Category:Seleucid people in the books of the Maccabees[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.
Nominator's rationale: Or Category:People in the books of the Maccabees (or variants without "the" and just "Books of Maccabees"); I'm just following the style of Category:Book of Daniel people or Category:Book of Job people. See talk page comment at Category talk:Seleucid people in the books of the Maccabees, hopefully uncontroversial scope widening; would have nominated it for speedy since author User:Marcocapelle agreed, but the speedy requirements technically say they only apply for 6 months after creation. Short version is that nearly everyone in the Books of Maccabees is "Seleucid" since uncontroversial independence of the Hasmonean kingdom was not gained for some time (consider that according to Josephus, John Hyrcanus did not call himself a king, and agreed to ally / work under the Seleucid King until 128 BCE, aka decades after the events described in the Books of the Maccabees). Easier just to include everyone mentioned, which is also consistent with other "People / Characters of (Source)" categories. SnowFire (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for simplicity and consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestCategory:People in the books of the Maccabees instead; Books of the Maccabees people makes it sound like they were part of a people called "Maccabees", although that term has varied meanings and doesn't necessarily apply to everyone mentioned in the books. "People in the books of the Maccabees" is both clearer and consistent with the parent category, "Books of the Maccabees". P Aculeius (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Books of the Maccabees people" world be consistent with several categories in Category:Hebrew Bible people. A smaller number within Biblical people use "People in". 03:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
But the category is about people mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees, not about "people called 'Maccabees' who had some books"—which is why that title is awkward and potentially confusing. P Aculeius (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Major League Baseball draft picks and subcategories[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.
Nominator's rationale: Categories for MLB draft picks by team have been deleted before (see [1]). What team drafted what player is not a defining characteristic of baseball players. International (not USA, Canada, or P.R.) are ineligible to be drafted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fare. ウィ貴公子 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF existing doesn't mean this should. I should probably CfD those too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is a WP:FANCRUFT cat and not encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I think the only real major US sporting league where being undrafted is likely defining is the NBA. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy merge/delete. – FayenaticLondon 04:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT- contains one page, which is the main topic article for the category. Little hope of expansion. (NPP action)Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic one or two item WP:SMALLCATs. As always, we categorize historical things by the geography that pertained at the time, not by the changed geography of 2023 -- so the things here were in "the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", not in "Poland", in their own time, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth categories are not large enough to need subdivision. (Plus, for added bonus, almost everything in any of these categories was left in the Polish-Lithuanian category alongside this new one, which constitutes unwarranted duplicate categorization anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. @ Bearcat for navigation purposes and clarity for cat users it might be helpful to have some sort of explanatory text that clearly defines the years for each cat at Category:Establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Category:Establishments in Poland. You could also refer to the other category series so people can find what they are looking for. We would see less cat overlap and confusion if this were done. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous category without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. As always, companies do not automatically get their own dedicated eponymous categories the moment there's one or two things to file in them, but would need to have at least five things to escape WP:SMALLCAT rules. But the only thing actually filed here is a Category:Screen Media films subcategory -- which is large enough to be fine by itself, but doesn't automatically need this for parentage if there aren't at least four other things to file here besides that -- and the only other thing that could feasibly filed here at all is the actual eponym itself, so this just isn't large enough to be warranted at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Category:Screen Media is a subcat of several larger category trees. By deleting it we essentially disconnect Category:Screen Media films from those larger category trees which is problematic for cat navigation and user searches within category structures.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Films categories aren't necessarily supposed to be connected to some of those other trees. For instance, there's no reason why it's important for any of the films in the films category to be directly under Category:Companies based in Ontario at all, which is one of the categories they're now under by virtue of this parent. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American Fourth of July mass shootings, 2023[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.
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific WP:SMALLCAT for just two incidents. Category:2023 mass shootings in the United States already exists, and just because two incidents happened on the same day is not a reason why they would need their own special "mass shootings on one specific day" subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Also neither of these events actually took place on July 4, 2023 but occurred just prior to that day; so the cat is in error.4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. There is considerable dispute to whether we should have actor categories for all languages, as we currently do for Indian languages. However, the current scheme was abandoned by creator Jaiquiero (talk·contribs), who is described as having a history of creating unnecessary categories, after adding a single article. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for an intersection of unrelated characteristics. We don't ordinarily categorize actors and actresses for the language in which they act per se, given that actors and actresses may very well have the ability to act in multiple languages -- while there is a Category:Film actresses by language tree, it's technically misnamed, and isn't really "all actresses catted for every possible language in which a screenplay could possibly have been written" so much as it is "actresses in specific Indian or Nigerian regional cinema industries", and has no other "Actresses by European language" subcategories at all. And for added bonus, while the one person filed here has acted in British films, she's a French from France actress who has merely done some work in British films, not a British actress per se. And while the "French-language actresses" was otherwise populated with an "all 13 of them despite the lack of any genuine basis for most of them" glut of completely empty "French-language actresses from [Canadian province or territory]", those have already been shitcanned as not useful -- so that category will just be left empty if the British subcategory goes. Bearcat (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows if the categories might become useful in the future? Jaiquiero (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sheer phunking number of categories you created in the past two days which I've had to redirect somewhere else because we already had a category for the exact same thing at a different name than the one you assumed a category for it should be at (e.g. Category:Sudbury, Ontario → Category:Greater Sudbury), and the fact that you built out a brand-new "Populated places on Georgian Bay" tree to parent your duplicated Sudbury category even though Sudbury isn't even on Georgian Bay, I can't say I'm all that inclined to trust your judgement of what "might become" useful in the future. If it ever is needed, then it can be built out (and populated by more than just one article) when that need becomes apparent, but we don't keep one-item categories just because somebody speculates that they might become useful someday. Bearcat (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MergeCategory:French-language British actresses to Category:French-language actresses and populate the latter cat. I do think we could reasonably expand Category:Actors by language to include all actors and all languages because the language an actor speaks is a defining aspect of their work. Further, "foreign language film"s encompass all languages, including the English language. English language films are foreign films when they compete in international film festivals in non-English speaking countries. Language is therefore a defining quality for prizes in the field of acting. I'm not sure we really need a cross-categorization for nationality and language of actors, which seems a little fancrufty to me, but I do think we could place language cats onto all actor articles, with obviously several actors having multiple language cats if they have performed in more than one language.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider categorizing all actors for language-acted-in across the board to be virtually unmaintainable category bloat, personally, as it would result in categories with tens of thousands of entries and a considerable number of people who would have to be categorized for several languages at once. The solution isn't so much to scale that out into supernovaville as to rename the "Actors in X cinema" container to something more accurate to what it is, and less likely to be mistaken for the notion that a comprehensive "all actors in all languages" scheme would be desirable at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, per nom. Besides the article is about a museum, so if there would be enough content, Category:Locomotives museums would be the more appropriate name. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
