Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Category:15th-century Anglican church buildings[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. – Fayenatic London 17:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for consistency, we do not have any other medieval xth-century Anglican church buildings category, though all medieval English categories are parented to the target. (Whether or not the latter is accurate is a different discussion.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This whole tree is an utter mess. There were no denominations in England before the 17th century. There was only one Church, which was affiliated to Rome until c.1530 and then became Church of England. The only category should be Category:15th-century church buildings in England. There should no Anglican tree for a former Catholic one. It is a matter of course that they were Catholic until c.1530, then Anglican. There may be the odd Catholic congregation that was established in the late 16th century and the odd puritan one from the early 17th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
  • Merge per nom. Just to note that in post-reformation England there were at least two Churches: one was a state church called the Church of England and the other a body of people - the "People of God" if you like - that was betimes underground but which throughout many "difficulties" maintained its affiliation with the Holy See. During those troubles times, they may have had fewer, meaner or no church buildings; but bricks and mortar do not a church make. Today, the Church of England has an embarrassment of church buildings but few to worship in them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for non god's sake. The history development (speak: rupture) is responsible for that 'utter mess'. --Just N. (talk) 19:39, 21 March 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 related to the history of the Georgia Salzburgers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 11#Category:People related to the history of the Georgia Salzburgers

Category:Right of asylum by country[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories are relatively small with sub-categories that in some cases have only one or two pages within them. Asylum law and immigration law are not the same, but they are related enough that it's not unreasonable to have a combined category at this level of the tree, given the WP:SMALLCAT issues otherwise. If this proposal is accepted, I would then propose merging/renaming each of the child categories to Category:Asylum and immigration in Australia etc. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this would not match with the tree of Category:Right of asylum and the tree of Category:Immigration law. No objection to nominating lots of country categories for merging to their parent categories though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: perhaps then we should be looking at vertical rather than horizontal merging. Both of these trees have subcategorisation that leads to small groups. For example, I'm not sure of the benefit of a sparsely-populated Category:Right of asylum law within Category:Right of asylum, so while I might reconsider the form, I won't withdraw the discussion for now, to allow for more consideration of possibilities. -Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. There are immigration laws aside from asylum (which is just a subset). Vertical merging? Not reasonable. If WP:SMALLCAT is so depressive we should either look for untapped potential or eventually build continental subgroups (Asian, European, maybe Western to include Australia and NZ) for usability. --Just N. (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Continental subgroups might be the best approach, for each of asylum and immigration considered separately. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:29, 26 March 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:Roman Catholic archbishops by nationality[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 renamed. bibliomaniac15 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Archbishops are much better defined by their territory than by their nationality. The existing category is ambiguous - does it mean their personal nationality or the nationality of the territory. We have just decided on this course for bishops, and the same arguments apply to archbishops - perhaps even more so. Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we move to categorization by country, it will become Australia. So then we remove people from the Irish category if they emigrate to Australia as a priest, or before being ordained, and who later become a bishop in their new country. They can still be in Irish priests if applicable, and all of them should obviously remain in Irish emigrants to Australia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to run country categories alongside nationality categories clearly doesnt work. Its ambiguous. We could have more categories like Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in North America if the nationality of expatriate bishops is thought to be defining. Rathfelder (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. I also oppose the recent change mage to the bishops category, and whatever "prescedent" editors may believe it sets up for like categories. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nomination matches neither the current contents, nor the subcategories. On a more subjective note, I fail to see who would want to find archbishops by country of activity instead of background. Dimadick (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcategories already are full of archbishops categorised by diocese. For many historical articles there is no information about the nationality of the archbishop. The subcats are all by nationality but that is ambiguous. Is it the nationality of the person of the jurisdiction? Rathfelder (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is standard to categorise by nationality: Category:People by occupation and nationality. By all means start Category:People by occupation and country. Oculi (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The discussion has moved on. This nomination is about implementing the emerging view that nationality is too vague for bishops and that we should leverage the geographic nature of dioceses to prefer "by country" classifications for them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am tired of people trying to stealth impose these changes. I am tired of administrators acting like super voters. I am tired of people insulting me. I am tired of my contributions to category discussions being treated as if they do not exist. This is a horrible plan, and is clearly opposed by the majority of editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apart from your tiredness, what is your substantive objection to the plan to categorize (arch)bishops by country rather than nationality? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I note that the consensus there was at best weak. Two supports, one "Qualified support", one "procedural oppose". Not resounding, and problematic when the subcats such as this one were not included.
When the plan is to radically change so many categories, a broad consensus is needed ... and these piecemeal nominations prevent that from occurring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was agreed in that discussion that this was a very substantial undertaking and that it was completely impractical to nominate all the categories which would be affected, and that we would move on from that by examining the various subcategories and that is what I am trying to do here. There was no objection to the fundamental principle that country of diocese was more defining for bishops than their personal nationality. Trying to run both together is completely confusing and impractical. But there are clearly solutions for those articles where the national origin of the bishop is significant. There a number of categories like Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa, and of course it is not possible in most churches to be a bishop without first being ordained a priest, so that can be used to mark the original nationality. It should also be noted that in several thousand articles about bishops I've looked at not a single one has said anything explicit about the nationality or citizenship of a bishop who moved from one country to another. Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop lieing. An agreement by at most four editors is not binding on all of Wikipedia. What has been done was wrong. The attempts to call Americans and New Zealanders American Samoan just because they were bishops there are wrong. The attempts to call Frenchmen who were bishops in Senegal, Mali or Zambia Senegalese, Malian or Zambian are wrong. This edit and its antecedents are comitting abuse of the language. They also are trying to impose one tree where there clearly can and should be two trees. No other occupation do we ignore nationality. We do not make Ernest Hemingway a French writer just because he lived for a time and wrote in Paris, we do not make every musician, painter and artist a national of wherever they were, if a Danish painter went to Rome and made all his paintings there, and never made any painting while still in Denmark, but retained Danish citizenship, and regularly visited Denmark while not painting, he would not become an Itialian painter, he would remain a Danish painter and a Danish expatriate in Italy. This whole scheme is just plain wrong headed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: It think that you are not just tired, you are also getting emotional. It's best to withdraw from the debate at this time, both for your own sake and for others. Your points are made and have been supported by others. It's just getting messy now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are not going to silence me. I contributed too little to the last discussion, and that allowed this travesty to be imposed. This is a true travesty. For example Category:French Roman Catholic bishops has 68 articles sub-catted to it which are explicitly categorized as French bishops who were bishops outside of France. This is not even clearly a comprehensive set. You just do not like people who disagree with you and so are trying to silence us. We will not be silenced. People by nationality is a standard way to categorize people. In some areas for decades, and in some others for over a century all Roman Catholic bishops were people who were born outside that domain. In the Archdiocese of Mexico it was 134 years from when the archdiocese was created until someone who was in any way Mexican was appointed as archbishop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a horrible idea. I should have just plain opposed it when I first saw it. After having read just a few of the contents of Categpry:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa it is clear this is a wrong headed idea that is just plain wrong. Bishops have nationality and should be categorized by it. Those bishops served in Zambia, and Gabon, and Mauritania and Senegal. The articles lead by calling them "French bishops" because they were French. This would never have become confusing of we had started with 2 trees. One by diocese, the other by nationality. I have no objection to Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Zambia, nor Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Mexico. The countries know there are foreign clerics and in nation clerics, at times they have ed expelled the former. I even might support merging this category into Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality which I tried to start a DRV on, which I have never done before. I also have to admit I have grave concerns about so many articles on bishops having one source that is to a directory style blog. Which leads to a few articles on bishops where we have less than good sourcing on their origins. Despite the late last year "first black Cardinal" headlines having been 60 years behind reality, it was only in the 1950s that the Catholic Church ordained their first bishop of publicly acknowledged black ancestry, unless there was one early on in Kongo. The issues of ethnicity, race and the priesthood have a more complicated history in Latin America, but foreign clerics do not lose their nationality and become nationals of a new place just because they go there on assignment from the Church. We actually generally recognize this with missionary categories, but some how we act as if a missionary being granted the title of bishop magically makes him Chinese, or Indian, or American, or Australian, or Peruvian, or Mexican, or Chadian and no longer Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgian or Irish. Well it does not. A lot of these people belong in Foo nationality expatriates in x. No one in their right mind would argue John H. Groberg was in any way Tongan. True his total time in Tonga as a resident was only 6 years, the other 8 or so he was an ecclesiastical leader for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there he resided elsewhere. Wilford Booth may have an article and he was never other than an American expatriate. To find someone who rivals bishops in service in one place who we have an article on I may need to briNg up Charles W. Callis but since he was not assigned across international boundaries it is not a good comparison. I know we get this, that just because you go somewhere does not mean you become a national of that place. I just see it is at times poorly applied in categorization. There are some cases that are tricky, but that is true of any profession. It does not mean we consider every American writer who lived multiple years in Paris a French writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous decision was implemented with reckless disregard for the likes of Michael Banach, someone who holds the rank of bishop but has never held an actual bishop's office and instead has been Papal Nuncio to multiple countries. Banach is clearly American, but was not bishop there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion about this decision but could those who do care cease RIGHT NOW from recategorizing Bishops and Archbishops pages while this discussion is going on? You're creating red link categories that do not exist which then have to be addressed. If change is decided, then it can happen in a systematized way and if it is voted down, then we'll end up having to undo some of this work.
One major irritant for me is editors who change categories while a proposed rename, merger or deletion discussion is in progress which can create more work for others or rendered everyone's participation here pointless because you've gone and made the changes on your own. Can you hold off changing categories on biographies until this case is closed? Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People are categorised by nationality, see Category:People. They can in addition be categorised in other ways but as an addition, not as an alternative. Generally, I suggest a moratorium on category changes that are not essential. The excessive churn is making it difficult for ordinary folks. Thincat (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to withdraw this. I think we need to reconsider how we deal with these ambiguities. Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my mind about all this. I think we should exploit the ambiguity of nationality. If we characterise archbishops by nationality, so for each country there is a category of Fooish archbishops, then we can have a subcategory of archbishops in Foo - where not all the individual archbishops will personally be Fooish - if its needed. Those in the superior category will be the Fooish archbishops who served somewhere else. The archbishops in Foo can be subcategorised by archdiocese in Foo if there is more than one. The migrant archbishops will be categorised as Fooish archbishops but also as archbishops in Bar. If we go about it like that perhaps we only need one superior category -the existing Archbishops by nationality.Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose any solution that in any way implies a Frenchman who lived in the US a few years is magically American. We can cite Bishops in Foo as a related category to Fooish bishops, but I do not think we should imply they have a direct connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the contents of the subcategories they are almost all categorised by the location of the archdiocese, not by the nationality of the person. But when it comes to archbishops they are usually the same. Recent migrants are rarely appointed as archbishops.Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many cases where people were appointed as archbishops who were clearly and without question expatriates and never were in any meaningful sense nationals of the place they were archbishop of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In reviewing several thousand biographies of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops I have only found 3 which mentioned the nationality of the subject. The vast majority stay in their diocese and die there - apart from titular bishops, who dont generally have a diocese. But regardless of that it is almost always the fact that they are a bishop in a particular country that makes them notable. Very few who migrate have done anything notable in their home country, and categorisation is meant to relate to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the CFD precedent on "Bishops by nationality" (linked above) is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_18#Category:Roman_Catholic_bishops_by_nationality and may end up being relisted. – Fayenatic London 16:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key point is that we cant have both "by country" and "by nationality" trees as editors, understandably are confused by the ambiguity. It's not the grandparent categories which matter.Rathfelder (talk) 18:05, 11 April 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:1969 establishments in Mysore State[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "State of Mysore" ceased to exist in 1956 after the reorganisation of States. The State came to be referred as Karnataka with Bangalore as its capital city. This is a factually wrong category. Vikram Vincent 13:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the source of the confusion, It was formed on 1 November 1956, with the passage of the States Reorganisation Act. Originally known as the State of Mysore, it was renamed Karnataka in 1973. Let this discussion remain open so that we can verify whether Christ University was registered under Karnataka or Mysore state. Vikram Vincent 13:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. @Vikram Vincent, this had all been explained to you before you decided to start forumshopping, and then to waste time by opening this CFD.
The notion of whether an entity was "registered" is a red herring. The category is not about a register: it is about time and place. If you disagree with the article's assertion that Christ University was founded in Bangalore in 1969, then feel free to discuss that on the article's talk page ... but there is no CFD issue. Please stop the timewasting and withdraw this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience BrownHairedGirl. I understand the logic you are using while creating and populating this category, because you want data to be accurate, but I also know that it is problematic because this is not an enduring category as it ceases to exist in 1973. The problem with such and related categories is that people won't bother to look for a State of Mysore. Rather they will look for either India/Karnataka/Bangalore. I also noticed that you removed the India category quite arbitrarily. When I reverted your edit, you reverting me again was inappropriate because I dont want to discuss over revert summaries(I try to follow 1RR though quite difficult :-)) So your effort of trying to be accurate is actually counter-productive. BTW I started the discussion on your talk page by mistake. I was actually trying to click on the institution talk page(problems of editing on a mobile device). I moved the discussion here due to the larger ramifications so I dont think your WP:TE and "forum shopping" claims hold any water. I think that you need to discuss categories with those who are affected by your actions than creating what is "ideal". Best! Vikram Vincent 14:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikram Vincent, you are rapidly exhausting my patience, especially since you have continued your disruptive forum-shopping by opening a forth discussion about this, at WT:INB#arbitrary_removal_of_India_category. For goodness sake, stop it.
Your latest comments again misunderstand the basis of categorisation. I have replied in detail at WT:INB#arbitrary_removal_of_India_category, and I will not restate that explanation here.
Sadly, your closing comment you need to discuss categories with those who are affected by your actions is obnoxious (I hope unintentionally so). I have replied in detail to you at no less than four different locations. In each case the problem is that you lack knowledge both of the substantive topics and of categorization guidelines and proceses, and you charge off based on false assumptions which you would have known to be false if you had done some research. Your forumshopping has vastly multiplied the effort involved on replying to you, and you have now had the benefit of over an hour of my time. So your complaint that I should discuss this comes across as outright trolling. Please desist ... because if you again goad me towards losing my cool with you, I escalate your problematic conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is tendentious nonsense from an editor who has already had the issue explained to him on my talk age, at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#category_Mysore_state ... but who has now chosen CFD as the third venue in which raise the same issue.
The situation is very simple. In 1973, Mysore State was renamed as Karnataka. The establishment categories (see Category:Establishments in Karnataka by year) all use the name which applied at the time to which they refer, so until 1972 they are named "Mysore State". Thereafter they are named "Karnataka".
This is exactly the same convention as used in other cases where a territory's name has changed. See e.g. Category:Establishments in Eswatini by year or Category:Establishments in North Macedonia by year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in year categories we use the name of the territory that was used in that particular year. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Indian state names are a truly confusing mess. However we can clearly date when different names were used. We have made the simple decision to use the name applicable at the time. I am less than convinced it will be easy to figure out pre-1956 exactly what state a place was in, but from 1956 we only have splittings and renames, so it is managable. Pre-1956 we have cases of non-contiguous territories in given states, and we have very complex boundary changes in that year. I was originally not going to use state categories pre-1956, but others have decided to press forward with it, but we need to use lots of caution. However this is a clear case where it was clearly Myrose State in 1956.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Indeed, Indian state names are a truly confusing mess. --Just N. (talk) 19:57, 21 March 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:Video games that support Vulkan (API)[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. – Fayenatic London 14:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Rendering technologies are usually baked into the engine rather than the game. IceWelder [✉] 11:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that their respect list articles have been deleted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 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:Scottish bishops[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. bibliomaniac15 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent that decided that bishops by nationality is not a good idea. Best to use geography because bishops are in dioceses that have defined geographic remit. So the scope includes those bishops who served their episcopate in Scotland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, someone being ordained as a priest in France, emigrating to Scotland and becoming a bishop there, is notable for his role in Scottish history, not French history. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Oculi. Renaming this category may create more confusion rather than helping. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some occupations specifically tied to a location or region. For example mayors or governors, and bishops too. Who cares if a mayor/governor/bishop was born in another country, the important thing is that they are mayor/governor/bishop of a particular location in their new country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that at least one category should probably be maintained for nationality. It should probably be near the top of a tree. The most likely candidate here is Category:Scottish Christian clergy. That can cater for priests and cardinals (whose office is non geographic), and also for those Scottish nationals whose episcopacy was served in countries other than Scotland, though in the latter case, a new "Expatriate Scottish bishops" would probably be better. This leaves the way clear for bishops to be categorised by geography - country in this instance - since the diocesan structure readily lends itself to this treatment. Only Military Ordinariates would fall outside the scope, but these are quite rare. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We maybe can create a seperate category for this thing, but should keep that category by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On further thought we should in all cases have both x bishops and bishops in x. There are way too many cases of bishops serving outside their place of origin in ways that clearly do not give them nationality there to do otherwise. We need to keep in mind that before a certain time nationality is complex, and so we need to avoid imputing it without evidence. Bishops articles have an astounding lack of good sourcing in a huge number of cases. I am beginning to think the way we have granted assumed notability to so many bishops needs to be reconsidered if we are going to just end up with thousands of articles sourced only to one directory style blog entry. This is exactly why I said the parent should not be renamed without noticing the children. The issues with the unworkability of this become clear when we look at it. For example Category:French Roman Catholic bishops alone has at least 68 articles on men who were not bishops in France, and that is only those in sub-cats that explicitly say that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous decision was implemented with reckless disregard for the likes of Michael Banach, someone who holds the rank of bishop but has never held an actual bishop's office and instead has been Papal Nuncio to multiple countries. Banach is clearly American, but was not bishop there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fundamental problem is that Category:Scottish bishops is ambiguous, and I dont see any way round that. Category:Bishops in Scotland is at least unambiguous. It serves fine for bishops categorised by diocese, who may well not be Scottish themselves. If we want to categorise the Scots who served in other countries can we not call them Scottish clergy in Foo? Normally they are not bishops while they are in Scotland. They are ordained in the country where they serve. Rathfelder (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Marcocapelle. I'd say there is no need at all to categorise Scots who served as bishop in other countries. I'm distraught about all those opposers. They can't be Scottish nationalists all of them? Any reasons beyond nationalism? --Just N. (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We categorize Herbert Hoover and hundreds of other American engineers who mainly worked as engineers outside the US rightly as American engineers. I can bring up lots of other examples. American writers who spent much of the 1920s and 1930s in Paris are not excluded from being classified as American writers. Gal Gadot is without question appropriately placed in Category:Israeli actresses. I could go on. We categorize people by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Fooish engineers" is ambiguous. There are plenty of biographies of people categorised by the place that they did what made them notable - a nationality category - when they were clearly not citizens of that country. There are also very many where their nationality is not clear. The distinguishing feature of bishops is that they are mostly assigned to a diocese which may not be in the country of which they are a citizen. I dont think any other occupation is assigned to a territory in this way. But I think on balance we should not abolish the individual nationality categories. I think the most important thing is to have one superior category per country/nationality. So either Bishops in Foo has to be a subcategory of Fooish bishops, which works, because of the ambiguity, or Fooish bishops has to be a subcategory of Bishops in Foo, which doesnt work, because some of them were not in Foo. But not all bishops have a territory, and in some cases (not many) their individual nationality is significant. But very few bishops move from one country to another once they have reached the rank of bishop. Mostly they are priests in their own country and only become bishops when they emigrate. Rathfelder (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • A very comparable category of occupation by territory is Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it is not. In that case they are directly connected with the government. Bishops are not, so it is much more common for them to be expatriates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Historically speaking bishops certainly were directly connected with governments. Just read the stories of bishops in China. Bishops rarely move countries when they are bishops. Young clergy often migrate and become bishops in another country. It's misleading to categorise them as Fooish bishops if they were not bishops when they were in Foo. Better to categorise them as Fooish priests. And very few bishops are expatriates in the sense that they return to their country of origin. They are defined by their diocese. That is what makes them notable as bishops, not their origins. Rathfelder (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the CFD precedent on "Bishops by nationality" (linked above) is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_18#Category:Roman_Catholic_bishops_by_nationality and may end up being relisted. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 11 April 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:Female urethra[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. This category is unlikely to be significantly expanded beyond one or two articles. I propose it is deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 05:36, 16 March 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 COVID-19[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 - jc37 09:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having contracted COVID-19 does not in any way foster collaboration. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. A better category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in COVID-19 - but I am not suggesting to rename because it would have a clearly different scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categories like this that only categorizes the editor's themselves should really not exist. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think that categorizing editors by a disease they may have (such as COVID-19, the flu, malaria etc.) is helpful. Most people who have the disease will eventually recover so the category isn't relevant anymore, and those that don't recover... well my condolences but they obviously won't be editing Wikipedia anymore. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cute, but not collaborative. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cat seems bad taste and lacking contemplation. --Just N. (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per it being created in the the utter chaos of the April Fools. I wasn't entirely myself, so get rid of it. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 12:36, 1 April 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 Distinguished Flying Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom)[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. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the former members can be found here. – Fayenatic London 08:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa Medal with 5 "bars".
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT but not WP:OCAWARD)
The Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom) is a British and this category groups people who have won that same award twice or thrice. In the UK, recipients receive a medal bar when they earn an award more than once rather than receiving separate physical medals. (A different British award with bars is shown to the right.) I have not formed an opinion yet whether the underlying award is defining or not but we don't categorize governors who were elected twice differently than those who were elected once or singers with 3 albums differently than singers with 4 albums so this double winner category seems non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We already merged a bunch of British "bar" categories right here and another here but I missed these ones. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a difference between a campaign award that you have added as a picture, (in this case a Boer war medal where the soldier fought in 5 engagements) which was awarded to all participants in a war/conflict and a gallantry award like the nominated award. Unfortunately you have misrepresented your argument due to using this picture. These nominated gallantry medal/s were given for exceptional actions by the participant. Agree that campaign awards with multiple bars are not defining, but in the case of a DFC with 2 bars the participant was awarded a gallantry medal three times!! - this is exceptional and very rarely awarded. The significance would be equivalent to the notability given to individual soldiers who were highly decorated. This totally meets WP:OCAWARD given the significance placed on multiple gallantry awards as rare, prestigious and defining. In the case of the DFC second bar this was only awarded 54 times from a total of circa 22K DFC's awarded! Kingbird1 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My nom clearly said that was a different award and I was using it to explain what a "bar" meant; if there is a better pic available just let me know. We've consistently merged (but not deleted) categories for people who won the same defining award multiple times.- RevelationDirect (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and RevelationDirect. --Just N. (talk) 20:14, 21 March 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 Royal Order of Kamehameha I[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. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
When the Kingdom of Hawaii sent emissaries to other countries or vice versa, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I was given out as souvenir. Queen Victoria, Guangxu Emperor, and Alexander III of Russia are not remotely defined by this award. (A subgroup of this category is from Hawaii but most of them are Hawaiian royalty who are already well categorized under Category:Hawaiian royalty.) All of the category contents are now listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 16 March 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_March_16&oldid=1018369894"