Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25
June 27 >

June 26[edit]

Category:Muhajir navigational boxes[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 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:Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers of Manchukuo[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 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.

Byzantino-Slavic wars (disambugation)[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 close - Take your pick: Not tagged, wrong venue, etc. Also is apparently a failed WP:PROD, several times in a row... Nominator may want to read up on WP:Deletion policy before nominating something else for PROD or XfD- jc37 14:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:This disambiguation is too broad, moreover, wars that have been fought between distinct developed nations would usually have their own disambiguation against the state they’re fighting against and then the battle, not the ethnolinguist group, for example, Rus'–Byzantine War. Thus, I believe it’s judicious to delete this article. Okiyo9228 (talk) 2:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum, this is not a category. I think that disambiguation pages are discussed at WP:MFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it states “disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.” per WP:AFD Raulois (talk) 22:16, 26 June 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:Eastern Romance people[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/Withdrawn (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: Eastern Romance people redirects to Vlachs, which should therefore be considered the main article. The connected Commonscat was already renamed in 2009 from "Eastern Romance people" to "Vlachs". I propose to purge all items and subcategories which are not called or categorised as "Vlachs" in reliable sources. The main article itself at Vlachs#Modern period usage seems to indicate that the term "Vlachs" falls into disuse from the 16th century; after that, they are just speakers of Eastern Romance languages living in the Balkans and north of the Danube, which is WP:OCEGRS WP:NONDEFINING for an individual person's career. See the "Category:Romance peoples" CfD and the precedent "Germanic ethnic groups" CfD. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added (up)merging History of Eastern Romance people: As far as these subcategories cover pre-16th century history of the ethnic group in question, they can be considered "Vlachs" and have a shared history. Alternatively, we could rename it "History of the Vlachs" and re-parent Category:Vlachs in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina into it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose currently the category includes four ethnic groups: Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians. These peoples are all related and have a common ancestor, Common Romanian-speakers. The history of these groups often overlaps and it is useful to have a category grouping them all. I am open to having suggestions for renaming this category, however Vlachs is an outdated term for Eastern Romance-speakers, sometimes having been applied for other peoples, and sometimes having a pejorative connotation, which is barely used anymore and which has anyways not been proven to be a common way for grouping these peoples in academia. It would be like calling the Germanic peoples "Barbarians" in the sense the Romans used for them, not in the almost exclusively pejorative meaning it has gotten nowadays. Super Ψ Dro 13:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm also not sure yet how to best tackle this situation. But it is inappropriate to group people sharing the same native language according to the language family that native language just so happens to belong to. I am proposing to limit the category to the pre-16th century period, when people speaking Eastern Romance languages were still commonly and collectively known as "Vlachs". This is along the lines of older decisions (recently confirmed) to limit "Germanic people" to the pre-13th century period (see Category:Germanic people by century). After the 12th century, there was no more "Germanic" linguistic unity, and they have split into various modern peoples who have nothing in common but the fact that their various natives languages, at some point over 7 centures ago, had a common ancestor. See also Category:North Germanic peoples, which ends in the 11th century. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 16th century as a time limit is completely arbitrary. Romanians were probably still known as Vlachs in most countries (never among Romanians themselves) before the French Revolution and the eruption of nationalism and liberalism. Aromanians are still widely referred to as Vlachs in Greece (where most live), Albania, North Macedonia and partially in Bulgaria. The only other countries where Aromanians natively live are Serbia and Romania. The Megleno-Romanians even call themselves "Vlachs" still. "Vlach" has never been an academic way of calling the ancestors of these joint peoples but an outdated exonym referring to any Eastern Romance-speaker, be it their ancestors or the split four ethnic groups, that has stuck up to the modern age in some occasions. It is also worth noting that due to these peoples being internationally known under names alternate to the modern ones, including Vlach, there are certain "Vlach" topics we cannot refer to as belonging to one of the four ethnic groups with certainty, so a container category like this is helpful. The Morlachs were definitively Eastern Romance-speakers but we don't know if they were Romanians (that is, Romanian-speakers as that's basically the only way we could have of differentiating them) or Istro-Romanians (same logic here; this option is more popular). We also don't know if the Bosnian Vlachs were Aromanians, Istro-Romanians or Romanians. It's a complicated case in which the procedures applied to other categories doesn't matter because we require an individual analysis to find the best solution. Super Ψ Dro 14:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16th century is what Vlachs#Modern period usage says. If you know a better source, please add it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that section as it is factually wrong. Romanians are referred to as Vlachs after the 16th century and Romanians are referred to as Romanians before the 16th century. I can easily bring sources for this if you want however I would appreciate it if I didn't have to invest time into looking for them and their pages. Super Ψ Dro 13:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you've deleted my evidence and you're unwilling to provide your own in order to support your claims. How is that reasonable?
"Vlach" has never been an academic way of calling the ancestors of these joint peoples but an outdated exonym referring to any Eastern Romance-speaker
Well, the very first book I come across is from Romanian professor emeritus Victor Spinei The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (2009), who writes on p. 178–179:
The gradual ethnic and linguistic individualization of the Romance-speaking population in the East is reflected in the consistent use in contemporary sources of the term Vlach or of its variants in reference to Romanians, first those on the right, then those on the left bank of the Danube. That the first Vlachs mentioned in the sources were those in the Balkans is a consequence of their proximity to the sources of information, especially to Constantinople. (...) It is important to note that all names employed by outsiders to refer to Romanians referred to speakers of Romance languages, in general. That Romanians were fully aware of the Roman origins of their language and ethnic identity is repeatedly mentioned in contemporary sources, especially by such authors writing about the eleventh- to thirteenth-century Balkan Vlachs (...) One of the earliest mentions of the name, which Romanians used to refer to themselves appears in an [1314] Italian description of the world (...) the unknown author lists i Rumeni e i Valacchi, obviously without knowing that the two names referred to one and the same people.
I think that is pretty academic, and confirming that it is appropriate to call these Eastern Romance speaking people Vlachs during these centuries (11th to 14th century at least), before differences start to emergence between Romanians and other Eastern Romance speakers (somewhere around the 16th century?). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but there's a clear lack of familiarity with the subject here. The modern concept of "Vlach" and Balkan Romance identity issues are complex and nuanced. "Vlach" has indeed been used as a historical name for the Romanians. But there is no difference between the Romanians back then and the Romanians now. Same with the other peoples. The use of the name "Vlach" does not imply a different archaic kind of the modern ethnic groups. You will not be able to find sources on this. There's not much else to comment on the quote you send as it is largely unrelated.
I repeat that the 16th century timemark is 100% arbitrary. It was like that on the article because someone decided that the fact that the first Romanian-language text (Neacșu's letter) was from the 16th century means that Romanian was introduced as a way for referring to the Romanians in that century. This doesn't make sense because 1) the text is written by a Romanian in Romanian, while this whole Vlach thing was by foreign peoples in their own languages, 2) as the quote you sent says the Romanians were always aware of their Roman origins, and they didn't suddenly start identifying with a Roman-related ethnonym, and 3) the quote you sent says Romanians were identified with such a name in 1314 which contradicts the info I deleted from the article Vlachs, which should further demonstrate it is problematic info added by someone unfamiliarized with the topic.
The Aromanians, Istro-Romanians (and therefore the Romanians as well) split off from the original "Proto-Romanian" group at around the 10th century [1]. The source does not mention the Megleno-Romanians but due to their geographical proximity with the Aromanians they've had similar histories so it must've happened somewhere around that time as well. "Vlach" is simply not some kind of name used for a common Balkan Romance ethnic group that then branched out. It is a foreign name that Slavs, Greeks and others applied to Balkan Romance-speakers. It is still used today: see Vlachs of Serbia, Aromanians in North Macedonia, Megleno-Romanians (they internalized the name "Vlach" that foreigners gave them).
This discussion is becoming pointless. "Vlach" in the sense that the nom has given to the term does not correspond to academic reality. If no alternative proposals to the scarcely used "Eastern Romance peoples" will be proposed, it might be better to end debate altogether. Super Ψ Dro 16:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the nomination can be translated as "delete" (which is appropriate since these people are not characterized as Eastern Romance people) but "move any content to Category:Vlachs if it fits" (which is entirely fair). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, we Romanians are not "Vlachs". This is just a foreign name historically applied to us by foreign peoples. I would like to hear your rationale for merging these contents into this category as your first comment does not include any. All you've suggested is basically renaming the category. It could be renamed into other names as well. Super Ψ Dro 12:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The four ethnic groups are very commonly discussed together in academia [2]. They're closely related peoples discussed as such, so a unifying category is warranted. Super Ψ Dro 12:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Romanians are not Vlachs, indeed. I'm not saying they are. I'm arguing that pre-modern Eastern Romance people should be called "Vlachs'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is not the common practice in academia. Otherwise the article Common Romanian would be called "Vlach language". "Vlach" is not a name used in the context of early Romanian and related peoples. Super Ψ Dro 13:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four ethnic groups are of course commonly discussed together because of their shared linguistic roots. That requires the articles about the four languages being put together in a category, not the biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the reason for this rationale. Though the category does not only contain biographies, very far from it. Super Ψ Dro 07:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 18 articles directly in the category and the history subcategory are exceptions, but other than that it is mainly biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18 articles and a whole subcategory is not a small amount. Super Ψ Dro 16:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw (as nom) This discussion hasn't gone anywhere in over a month, and I don't see a consensus in sight. I guess the basis for my nomination was too weak, and I should probably read and write more about the topic, because it is currently just not very well documented on English Wikipedia. Nominating this category (as well as its parent) was premature, and I shall have to revisit it when I can make a better argument for it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is being relisted. I already withdrew, but okay. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:44, 2 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:Rulers of Provence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 14#Category:Rulers of Provence

Category:Mandatory Palestine emigrants[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 - If looking for consistency in the parent categories, feel free to try a group nom one way or other, at editorial discretion. - jc37 20:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per form of the parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 26 June 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:Kingdom of Serbia emigrants[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 - If looking for consistency in the parent categories, feel free to try a group nom one way or other, at editorial discretion. - jc37 20:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per form of the parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 26 June 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:Soviet emigrants[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: Already closed as rename (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 8#Category:Soviet emigrants

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 26 June 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:Rulers of Crete[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 14#Category:Rulers of Crete

Sri Lankan people by occupation and ethnic or national origin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: dual upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_18#Category:Sri_Lankan_people_by_occupation_and_ethnic_or_national_origin, where there was a dubious decision to omit the non-container subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersections between ethnicity and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dual Upmerge These should be merged both to the Sri Lankan ethnic category and the Sri Lankan occupation category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 28 June 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:Track and field in Canada[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 11:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory without an entirely clear differentiation from its parent. In nearly all world countries, "track and field" articles are just categorized in "athletics" categories without a separate "track and field" subcategory -- the only other countries with one of these are the United States (where it's an WP:ENGVAR issue in which the "track and field" category isn't a subcategory of an "athletics" category but exists instead of an "athletics" category) and the United Kingdom (where it was misconceived and has been listed for discussion below). So even though Canada does use both terms, it's not at all clear that Canada would have a unique need to have two separate categories for "athletics" and "track and field" when no other country on earth has or needs that.
The proposed target is currently listed for a renaming discussion, so obviously if it gets renamed this should be merged to the new name instead of the one I've proposed -- but that nomination has already been open for seven days and appears poised to fail, so I don't see the point in delaying discussion on this one just because the target's name might change. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (Leaving Redirect) Per nom. Whatever the agreed upon name ends up being, this should be one category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge use "track and field" instead, as it is more compact, and just as clear, and used in Canadian English -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The governing federation has no relation on the popularity of the term. Many times federations choose to not use the popular name. "Athletics" in Canada is not primarily about the T&F-thing, but rather, all aerobic sports (or even, all sport, thinking about e-sports "athletes"). Since the term "ahletics (track and field)" is significantly longer and not less accurate than "track and field", we should be using "track and field" since it is shorter and just as precise in Canadian English. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to merge, but no agreement on what the target title should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. That said, I think due to ENGVAR, and the muddiness of the waters concerning whether athletics refers to just Sport of athletics, or all athletics, that probably all the subcats of Category:Sport of athletics, should probably have the disambiguator: "Athletics (track and field)". Otherwise, I don't doubt that this will be a continual merry-go-round of noms here at cfd. - jc37 08:49, 4 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.

Hockey seasons[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The admin who processed the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_1#College_hockey_conference_seasons refused to process these entries due to a failure to use the CfD tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I would have called this the "Previous Nomination Not Tagged" but support per precedent. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that would have been a much better section title. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just changed it to "Hockey seasons". Seems neutral enough. The nom explained the situation. - jc37 14:00, 27 June 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:Emigrants from the United Kingdom to Transvaal Colony[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 11:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication: both created by Johnpacklambert, no headnotes to indicate different scopes, parent Category:British emigrants for both. Oculi (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I fail to see how "both created by Johnpacklambert" could be construed as rationale for merging. Do you mean to impugn the honour of @Johnpacklambert: ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd. Sometimes I respectfully disagree with JPL but his involvement is not a strike against these cats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT Reverse merge. The parent is a "by country" category, not a "by nationality" category. "British" just obfuscates their citizenship with hazy ethnic / nationality fudge. Down with the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not 'by country' categories. You are adding spurious 'by country' categories as I write. Nationality is defining, countries one might have resided within are not. Oculi (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United Kingdom is not a country? News to me. Country is not defining? No doubt you'll wish to nominate every "by country" category in every tree structure to lent credibility to this large claim. And when can @Johnpacklambert: expect to receive a clarification of your intent? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Nominated Both of these are subcats of Category:British emigrants. I'm totally open to a broader discussion about whether UK is better, but right now 133 of the subcats use "British" while 3 use "United Kingdom". - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't that just WP:OtherStuffExists? Shouldn't the nomination be judged on its own merits?
@Laurel Lodged: With naming conventions I'd say "no", it's more important to be consistent for readers to aid their navigation then create new naming formats for individual subcats, per WP:C2C, consistency with established category tree names. I see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS more as a pretense with raising loosely or unrelated problems so you can't ever fix anything. In contrast, the whole Category:British emigrants tree could be renamed in a single future nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I favor merge, reverse merge is also much better than leaving both categories out there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or reverse merge per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are in all 33 categories including "from the United Kingdom" in their title. About 1/2 are redirects (0 members), others are not people categories, a few (eg linguists) are special cases. A few more should probably be renamed. Why is this obvious speedy (WP:C2C per the parent Category:British emigrants) not going through? Was the parent wrongly added in the very first edit? Are some of these not British? Oculi (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. No need for two categories or the wording of the former. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 7 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:Kingdom of Ireland emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Irish emigrants. For these purposes, I see no need to distinguish the Kingdom of Ireland from the island of Ireland. The Kingdom of Ireland covered the whole of the island of Ireland, so there is no difference in scope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aforementioned "Ireland (pre-1923)" closed as merge to subcategories of Category:Irish emigrants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update That related conversation was closed as a merge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on scope: The Kingdom of Ireland existed from 1542 until 1801. By 1603, it controlled of all of the island of Ireland.
    The first English colony in North America was the Colony of Virginia, established in 1607; the other 12 came later. In 1776, the Thirteen Colonies declared independence, becoming the United States.
    Therefore, all Irish emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies came from the territory of the Kingdom of Ireland.
    So "Irish emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies" has exactly the same scope as "Kingdom of Ireland emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies", and the more verbose title fails WP:PRECISION: titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 7 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:Themes in fictional films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 14#Category:Themes in fictional films

Grammarians[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 as nominated, following wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_13#Linguists_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 06:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other entries in the parent tree are by country, not by nationality. In any case, "Byzantine" is not a nationality but a state/country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose '- the others should be renamed, per the parent Category:Linguists by nationality etc. THere is no point in having parallel trees of Category:People from Iran and Category:Iranian people. I note that LL is busy creating even more confusion with Category:People of Europe and Category:People from Europe created in the last few days, jostling in an ill-defined manner with the long-standing Category:European people. Oculi (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parent categories were renamed in full CfD for a good reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • support , stressing that these are nationality categories. Oculi (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge each to their linguists parent category. The term grammarian seems mostly be used for ancient languages. The term is also not used very often in the biographies in these categories. If not merged, support nomination because the adjective could wrongly be taken to refer to language instead of to nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK - I now recall. These are 'nationality' categories, using 'from' to avoid ambiguity, like 'People from Georgia (country)' and a few others. Oculi (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why, in general, it is a good idea to avoid the tyranny of demonyms. the form "XXX from Foo" works clearly for all situations, not just language problems. The demonyn form is broken; it needs to be fixed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural problem The alternative being offered (merge) is outside of scope of this nomination. It would introduce a problem into the tree with some being merged and the remaining state members staying in the parent tree. If the merge alternative wishes to proceed, then a new nomination where all members are tagged is necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge is within the scope of any nomination. Oculi (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not if the sub-categories have not been nominated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Laurel Lodged is right. At the very least all grammarians by nationality siblings should be nominated together to achieve this. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • The nominated categories can be merged; the merge rationale (by Marcocapelle) does not apply to all the subcats as grammarian is used in some of them. Obviously untagged categories cannot be merged but no-one is suggesting this. Oculi (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that it is the other naming convention, i.e. the subcategories of Category:Grammarians by nationality that are not in this nomination, that is inconsistent with the esablished convention. However, some users have alternatively suggested merging the entire tree with corresponding subcategories of Category:Linguists by nationality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have listed the reverse of the proposal below, and will be tagging the newly nominated categories (19 in total) shortly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nom. Oppose alternative. Usage of "from" is clear. The alternative is not. - jc37 13:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom, oppose alt. Ambiguity is introduced when the demonym is equal to a language name. Folly Mox (talk) 02:25, 8 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:Crossword compilers[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:Crossword creators. Consensus for this has emerged even though ENGVAR does not require a solution that pleases neither UK nor US. – Fayenatic London 04:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (CFD novice here, regulars please tweak my formatting if needed) I have a couple ideas to improve categorization of people involved in the crossword world. One issue with the status quo is that American crossword constructors never use the term "compiler", it's exclusively a cryptic (British) term. I kind of like the term of art "cruciverbalists" (which is very accepted in US circles, and it seems like UK ones too) but it's not well known by outsiders. Also, either renaming would allow for better categorization of people known primarily for solving rather than constructing, such as Tyler Hinman and Dan Feyer. Additionally, because the American and British disciplines are so distinct, I think it would make sense to distinguish them in category space. The rationale for proposal 3, which category would include most (all?) members of Category:British crossword people, is that some American cruciverbalists (also) make cryptics, such as Emily Cox and Henry Rathvon. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging cruciverbalist Wikipedians @BanjoZebra, Umimmak, and Laurabrarian. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I have too many thoughts, but per WP:ASTONISH I do think the category names should be clear and unsurprising and per MOS:COMMONALITY they should when possible avoid region-specific phrasings.
Re proposal 2, I do want to raise the fact that like, you have folks like Ali Gascoigne who writes cryptics both for UK and American publications. And often there isn't a ton of biographical information on some setters; it might be citable where someone lives or primarily publishes but not perhaps their nationality? So I'd be hesitant on relying too much on nationality for categories?
Also you mention people more known for solving than editing, I just want to also mention people primarily known for editing rather than constructing per se. Do you think there's any sort of need for a subcategory of crossword editors? I'm leaning towards no, but wanted to bring it up.
I do like cryptic crossword {people/compilers/writers} as a (non-diffusing) subcat of the broader crossword one, I think.
Other options for your 1/a are Crossword constructors or Crossword writers I suppose. We also might need to anticipate a category for articles about specific cross-word constructing programs. Umimmak (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points all around. Noting that I chose not to suggest "Crossword constructors" because it's region-specific (the other way around); also, "Crossword writers" sounds off to my obsessive ear. Noting as well, to eventual closers, that Proposal 1 is the main thing I want to accomplish with this CFD, the other suggestions I want consensus for but can realize later without a need for special tools. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see the problem. "Crossword compiler" describes exactly what they do and there's no need to broaden the scope of the category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Necrothesp, I see that you're a Brit. Just to be totally clear, "crossword compiler" is an inappropriate descriptor for US-style constructors. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have, presumably, read WP:ENGVAR and realised that this is not American Wikipedia? Many articles and categories on Wikipedia use American terminology which we wouldn't use. Some use British terminology which Americans wouldn't use. That's the way it works. English Wikipedia is neither American nor British. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true of course, seems like there's a chance for MOS:COMMONALITY here though (or at least neutrality). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Compiler" meets COMMONALITY. Given it's a common word and is used entirely in its correct sense, I can't believe that Americans wouldn't understand it. It's not like it's gobbledigook. I see no good alternative. "Cruciverbalists" is meaningless to most people and "Crossword people" would be unnecessarily broadening the scope. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Crossword compilers to Category:Cruciverbalists — what a wonderful word!
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Crossword creators. Let's just keep it simple per WP:COMMONNAME. wikt:cruciverbalist is a fun term, to be sure, but it includes both solvers and creators. - jc37 08:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt Category:Crossword creators as it adequately describes what is meant and it is clear for everybody. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see if there's more support for "crossword creators" as a COMMONNAME compromise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hadn't though of Category:Crossword creators as it's not a term of art per se, but works well enough. Also it occurs to me to make Category:Crossword editors as a complement to this one. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- A person who does a crossword from the clues is a crossword person. "Crossword compiler" is the normal British person for their creator. Cruciverbalists is merely a highfaluting Latinised word not in common usage. I have n o objection to the American category being renamed according to American usage, if that is an appropriate ENGVAR solution, but the parent should not be changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:51, 26 June 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:Fossil trade in the United States[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 3 articles in a tree that has a total of 6 articles. All of them are already in subcategories of the other parent, Category:Paleontology in the United States. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:34, 26 June 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_June_26&oldid=1167022613"