Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19

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

January 19[edit]

Category:16th-century executions by Italy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:16th-century executions by Italian states. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nobody was executed by Italy in the 16th century. It didnt exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:43, 19 January 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:High school students who committed suicide[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 to Category:Youth suicides. Closed with the discussion immediately below this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the categories seemingly have the same scope. The merge target depends on the outcome of the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Youth suicides — not the same scope, they are by education. Recently, I'd proposed renaming these to Youth Suicides (matching main article), but folks didn't support it. Therefore, I'd divided by age and education, as seemed to be desired. Happy that folks have seen the light.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to whichever target category is still standing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Youth suicides. Their age is the one which defines the group, not their identity as students. I doubt there is a clear connection between their school life and the suicide. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to adolescent suicides. I think we should cut at age 18, not 21. Either way, college students can and often are over 21. Of the years I was an undergrad college student, 4 of them I was at least 22-years-old. There are huge numbers of so-called "non-traditional students", so this is something to keep in mind. I see no particular reason to distinguish a 13-year-old who commits suicide in high school, a youth who commits sucide the summer before he starts high-school, a high school student who commits sucide, and a 17-year-old who commits suicide the summer after he graduated high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 25 January 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:Adolescent suicides[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. Closed with the discussion immediately above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the categories seemingly have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — not the same scope, they are by age. Recently, I'd proposed renaming these to Youth Suicides (matching main article), but folks didn't support it. Therefore, I'd divided by age and education, as seemed to be desired. All the children turned out to be adolescents. Happy that folks have seen the light.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine/Lean Toward "Adolescent"under "Youth" These cover the same areas and should be merged. Fine with either name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That college example and the main article mentioned changed my mind. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 24 January 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 educated at Kings College Budo[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) 01:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These look as though they are intended to be the same category to me. The wikipage for the school to which the category corresponds, King's College Budo, has an apostrophe in the title. Dsp13 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 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:Country subdivisions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Administrative divisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D.
This is uncontroversial, and all the ongoing discussions were completed.
This a compound neologism by banned User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Oppose - Administrative division seems to me a most unsatisfactory name. Administrative division of what? I expect there are medium sized businesses which have an administrative division. And is it a topic category or a set category (in which case it should be plural)? (Here is one in Oklahoma. Another in a university.) Country subdivision in contrast is much clearer and usages outside wikipedia are easily found: eg www.iso.org. Oculi (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, beware of WP:CIRCULAR sourcing. Many references to "country subdivision" (as opposed to "county subdivision") are likely taken from wikipedia. Remember, this has been circulating for over 10 years, because the wikijanitors didn't promptly clean up after Conradi was banished.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have consulted a dictionary. "[ C or U ] any of the parts into which something is divided" (Cambridge). 'Country subdivision' seems exactly right (regardless of the status of any editors). I concede that the US meaning is different ("an area containing a large number of houses or apartments built close together at the same time") but then I am in the UK. Oculi (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The administrative division of the colony was designed to rule the population as effectively as possible through the chieftaincies already in place. (From the Cambridge English Corpus)
  2. This revolution led to a new administrative division of the country, 3 with provinces, divisions (d'partements), sub-divisions (arrondissements), and districts. (From the Cambridge English Corpus)
  3. Any legal questions raised by an inspector at any time, in relation to a specific case, or otherwise, would come to a departmental lawyer from the administrative division responsible. (From the Hansard archive)
  • As a UK resident, you might consult the political science and/or geography departments of your alma mater. After all, these English terms "administrative division" and "political division" originated in Britain, and were promulgated worldwide over many years.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking up in the Oxford and Collins British English dictionaries, both consider the words division and subdivision to apply both to the action of dividing and the result of this action, the prefix sub- applying to a second division of something that is already divided. In this regard, using the term subdivision to entities under countries is correct, because countries and borders do indeed divide something, Humankind. However as a non-native English speaker I will trust your analysis that administrative division is a better umbrella term in the present case. Place Clichy (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't have access to a Collins. The Michigan copy of OED has 104,650 full text results of the exact phrase "administrative division", at least two (on the first page) may be of immediate interest to some folks:
  • United Kingdom, administrative divisions (Published 1988)
  • Census of India, 1951
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that this is supposed to be the topic category, while "Types of ..." would be the set category. That would also be "(political geography)". Technically.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:18, 20 January 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:Exoplanets discovered by HatNet[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) 01:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalization, see HATNet Project. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 16:47, 19 January 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:Universities and colleges in Historical Germany[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Category:Universities and colleges in Historical Germany

Category:Types of country subdivisions[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. This discussion was closed with this one to result in a uniform outcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D.
As suggested during closing of:
This a compound neologism by banned User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose as is. This nomination has no meaning if not nominated together with parent Category:Country subdivisions and other subcategories. You need to put together a bundled nomination following the quite simple steps at WP:CFD#HOWTO, rather than multiple discussions. Do not hesitate to ask for help if this is an issue. Place Clichy (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only trying to help. You'll get the expected result more easily with a clean bundled nomination. Place Clichy (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been more help for the C2D to be speedy. That's why we have C2D — and speedy. This just made the process longer and thereby fraught with error potential from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Types" is already plural, so that would be a plural plural. This is the set category. Thanks for clarifying.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for goodness sake Carlos, none of those examples are administrative divisions. Some are political divisions, a separate tree. Most are geographic regions, and we already have that completely separate tree.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad point, as nothing Carlos listed is in this category. You mention 2 that already are miscategorized, proving the point that this is poorly named. Apparently, editors are confused.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to explain in previous discussions: Regions, Political divisions, and Administrative divisions are separate, but related. They are "side-by-side", and can be overlapping. In general terms Regions subsumes the others, and most (but not all) Administrative divisions are wholly inside Political divisions. A strict heirarchy would be Region >>> Political >>> Administrative, but I'm against a strict heirarchy as that's harder to make workable. We already have a parent, Category:Geography by location.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:44, 23 January 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:Songs written by Johnny "Country" Mathis[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains one redirect only. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found 3 pages to add. Oculi (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination Good work Oculi, you did what I should have done. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:24, 19 January 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:Extinct insect families[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Category:Extinct insect families

Category:Unity (game engine) games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Category:Unity (game engine) games

Category:Pages with misplaced templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. Everyone agreed they should be merged together; there were more in favour of doing this than a reverse merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The categories serve pretty much the same purpose, so upmerge. JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge This !vote is probably not helpful since the disagreement seems to be over the target name and there is consensus that they should be combined. I can't conjure up an opinion on the naming though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't the name be prefaced with "Wikipedia"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are about a thousand maintenance categories beginning with "Pages",[1] compared to about 200 beginning with "Wikipedia pages". – Fayenatic London 11:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for reference, in case I or anybody else wants to work on them: several other Wikipedias have the same duplication. Wikidata links: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14405618 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7481922 – Fayenatic London 11:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My perspective on this is that merging these either way is preferable to having two different ones, but that Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace is a much better name since there are no other ways templates can be misplaced that is currently detected by any templates. It can also be confusing as my association from the title "Pages with misplaced templates" is that it would be template placed in the wrong part of the page such as hatnotes in the middle and stub sorting at the top. My outrageously bad metaphor here would be a "People in the royal society" being renamed to "Primates in the royal society"; both are correct and the second one is broader, but it is very unlikely that a chimpanzee will be admitted to the royal society and makes the title confusing since the name sounds like it would be filled with monkeys. Now you know why I'll never be an author. --Trialpears (talk) 12:09, 22 January 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.

Qajar Iran[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) 01:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: rename, these categories refer to the country (Qajar Iran), not to the ruling family (Qajar dynasty). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 19 January 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:Animated films directed by Live-action filmmakers[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) 01:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a defining category. What makes one specifically a 'live-action filmmaker' beyond the fact that they directed a live-action film, and why is it notable if a live-action filmmaker directs an animated film? DonIago (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no rules restricting a filmmaker to a single medium or genre. Dimadick (talk) 13:42, 19 January 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:NFL International Series[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) 01:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete a category with a subcategory for teams that have participated (nominated also as a WP:PERFCAT, three venues (also indicative of WP:PERFCAT) and the article on the program. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 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:NFL International Series participants[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) 01:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete teams that have played a game outside the US during their season - not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:54, 19 January 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:Voroshilovgrad/Lugansk locomotives[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Luhanskteplovoz locomotives. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As can be seen from Wikipedia redirecting Lugansk to Luhansk, the city's correct name to use in English text is Luhansk. Lugansk is the city's Russian-language name and correct only in text written in Russian. Dakkus (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 19 January 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:Destroyed landmarks in Latvia[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. A strong consensus seems to be developing in the later discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Landmarks is subjective, and the lone article in the category is already properly upmerged in Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Latvia. SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure - I've been catting a lot of buildings recently and have identified this category structure as a whole as subjective and duplicative, so have been doing the work to manually merge/nominate these as I get done with them. "Landmark" only has legal definition in a few countries, so being a "landmark" is not only not defining, but impossible to determine in most instances. Also "Destroyed landmarks by country" is almost always duplicative of either "Demolished buildings or structures in X" or "Buildings and structures destroyed during X event" categories. A bulk nomination ended in no consensus for a variety of reasons, including the fact Canada has a natural feature which was destroyed. SportingFlyer T·C 11:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective and this only has 1 article so it isn't aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that's what I'd like to say. Landmarks are important for orientation! Nominator is wrong in assuming it's mostly buildings and structures, there are lots of mountains and canyons and even old big trees that are landmarks and also frequently preservation of sites of historic interest. OTOH I see that's at the moment only one entry so the smallcat rule comes to mind. Hey RevelationDirect, on what factual basis are you that sure that the state of Latvia has no heritage conservation? If they have your subjectivity presumption would be completely wrong. Well, I'm afraid no one here (including me) has enough latvian language competence to prove or reject the heritage lists approach. Maybe in the depths of the European Union's translation efforts to support international cooperation could help? No, I don't know where to look for it. Difficult case. --Just N. (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 19 January 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:International Triathlon Union world championships[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: not much discussion here, but we'll go with rename to Category:World championships of World Triathlon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: International Triathlon Union underwent a rebranding and is now known as 'World Triathlon'. Cat renaming would reflect this. Also purposely excluding 'world' in the proposed renaming from the current 'world championships' to be more inclusive of any continental championships that would fall under the umbrella of World Triathlon (e.g. Europe Triathlon Championships). Previously failed C2D. BarkeepChat 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 19 January 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:Endemol Shine Group[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Endemol Shine Group had been acquired by Banijay in July 2020 and the acquired company has absorbed. Ridwan97 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Banijay Group could be possibly better? Just taking over the pure new naming has a disadvantage: all historical and personal memories of the old negative connotations are stripped away. The new name is without any connected meaning except for professional insiders. Adding Group could flag the fact also for non-insiders (most of our users are not insiders) that Banijay is another corporation. In case that Banijay Corp never ever uses "Banijay Group" well, then it's not an option and my proposal withdrawn. --Just N. (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 19 January 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:Recipients of the Excellent Order of Independence[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) 01:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Independence (Iran) is an award that has only ever been issued 3 times but that rarity doesn't seem to translate to defining-ness: the articles list the award in the infobox but otherwise make no mention of it. These are all very high ranking Iranian officials (a Prime Minister, a First Vice President, and military Chief of Staff) who are already well categorized under Category:Prime Ministers of Iran, Category:First Vice Presidents of Iran and Category:Military chiefs of staff. The recipients are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 19 January 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:Recipients of the Kulm Cross[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) 01:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Kulm Cross was a Prussian medal, although none of the recipients in the category were Prussian or German. Instead of me telling you why this award is non-defining, I'm just gonna give you a line from the introduction to the main article:
"It was not awarded for any special act of courage or merit."
Ouch! There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 19 January 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:Pompeii (gens)[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) 01:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with Category:Helvii (Romans): 'Pompeii' in Latin is masculine plural whereas 'gens' is feminine singular, so the current form is grammatically incorrect. That's what was argued in the discussion on the 'Helvii' category, and it resulted in the category having its current name. Avilich (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reasons given.★Trekker (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- While the nom is grammatically correct in his analysis, I do not think this is a case where the two need to agree. "gens" is specific "Romans" is far too general. Rename Helvii to match, if that is a gens. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they not agree? Saying 'Helvii is a gens' is wrong, but 'Helvii are Romans' is correct. All Romans were members of a gens, so 'Romans' is no more broad than it needs to be. Avilich (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Language purists already agreed on the "(Romans)" qualifier to distinguish from "(Gauls)". This is a continuation of that decision. The parent is Category:Roman gentes, not "gens". Category:Pompeii is a disambiguation that will need to be updated.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the two certainly do need to agree. You wouldn't have a category called "Nikola Tesla (women)" referring to the masculine singular Nikola Tesla. There are two logical names for this category: "Pompeia gens", matching the main article, or the current proposal. I think the former is preferable, but either is acceptable; the present name is not. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Note that gentes is the plural of gens, in English and in Latin. It is also correct to call the family Pompeia gens (or gens Pompeia) which is singular and feminine, and to collectively call members of the family Pompeii which is masculine and plural, as we do for all categories for Roman families at Category:Roman gentes. The (gens) part here is only a disambiguator, which is needed because of ambiguous Category:Pompeii. In this regard, it is a better disambiguator than (Romans) because the latter is less precise, and the category explicitly refers to the gens. Place Clichy (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The level of precision is actually near identical: 'gens' is extremely broad since all Romans were members of a gens, and the concept of gens was not inclusive of non-Romans, aside from other Italians who were eventually incorporated into Roman society (strictly, the correct disambiguator would be 'gentiles', but that will be too easily confused with non-jews). Very few people will bat an eye and know that Pompeii is a plural word, and adding "Romans" helps with that. 'gens' will be just as foreign to most people. As I said before, "Pompeii is a gens" is wrong, but "Pompeii are Romans" is correct. Avilich (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more importantly, we're dealing with a category. People aren't going to stumble into it from the main page or the search window; the only way they'll reach it without typing "category:" in the seach window is from an article about one or more of the gentiles, and since all of those are named Pompeius or Pompeia, the meaning shouldn't surprise anybody. To the extent we can envision someone confusing the plural of Pompeius with the city of Pompeii, hatnotes should be more than sufficient to direct readers to the appropriate articles—but it's unlikely anyone will arrive on the category page as the result of such confusion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the convention already in place, you'd have to change all 244 categories to match that. Gentes are not dynasties or even necessarily families. These categories are about groups of people, so it's already technically correct to use the plural form "Julii", which (at least this one in particular) is probably just as common as calling it a gens. Avilich (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would probably be an improvement to rename these categories, and this would clarify their scope. In practice it makes very little difference to consider if a category about a group of people is about the group or about the people. Place Clichy (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category and one or two others are only being renamed because they share a name with some other category: Pompeii, the town; Helvii, the ancient Swiss tribe. Normally there's no ambiguity. There's no people called "the Julii", only members of the Julia gens. Is a different format preferable for all similar categories? That's a matter of opinion—and a question that would need to be discussed elsewhere, not here. But it's not essential that all related categories have a perfectly consistent format—nor is it possible in most large groups. It doesn't hurt anything if some articles or some categories require additional disambiguation and others don't. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 24 January 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_January_19&oldid=1138412484"