1 article cats are not aiding navigation. No objection to recreating any if they exceed expectations and ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (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.

People from Arta (regional unit)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Arta, Greece (24,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All for Now These small cats are not aiding navigation. No objection to recreating any if they exceed expectations and ever get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2021 (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.

People from Cephalonia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Argostoli (11,000 people) en Paliki (7,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:California Golden Seals broadcasters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to "TEAM announcers" based on the previous discussion. (Deletion was not proposed here.) A full list of changes made is at the base of this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this CfD. There are dozens of subcategories of Category:American sports announcers, some of them three levels deep, that need this, and I inadvertently closed and lost my list and do not have time to list them all again. The vast majority are for defunct or even future (Category:Seattle Kraken broadcasters) sports teams. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a list of additional cats, more to come: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also the subcategories of Category:Major League Soccer on television, which do not include any people and only include TV broadcasters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Private islands[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. bibliomaniac15 03:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are largely overlapping categories. The vast majority of private islands in the common law world are held in freehold. The only real alternative that continues are leasehold estates, and that is covered by Category:Leasehold islands. But we don't need a category for freehold because it would contain nearly everything already categorized in Category:Private islands and its subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2021 (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.

Ethnic minorities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There was also some support for new "Diasporas in FOO" categories, into which the "Ethnic groups" categories could be merged. The "Ethnic groups" categories were not tagged for discussion, so this will require a follow-up nomination if users want to pursue the idea.
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. By definition, every ethnic group other than the majority group in a country is a minority. None of these categories actually gives a precise definition for what is an ethnic minority. There is no obvious difference between ethnic or diaspora groups listed in these categories and the parent for all ethnic groups in the country. Follow-up to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 11 § Category:Ethnic minorities in Egypt. Place Clichy (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While I see the logic of such a cat, I agree that the definition is fuzzy and lends to exclusion and ethnic bias. Estheim (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Diasporas in X. It is not true that there is no obvious difference between the contents in these categories. To take the first listed in Category:Ethnic minorities in Japan, Ainu people is clearly something quite different from Australians in Japan, the first being indigenous to the area of the modern country while the latter is a non-ethnic diaspora category based on a shared national culture. Diasporas are not necessarily ethnic groups, and vice versa. We should split out the diasporic groups, such as Australians in Japan, into their own categories and upmerge the ethnic groups, such as Ainu people, to the parent. The terms ethnic minority and diaspora are often related but in no way are they equivalent, and this is reflected in the article sets. SFB 12:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already Category:Diasporas by destination country, and Category:Diasporas by host country was redirected to Category:Ethnic groups by country as duplicate. Re-creating categories for diasporas by host/destination country would require huge work, in addition to the difficulty of separating them from ethnic groups categories where they are currently located. Place Clichy (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine both ideas and split, e.g. Category:Ethnic minorities in Hungary to Category:Ethnic groups in Hungary and Category:Diaspora in Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Immigrant communities in foo" to diasporas, which I would make a subcat of ethnic groups in foo. In some cases these are indigenous groups, e.g. Swedes in Finland; Assyrians in Syria. We need to reach a consensus and then encourage someone to add the target categories manually. When this is done the old categories can be deleted as obsolete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Immigrants is a very bad idea. Nothing tells you that these groups are predominantly composed of immigrants. E.g. Albanians in North Macedonia are not immigrants, they are not even a diaspora group, as they were established there even long before the country itself existed. Taking an example from another discussion, Armenians in the United Kingdom, who are a diaspora group, are almost entirely 3rd- or 4th-generation with a very small number of immigrants. This is why I find it dangerous, impractical and most of all unsustainable to try and split Fooians/Fooian people in Bar categories between minorities, diasporas and ethnic groups. Place Clichy (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British Asian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomiator's rationale: avoid using an adjective as category title in favour of a more descriptive name. Follow the pattern of Category:African diaspora in the United Kingdom, Category:European diaspora in the United Kingdom, Category:Japanese diaspora in Europe, other children of Category:Asian diaspora in Europe and national subcategories e.g. Category:Indian diaspora in the United Kingdom, Category:Pakistani diaspora in Germany and Category:Brazilian diaspora in the United Kingdom. Place Clichy (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, clearer distinction between topic categories and people categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diaspora is a more accurate reflection of the contents, which covers both those of various ethnic heritage, and national diasporas. SFB 12:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The scope may be a bit wider, but the titles are clearer. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Immigration to the United Kingdom by country of origin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a completely overlapping category. Its content is articles on groups of various national or ethnic origins in the UK. Their immigration status is actually irrelevant, as most of these groups are not composed entirely of immigrants (e.g. Armenians in the United Kingdom or Lebanese people in the United Kingdom). Even if they were, the focus is on their presence in the UK rather than the migration itself. The French category has the same features. Place Clichy (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, nationality of one's ancestors is just one of many possibilities for distinguishing ethnic groups, and it does not even necessarily lead to ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you then advocate keeping all articles about Barians in Foo and Barian people in Foo separate from the ethnic groups category tree? There is already a lot of such content at the target destinations, e.g. article Georgians in the United Kingdom or Category:European diaspora in the United Kingdom. Also, should such a category be titled with immigration when articles are not about a migration movement but about communities established sometimes for centuries including people established for decades or born in the country? Place Clichy (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A {{see also}} cross-reference note in the header of the category pages would definitely be helpful. Also I agree that there is no need to keep "immigration" in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be the title of such a category then? Also, where would we draw the line between a foreign group and a distinguished ethnic group? As a practical example, are British Pakistanis a foreign/diaspora/immigration group, or do they constitute an ethnic group in their own right? (I would say they are both.) My first gut would be to say that the distinction between the two notions is so impractical that the current practice of placing diasporas under the ethnic groups category works pretty well. Place Clichy (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this alternative, this is an accurate description of the content of the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Country of origin does not always match the ethnicity. Dimadick (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative relies on the creation of new categories, and has no impact on the existing ones. Dimadick (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose country of origin often is very different than ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Immigrant communities" to "diasporas". Many British Pakistani are now 3rd (even 4th) generation, but still distinct due to their religion and a tendency to marry people from their home village in Pakistan. We should however make a distinction between indigenous groups, including those long settled such as Romanis and more recent arrivals. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use LibreOffice[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not meaningfully different from Category:Wikipedians who use OpenOffice.org, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use OpenOffice.org. The fact that the software has forked, while it makes the category not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation, does not make the category any more useful as a user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I love categories, there are no reasons to keep this per Wikipedia:User categories#Appropriate types of user categories. The category does not tell how skillful one is at using the office software and the usage of an office software is hardly related to the improvement of the encyclopedia. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 12:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that the similar one for OpenOffice was deleted. --Bduke (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_12&oldid=1010169935"