Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28
June 30 >

June 29[edit]

Category:Ukrainian resistance movement[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... 16:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't see any meaningful difference between what these two categories are for. GCarty (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Both articles in the category are clearly anti-Soviet. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 30 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:Parks in Białystok[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Parks in Podlaskie Voivodeship and Category:Tourist attractions in Poland and Category:Białystok. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The parent category mixes up constructed parks with nature reserves but that applies to the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Certainly there are other parks, but establishing notability for others will be tough. No objection to recreating if 5+ articles ever emerge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Surely merge to Category:Białystok too? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 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.

Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world[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/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Next step after yesterday's nomination re Treaties. Sorry, I started this before noticing that the nominator was planning further stages. Anyway, I think these clearly follow the same rationale. The members of "Diplomats from" do not need merging as they are already within "Medieval diplomats" by century, and I do not think they should be added to Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world because that is currently a container category. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done the "not yets". Now nothing stands in the way of deleting Diplomats from tmIw. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is now agreement to delete the third category, but the first two remain unresolved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Fayenatic, Marcocapelle and I agree, and only Al-Andalusi objects. But this objection appears to be outdated since 4 June, when Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world was merged under the understanding that only state and non-state actors can conclude treaties. Fayenatic's rationale here is the Next step after yesterday's nomination re Treaties, under the understanding that only state or non-state actors can have "foreign" relations and ambassadors. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I was originally concerned about using the "nation" terminology for medieval states, but after a bit of looking about I'm now satisfied with referring to pretty much any social group with distinct laws and customs as a type of "nation", be it a nation-state, a micronation or some other entity accepted by a populous with a defined governance structure. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 12 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:Film directors from Alappuzha[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:Film directors from Alappuzha district. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT created for just one person. As always, "occupation by city" intersections are not automatically created the moment any given intersection of those two things describes one person with a Wikipedia article, so he should just be categorized at the state level until such time as there are far more people to file here than this. For added bonus, the entry's article fails to state or source that he's "from" Alappuzha at all, meaning that the category isn't even properly verified as accurate in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently 35 articles in category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 29 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:Horse farms in Asia[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... 16:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary by-continent level of categorization. The only subcategory Category:Horse farms in Japan is already in the fairly small parent category Category:Horse farms by country which is sufficient. Pichpich (talk) 18:02, 29 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:Thai Industrial Standards[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 11:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer since the target is nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep (as category creator). I'm seeing this as a set category covering a topic notable by itself. Maybe I should get around to writing the article for the parent organisation the Thai Industrial Standards Institute, which would help make the category scope clearer. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, I could do without the parent layer, since the sole member Thai units of measurement isn't about a regulated standard and doesn't really fit there. It was created much later, and before then the Thai Industrial Standards cat was directly parented under Standards by country. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There are 3 articles between the 2 categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my position, keep Category:Thai Industrial Standards as a clearly defined set category. Optionally delete Category:Standards of Thailand as redundant (though that category hasn't been tagged so this may require a new discussion). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be a clearly defined set, but there are only two articles and they can easily be interlinked directly. I will do that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the two redirects, one is a notable standard itself whose article is under an alternative title; the category is on the redirect per WP:RCAT#Alternative names for articles. That makes three full articles plus one section covered in a broader article. I don't believe those see also links are appropriate, as the topics aren't related at all apart from their TIS status. I've reverted the additions. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep both, per Category:Standards by country. Noting that both Thai Industrial Standards Institute and TISI are both redlinks. Unless/until at least one of those links turns blue, I'm tempted to suggest deleting Category:Thai Industrial Standards (no merge). But we're talking about national standards, soooo, Weak keep. - jc37 14:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 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:Australian Survivor contestants[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 (again). After this was relsited at DRV it's recieved a keep !vote from the DRV nominator and three uninvolved delete !votes, clearly indicating that the community has not found the argument for keeping convincing. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As these people were already famous this is not WP:DEFINING and therefore nothing more than a WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 12:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May 22. I don't have an easy way to re-add all the pages that were formerly members of this category, but you can see the list at this link.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have double-checked a dozen articles and can just confirm what has been said earlier: the articles in this category are about people who are famous for other reasons and this is not WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not all of the contestants on the series were famous when appearing on the show; the premise of the show is that a majority of contestants are civillians. For example, Luke Toki, Jericho Malabonga and Hayley Leake would all be seen to have this show as a WP:DEFINING role. Other contestants, such as Matt Tarrant, David Genat or Felicity Palmateer, might have been known in certain small circles, but certainly wouldn't have been known to most viewers at the time of their appearance on the show because they gained their notably on the show. On top of all of this, it should also be taken into account that former American Survivor contestants who are notable for only appearing in this franchise have also participated on this show, which would also make this a DEFINING role for them. If this cat were to be deleted, then it would mean that all other Survivor franchise contestant cats should be too. Happily888 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUBTOPICCAT, redirect pages are included as part of categories, especially with these articles being highly likely to be created in future. Happily888 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category exists, yes, but this category should be deleted. There is no consistent definingness. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conceptually very open minded that WP:PERFCAT doesn't apply to reality show contestants on their initial show because that's the only reason they're notable and I've iVoted against several of WS's nominations on that basis. But, clicking through the articles that exist so far in this cat, the vast majority are already notable before the show. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've restored most of the pages to the category, if that helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 29 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:Medieval documents of Norway[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:Documents about medieval Norway. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is ambiguous. Are these medieval documents... Written in Norway? Found in Norway? Owned by Norway? Preserved in Norway? Or... about Norway? I think they are about Norway. Grandparent Category:Medieval texts by region suggests it has something to do with "region/area/location", but just like with "Manuscripts by area", I think "location/area/region" is not only ambiguous, but also WP:NONDEFINING. So let's make it about Norway, Norway as the topic of these documents. (This will have consequences for the rest of the tree, but I'm taking this as a simple test case). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rationale: Per WP:C2C parent Category:Medieval Norway, Category:Documents about medieval Norway might be an even better idea. They are about Norway in the Middle Ages. Aslak Bolt's cadastre was written in medieval Norway, but that's not really relevant. It is preserved in National Archives of Norway, but that is the "by collection" tree. Moreover, the Diplomatarium Norvegicum and Regesta Norvegica are both 19th-century publications of source documents, so strictly speaking they themselves aren't medieval and weren't "written in medieval Norway" anyway, only the texts they contain. Neither "found in" or "owned by" seems to be relevant either; medieval Norway doesn't exist anymore and can't "own" anything, and books published after 1500 can't be "found in" it anymore. So, only "Documents about medieval Norway" is really WP:DEFINING for all three items. (Sometimes you just have to figure this out to realise an entire category tree needs better names). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps it could be renamed, but should the main category be "Medieval Norwegian literature" as a subcategory of "Norwegian literature". And how does Category:Old Norse literature fit in? It is a suibcategory of both Nordic literature and Early Germanic literature? Hugo999 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Medieval Norwegian literature" currently doesn't exist, and I'm not sure if it would really help with anything. Category:History of literature in Norway goes back no further than the 19th century (presumably because no Norwegian state existed before 1814?).
Category:Old Norse literature is about what language certain texts are written in, not about topic, nor about area/location/region.Because it is language-based, both Category:Medieval literature by language and Category:Early Germanic literature are proper parents. But because it includes Category:Sagas about locations outside the Nordic countries (as apty shown by Category:Saga locations, ranging from Carpathian Mountains to Vinland), I think Category:Nordic literature is WP:NONDEFINING for Old Norse literature, and is not a good parent.
Incidentally, I noticed that both Diplomatarium Norvegicum and Regesta Norvegica are in Category:Norwegian manuscripts, which contains pages on manuscripts in the Old Norwegian language, i.e. from the earliest fragments of the 12th century to the mid-16th century. The category descripion, in fact, argues (at surprising length) about why this category should exist separately from Category:Icelandic manuscripts because Old Norwegian is different from Old Icelandic. I guess this means we should rename it to Category:Old Norwegian manuscripts then, just to be clear that "Norwegian" refers to language and not country here. We could also merge Category:Medieval documents of Norway into it, since 2 of the 3 items are already in both, and Aslak Bolt's cadastre also qualifies for it. We could let the whole "about Norway" plan go in favour of a purely language-based category tree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support alt rename as simply the most accurate description. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 29 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.

Drama films by year[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 15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose containerization of
Propose deletion of
Nominator's rationale: containerize, "drama" is not a real genre and it is not a differentiating characteristic since the large majority of films are drama films. With the exception of the 1900s categories, it is too early for deletion because there are many subcategories under them. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @JDDJS, William Allen Simpson, Bearcat, Andrzejbanas, SnowFire, LaundryPizza03, Fayenatic london, Pppery, and Jc37: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I presume that this is a first step towards deletion of all the "drama as a genre" subcats. So I'll support whatever User:Marcocapelle's doing here to get things to that resolution. I think my comments from the previous discussion also apply here. - jc37 08:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all genre category intersections with the word "drama". Drama (film and television), in particular - (from the article) "The Screenwriters Taxonomy contends that film genres are fundamentally based upon a film's atmosphere, character and story, and therefore the labels "drama" and "comedy" are too broad to be considered a genre" So, in the case of films and shows, drama isn't even a genre! also from the article - "According to the Screenwriters' Taxonomy, all film descriptions should contain their type (comedy or drama) combined with one (or more) of the eleven super-genres.[2] This combination does not create a separate genre, but rather, provides a better understanding of the film. According to the taxonomy, combining the type with the genre does not create a separate genre.[2] For instance, the "Horror Drama" is simply a dramatic horror film (as opposed to a comedic horror film). "Horror Drama" is not a genre separate from the horror genre or the drama type." So all these drama-thriller combinations are not even genres!! These all need to go. Strong Delete. - jc37 01:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, the question of whether drama is a "genre" or not is irrelevant here, because Wikipedia does not have any rule that films can only be categorized for "genre" and not for "type". We do, for instance, categorize films for "short" status, and "independent" status, and "black-and-white" status, and "sequel" status, and "silent" status, and numerous other things that are also not "genres" — so regardless of one's position on the question of whether drama is a "genre" or a "type" of film, that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of "drama films" categories since we can and do routinely categorize films for both "genre" and "type".
    Secondly, the stated intention here is to eventually blow out all "drama films" categories across the board — but that will fuck up other stuff, because if "drama films" categories don't exist then there are a lot of films that can't be categorized anywhere else without breaking or undermining other principles of the category system at the same time.
    For instance, if Category:Indian drama films doesn't exist, then where else is Life's Good supposed to go, and if Category:Canadian drama films doesn't exist, then where else is Boris Without Béatrice supposed to go? They can't just go back into Category:Indian films or Category:Canadian films themselves, because those are container categories that are only supposed to contain subcategories and not individual articles — so what "Indian/Canadian [genre/type] films" categories do they go in if "drama" isn't an option? Every film has to be in one or more categories of the latter form, but for a large portion of films there's no alternative. And no, the fact that Canada and India happen to both also have categories that group their films by language or year isn't a solution to this problem, because not all countries have similar categories at all — for a very large number of countries, "Country [genre] films" is the only scheme that exists at all to subcategorize films out of direct inclusion in "Country films", which means that if "Country [drama] films" doesn't exist then for a lot of drama films your only alternatives left are to either break the containerization of "Country films" or to just not categorize the film for nationality at all.
    If drama is a type and not a genre, then that problem is instantly solved just by moving Category:Drama films from Category:Films by genre to Category:Films by type. But since we can and do categorize films for both "genre" and "type", the question of whether drama is a "genre" or a "type" has nothing to do with whether "drama films" categories should exist or not — but it'll be a royal train wreck if they don't, because the principles of "every film must always be categorized by nationality across the board" and "nationality categories should be containers, with only subcategories and no films sitting directly in the parent category at all" cannot both be upheld at the same time if "drama films" subcategories don't exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your second point, it was a deliberate choice to not nominate the entire tree at once. For drama films by country we may need different solutions than for drama films by year. We are now discussing by year. Films by year, e.g. Category:1910 films are not container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter whether these categories are containers or not. Your own stated intention is to eventually blow out all "drama films" categories across the board, so the fact that there are container categories that will be disrupted by your own stated intention as soon you get around to them, based on exactly the same reasoning you're using here, is relevant here regardless of whether these categories are containers or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I second Bearcat's comment above, the deletion of drama films would seriously disrupts our categorization scheme. But I also totally disagree with the premise, there are plenty of films whose genre can solely and only be categorised as drama (and that are indeed categorised as such), and "it is not a differentiating characteristic since the large majority of films are drama films" is a non-argument. I don't even see how this is a follow-up of the previous Category:Thriller drama films deletion, there the issue was a sub-genre which mainly matched the main genre (thrillers are almost always thriller dramas, except when specified), here the underlying assumption is that drama films do not exist as an individual genre and have to belong to other genres - which is often patently wrong and would result in leaving thousands of films without any genre categorization. Cavarrone 16:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: In support of the prior discussion, I have found that "thriller drama" has been informally deprecated in WT:FILM discussions such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_62#Film_categories (2016) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_73#Thriller_drama? (2019). However, while I was emptying some of the "thriller drama" categories, I noticed that many of the articles did introduce the film as a "thriller drama", and I did not change that description in the lede. Marcocapelle may have noticed the same, as I think he emptied the majority of those categories.
The first of those WT:FILM discussions was also proposing limits on new triple-intersection categories. That would seem to give weight against the proposal to containerise, in case some of the sub-cats may be less supportable than "drama films".
But have "drama films" ever been deprecated by a consensus at WT:FILM? The nominator does not seem to have advertised this discussion there. IMHO this nomination should not progress without explicit support from WP:FILM. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: May require community-wide discussion about the use of the drama film label.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I do not see "drama" as a defining genre for most films (unlike the term melodrama), I fail to see how deleting an entire category tree helps in navigation. Keeping the main category Category:Drama films but deleting its subcategories is simply absurd. Dimadick (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize per nom. "Drama" is more like a super-category, and attempting to more narrowly define it tends to lead to original research. I question the value of these categories if 50%+ of all movies are arguably a drama of some sort. SnowFire (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 6 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:Kievan Rus' royalty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Category:Kievan Rus' royalty

Category:Murdered socialists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. We do not have any scheme of "murdered people by political orientation" for this to be part of -- no Category:Murdered communists, no Category:Murdered liberals, no Category:Murdered conservatives, no Category:Murdered fascists, etc. -- and there's no indication of why murdered socialists would need special treatment above and beyond murdered anything-elses. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Articles are already in an assassinated or executed category as applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis we already have Category:Murdered anarchists. As long as the contents are proved to be (a) "socialist" and (b) "murdered". Sionk (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point, we should be consistent. What matters, in my opinion, is assassinated politicians (for which we already have a category tree but not by ideology) and assassinated political activists (for which we probably have only one category, namely for anarchists). But just a random murder is not a defining intersection with politics. I am primarily opposing having "murdered politicians" categories here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 07:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure if I agree with that. But there is one article about being sentenced to death (as Nl Leeuw mentioned earlier) and three articles about being killed by police, which do not belong in an assassinated category. The remaining three articles are already in Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality. So then this category may just as well be deleted after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 29 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:Philosophers of Judaism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 18#Category:Philosophers of Judaism

Category:German 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. I'm not sure 4 different options is a good way to get consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:History books about Germany. This is in the Category:Works by topic tree. I've split off Category:German-language chronicles to make the distinction clear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 1 rationale: per Marcocapelle: that is the more often used name in medieval context. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 2 rationale: per Category:Medieval Germany. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 3 rationale: We could actually do both. Chronicles about medieval Fooland (if Fooland was wholly or almost wholly within the HRE during the Middle Ages, e.g. Belgium except most of Flanders, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, about half of Poland etc.) could become a child of newly created parent Category:Chronicles about the Holy Roman Empire. We could rename Category:Latin chronicles about Austria to Category:Latin chronicles about medieval Austria etc. and re-parent them to Category:Chronicles about the Holy Roman Empire. Renaming Category:German chronicles to Category:Chronicles about medieval Germany (Alt 2 proposal) is to be preferred for procedural reasons, because Category:German chronicles is in the Category:Works about Germany tree. Category:Chronicles about the Holy Roman Empire is to be created as a new parent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update Included three Alt proposals in the nomination to allow new users a better insight in the discussion so far. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 29 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:Top of the Pops presenters[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... 16:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT: "Avoid categorizing performers by their performances" --woodensuperman 14:44, 29 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:1515 in Morocco[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... 16:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one thing, in a country that doesn't otherwise have any other year-specific categories in this century. As always, everything does not automatically need to be sifted down to the narrowest possible level of subcategorization the moment there's one article that would fit -- this would be fine if there were a lot of 1515 events to file here, but it does not aid navigation of Wikipedia to obsessively filter everything down to microcategories of one. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. All year categories in Morocco until and including the 19th century may be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This seems unlikely to have much growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:19, 30 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:Defensive gun use[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 18#Category:Defensive gun use

Imperial Chinese government officials[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) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent (1) and (2). These categories are even deeper in the tree, but now we have had all of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 29 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:Documentary films about talk show hosts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Documentary films about television people. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT of unclear necessity. As always, everything that films could possibly be "about" does not automatically get its own dedicated category the moment there's one film about it -- there would need to be at least five or six films about talk show hosts before this was warranted. But there are only two articles here, which isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 29 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_29&oldid=1167222599"