Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 26
July 28 >

July 27[edit]

Category:Contemplated enlargements of the European Union[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Purge and then no consensus on what to do afterwards. Since nobody likes the current name and Marcocapelle's proposal (Category:Accession to the European Union by country) has received the most support, I'm renaming to that as a bartender's close. Any further proposals to upmerge, delete, or switch to the original name can be brought to a new CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Potential enlargement of the European Union. Charles Essie (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The articles are not about applicants though, but rather about the process towards application or membership, so this alt 3 name isn't quite accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It's a mixture of applicants and bilateral relations. That's not good. Rename to alt 3, purge the remainder and create a new category for them. What do you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: as said before, the articles about bilateral relations should be purged because they have a category on their own. We just need to find a category name for the "Accession to the European Union" topic articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, WP:CANCAT does not apply in this case. It would have applied if the category contained a set of countries, but now it contains topic articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and alt rename per Marcocapelle and Nederlandse Leeuw, seems to be the best target. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Ok, so first, the current name of the main article comes from this requested move. Not the most sound footing for a name, I think, but it's what we have to start with at least. In reading over the various Accession articles, I see the re-curring wording of "...on the current agenda for...". Basically, they are on a proscribed path, and once they achieve whatever goals, then it's possible they will get admitted. I think this is slightly different that WP:CANCAT, as this isn't necessarily a popularity contest or topten list. These aren't candidate for an office or a list, but rather for membership in an international group. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that CANCAT cannot apply here, if there is consensus. I'm looking at other sub-sub-catsof Category:Enlargement of intergovernmental organizations. But in those cases, there isn't a subcat just for this, they're directly in Category:Enlargement of X. I think perhaps the better solution here might just be to address the gaggle of articles in (to cleanup) Category:Enlargement of the European Union, and UpMerge the nominated cat. Or in other words, UpMerge and purge/clean-up. - jc37 12:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge/UpMerge to Category:Enlargement of the European Union, per my comments above. Let's not start a "potential/future/possible" set of trees. - jc37 12:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37, this is okay as a second choice (it's better than the vagueness of "potential" etc.), but I'd still prefer to rename and purge as I said above, because it follows thearticle names clearly. Qwerfjkltalk 21:43, 1 September 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:English chronicles[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More WP:CATSPECIFIC. What all items have in common is that they are chronicles written in English (be it Old English, Middle English, or Early Modern English), with England (the Kingdom of England) as their topic. Category:Chronicles about England has been created as a parent, Category:Latin chronicles about England and Category:Anglo-Norman chronicles about England have been split off as siblings. Follow-up to recent renaming of Category:English manuscripts to Category:English-language manuscripts, as well as a follow-up to recently renamed siblings:
Category:French chronicles to Category:Chronicles about France (which has children such as Category:French-language chronicles about France, Category:Latin chronicles about France);
Category:Lithuanian chronicles to Category:Chronicles about Lithuania (most of which are written in German, Ruthenian, or Latin, not Lithuanian);
Category:Polish chronicles to Category:Chronicles about Poland (which has children such as Category:Latin chronicles about Poland).
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am opposed to any and all categories of the form "chronicles about [country]". These should all be changed. It just isn't a normal way fo speaking or writing. It is pretty much the rarest chronicle + preposition combination you can think of. Srnec (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively this may become just Category:English-language chronicles. The first article is in Latin, by the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also possible, but in practice they are all about English, so "English-language chronicles about England" is the most WP:CATSPECIFIC. If we do go with this shorted title, would you be okay with including English-language chronicles about Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and potentially other topics? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: The article Gesta Henrici Quinti does say in the infobox "Language: English and Latin" and already had the parent Category:English-language books, so I kept it here, but no citation is given for this claim that it is somehow bilingually English and Latin. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Do we have English language chronicles about other countries? Are all chronicles about England and/or Great Britain in English language? Like nominator, I also prefer all-things literature / written cultural monuments/heritage to be tied to language in sense of categorisation. ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some English-language chronicles are about Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, or still other countries. The mistake here is that "English" always refers to both England and the English language, quod non. This error occurs constantly throughout this category tree, which I am seeking to address. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there are Category:French-language chronicles about France, French-language/Category:Anglo-Norman chronicles about England, Category:Old French chronicles about the Crusades, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are also lots of French-language chronicles about Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. simply because French was the court language of much of Europe in the High and Late Middle Ages. Similarly, Category:Latin chronicles can have any country or any set of events as their topic, nobody is saying Latin chronicles could only be about the Roman Empire or anything. Language and country often simply do not coincide, that's a very modern idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 27 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:Workplace bullying[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Purge and then No consensus on what (if anything) to do after purging. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reading through the list of articles and redirects in this category, it seems like this category is either unclear in its scope via its title or is not valid at all. At this point, I think WP:TNT applies. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purge, or else delete. Clearly something should be done with this category. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Region of Bengal[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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MADEUP labels that do not correspond to existing Wikipedia articles. All of the articles are already in at least one region-related category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:21, 27 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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Courcelles[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: speedy deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created by a sockpuppet (likely) Notrealname1234 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted. Red X I withdraw my nomination Notrealname1234 (talk) 16:49, 27 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:Books written by heads of 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. The target may be nominated as well, but that is for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless there is an article that could populate the category, then reverse merge due to that the other category in the target (Category:Books written by prime ministers of the United Kingdom) is also specific to heads of state. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories by heads of 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not useful, having only two subcats, and I did not find any others that would fit. If not merged, it should probably be renamed to Categories by head of state. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 27 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:21st-century women prime ministers in Europe[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 Category:21st-century rulers in Europe as uncontested. Merge Category:21st-century women prime ministers in Europe and Category:21st-century prime ministers in Europe, since these two were specicially analyzed to be not part of a scheme. Keep the rest. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to "21st-century presidents in Europe", "21st-century women presidents in Europe". Indirectly WP:G4 per the 2010 "20th and 21st-century rulers" CfD, which led to the deletion of Category:21st-century rulers in Europe (since recreated), Category:21st-century heads of government in Europe, Category:21st-century monarchs in Europe (since recreated), and more. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally I think categorizing biographies as 20th- or 21st-century is redundant, since 99% of Wikipedia biographies fall in that range. So support this one too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think most categories which do not specify the century are both redundant and making navigation harder. I suggest keeping all of the century-related categories, and creating further ones. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Three precedents say otherwise. This is WP:OVERCAT 101, creating needless clutter while many of these categories are mostly WP:SMALLCATs ranging from 1 to 4 items. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we're only two decades in. These will be populated eventually. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the exception in SMALLCAT ...unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.." seems to apply here. Additionally: "...such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time..." Draken Bowser (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Draken Bowser I'm not nominating them per smallcat, these aren't smallcats. They will still be "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" if we upmerge them as nominated. In fact, I just created Category:21st-century women prime ministers in Europe 7 weeks ago, and the categories were also fine before 30 May 2023. However, the part that is not accepted is that we should categorise "rulers", heads of state and govt by 21st century, per three precedents who confirmed that this is not necessary and should not be done to avoid category clutter. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'd like to overturn that precedent. Thanks. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all except the women noms since the precedent cited does not extend beyond women. I think that the other 2010 decision was wrong. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, how about the 2 July 2023 precedent to Upmerge all "21st-century presidents in Europe" to Category:Presidents in Europe? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. That takesa low-participation decision and makes another low-participation decision. I don't feel very comfortable about either of these precedents. I feel that each will soon pass the smallcat threshold. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unnecessary. OVERCAT. SMALLCAT isn't the issue here. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I don't think these categories are redundant, especially not for the monarchs by century scheme, but also to a lesser extent for the prime ministers categories. As discussed below, upmerge the women prime ministers in Europe, prime ministers in Europe, and delete the rulers in Europe category. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Categorisation by century is deeply entrenched (whether or not it was in 2010 - I don't think we should be bound in any way by discussions that took place 13 years ago). This change would make it more difficult to find individual articles. Marcocapelle notes that 99% of biographies fall in the 20th-21st century range, but we're now far enough into the 21st century that the distinction between the two is relevant (Austria has had 9 chancellors this century compared to 22 last century, for example). Furius (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Furius, I don't think two century categories (21at and 20th) is sufficient for a by century categorisation here. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Plenty of these go back well over two centuries. "Category:Swedish monarchs" has century categories going back to the 9th century and most of the other monarchs go back several centuries. Most of the "prime minister" categories go back to at least the 19th century (so 3 centuries). My point was rather that the 20th and 21st century shouldn't be an exception to the normal practice of categorising people by century.
      The title of chancellor of Austria has only existed since 1920; before that they had "ministers-president"... Category:Ministers-President of Austria, which WP also categorises by century. Furius (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Furius, that's a reasonable point, but plenty of the categories don't, and so those ones at least should be upmerged. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Northern Cyprus seems to be the only one? Turkey is a similar case to Austria, with a predecessor title which is also categorised by century Category:Grand Viziers of the Ottoman Empire. I don't think Northern Cyprus justifies eliminating all of these categories (and the Europe-level categories that would allow one to navigate between them), which is what you have advocated in your comment. Furius (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Furius
      21st century cat only: Category:21st-century women prime ministers in Europe, Category:21st-century prime ministers in Europe
      21st, 20th only: Category:21st-century prime ministers of Northern Cyprus
      21st, 20th, 19th only: Category:21st-century Chancellors of Germany, Category:21st-century prime ministers of Greece, Category:21st-century prime ministers of the United Kingdom

      Most of the monarchs categories are fine, although Category:21st-century Belgian monarchs does not have a large century scheme.

      The nom raises a good point about Category:21st-century rulers in Europe, it is a redundant layer.

      Not sure I agree with your reasoning about Turkey and Austria either - just because the title is new doesn't mean it can be an exception, in fact quite the opposite, because of this it doesn't warrant by century cats. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (Please ping me on reply, I forgot aboout this discussion, hence the later response.) — Qwerfjkltalk 13:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Qwerfjkl: once you've got century categories for the earlier centuries of an office, I do not understand why you'd get rid of the 21st century cat. What is possibly gained by having (e.g.) "Chancellors of Germany" with 19th and 20th century cats, but no 21st century cat? Or are you pushing to eliminate the 19th and 20th century cats as well? I don't see how that makes things easier for readers either... and would result in large categories for most of the prime ministers (Greece has had 117!). I think I dispute the idea that several centuries of existence is necessary to justify having a "by century" scheme in place - we use the scheme for lots of relatively short-lived things (e.g. Category:Cars by century, Category:Radio programme debuts by century... although I admit that there are a lot more cars and radio programmes than German chancellors).
      These 21st century cats also regularly sit within larger 21st century trees. Sticking with Germany again, "21st-century Chancellors of Germany" is part of "Category:21st-century German politicians," itself sitting within a more general "Category:21st-century politicians by nationality" tree. I don't see what is gained by having Merkel, Scholz, and Schroeder in "Category:Chancellors of Germany" and "Category:21st-century German politicians" (in fact, they wouldn't appear in this category, they'd be dispersed into the various "Members of the Bundestag [year]-[year]" categories) instead of the current arrangement.
      I agree that Category:21st-century rulers in Europe is a redundant layer and have no opposition to its elimination. Furius (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Furius, yes, it would perhaps be better to nominate the other by century categories at the same time.

      I don't see any problem with not continuing a larger 21st century tree, though I don't feel too strongly that thise categories should be deleted, except in cases where there aren't that many members (such as the aforementioned Belgian monarchs category, and probably others).

      Want do you think of the (women) prime ministers in Europe categories? AFAICK, they are not part of a by century scheme. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Qwerfjkl: Fair point. I agree with you on Category:21st-century women prime ministers in Europe, Category:21st-century prime ministers in Europe, since they're not part of a wider "by century" scheme nor part of a wider "by continent" scheme. Furius (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────┘
Okay. The rest of the categories can be kept. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swiss chronicles[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parents Category:History books about Switzerland, Category:History of the Iberian Peninsula, Category:History books about Ireland, Category:Scandinavian history, respectively. Follow-up to recently renamed siblings:
Category:French chronicles to Category:Chronicles about France;
Category:Lithuanian chronicles to Category:Chronicles about Lithuania:
Category:Polish chronicles to Category:Chronicles about Poland.
The categories under this CfR are obviously not by language, but by topic. (Slight exception is Category:Irish chronicles, many but not all of which are written in Irish, but the category trees show it is not language-based). See also CfR of parent Category:European chronicles. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, "chronicle about [country]" is almost always wrong both as English and as a matter of fact. There was no "Switzerland" concept in the Middle Ages, so how could any medieval chronicle be about it? Whatever the problems with the existing categories, the proposed titles hardly seem like an improvement. Srnec (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Swiss began to adopt the name for themselves after the Swabian War of 1499, used alongside the term for "Confederates" ... used since the 14th century. One of the advantages of "Swiss chronicle" over "Chronicle about Switzerland" is that in the former case it is clear that we are applying the adjective to the chronicle, but in the latter case it isn't clear if Switzerland is a concept found in the chronicle or just more retrospective classifying. Srnec (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose most. Srnec raises valid points, and I'm not sure what exactly the "value add" of these renames are - "Swiss", "Iberian", and "Scandinavian" aren't languages anyway (macrolanguage families, at best) so why would anyone be confused? Weak oppose to Irish chronicles, as I suppose that could be confusing, but that also seems fixable with a category description if anyone is hesitant to stick an English-language chronicle of Ireland in it. As for the recently renamed siblings, I'd argue they should be moved back - especially Lithuanian chronicles for the same reason as above, since language isn't a likely point of confusion. SnowFire (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire why would anyone be confused?
    Because "Swiss" can also mean:
    • "written by a Swiss person" or
    • "produced in Switzerland" or
    • "owned by Switzerland" or
    • etc.
    But none of these is evidently the case. And unlike many ambiguously named siblings, "Swiss" is not a language, so these should be relatively easy renamings. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose most per Srnec - I'd imagine many don't just cover eg Swiss matters. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sources of ancient Iranian religion[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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, insofar applicable articles are already in Category:Zoroastrian texts. For other articles it does seem not to make much sense to have them together in a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 27 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:Science fiction-related magazines[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: manual merge as per Marcocapelle. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "related" seems unnecessary and is not common for similar entities. PS. I guess this should be a merge listing. The category tries to explain the difference: " are magazines about science fiction, devoted to media, criticism, news or other non-fiction content. If a magazine contains mainly fiction instead it is listed instead in the related category Category:Science fiction magazines" but I think this is superficial and hard to argue that a publication is just "related"; it seems like an arbitrary and ORish category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_27&oldid=1173690162"