Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 22
October 24 >

October 23[edit]

College women's lacrosse players[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 all as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 14:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: excessive overcategorization to categorize college women's lacrosse players by the team that they played on creating small, narrow intersections. The vast majority of the articles in this tree are notable for what they did AFTER college, which brings to question WP:CATDEF. (note: there are many more sports with the same overcategorization. I am not singling out this one sport. I just don't have time/find it useful to nominate thousands of cats at once.) –Aidan721 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now until we have many more articles of college women's lacrosse players in the United States. The issue that they are (only) notable for what they did after college would call for deletion rather than merging, but that would apply to all college categories, so let's leave that for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. A well-thought nomination. Although all articles I looked up are for athletes and sports coaches (in soccer/football, basketball, field hockey and, rarely, lacrosse), it seems that notoriety never really comes from playing college lacrosse. A typical example is professional basketball player Blake Dietrick, whose bio starts with mentions of her playing basketball in high school and college, where she also played lacrosse.
So where to set the par? I believe that a huge distinction in US college sports is the notion of sponsored sports i.e. athletic scholarships, which could serve to identify which college-level athletic activity is notable career-wise. I wonder however if that would not be discriminatory towards women athletes. In other words we should be extra careful not to import a systemic bias which does not give to earlier stages of a women's pro sports career the same attention (and money) it gives to their male counterparts. Place Clichy (talk) 07:30, 24 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 Weishi County[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 Kaifeng. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 14:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small cat Mason (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, also because it does not seem part of an established tree of people by county. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 24 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:Flags of Vatican City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: category created for only two articles, and I do not see how this category could be expanded. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Marcocapelle and @HouseBlaster Mason (talk) 02:20, 24 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:Assyrian/Syriac Palestinians[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: procedural close. I will start a larger nomination discussing all categories with Assyrian/Syriac. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'd welcome other suggestions, but I don't think a slash is helpful here. Mason (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and isn't accurate because Assyrian and Syriac are used as synonyms. Alternatively, rename to Category:Assyrian Palestinians since many siblings have droppen Syriac too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think that they are synonyms (e.g. Syriac Christians and Assyrians are very different things), but I believe that there are many contexts in which what can be used one for the other, or in which the different populations can be seen collectively, or were addressed so by the local authorities of the time. In such contexts it is often hard to tell with certainty without a lot of prior knowledge which group exactly a source is referring to. The same words have been used throughout history to refer to different populations, and the same population may have been described with different words. It's pretty confusing sometimes. Place Clichy (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be better to discuss all six "Assyrian/Syriac" cases together? (see siblings in Category:People of Assyrian descent) However, I grant that the others use "people", whereas that is apparently going to be dropped from Palestinian categories. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be ok with adding the rest to the discussion. I only stumbled upon the first one, and was perplexed enough that it didn't occur to me to look for other similarly named categories. Mason (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 23 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:Sheikh Mansur Movement[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 02:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Possible WP:OR, there is no Sheikh Mansur Movement article and Sheikh Mansur doesn't mention any either. Unnecessary category. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:49, 23 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:19th-century Albanian military personnel[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 20:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, this is an odd mix of Albanians who fought in the Ottoman Empire army and Albanian independence activists who fought against the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. A first I thought that it would be a good idea to separate rebels against the Ottoman Empire and soldiers in the service of it, albeit looking for a better name that the horrible "Ethnic" Albanian (actually, Category:Albanian Pashas pretty much serves this purpose, as a child of Category:Pashas => Category:Ottoman military officers). Then I remembered that these people are very often the same, as the Albanian society of the times was a clannish structure where leaders of bands of "irregulars" often switched allegiance from one conflict to the next. Take the category's first article Ali Pasha of Gusinje for instance: in 1845 appointed local Ottoman governor succeeding his father, in 1860 supporting an uprising of northern Albanian Muslim tribes, in 1878 military commander of a league supported by the Ottomans, in 1881 turning the same forces against the Ottoman Empire. Nearly every article in this category shows this pattern. Place Clichy (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this category is about nationality, not about who was fighting on which side.Marcelus (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smasongarrison: no, the category only contains people of the Ottoman Empire. Albanian nationality merely exists since 1913. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 24 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:Companies of insular areas of the United States by city[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 20:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current "Companies of insular areas OF the United States" best (i.e., most uniquely) represents the contents of the category. The territories are a separate body politic from the "United States" proper and the name of the category should reflect that. Companies native to those areas are not companies OF the United States because those areas are not part of the United States. For an area to be a part of the United States it must be a part of the 50 states or DC, and the territories of the United States are not in any of those 51 areas. There's good information about this HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 23 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:Historical revisionism of comfort women[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename as originally nominated. This closure was discussed at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. Any further renames/purges/splits can be brought to a new CfD if necessary. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of the term "historical revisionism" is far too broad and includes both legitimate and illegitimate reinterpretations of a historical account that contradict the consensus view of historians. This category is specifically concerned with historical negationism or denialism, which involves the rejection or unjustified doubt of the generally accepted narrative of a historical event. Legitimate historiographical work that challenges established views based on empirical evidence, which is part of the definition of "historical revisionism", falls outside the scope of this category. The proposed title is also more WP:CONCISE and is used in multiple reliable sources [1][2][3]. First Comet (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom toobigtokale (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost none of the articles in the category is specifically about comfort women. Rather rename to e.g. Category:Historical revisionism in Japan. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this wouldn't address the issue of "historical revisionism" being too broad in scope. If anything could retitle it "Historical denialism in Japan", but I think having a category specifically about comfort women denial is needed. Maybe we can create a separate one as a parent category for this and similar categories toobigtokale (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does not solve the problem that these articles are not specifically about comfort women. They are broadly about historical revisionism regarding the whole WWII period. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the current criteria for inclusion is any confirmed people/groups who specifically deny that comfort women were forced to work. I'm not sure: is there a policy about how pages included in categories need to be primarily about the topic in question? I'd argue this is a significant enough trait that having a category specifically about it is useful toobigtokale (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • We put articles together in a category because they have "something" in common. That "something" is, in this case, historic revisionism regarding WWII. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        ? Wouldn't the thing they have in common be the denial of comfort women? I think your point is still missing the original issue that @First Comet mentioned that "historical revisionism" is too broad. toobigtokale (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unresolved dispute about what the scope of the category is, and what it should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Toobigtokale: I would not oppose to renaming to Category:Historical negationism in Japan. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really confused. To my understanding, we're not required to have categories contain pages that only have one trait. For example, Category:Cultural depictions of Adolf Hitler include things that have multiple characters in them, not just Adolf Hitler.
    You haven't explained the rationale for this decision, and have just insisted over and over that it should be broadly about historical revisionism in Japan, which again is just really broad. If we renamed this category to this scope, honestly I'd be tempted to make another subcategory called "Historical negationism of comfort women" and put it inside of that one lol toobigtokale (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share nom's comment about too broad regarding "revisionism", so that is why I adopted "negationism". "Comfort women" on the other hand is too narrow, considering the content of these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      But "people from x" is applied as a category for people whose articles often have extremely little to do with the x. I'm confused. While you may think comfort women denial is too narrow, I'd argue negationism about basically anything in World War II is too broad. It was the biggest war in human history and still constantly debated about. Why can we not have both categories? toobigtokale (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two categories will only be useful if they do not overlap too much with respect to the articles that are in them. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's a category/subcategory relationship; overlap will occur similar to how Category:American writers and Category:American writers of Mexican descent articles will overlap (admittedly not a perfect example).
        Related, if we rename this "Historical negationism in Japan", what do we do with Category:Nanjing Massacre deniers and Category:Kantō Massacre deniers? Do those end up being subcategories or do we merge those into Historical negationism in Japan? Because if we make them subcategories why does comfort women not get the same treatment? People who tend to deny comfort women also tend to deny those massacres (although not a one-to-one relationship). toobigtokale (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to Category:Historical negationism in Japan. Place Clichy (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get an explanation of the rationale? toobigtokale (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support Marcocapelle's rationale that comfort women is too narrow to describe the negationism involved seen the content of the category. There are other war crimes of Japan which are being denegated. Place Clichy (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I'm still unconvinced. I still see "Historical negationism in Japan" as too broad. It covers all of WWII and even denialism about pre-modern topics, such as how Japan treated China and Korea in the 19th century.
Same question here; given that Category:Nanjing Massacre deniers and Category:Kantō Massacre deniers already exist, do we merge those categories into the new historical negationism category?
Separate argument, but I find having separate categories for "x denier", "y denier", and "z denier" useful. Deniers in Japan tend to specialize in certain issues, and it's uncommon for active politicians to publically deny the Nanjing Massacre, comfort women, AND the Kanto Massacre all at once. These categories allow for more fine grained tracking of who's on record of saying what. If you lump that all into denialism about potentially anything in Japanese history we lose that. toobigtokale (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked through all articles of Category:Nanjing Massacre deniers yet, but at first glance I think that you are right that this may be merged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's two against one and nobody has convinced each other of anything. I expect this category to be renamed, but I'm not happy with how this conversation went. I've made multiple arguments that weren't really addressed and feel like I've been brushed off with a simple "I think it's too narrow" multiple times. I'm not unreasonable, I'm willing to be convinced, I just haven't been convinced yet because I can hardly get a few sentences in reply each time. What's more, I think the net effect of this decision will obscure the understanding of this topic, which is of critical importance to over a billion people. And if we merge the Nanjing Massacre category (an unspeakable crime merged in with a quick "first glance") the net effect I think will be worse. toobigtokale (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "These categories allow for more fine grained tracking of who's on record of saying what." Actually categories don't allow that at all. See WP:CLNT. For fine grain tracking, focus must be on a topic (or list) article, which allows to provide context, nuances, and reliable sources. Categories don't allow this at all, plus there's no keeping track of what article gets added and removed from a category (unlike a list article). As you rightly put it, there are always differences in what deniers will precisely argue. In general, it is never a good idea to have a denial category for people, for a number of reasons summarized in WP:OPINIONCAT, WP:LABEL, WP:ATTACK. There were long similar discussions for climate change deniers (example). There can be a topic category, though. Place Clichy (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this argument makes more sense to me. I still think the "denier" categories for these topics are useful, but I can understand their downsides now. I kind of wish this slid under the radar; the Nanjing Massacre denier category is old (2010) and didn't bother anyone until now. Similarly, Category:Holocaust deniers exists, although I can see a few potential arguments for why that case may be a little different. toobigtokale (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale, to clarify, are you still opposed to reanming to Category:Historical negationism in Japan? Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still opposed, but would understand if it was renamed as such. I'd comfortably support "Comfort women denial", however. toobigtokale (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, purge people. I concur with the nominator and Toobigtokale that "Historical negationism in Japan" is too broad in scope; it doesn't seem fitting for me to lump non-comfort women issues (adjacent as they may be) into this discussion. I also believe that the people in the category should either be moved into a set category to the effect of "Comfort women deniers," as long as it's a defining characteristic for them, or placed in a list article. bibliomaniac15 19:00, 10 November 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 the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:People of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Category:Poets associated with Dundee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:Poets associated with Dundee

Category:Obsolete writing systems[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 31#Category:Obsolete writing systems

Category:Pridnestrovie Communist Party politicians[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 both as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination, this was opposed for speedy renaming but nominator seems to have arguments that ought to be considered seriously. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
My move was in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. The Romanian/Moldovan and Ukrainian names given in the party's article are Wikipedia WP:OR. Only the Russian one is actually used outside of here. The Russian one translates literally as "Pridnestrovian Communist Party". The former title was "Pridnestrovie Communist Party". "Pridnestrovie" is the Russian name for Transnistria. "Pridnestrovie Communist Party" is also original research from Wikipedia, which has made its way into reliable sources all published after the Wikipedia article's creation [4] (compare to the actually accurate literal translation, with zero results [5]). Still, a majority (just by one) of sources used "Transnistrian Communist Party" rather than "Pridnestrovie Communist Party", including two sources published before the Wikipedia article's creation [6]. It's also worth noting several discussions have taken place in the article Transnistria regarding the proposed title "Pridnestrovie" and it has always been rejected [7] [8], so this is also our preferred option in Wikipedia. Recently the party's president was assassinated and the party was mentioned a lot in the news, most sources used "Transnistrian Communist Party" [9] [10] [11] [12].
As you can see the move was well-thought, I believe a RM would have been successful and decided to skip the procedure (WP:BOLD), we aren't required to go through RM for 100% of all moves. What do you think, Armbrust? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as original nominator. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The common name of the country in English is Transnistria, and although this has been brought up several times on the talk page there is clear consensus that this usage is preponderant. The names of these parties are inherited from the country's name, so they should use Transnistria for consistency and least astonishment. Although the parties' articles were moved without a RM, it is convincing enough. Place Clichy (talk) 15:36, 24 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:American suffragists by state[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:American suffragists by state

Category:Bizot 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 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: smallcat (n=2) father-son pair without a corresponding eponymous article about the family. category has no interlanguage links Mason (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with only 2 articles, you can jump from one article to the other. This is the same reason we don't create articles on film series with two entries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:08, 26 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:Mahratta Light Infantry officers[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:Maratha Light Infantry officers (British Indian Army). (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created with edit comment "split from Category:Maratha Light Infantry officers for pre-1947 officers" and description "Covers officers of the pre-1947 Mahratta Light Infantry era only, not post-partition India." Main article Maratha Light Infantry uses spelling Maratha for both the pre- and post-independence units. Place Clichy (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 13:09, 23 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:Academic staff of the Technical University of Applied Sciences Lübeck[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:Technical University of Applied Sciences Lübeck. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 14:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 12:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge until the category can be better populated. Mason (talk) 17:54, 23 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:Skysmith's list of missing articles[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. Can be created as a simple userspace list rather than a category. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I haven't come across a category named after a Wikipedia user and I couldn't find something about this at Wikipedia:User categories. Even if the content of this area is valid for a category (and I haven't really checked it), the fact that it is named after a specific user, impacts any collaboration as it feels very WP:OWN. Can users edit the pages in this list? Can users remove pages from this category? Those aren't questions any user should even ask as the answer should always be "yes". Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly enough, this category was not even created by User:Skysmith. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I didn't even think to check that. The creator hasn't edit since 2008 so can't help us there. Gonnym (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens, I have stated that people could add comments but not remove blue links - which you would have noticed if you had _read_ any of the pages. I remove the blue links myself to keep in touch of the progress. Many of the pages are also linked to various projects by categories (even if some of those projects may be old). And I would appreciate that people would create articles about the subjects I have listed instead of these kind of things. At least Marcocapelle kind of warned me about this. I suppose asking _my_ opinion would be against some new rule I have yet to discover?- Skysmith (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the last sentence of WP:USERCAT#Overly narrow. Can be listed by using Special:PrefixIndex/User:Skysmith - jc37 11:06, 31 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:War photographers by nationality[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:War photographers. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 14:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one category in it Mason (talk) 04:02, 23 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:M-Rated Marvel Comics video games[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. I have added missing pages to the sole parent category. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by TreCoolGuy (talk · contribs) in 2013, who has abused multiple accounts per CheckUser evidence and was blocked indefinitely for disruption in 2014. We do not have a category for R-rated Marvel Comics films or M-rated DC Comics video games, so the existence of this category makes no sense, does not provide helpful context, and does not represent a worldwide point of view. Eyesnore talk💬 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Video games based on Marvel Comics Mason (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the upmerge Ashvio (talk) 05:09, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_23&oldid=1186814919"