Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11
March 13 >

March 12[edit]

Category:Estonian double-bassists[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 18:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Only member is already properly categorized Estopedist1 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 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:East Slavic literature[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 18:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Old" needs to be added to indicate it concerns pre-1500 texts, written in Old East Slavic. The main article for Category:East Slavic literature is Old East Slavic literature, it is in Category:Medieval literature by language and should only stretch to about the year 1500 (compare Category:Old Polish literature). In addition, the Category:Early Russian literature currently already states: This category is for Russian literature of the 16th and 17th centuries. Earlier works (9th to 15th centuries) should be placed in Category:East Slavic literature. By the same logic, the other categories also need the word "Old" added to their names. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the first and second per nom, and re-parent the first-nominated category from Category:East Slavic languages to Category:Old East Slavic. I am not sure what to do with the third category, it seems not to be based on language as it also contains e.g. chronicles in Latin and Old Church Slavonic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well-spotted. I guess several items in these categories (or subcats or parents) have been categorised incorrectly. De moribus tartarorum, lituanorum et moscorum is indeed not an 'East Slavic chronicle', but a Latin text written by a Lithuanian. Old Church Slavonic (a term for a set of closely related church-written dialects based on South Slavic from c. 800 to c. 1200) and Church Slavonic (a term for a set of diverging church-written proto-languages with wide-ranging East Slavic and South Slavic varieties from c. 1200 onwards) are regularly mixed up with each other, with Old East Slavic (spoken and written non-church East Slavic dialects from c.800 to c. 1500), and Chancery Slavonic (or "Ruthenian"; a mix of spoken proto-Ukrainian/Belarusian and Old Church Slavonic-derived writing). E.g. the text of the 17th-century Hustyn Chronicle was called Old Church Slavonic and was categorised as Category:Old Church Slavonic literature and Category:East Slavic chronicles; the first and second are incorrect, it's just "Church Slavonic", and the third is either linguistically or chronologically incorrect or inappropriate. Although this was a late Church Slavonic chronicle with "Ruthenian" influences, it would be too early to label this "Ukrainian literature", which is commonly agreed not to emerge until around 1700 (although perhaps Category:Ruthenian-language literature might be a good fit?). So I changed all three. And so there are several more cases. I'll try to fix some of these. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A further pertinent question: What is the purpose of Category:Literature of Kievan Rus? It is a child of Category:East Slavic literature, but a parent of Category:East Slavic manuscripts. Seems like a needless layer in between. Besides, Category:Literature of Kievan Rus is a WP:SMALLCAT that has almost exactly the same contents as Category:East Slavic manuscripts, and as a child of Category:Kievan Rus culture along with Category:Old East Slavic, which you propose as the new parent of Category:Old East Slavic literature, I think it serves no further special purpose. How about we Merge Category:Literature of Kievan Rus into Category:Old East Slavic literature as well? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will require a separate nomination. I wouldn't object. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 5#Category:Literature of Kievan Rus. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:26, 12 March 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 Sennar[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 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Funj Sultanate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 12 March 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 Toungoo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:Rulers of Toungoo

Category:Winners in the Survivor franchise[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:Winners in the Survivor franchise

Category:Countries and territories by language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:Countries and territories by language

Category:Holidays themed professional wrestling events[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:Holidays themed professional wrestling events

Babel category duplicates[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 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging or reverse merging

Nominator's rationale Clean up various sets of duplicate categories for the same language, where one name is what mw:Extension:Babel thinks the name should be, and the other name is the preexisting convention. I weakly prefer merging in the direction nominated, which would be accomplished by editing MediaWiki:Babel-category-override, but have tagged and notified the creators of both sides

The easiest way to implement this is (if done as a forward merge) is probably to leave redirects behind and create MediaWiki:Babel-category-override as {{resolve category redirect|$1}} * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About nrm: the description is correct for the user category; nrm is the correct language code for Narom.
[nrm] is cited since long as being incorrectly used by Wikimedia wiki (in the interlangage code lists and in the domain names) to referecen Norman, while nrf is suitable for that (even if Norman has several variants: continental Norman spoken in France is still considered in ISO as being a dialect of French, where as nrf was encoded for the variant spoken and standardized in Jersey, it has also been reused for variants in Guernsey and Sark which may eventually use the same code with the same regional subtag "-GG", but the same could be done using "-JE" for Jersey and "-FR" for French Normandy; for the variant in Sark, it would require an extra extension, still not registered).
Users should really use [nrf] for Norman, but [nrm] for Narom (and the descrioption given in "User nrm" is correct (no need to merge these categories, "User nrm" remains needed for Narom, even if that language of Indonesia still does not have its own wikis (but can already have their Incubator).
About "roa-tara": it is here also a Wikimedia invention, breaking BCP 47 rules. The same is true about "map-bms" which is really a dialect of Javanese: there is no such code using ISO 639-5 codes for large language families like "nrm" or "roa" with any extension for a specific language code (this has never existed, and in fact the "extelang" feature of BCP47 is deprecated since long and has only ben used after a true ISO 639-1/2/3 base language. ISO 639-5 codes should never be used for localization, they exist only for compatiblity with bibliographic classification groups used by librarians, usnig "weak" family codes. It has never been accepted for use in translations/localization. So the only confirming codes are "nap-x-tara" and "jv-x-bms", which use the standard "-x" extension for "local use" (in Wikimedia) followed by a Wikiemdia specific qualifier.
If you don't like the "-x-", ask to BCP47 maintainers to register extensions in the IANA registry. Or ask to ISO 639-3 maintainers to allocate codes for Tarandine and Banyumasan.
For Norman, nothing must be done, it is already "nrm", we must use it only for that langauge and never for Norman: doing the reverse will in fact slow down the migration asked and stalled since very long. Such merge will not even allow existing few Narom users to maintain the fact that they want to speak and support their language. They are really distinct from Norman speakers that should have never "stolen" that language code (and in fact this has probably not happened in user categories, thanks to the correct description, all Norman speakers should already use "User nrf" (independantly of the incorrect code used for the wikis).
And let's not forget that Wikimedia is not the only user of MediaWiki: non-Wikimedia wikis are already adopting BCP47 rules and don't want this incorrect usage. Wikidata also uses "nrf" not "nrm" for Norman, and uses "nrm" for Narom. The same is true in Wiktionary and several other projects that are hosting some contents in Narom. When will you stop maintaining these incorrect codes and finalize the migration (but not in the direction proposed above which solves absolutely NOTHING and just wants to freeze these incompatiblities in Wikimedia as if they were standards to be used everywhere else?). verdy_p (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "(the description of the former category is wrong, these are actually the same language)", is that the contents of Category:User nrm in fact belong in Category:User nrf, as they are userpages containing userboxes referring to Norman French rather than Narom. Hence the proposal to merge. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 12 March 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.

Babel category enforcement[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 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale Clean up various categories that were deleted by past WP:UCFDs, and then recreated because they were populated by mw:Extension:Babel in a way that couldn't easily be removed. That technical obstacle has now been lifted, so the past consensus should be enforced.

The easiest way to implement this is probably to leave redirects behind and create MediaWiki:Babel-category-override as {{#switch:$1|User cu-N=|#default={{resolve category redirect|$1}} * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 12 March 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.

User mul[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 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale Way back in April 2022, I nominated this category for deletion, claiming Recreation of category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 30#Category:Multilingual Wikipedians under a technically accurate but nonsensical name containing only one user who has been inactive since 2007. [...]. The creator requested that [I] amend the babel stuff so that {{#Babel:en|mul}} no longer populates a category., which can now be done by editing MediaWiki:Babel-category-override, so the original nomination for deletion is once again valid.

The easiest way to implement this is probably to create MediaWiki:Babel-category-override as {{#switch:$1|User mul|User mul-N=|#default=$1}} (or {{#switch:$1|User mul|User mul-N|User cu-N=|#default={{resolve category redirect|$1}} if the above discussion also gets consensus) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 12 March 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.

User simple[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 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale Reinstate the original consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/February 2008#Category:User simple and all subcategories now that the technical reasons given for overturning it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 13 no longer apply due to the existence of MediaWiki:Babel-category-override.

The easiest way to implement this is probably to leave redirects behind and create MediaWiki:Babel-category-override as {{resolve category redirect|$1}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't understand why every few years there is a determination to delete these language categories; they are part of the #babel system, the behaviour of which is intended to be the same across all Wikimedia wikis - there are something like 300+ of them. Why should we be any different? I also don't see how MediaWiki:Babel-category-override changes anything; is there any documentation for it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See mw:Extension:Babel#System messages for documentation of the system message. My reasoning for starting this discussion is mostly procedural; the most recent non-procedural discussion led to their deletion in 2008. The 2018 recreation was due to technical problems, which MediaWiki:Babel-category-override means can now be handled without needing these categories to exist, hence it is obsolete and we should revert to the 2008-2018 status quo. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 12 March 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:Films about real 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: rename to Category:Films based on real people. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, more accurate, more in line with what the header of the category page says. Purge articles that do not comply with this description. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interesting idea, but I'm not persuaded that it would be helpful to do this. Biographical films would have to become a sibling rather than a sub-cat. Would this category distinction then be followed with parallel "loosely-based" and "biographical" categories for other media within Category:Works based on real people, e.g. comics, literature, plays, opera, songs, TV, video games? Some works are clearly biographical and some clearly only loosely based, but in between those is a spectrum. Granted, the present arrangement still presents a choice between "biographical" and "based on", but if "biographical" is a sub-cat then it's not very contentious to put anything that is debatable into the parent "based on"; whereas under the proposed rename, categorising debatable cases would become very contentious. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and alter the description. I think the current title is clear. It's for all films about real people, but biographical ones are in the subcat. I think the "Films about" categories in the nomination below should be subcats of this one. MClay1 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, replacing "about" by "based on" is a neat and simple solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 12 March 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:Portal peer review archives[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 18:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This will be the only page in its parent other than the main page after the below CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominated — the other was deleted, but deleting without merging will yield a lot of orphans.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:39, 19 March 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:People by city or town in Barbados[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 18:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One sub-cat. Unnecessary category layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Suriname/Support Barbados for Now There needs to be at least two subcats for this to possibly help. No objection to recreating Barbados if/when a 2nd one shows up. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both — 3 place subcategories does not make a good reason for these. Enough of these marginal people categories. WP:COP-PLACE of birth is never defining.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked the 2 smaller Suriname subcategories: not a single person was known for being active there. One wasn't even actually from there, merely may have been born near the river where the town was later built! Abso-bloomin-lutely none of them had a reference. They are now empty.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge both, assuming the empty categories get deleted. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness and RevelationDirect: Suriname is down to one.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both for Now If/when these legitimately grow, no objection to recreating either. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:51, 19 March 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:Baseball venues in Saskatchewan[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 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Full upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How realistic is realistic? New sports venues are not built regularly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the longevity of the sport in these two provinces, I think it is a realistic assumption that growth can occur. Moreover, they are part of a well-established category tree at Category:Baseball venues in Canada. Lastly, Manitoba now has 6 articles, demonstrating the possibility of expansion.--User:Namiba 19:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Manitoba/Merge Saskatchewan for Now Thanks to Namiba, Manitoba no longer fails smallcat. If/when 5+ articles appear for Saskatchewan, no objection to recreation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan721, Marcocapelle, Namiba, and RevelationDirect: Most of these "venues" are defunct, municipal parks, smaller than my old High School baseball field, and/or of questionable notability. At this rate, there are 20 in Ann Arbor alone (counted by hand). Admittedly, these are big high schools with thousands of students, and 2 universities, and a community college, and significant multi-field municipal park complexes. We're going to categorize every tiny playing field in every country? How are they notable?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson, that sounds like an issue to bring up at AFD, not here.--User:Namiba 14:04, 13 March 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:Estonian 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Sole article is already properly categorized to Category:Estonian civil servants. In addition: unique category name in Baltoscandinavia countries categories Estopedist1 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:G5 sockpuppet. Also, most Government occupations and Government officials should be merged with Civil servants or vice versa. Elected judges are not civil servants. Appointed judges are sometimes polical appointees. Civil servants have a very specific meaning, usually developed for the job protections, to replace the spoils system.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 12 March 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.

Years in Easter Island[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Years in Easter Island

Paranormal places[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 18:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, in contrast to the subcategories such as Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Argentina, the nominated categories are a case of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and they are also very poorly populated. The subcategories are not part of the nomination, they can obviously stay. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the part of the list for the Philippines, I'm not too keen in keeping this one. Only page linked to is the Balete tree article and another subcat. The subcat would suffice for this purpose. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, I think had the categories are named allegedly paranormal... instead then it would be more reasonable to keep them. --Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these. Any articles can probably be upmerged somewhere (but where?), but most of them only have the "reportedly haunted" subcategories, which are keepable. Grutness...wha? 11:44, 20 March 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:Latvian dentists[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 18:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:46, 12 March 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:1862 establishments in Kingdom of Mysore[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 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with only one member. This is the only establishments category of the Kingdom of Mysore (and of any princely state). V27t (talk) 11:44, 12 March 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:Estonian art dealers[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 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 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:Finnish Sindhologists[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 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:54, 12 March 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:Latvian trumpeters[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 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:26, 12 March 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:Finnish vibraphonists[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 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:21, 12 March 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:Finnish webcomic creators[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 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 12 March 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:Estonian yacht designers[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 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sailboat articles are being actively created and more will be added to these two categories over time. If it merged now they well have to be recreated later. See Category:Yacht designers by nationality for org structure. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. While more sailboat articles will appear, this is specifically about Estonian and Polish yacht designers. When there are a handful of yacht designer articles in these two countries, by all means recreate the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Due to less potential. Orientls (talk) 18:54, 13 March 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:Recipients of the Order pro Merito Melitensi[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 18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another nondefining diplomatic "award". I checked several recipients and found no indication that the award is defining for any recipient. (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: Keep the category. Thank you for notifying me. I oppose deletion for the following reasons :
  1. The ground for deletion is unclear: which Wikipedia rule does the category not follow?
  2. The order pro Merito Melitensi (the order of merit of the Order of Malta) is an award, not an "award" with quotation marks, as if it were not a proper award. It is a legitimate order of merit, awarded by a sovereign entity. Although the Order of Malta has no diplomatic ties with the UK and the US, it does have reciprocal diplomatic relations with 112 states across the world.
  3. The order pro Merito Melitensi is not less defining than other order of merits for which Wikipedia in English does have a recipients category: Category:Recipients of orders of merit.
  4. It is really worth distinguishing Knights of Malta from Knights of the Order Pro Merito Melitensi, since they are often mixed up, so both categories are justified. A Knight of the Order Pro Merito Melitensi is not ipso facto a Knight of Malta.
  5. Having received this award is defining: it indicates an acknowledged involvement in the works of a centuries-old charitable organization.
  6. In some cases, this is even more remarkable: for instance, it is one of the only two known honours received by saint Elizabeth Hesselblad, together with her recognition as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem. In the more controversial case of Francis Delpérée, the award is also deemed defining enough to be the subject of a press article in the main weekly of the country.
  7. It is worth noting also that the category does exist in over a dozen other languages.
All in all, my opinion is that it would be a mistake and a loss to deprive the English Wikipedia of this valuable category. Baronnet (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: Keep the category. Thank you for notifying me. I oppose deletion for the following reasons :
  1. The ground for deletion is unclear: which Wikipedia rule does the category not follow?
  2. The order pro Merito Melitensi (the order of merit of the Order of Malta) is an award, not an "award" with quotation marks, as if it were not a proper award. It is a legitimate order of merit, awarded by a sovereign entity. Although the Order of Malta has no diplomatic ties with the UK and the US, it does have reciprocal diplomatic relations with 112 states across the world.
  3. The order pro Merito Melitensi is not less defining than other order of merits for which Wikipedia in English does have a recipients category: Category:Recipients of orders of merit.
  4. It is really worth distinguishing Knights of Malta from Knights of the Order Pro Merito Melitensi, since they are often mixed up, so both categories are justified. A Knight of the Order Pro Merito Melitensi is not ipso facto a Knight of Malta.
  5. Having received this award is defining: it indicates an acknowledged involvement in the works of a centuries-old charitable organization.
  6. In some cases, this is even more remarkable: for instance, it is one of the only two known honours received by saint Elizabeth Hesselblad, together with her recognition as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem. In the more controversial case of Francis Delpérée, the award is also deemed defining enough to be the subject of a press article in the main weekly of the country.
  7. It is worth noting also that the category does exist in over a dozen other languages.
All in all, my opinion is that it would be a mistake and a loss to deprive the English Wikipedia of this valuable category. Atlantean Astorian 18:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. The Pro Merito Melitensi is not only a "diplomatic" award, it is a genuine merit award of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, awarded not only out of diplomatic reciprocity, but, in a significant number of cases, for real merit or real services to the Order. BarbaraPG (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: Keep the category Frhistoire (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: Keep the category. Seems there are a lot of articles already written and linked to this category. We don't gain/win/earn anything when deleting arborescence that have been existing for a while. Ngagnebin (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD.
    1. It is WP:NONDEFINING for its recipients. Conferees include prominent statesmen. Ronald Reagan is not in wikipedia because of this award. Bush the Greater is not in wikipedia because of this award. Elizabeth Hesselblad is not from Malta, and the award is not referenced in the article; she is not in wikipedia because of this award.
    2. ... promoted Christian values and for charity as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. Ronald Reagan is not in wikipedia because of promoting Christian values or charity; an adulterer, "trickle down economics", 2 major recessions, taking from the poor and giving to the rich, who started wars. Similarly Bush the Greater, another recession, and an even worse war.
    3. You are making the case for deleting many more of these awards.
    4. They are mixed up because this "charitable" award isn't defining.
    5. We generally don't categorize awards by "organizations", charitable or otherwise, no matter how old. As noted, many recipients weren't actual members of the organization, and are not known because of their membership in the organization.
    6. Contrast with "Nobel prize", which is always mentioned in the article lead paragraph.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-defining award. Lennart97 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what's the deal with AtlanteanAstorian's !vote being an exact copy of Baronnet's? Lennart97 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably means that this person agreed with my arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Baronnet (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion; Keep the category. The Order pro merito Melitensi is not primarily a "diplomatic" order given to foreign leaders, ambassadors, and their staff. It is primarily an order of merit. There have been no similar deletions of other pages in the Category:Recipients of orders of merit. If one wants to try a test case, then I suggest proposing Category:Recipients of the Legion of Honour, which I think would raise more widespread debate and determine how "defining characteristic" should be interpreted in such cases. If that category were deleted, then there would be more reason to remove Category:Recipients of the Order pro Merito Melitensi. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD, possibly listify, if necessary. I sampled the contents and failed to find a single Maltese citizen in those I looked at. Most were heads of state or other foreign dignitaries whom Malta wished to honour. If this were an award by Malta to Maltese residents, it would be different. We have in the past deleted similar AWARD categories given by other countries to diplomats, heads of state and similar dignitaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is logical that you found no Maltese citizen: you are confusing the Republic of Malta with the Sovereign Order of Malta. The order Pro Merito Melitensi is the order of merit of the Sovereign Order of Malta, not of the Republic of Malta. This illustrates why this category – now deleted – was useful, alongside that for the order of merit of the Republic of Malta: Category:Recipients of the National Order of Merit (Malta). Baronnet (talk) 14:56, 31 March 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_March_12&oldid=1157911937"