Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12

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

October 12[edit]

Category:Kyiv offensive (2022)[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:Northern Ukraine campaign. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D HappyWith (talk) 23:51, 12 October 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:Northeastern Ukraine campaign[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Northeastern Ukraine campaign

Category:Exoplanets discovered by Kepler[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. All articles are already in the merge target. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all articles are already in the existing category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 23:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/delete, these actions have the same effect in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 13 October 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:Amesbury Public Schools[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROW. Manually merge the eponymous article. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 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:LGBT deities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:LGBT deities

Category:Lawyers in British India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Lawyers in British India

Category:Television series written by Umera Ahmad[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) HouseBlastertalk 11:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Television series written by Umera Ahmad to article Television series written by Umera Ahmad
Nominator's rationale: I think that this category should either be deleted or converted into an article. there are no other categories like this that I could find in the style of Category:Television series by writer Mason (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories use "created", not "written", so renaming should be considered. Janhrach (talk) 16:48, 29 September 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 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't categorize television series by writer at all — while there are obviously some single-writer exceptions, the majority of television series have multiple-writer staffs rather than single writers, so comprehensively categorizing television shows by writer would lead to extreme category bloat. But we also can't impose a "single-writer shows can be categorized by writer but multiple-writer shows cannot" rule, either, because (a) editors wouldn't uphold that distinction for very long, and (b) what happens if a writer sometimes writes the entire series on his own and sometimes participates in a multi-writer staff, meaning that only some of his writing credits can be categorized? Changing this to a "created by" category wouldn't work either, since Umera Ahmad isn't listed as a creator of either of the two TV series here. So I'm afraid it's just a delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, the category is currently not useful, it hasn't been parented to the television series tree and it only contains two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 14 October 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.

Christian abolitionists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Christian abolitionists

Category:Sports teams and properties owned by David Blitzer[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:David Blitzer. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matches the title of the corresponding navbox template. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where to rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't tagged, btw. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:37, 12 October 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:British police officers in India[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 12:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should be merged with Category:Police officers in British India and renamed Category:Police officers from British India Mason (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per convention. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category deals with colonial police officers, most of whom were British-born and most of whom returned to Britain when they retired, who worked in British India. Most did not actually come from India. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a spilt + rename? Colonial police officers in British India Mason (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:02, 1 October 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 22:29, 12 October 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:Slave owners from the Kingdom of England[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:British slave owners. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Outcome must match Category:Slaves from the Kingdom of England below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:38, 1 October 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 22:24, 12 October 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:Slaves from the Kingdom of England[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:English slaves. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:37, 1 October 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 22:24, 12 October 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:Television series by Fox Television Animation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation

Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Scotland

Category:Writers from the Kingdom of Scotland[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 "Foos from the Kingdom of Scotland" to "Scottish Foos". (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping category where the intersection with political regime isn't defining Mason (talk) 21:01, 12 October 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:Oey Family of Karawaci[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 all. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat without a corresponding eponymous article about the family Mason (talk) 20:40, 12 October 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:FitzWilliam family[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) HouseBlastertalk 11:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: although it does have a corresponding eponymous article, there's only one family member in it Mason (talk) 20:49, 12 October 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:Immigrants to Ireland (before 1923)[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:Immigrants to Ireland. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping, under populated, category Mason (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, I do not have a firm opinion about whether this category should exist or not, but currently it is nearly empty and does not serve any navigational benefit. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 14 October 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:Show business families of the Netherlands[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 merge to Category:Dutch families and Category:Show business families. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 21:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small cat, should be dual merged Mason (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge, it is also not part of a large established tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 14 October 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 from the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe[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:People from Schaumburg-Lippe. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping category Mason (talk) 20:08, 12 October 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:14th-century Russian princes[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 12:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 9#Category:13th-century Russian princesses. NLeeuw (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The subjects were princes of regions in Rus, not Russia (which was not the name of a state until over three centuries later).  —Michael Z. 19:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Im not sure this makes any sense, the reason for merging the other categories was because they were SMALLCATs, this one doesnt seem to be.★Trekker (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is not a small cat I do not see the point of this. Mellk (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per Mzajac. As also stated in Kievan Rus', these were not Russia. - jc37 00:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that these people were not Russian is very debatable. Article Kievan Rus' states in its first sentence that it was an amalgam of principalities [...] from the late 9th to the mid-13th century, so the 14th-century states around Moscow, Ryazan, Suzdal, Tver, Yaroslav etc. are, I believe, universally considered part of Russian history by historiography. The previous discussion ended with a merge to Medieval Russian royalty and 14th-century Russian women, and Category:14th-century Russian people exists since 2009 without contest. Place Clichy (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale given in the cited discussion is SMALLCAT, but this 10 articles plus 7 in another child category, so it can't really be called small. @StarTrekker and Mellk: as you made the same argument, would you mind clarifying what is your position regarding the current discussion? Place Clichy (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I would oppose. For Kievan Rus this ends at Category:13th-century princes from Kievan Rus' (even though it was no longer a state by this point for a long while). Mellk (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not support a merger at all, but maybe a split if Kievan Rus' can have its own category or similar to solve that problem.★Trekker (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging @Nederlandse Leeuw for clarification on how the previous nom applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:20, 12 October 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:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel[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:Talmud rabbis of Syria Palaestina. Consensus is not solely determined by numbers but by the strength of the arguments presented. Those in support of a move cited WP:C2D (conformity with Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina), which is a very strong argument. Those opposed argued that "Land of Israel" was a better term than "Syria Palaestina". Notably, they also argued that Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina ought to be renamed accordingly. However, that argument is necessarily grounded in a judgement of what circumstances should be, not what they are at present. Therefore, there is consensus to move for now; interested parties should feel free to open an RM at Talk:Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina. If consensus favors a move, this category can be nominated for C2D renaming to an appropriate title. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 21:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This page should be moved both for precision and consistency reasons to use both the correct geographical name for the time period and the name that is consistent with the most closely related page on the overarching topic, which is Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina. The move to align this category with the related academies page would parallel the similarly consistent structure between Category:Talmud rabbis of Babylonia and Category:Talmudic academies in Babylonia. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please start a talk page discussion in the article’s talk page, as well as posting the appropriate templates in the article header.
Also - disagree on your rationale. “Babylonia” is being used as a regional descriptive, and not being used in a capacity specific to time and - according to your argument - its provincial status at the time in question. Mistamystery (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistamystery: This is a category, not article discussion. Please make sure to properly familiarize yourself with things before you wading in with muddled, impromptu responses. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The parent page to this category is Amoraim, not Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina (which itself seems to have been quietly renamed by a single person without prior community discussion).
The Amoraic period extends to 500 CE. Syria Palaestina only existed as a Roman province from 132-390 CE. It is not an appropriate new header for the category. Mistamystery (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page Amoraim is not instructive on naming. It is also referenced on Category:Talmud rabbis of Babylonia to similarly little effect. The case for consistency with Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina, on the other hand, should be obvious. It is as close to a WP:C2D example as we currently have, and it has been stable at that title since 2013, so there an enduring silent consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem Talmud are the most relevant articles - both articles are clear what the place was called at the time. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talmudic academies of Syria Palestine was improperly moved to begin with. The assertion that Land of Israel is anachronistic is both incorrect. and offensive as well..Drsmoo (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC) edit Drsmoo (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Apparently a move you made 8 years ago and which nobody's raised until now is being called out as offensive, FYI. Hopefully an explanation will be forthcoming. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not saying it was offensive, FYI. Just saying there should have been a discussion. And the page was not visited often at the time (there wasn’t a subsequent edit to the page following the name change for more than a year) so no, I don’t think there was a clear and enduring silent consensus. Mistamystery (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 83,000 scholarly sources on Google scholar using the term Land of Israel, including for this very subject. There are only 1,050 for Syria Palestina. The assertion that Land of Israel is not scholarly, let alone that it’s “anachronistic” is ridiculous. Drsmoo (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about we stick to the discussion in hand? If you want to discuss that page's name, why no go and discuss it on the page (and also stick to just the sources on the subject). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a move discussion at history of Jews and Judaism in the land of Israel. The final name of that page may be instructive for the ideal name here. Drsmoo (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely tangential discussion of a historical overview page, not a historically contextualised category, to an entirely separate target, so not really. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is consistent, that “Land of Israel” is non-neutral, anachronistic, religious, etc. If so, perhaps there should be a broader wiki discussion on how to handle these controversial place names. Drsmoo (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the broad discussion on whether to use historically and geographically accurate terms or vague, POV, religious terms has been long settled. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the term Syria-Palestine actually is, and has been described as such in reliable sources, anachronistic. Drsmoo (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The neutral term used in scholarship is Levant or Southern Levant. Drsmoo (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't that page discussion. This is about a category for 200-500 CE Talmud rabbis that lived in Syria Palaestina - where is the anachronism? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars discussing the Jerusalem Talmud, written by the 200-500 CE Talmud rabbis in this category, use the contemporary name of the region that they lived in. That is what we do in our article, and should do in our category. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would anyone want to start an WP:RM procedure for the article title? If so, the category name can simply follow the article name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Innocent question: why is Syria Palaestina the most appropriate name for the article title (insofar as we are going by Roman territorial designations, which is a another matter unto itself) if the province ceased to exist in 390 CE (yet the period we are discussing stretches well into the 500s)?
Is it because the Jerusalem Talmud (ostensibly the collective focus of the Talmudists in question) was completed in a window of time mostly under the purview of the SP province? (350-400 CE)?
If we are to go by Roman provincial definitions (which I think also demands a discussion given that we are discussing indigenous activity under the banner of colonial place names (See:Decoloniality), then why are we not merely saying “Roman Palestine” if we are to cover both Syria Palaestina and its successor provinces?
Not trying to be a time traveler, or too presumptive, but given the generally established relationship between the Roman Empire and the Jewish population at the time, I think its a reasonable assertion that if any of these Talmudists were asked at the time “What land are you doing this work in?”, their answer would likely be “Eretz Israel” or “Yehuda” (see First Jewish Revolt coinage and Bar Kokhba Revolt coinage to get a clear glimpse of how the local population reasserted native place names during their attempts to repel Roman colonial authority) Just as well, their answer would likely not be the name of a province established by the very imperial entity whose destruction of their capital city and religious center necessitated the creation of the very Talmud they were working on.
Not sure how to handle questions of coloniality in this matter, most especially given that many of these place names and designations have lived on and evolved in a way that creates a significant amount of contemporary tension. Wish we had a larger talk page to work through all the protocols around this so we can arrive at a general consensus on naming standards on all these intertwined articles being discussed and debated.Mistamystery (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Syria Palaestina didn't go anywhere in 390, it just split into Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda, a somewhat trivial nuance of historical adminstrative history that is guaranteed to be lost on most casual readers. You could in theory use Roman Palestine as an overarching header for this period, but given that almost all of the rabbis lived in the period when it was Syria Palaestina, and the most formative developments also took place in that period, i.e. the writing of the Palestinian Talmud, it is a bit of a technicality that for the last 100 years of this 400-500 year period the governing entity was administratively split. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to be a broad enough topic for wiki category LilleFreak187 (talk) 22:39, 07 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(now blocked as a sockpuppet)
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per C2D. Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 21 October 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:Writers from the German Empire[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 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, merge to Category:German writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & populate Surely there were more than 2. The country existed almost half a century in relatively recent history. The last ones will have died in the early 21st century. NLeeuw (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 19 articles now, populated by Johnpacklambert.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. German writers and other artists should be classified by timeframe. The Empire was an important historical period in its own right and cannot be lumped together with Weimar or the Third Reich or the DDR or the Federal Republic. The category has been expanded now. PearlyGigs (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've received a message from Johnpacklambert who created this category. He has pointed out that the German Empire was multi-national and so the category must include non-German nationals who were imperial subjects. For example, as he has mentioned, there is Jakub Bart-Ćišinski who was Sorbian. This means the category has potential for considerable growth. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "should be classified by timeframe": there is already Category:German writers by century and its subcategories. I wonder if this new scheme will not conflict with that. Place Clichy (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:German writers. The German Empire (1871-1918) was a German nation-state (unlike Holy Roman Empire), and its inhabitants can be primarily called Germans. No need to create occupational intersection categories with every regime change. In case a German writer of the period is also notable for being a member of an ethnic minority such as Poles and Alsatians, they can be also categorized as that (not necessarily through an intersection). Place Clichy (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 12 October 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:16th-century Prussian people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:16th-century Prussian people

Category:Tripartite Alliance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Tripartite Alliance

Category:Sieges by country[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 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like the Category:People by country tree, "country" in the Category:Battles by country tree is notoriously ambiguous. In recent months we've had to delete several "battles by location" cats that were WP:NONDEFINING. We are interested in the participants, the belligerents, not the country in which the besieged city or stronghold was located. The cat desc says as much: This category organizes sieges by the historical states (or significant non-state entities) participating in them. Given that "non-state entities" are not excluded, perhaps belligerent or participant is better. "wikt:belligerent" does contain a connotation of the aggressors, and may thus not apply well to the defenders. Participant may sound too much like it's a fun game in which you can play along, so it might not be serious enough for the reality of war, but perhaps it is at least more neutral than belligerent. Perhaps the best might be Sieges by country involved; the word involved aligns with the Sieges involving Fooland subcategory naming convention already. Whatever we decide, I intend to use this as a test case discussion before we proceed with perhaps renaming the rest of the tree, at least if we think that's a good idea. I'd appreciate a lot of well-thought input, because I don't have all the answers and am open to many ideas how to best make this category (tree) clear, unambiguous, neutral, serious, as well as inclusive of non-state actors/entities. (Alternately, we could simply purge the non-state actors, and/or give them a separate tree). NLeeuw (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sieges by target country or to Category:Sieges by besieged country. If no consensus for that, weaker support for Category:Sieges by participant country. The latter includes both belligerent and target, while the former restricts to target only. Which is, I think more precise. - jc37 20:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm I doubt these are helpful. I should have added that lots of sieges and other battles (especially naval battles) take place in "neutral" territory. Country A may violate the neutrality of country B, seize an abandoned B fortress for its own use, and then get besieged by country C on B's territory. B tries to stay out of it, and tries to apply diplomatic pressure to get A and C to leave its territory. The Siege of the B Fortress should then be categorised as involving countries A and C, but not B. Yet, in a way, B is a "target" of the aggression of both A and C. And the "besieged country" could be both A and B (C being the besieger). So I'm afraid these terms won't say what we want this tree to say. But I appreciate your suggestions. NLeeuw (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I only looked at a cross-sample, and only saw targets. If these are such a muddle, then maybe this needs to either be listified or split into subcats by type. I dunno. The idea that the country in question could be a participant, but the actual siege happened elsewhere; or the country is the site, but is otherwise not involved in the seige; and many other options; seems problematic to me. Ideas obviously welcome. - jc37 22:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify/delete, i.e. do not rename. If kept, the current titles are admittedly ambiguous but that is rather an advantage in this particular case. Excluding neutral countries on whose territories the siege takes place seems odd. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle I thought we agreed on excluding neutral countries? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 13#Category:Battles in the Netherlands by province: Alt County of Holland rationale: battles taking place in the County of Holland between 1091–1795 can also be moved to Category:County of Holland (Scheut-style merge), possibly even Category:Battles involving Holland (9th century–1432), but this needs to be done on a (time-consuming) case-by-case basis. We would need to assess whether each and every battle site was really part of the County at the time, whether it was named "Holland" or still (West) Frisia at the time, and whether Holland was "involved" as a belligerent or that it was just some skirmish between others on its territory. I'm open to this, but recommend against it (...). You agreed to this. If the battle involved the County of Holland, it goes into Category:Battles involving Holland; if a battle just occurred on the territory of the County of Holland, but the County was not an involved party, then it goes into Category:County of Holland (according to the Battle of Scheut principle). NLeeuw (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a misunderstanding but it did not turn out badly in that discussion. For me the main issue of that discussion was anachronism: the preferred category is of an involved contemporary party rather than a modern province. Question: isn't the issue of neutrality a bit hypothetical? Even if country B desires to be neutral, they are de facto involved despite their desires. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Anachronism was indeed our main motivation. Incidentally, that means we still need to purge all pre-1806 battles from Category:Sieges involving the Netherlands.
      The neutrality factor may be something we should ask the Milhist WikiProject. I was under the impression that battles taking place on the territory of neutrality parties does not (necessarily) lead to the involvement of that neutral party as far as categorisation goes, but I could be wrong. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the physical location of a siege seems obviously defining (even more so than for a battle). Participants are also defining, but are (I) a different thing and (II) not necessarily countries. Furius (talk) 07:36, 14 October 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:Queer organizations & Category:Queer literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Queer organizations & Category:Queer literature

Category:Songs written for film[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 15:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term for this is "composed", per musical composition. Helpful links: song, soundtrack, film, and animated film. - jc37 18:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both as nom. "film", is more appropriate than: "films", but I don't oppose the plural if it has consensus. And on the fence about whether "soundtracks" should be included for clarity, etc. - jc37 18:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm confused what the nomination is about. @jc37 could you make sure this nomination is filed correctly? With a proper "Nominator's rationale", plural target category names, Alt proposals for variations, and the nominator not voting for their own proposal, but explaining what they would like to achieve and why in the rationale. I would appreciate it! NLeeuw (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's to rename two categories. There are several options. I'm not positive about which is the the best direction to go. Looking forward to hearing what everyone else thinks. - jc37 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you file it correctly then, please? NLeeuw (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. The nomination would seem fairly clear. The base nom at the top. And my specific thoughts/concerns about it listed by my username. - jc37 04:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)*I have indented the nomination in the way that I think NLeeuw was asking for.[reply]
    I have indented the nomination in the way that I think NLeeuw was asking for. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Fayenatic london I appreciate it. NLeeuw (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only because I can't suggest better alternatives. However I question both written for and composed for...because 1. Are we separating music by whether it has words or not? 2. we don't generally know whether a piece of music has actually been written for a film or not. 3. "Soundtrack" suggests all the music used for a film. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, I'll try to cover each topic:
    "Compose", per Dictionary.com: "write or create (a work of art, especially music or poetry)". per Cambridge dictionary: "to produce or create music, poems, or a piece of writing". per Brittanica: " to create and write (a piece of music or writing)".
    As far as I know, in the era of film, copyright is a thing, and so (in general) we're able to source most any particular piece of music. In particular, one which might have an article. Apparently the goal - per past CfDs - is to exclude pre-existing songs which were added to a film.
    The soundtrack is all (or most) of the music in a film, and a song could be a constituent part of that. A film's soundtrack is more than merely the film's score. - jc37 11:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your points without further comment, save that assuming a piece of music has been written for a particular film is a knowledge beyond verification. Richhoncho (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:36, 12 October 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.

Serbia and Montenegro[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 15:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming and re-parenting to the tree of Category:Serbia and Montenegro
Nominator's rationale: rename follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#20th century in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia ceased to exist by end of 1991. Technically we could rename these categories to a "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" format instead of "Serbia and Montenegro" but it does not seem very helpful to use two different names while it was the same state. Likewise, in article space, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia redirects to Serbia and Montenegro. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The country was not called Serbia and Montenegro until 2003, so the proposed names are misleading. Year-specific categories should use the country's name at the time. Number 57 11:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The breakup of Yugoslavia was certainly messy, but beyond 1992 I heartily disagree - it's much less misleading for the average English reader to use the term "Serbia and Montenegro" to refer to these topics, because that is how the English-speaking sources referred to the rump FRY at the time, as the United States explicitly refused to refer to them as 'Yugoslavia', IIRC. That is also one of the reasons why in article space we use that term and not the self-proclaimed, namespace-polluting term. Continuing to use this confusing terminology in category space makes very little sense. (Support.) --Joy (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per rationale and per Joy. –Vipz (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully support per nom - really an excellent nomination @Marcocapelle, Joy additionally explained the situation and there shouldn't be any problems in fulfilling this nom easily.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose football articles. I came here from the football article alerts, and strongly oppose the football categories being moved, as the team was known almost exclusively as "FR Yugoslavia national football team" until 2003. So even if other categories are moved, the football ones should not. I don't have enough general subject knowledge, but for the football categories, the team name at the time was clear: it was FR Yugoslavia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this CFD also mixes a political discussion of the official/common name of the country and the names of their sports teams, which don't necessarily have the same CFD outcome for the common name. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, the state is the same only name was changed at one point, from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Serbia and Montenegro - of course, with constitutional changes that have no bearing on the issue at hand. So, basically the last name of that particular state is Serbia and Montenegro. Should this be significant for the sport categories, I can't say, really. ౪ Santa ౪99° 13:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using that name for football is also confusing - you can't have e.g. "Category:2001–02 in Yugoslav football‎" because then the average reader who knows that Yugoslavia broke up way before 2001 is immediately astonished. What "Yugoslav football" when Yugoslavia broke apart in a series of deadly wars in the preceding decade? Sure, the national team from Serbia and Montenegro had a few years of international competition as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia national team -- after the international sanctions were lifted -- but that does not matter for the categorization scheme. Categorizing the national team of the FRY under "Serbia and Montenegro football" seems perfectly appropriate and causes no confusion to readers who know the official name of the team. --Joy (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I only now realised that current existing categories are named as "Yugoslav(ia) foo-sport" not F(ederal) R(epublic) (of) Yugoslavia - that's both confusing and erroneous - I mean, I would expect, at least, that these current categories have precise name, say, "FR Yugoslav football". So, we are at least one step away from proper name for the current cats, but I agree with @Joy which means we are two steps away from it. I reaffirm my support for @Marcocapelle's nom. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslav was the correct adjective for FR Yugoslavia too. They weren't Serbia and Montenegro football team until 2003, as per every single source listed in article on the football team's participations in these years. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine but it is completely orthogonal to this discussion. The categorization scheme doesn't go out of its way to use ambiguous terms. To say that Oktoberfest is a fall festival would be correct, but that doesn't mean much for the naming of Category:Autumn festivals. --Joy (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The country was not known as Serbia and Montenegro until 2003 so it is categorically wrong to have, picking one at random, Category:1997 in Serbia and Montenegro sport‎. I would support changing Yugoslavia to FR Yugoslavia for the period between 1992 and 2003 so as to differentiate between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I would also support a similar structure to that currently used with regard to North Macedonian football whereby the container category is Category:Seasons in North Macedonia football but the individual seasons are titled according to the country's name at the time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yugoslavia was not officially (keep that distinction in mind) known as Yugoslavia until 1929 either, yet we have (picking one at random as well) Category:1920 in Yugoslavia. It is not wrong to have this category because the country simply underwent a rename, just like Serbia and Montenegro did. Both to names that were already widely used to refer to these countries, but officially picked up later. Neither case is categorically wrong, in fact, quite the opposite. –Vipz (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree. As the country wasn't called Yugoslavia in 1920, the category shouldn't be called Yugoslavia. However, the cases are different as the 1920s Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes is often called Yugoslavia in reliable sources. In this case, FR Yugoslavia is often called Yugoslavia or FR Yugoslavia, particularly in relation to sports, so there wouldn't be a reason to change the categories here according to WP:NAMECHANGES. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you want to talk about things that are categorically wrong, when calling FRY just "Yugoslavia" and using the adjective "Yugoslav" for it is an apparent violation of WP:CAT and WP:C2D, since Yugoslavia and Yugoslav in main space do not support this and have been the topic of several discussions that indicate how controversial this would be. Perhaps we should refrain from using this kind of emotional language in this discussion, it's not really useful for building consensus. --Joy (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry but what a clusterfuck of a nomination. Far too many (disparate) categories listed. Needs to be done in much smaller batches. As it stands, I agree with the comments above about historically accurate names. GiantSnowman 14:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman the existing category names are not using historically accurate names already. The adjective "Yugoslav" and the noun "Yugoslavia" did not unambiguously mean Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1990s, nor do they mean that today. This argument about the national football team and whatnot appears to be a red herring. --Joy (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You will need to re-nominate in significantly smaller batches. GiantSnowman 18:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite see the rationale for that, as the reason why they're misnamed is the same for all of them - they diverge from decades long article space consensus. --Joy (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the reason for insisting on smaller batches? Are there renames you disagree and other that you agree with? I don't think numerosity is a good sole reason for turning down a proposal. –Vipz (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sports ones, in particular the football ones, should not be moved, as the team was known as FR Yugoslavia until 2003. This is regardless of the politics of the naming of the country, which is what most of the argument supporting renames are referring to. These are clearly two separate issues, which should have two separate sets of CFDs. This CFD mixing politics and sports name is just a WP:TRAINWRECK. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this concept of a "sports name" you're referring to, where can we read more about it? It seems like a red herring. For the average English reader, the phrases "Yugoslav sport" or "Yugoslav football" primarily refer to the country primarily known as Yugoslavia, the one that broke apart in the early '90s, not the 1992-2003 rump state. Continuing to use them in reference to the latter is just confusing and ambiguous, and this has little to do with politics. If one were to employ an actual argument related to politics, the position of the FRY in claiming "Yugoslav" and "Yugoslavia" would be even less tenable. --Joy (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely unnecessary to reduce a number and/or variety, and there is nothing political in choosing to use name Serbia and Montenero over Federal Republic of Yugoslavia either - it is one and the same nation. If the rename makes sense for all other categories, it makes for football as well. ౪ Santa ౪99° 12:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The country was called Yugoslavia (full name Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) until 2003. The fact that there was an interwar Yugoslavia (full name Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and a Cold War Yugoslavia (full name Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia) don't change that. You could find it confusing, and it is to some degree, but it doesn't change the country's name. Serbia and Montenegro is very much a reserved name for the state as it existed in 2003-2006. Place Clichy (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy How about you argue that at Talk:Yugoslavia instead of here? Also, it's becoming a bit repetitive to have to argue these ahistorical points... for long periods of time the FRY was not recognized as such, was not accepted to the UN, many others referred to it as Serbia and Montenegro, etc. --Joy (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about you argue that at UN.org instead of here? I don't think, unless proven otherwise, that any country, friend or foe, interacted in an official matter with this nation at the time of the Bosnia and Kosovo wars under the name "Serbia and and Montenegro". In my recollection, the media of the time would have most frequently called it "the remainder of Yugoslavia", "what's left of Yugoslavia" or just "Serbia". After all, we have an article about the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
    What https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states/yugoslavia says (abstract): "The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original Member of the United Nations, the Charter having been signed on its behalf on 26 June 1945 and ratified 19 October 1945, until its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new Members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [...] The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/12 of 1 November 2000. On 4 February 2003, following the adoption and promulgation of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro by the Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the official name of " Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was changed to Serbia and Montenegro."
    You seem to have an issue with the fact that the FR Yugoslavia (1992-2003) and Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006) are addressed by the English Wikipedia in the same article. This is, after all, very understandable, as this is in essence the same country and the constitutional changes of 2003 did not change the nature of the country besides its name and political regime. A comparable situation is that of neighbouring North Macedonia, which changes its constitutional name in 2019 (from Republic of Macedonia). It would probably not be constructive to split the country's article for 1991-2019 and post-2019 just because of the name change. Place Clichy (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy Please read what you wrote with a modicum of comprehension - you're arguing that a country that spent 8 years of its existence under the name FRY cast out of UN because it didn't want to acknowledge the breakup of Yugoslavia, and then 3 years later was renamed to Serbia and Montenegro, needs to be referred to as "Yugoslavia" and we need to use the adjective "Yugoslav" for it. This is simply incoherent with the historical facts - it was utterly ambiguous to say "Yugoslavia" and "Yugoslav" in the 90s, and it would be ahistorical to perpetuate the idea that it's unambiguous to refer to the 90s like that today. Ultimately, the categorization discussion board is the absolute wrong place to be having these kinds of arguments that have long been addressed in article space, espectially when they're this close to a violation of the WP:FRINGE guideline. --Joy (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "a country [...] needs to be referred to as "Yugoslavia" and we need to use the adjective "Yugoslav" for it": the core issue is that there is, really, no other satisfactory way to call it. I agree with you that the term Yugoslavia was ambiguous in the 1990s. However, during this period it seems to me that media, scholars and officials consistently used expressions like "former Yugoslavia" when they wanted to talk about the 5 countries seen collectively. Usage of just Yugoslavia with the same intent would have not been understandable. In the same fashion, you would have needed to say "small Yugoslavia", "rump Yugoslavia" or something similar to be understood. Usage was never uniform, though, just as well as the political positions towards the country shifted greatly, even within the English-speaking world.
    Country names just happen to be ambiguous, sometimes, but that's not really a reason to call these countries by their actual name, with all the helpful explanatory comments needed. Macedonia was ambiguous and still is, and it took them 28 years to sort it out somehow, much longer than the 11 years of existence of FR Yugoslavia. The names of Moldova, Luxembourg, Congo and even China are ambiguous. So what.
    A difference between the main article Serbia and Montenegro and the nominated categories is that they are all specific to time periods where the country was called FR Yugoslavia. In fact, references in articles to the same period also consistently use Yugoslavia, such as NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Bosnian War or Kosovo War, which mention FR Yugoslavia in list of the belligerents. Place Clichy (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In context, those are fine. In categorization, it's still ambiguous, because the phrases are plain weird. For example, the phrase "1995 establishments in Yugoslavia‎" is giving the impression that it is normal to refer to FRY alone as Yugoslavia in 1995, but that is still ambiguous, the term Yugoslavia is primarily associated with the country that had dissolved shorly before that and it's pointless to keep forcing this ambiguity in the categorization scheme when we can simply use the term Serbia and Montenegro which is clear. 'NATO bombing of Yugoslavia' is the main outlier here, and it's most likely the result of a lot of contemporary newspaper coverage; NATO also had bombing campaigns in other parts of former Yugoslavia so that term is also inherently ambiguous as well, but it stuck. --Joy (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 12 October 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:LGBT rights in the Arab 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT WP:REDUNDANTFORK WP:ARBITRARYCAT. The main articles are LGBT rights in the Middle East and LGBT rights in Africa. There is no LGBT rights in the Arab world, and we don't need one; it would just be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of what we've already got, plus the oversimplification that everyone who lives in these countries is apparently somehow an "Arab". Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:Religion in the Arab world. NLeeuw (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair reason to oppose. Then I would suggest to also selectively merge to Category:LGBT in the Arab world while that category still exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I advise against doing large-scale bundles again in this area. They only complicate things that should be taken step by step. NLeeuw (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly we disagree about whether this proposal belongs in the set of "things that should be taken step by step". I tend to consider almost nothing as belonging in that set. Picking off sub-categories one-by-one is invidious, because if people look at the current members and a sub-cat that they expected to see is not there (e.g. there is no "LGBT rights in X" within "LGBT in X"), then they may agree to delete the category because it is currently pointless – but it is only currently pointless because it has just been made pointless by previous piecemeal steps. You are practically admitting to WP:Gaming the system, which is a bad thing. – Fayenatic London 13:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... I don't know where that accusation is coming from. Frankly, I am losing interest in trying to clear up these duplicate "Arab world" category trees if we need to argue about every single nomination. It's wasting my time and giving me stress to disagree with a fellow editor whom I otherwise respect very much. I think I'll disengage from this topic area for now. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that a very large nomination can be a WP:TRAINWRECK and therefore useless, but if you are only nominating in stages then IMHO it is highly desirable to be transparent about the overall end state that you have in mind. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't I been transparent enough by saying it is a Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:Religion in the Arab world? Marcocapelle also supports this per that precedent. The overall end state that I have in mind is that we don't have duplicate category trees for "Middle East" and "(North) Africa" on the one hand, and "Arab world" on the other, when the latter has been repeatedly shown to be an WP:OVERLAPCAT WP:REDUNDANTFORK WP:ARBITRARYCAT which rarely has any main articles, whereas the former do. In this case that is pretty clear.
    However, I am not confident (yet) that the entire Category:Arab world tree should be abolished by splits/mergers/renamings, because it also has a main article Arab world and several articles with the term in the title. I also expect that some splits/mergers/renamings will need to be made between Arab world on the one hand, and Arab League on the other, as these two terms are regularly mixed up with each other. If they are not the same thing, how come many articles claim that The Arab world has 22 countries.? That is the number of Member states of the Arab League. Moreover, we get the generalisation that the majority of the population of each of these countries speaks Arabic, which clearly does not apply to e.g. Somalia. Lastly, on countless occasions we see attempts being made to include regions such as northern Chad and southwestern Iran (Khuzestan) into "Arab world" based on language alone, but thereby contradicting the claim that "the Arab world" consists of exactly the same 22 countries as the member states of the Arab League.
    This is why I am taking it step by step. I am taking a bottom-up approach, starting from the ends of the category tree, to see how we can better organise the whole structure. The larger and more bundled I make these nominations, the greater the risk of causing exactly the kind of useless WP:TRAINWRECK you rightly refer to. I hope this helps explain to you what I am trying to do? Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 12 October 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:Kannada television news anchors[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:Kannada-language journalists. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, we do not need a split by language at such a detailed occupation level. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 03:43, 20 October 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:Sons of Temperance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Sons of Temperance

Category:Kannada television journalists[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:Kannada-language journalists. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 03:43, 20 October 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:Kochi[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: consensus to rename , but no consensus on what to rename to. Renaming to Category:Kochi, Kerala as nominator's choice. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gets constantly confused with Category:Kōchi, as of right now 2 out of 5 top level category members are for the city in Japan. https://archive.ph/wip/xOmIM Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather :Category:Kochi, Japan and Category:Kochi, India ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld I think that is better too. My only concern is that that might violate some kind of naming system for the categories. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, look at Category:Jamestown, Virginia, Category:Jamestown, North Dakota for instance. Category:Kochi should read as a disambiguation telling editors to place articles in the appropriate category. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kochi, India for consistent name scheme with my vote on Category:Kōchi QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: There are about 30 subcats which should probably all be renamed likewise, although the Japanese namesake only has a "People from Kochi" subcat. For info, the main article was renamed from Kochi, Kerala to Kochi, India in 2007, then to Kochi in 2010 rather than back to "Kochi, Kerala" after Talk:Kochi/Archive_2#Requested_move, but I don't think that discussion helps us much for choosing between those options for the category name. – Fayenatic London 09:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, because (i) Category:Salem, Tamil Nadu gives a precedent for using the state rather than "India", and (ii) "Kochi, Japan" seems to be ruled out for the other one. – Fayenatic London 09:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: India or Kerala?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 13:32, 22 September 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 October 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:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Cape Verde[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 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as per WP:SMALLCAT. This ambassador position is actually a non resident one. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComment. Small cat also says. "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time" Does this category have potential for growth? I don't know how the fact that the position isn't a residential one impacts growth/notability. Mason (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems to follow an established category scheme. Mason (talk) 04:50, 14 September 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 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 12 October 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:District attorneys in Cumberland County, Maine[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 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to distinguish at the county level. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom Mason (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy-based reason for this deletion? It sounds likes you just don't like it. There are other similar categories, including: Category:District attorneys in Essex County, Massachusetts‎, Category:District attorneys in Middlesex County, Massachusetts Category:District attorneys in Norfolk County, Massachusetts, Category:District attorneys in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, Category:District attorneys in Suffolk County, Massachusetts‎, and Category:District attorneys in Worcester County, Massachusetts‎. What is it about county district attorneys which makes this category unacceptable?--User:Namiba 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair question (and I was too lazy to type my reasoning). It seemed to me that it was a non-defining categorization combined with smallcat. Mason (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a district attorney in most of the United States is a notable political office, which is specifically mentioned at WP:SMALLCAT as one which can be kept despite being on the smaller side.--User:Namiba 16:24, 17 September 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 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 12 October 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:Indian journalists by language[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 09:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same problem as screenwriters. None of these categories are nationality specific, instead they all reflect Category:journalists by language where the language happens to be common in India, and not indicative that that writer's nationality is Indian. Mason (talk) 00:12, 12 September 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 13:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the large amount of articles concerns Indian people, it may make sense to keep this category and to rename the subcategories to "from India". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The challenge is that not everyone in the current subcats are from india. We've have to purge a lot of people. Mason (talk) 03:45, 20 October 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:Quotients[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 am holding my nose while making this close; I wish there were consensus to pull out of this seven week discussion. However, over the course of the past two months, the circumstances have changed drastically. It was created, populated, depopulated. All the while comments trickled in, which responded to the then-current state of the category. Only one comment from the beginning of the discussion – from David Eppstein – is applicable in the present circumstance (this is not criticism of other commenters; nobody can be expected to guess what shape the category will be in when the discussion in closed).
After two relists, Qwerfjkl pinged participants to ask them how they felt about the category in its current state. This made consensus even less clear: two users (with opposite !votes) withdrew their votes; one expressed that he was willing to defer to editors more involved with math-related categories.
While I do not like the amount of editor time it would require, I would encourage a fresh discussion on the merits of the category now that it is not in its infancy. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 22:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly unused category with no real conceptual link between the pages/subcategories; I've removed the last few entries so the category is now empty. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator chose to empty this category after nominating it for a CFD discussion, rendering it pointless. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I do something wrong? Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Caleb Stanford: you shouldn't have emptied the category because now we cannot assess whether the category perhaps had useful content after all. Which articles did you remove? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm looking through their edit history and rolling back their removes. There are several categories nested within the Quotients category. Mason (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mason: and @Marcocapelle: Thank you and apologies for the mistake. Did not realize it was not traceable from the edit history. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing. The standard is to propose the category for deletion, and leave the categories on the pages. That way other people can see for themselves what the state of the current category is. After the discussion, there's a bot that does the heavy lifting afterwards. Mason (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator's claim "no real conceptual link between the pages/subcategories" is accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the topics are too unrelated to each other. In the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: this category was created ~ 24 hours ago and is in the process of being populated. Its main purpose is to discriminate between general quotient (metrology) and more specific ratio or rate, as defined in the first article. Many "ratios" are being recategorized in the parent category. Please give it some more time then nominate it again if still dissatisfied. (BTW: it'd have been a courtesy to notify the category creator. The nominator's preemptive depopulation was also contentious.) fgnievinski (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Fgnievinski: Sorry about the depopulation, that was my mistake. I do not understand what the purpose of the category is. The following are possibilities, but they are unrelated and, at best, share a name: rational or real numbers that are used as ratios, e.g. golden ratio; scientific quantities that are defined as ratios; and formal objects that are defined using quotient spaces, modulo, or equivalence relations. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no name-part sharing between "quotient" and "ratio", so WP:SHAREDNAME simply doesn't apply. It's a plain conceptual generalization/specialization, as explained and sourced in Quotient (metrology). fgnievinski (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep for now. Give fgnievinski some time to work on it. Mason (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, purge everything that is not about quotient: a quantity produced by the division of two numbers. In its current state, that would mean the category would be emptied. The articles Rate (mathematics) and Ratio may be added though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 14 September 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 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, @David Eppstein, @Fgnievinski, @Mason, @Caleb Stanford: it's now been over 5 weeks since the nomination started, which is plenty of time for the category to be populated. For thhose who !voted delete, do you still think it should be deleted? Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was a procedural keep vote. Now that the category has had enough time to exist, I am happy to defer to folks who are familiar with how math-related categories on wikipedia. Mason (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better than before. However it seems to lack differentiation from Category:Ratios. Merge or +1 to defer to those who are familiar with how math-related categories on Wikipedia. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:39, 22 October 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:Surnames of Jewish origin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Surnames of Jewish origin

Category:People convicted on terrorism charges[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:People convicted on terrorism charges

Category:British sportspeople in British India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:British sportspeople in British India

Category:Dino Morea[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) HouseBlastertalk 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a single subcategory containing two articles. WP:OCEPON StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom Mason (talk) 20:40, 12 October 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:Murderers for life insurance money[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 20#Category:Murderers for life insurance money

Category:Sports teams and properties owned by Josh Harris[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:Josh Harris. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matches the title of the corresponding navbox template. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 12:24, 12 October 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:Brockhill family[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) HouseBlastertalk 11:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat without a corresponding eponymous article about the family Mason (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I took the liberty to merge the three nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for merging them! (My approach has been less than systematic in finding small family categories) Mason (talk) 20:12, 12 October 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:Donnie Yen[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) HouseBlastertalk 11:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for one other related article. WP:OCEPON StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support. per nom Mason (talk) 01:21, 12 October 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 of Lan Xang[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:Lan Xang. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 11:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: over cat, it only has the kings of Lan Xang in it Mason (talk) 00:29, 12 October 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 from the Hanseatic City of Lübeck[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:People from the Hanseatic City of Lübeck

Category:People of the Habsburg monarchy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:People of the Habsburg monarchy

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_12&oldid=1182870869"