Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15

Category:Places related to the history of the Georgia Salzburgers

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, with one exception Ebenezer, Georgia this is not a defining characteristic of the articles of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2021 (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 stations in the Tampa Bay Area

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 - jc37 09:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Information Needed I am failing to see a difference between the current name and the proposed name. Can you explain the difference as I am not seeing one under "proposed renaming". Jurisdicta (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2021 (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:Protestant ecclesiastical decorations

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 Category:Protestant ecclesiastical decorations to Category:Ecclesiastical decorations - jc37 09:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With only Anglican subcat, this doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- not sure that a full upmerge is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Evidently untapped potential. Are Protestants really the only ones to use decorations? Why e.g. aren't there any orthodox and catholic subgroups categorized? --Just N. (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is a holding category for one branch of Protestantism (which some consider only quasi-protestant at that) so there is really no reason for this level of categorization at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2021 (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.

Utsul people

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, this is a very tiny ethnic group, the three categories together only contain the main article and one biography, which already link to each other directly. Obviously by this nomination the main article will stay in Category:Ethnic groups in China and other categories, it is not that Utsul people completely disappear by this action. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2021 (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.

Famicom Tantei Club

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT, was two seperate articles until a merge happened. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2021 (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.

1983 establishments in India by state and union territory

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are container categories that serve several purposes:
  1. They reduce category clutter on the parent "YYYY establishments in India" pages. See e.g. Category:2011 establishments in India. There are 31-by-state subcats, which take up a whole screenful if they directly included in the Category:2011 establishments in India. But placing them in a subcat allows the list to expanded or collapsed with a single click.
  2. Keeping them in subcats allows direct access to the whole set through Category:Establishments in India by year and state or union territory. This simplifies navigation for readers looking for the by-state categories
  3. Keeping them in subcats allows much more effective analysis by tools such as
    WP:PETSCAN
    , because it allows the search to be built to easily distinguish between article which are in the by-sate categories and those which aren't. This is crucially important in identifying the thousands of Indian articles which are inadequately categorised by year. That's the work I have been doing intensively for the last few days, and removing these container categories will sabotage that categorisation effort.
It is frustrating to see this all inconsidered attempt to disrupt categorisation, and I hope that those who have supported it will reconsider. Pinging @Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, 33 subcategories is not significantly more clutter than 31 categories. But, as mentioned before, this only works when companies and, in the 2011 case, television debuts also, are kept apart by an alternative sort key. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I think you misunderstand the situation. It is not a choice between 33 subcats and 31 subcats. The effect of this nom would be that Category:2011 establishments in India would jump from 3 subcats to 33, which means a whole screenful of subcats.
Note also that the TV subcats (e.eg. Category:2011 Indian television series debuts are created by {{Year nationality television series debuts or endings category}}, which is used on over 4,500 pages. How do you propose to change its sort key without adding a lot of complexity somewhere? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you explain what would be gained by that merger, and the associated effort of adjusting other sort keys, to offset the damaging effects which I set out above? So far as I can see, there is zero gain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The choice is between 31 in the subcategory or 33 in the main category. But not being able to change the sort key is a big practical hurdle. Thanks for bringing that up. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural objection. I am also annoyed by the utter procedural mess of this nomination.
@John Pack Lambert wanted to merge the whole set, but was too lazy to list and tag them all, which is what should have been done. I as creator of the set got no notification of this discussion, which is a basic courtesy that should have been extended to the creator of the whole set. Today I spotted CFD tags on the other categories, e.g. Category:1955 establishments in India by state or union territory (diff) ... but because JPL botched the tagging, the link doesn't lead to this discussion. I assumed that the actual nomination was yet to be created, so I checked again several times today, and only finally stumbled on this discussion because I happened to follow the link from Category:1983 establishments in India by state or union territory, which is the only one the 73 categories to be correctly tagged. I am here only because I got lucky on a 1.4% chance.
The result is that as the creator of the categories, actively watching them, I became aware of this CFD more than twothree days after it opened. That's highly disruptive, and while I AGF that JPL was not actively trying to
game the system
, anyone who really was trying to game it has here an example of a very effective technique.
Note too that when JPL did finally list the other categories, he chose not to use the conventional formatting, in which the categories are all listed at the top.
JPL has been participating at CFD for years, and cannot plead lack of awareness as a defence for this sort of mess. The community is entitled to expect much better conduct from such an experienced editor.
I would prefer that this CFD be procedurally closed as a trainwreck, with the option of an immediate re-nomination if anyone wants to do the job properly. But otherwise, please:
  1. Fix the tags on all the categories
  2. List all the nominated categories properly, at the top of this discussion section
  3. Start the 7-day clock only when both of the above tasks have been completed.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above is an uncalled for personal attack on me. I am tired of these unending personal attacks and failures to assume good faith. The CfD system is way too arcane and complex. Every attempt I make to contribute I face such insults. I am tired of being atacked on a personal level. I am tried of being falsely accused of bad faith. I am tired of the continuing and unending insults I am subject to at Wikipedia. This is uncalled for and unjustified. I spent the time to make over 140 edits for this, and all I get is insulted and attacked. I do not like how I get treated here at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree that nomination of multiple categories is cumbersome. But you do know how it works, don't you? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No,
      WP:NPA.
      It is a list of procedural problems, and a criticism of your conduct, not of your character. If you don't want your conduct to be criticised, then please conduct yourself better ... and no, 140 edits is neither a huge amount nor a defence for the disruption caused by you botching every aspect of this nomination. This didn't need 140 edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Here's why: Category:1983 establishments in the United States contains 4 subcats-by-topic, as well as 52 subcats-by-state. It's very hard to find the by-topic cats, because 3 of the 4 are jumbled in with the by-state cats. The US category would benefit a lot from a container subcat for the states.
JPL, did you not study the category enough to spot that problem with your example? Or did you see it and choose not to disclose it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am tired of your constant rudeness and attacks on me. The above is an perfect example of assuming bad faith, loaded questions, and other examples of behavior that is both rude and uncalled for. I am given the options of admitting that I am an uninformed person or that I have the intent to decieve others. I refuse either option. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • JPL, there is no malice and absolutely no assumption. But the question is legitimate: did you not spot the problem? Or did you see it and not tell us?
        If there is some other explanation of why this crucial fact was not disclosed, then of course that's fine. But it's a serious omission, so if it was a good faith error, why not say so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I withdraw this nomination because I am tired of being subjected to constant and unending personal attacks. I am just plain tired of these attacks and do not want to deal with them anymore. Evidently there is no way to discuss this matter without poeople calling me lazy, or saying that I have some sort of underhanded intention with it, so I will withdraw it and hopefully when it is gone I will no longer be subject to such malicious and rude attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that in relation to this same category tree, JPL lashed out[1] a week ago at @Fayenatic london, denouncing lazy editors who dared to politely note a problem in category naming. I used term here because it's JPL's own preferred terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No the attacks above are both malicious and uncalled for. No I do not understand how to tag multiple categories correctly because it is way too complex. The questions above are rude. Calling me "lazy" for not wanting to tag over 70 categories is also uncalled for. The demand that someone tag over 70 categories to even start a discussion is too much. As is the way that I am being treated here. The constant attacking me is too much. I am just plain frustrated. I use the term "lazy" once and have now had it thrown at me multiple times. I have had malicious and rude attacks on me over and over and over again. I do not like how I am being treated. The process is way too complex and cumbersome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL, you have provided no evidence of malice; you are abusing the term to lash out at criticism of the problems caused your substantive errors.
      Tagging is an essential part of a CFD discussion, so that interested parties are aware of the discussion ( and even more importantly can actually can find the dicussion).
      Yes, tagging is laborious, but you have known that for long enough to know how to handle it. With a little care, it is perhaps ten or twenty minutes work to do it manually. If twenty minutes is too much of a burden to propose undoing an hour of someone else's work, then there are tools that can do the heavy listing with much less effort. I have some tools which make this sort of task very easy for me, and have frequently offered to use them on behalf of other nominators. You have asked me for help, and I'd have given it. Or you could have asked at
      WT:CAT.
      But instead you went about this in a way that ensured that three days after the nomination was made, the notifications were not in place. If you don't like complaints about this, do a better job ... and if you are not sure how to do a better job, ask for help. But no, you created an almighty procedural screw-up, even though after over a decade at CFD you should know that is an almighty procedural screw-up. And instead of apologising or trying to fix, you just complain that others have identified your screw-up, and you persistently mislabel criticism of your errors as personal attacks. This is all hugely timewasting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @Johnpacklambert: if after all these years you still do not understand the process of nominating multiple categories, you should obviously refrain from making these nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I followed the directions and copied the template as provided in the instructions. That is all I can say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @
            WP:CFD#Manual_nominations clearly says For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here and Alternatively, leave a message at User talk:DannyS712 requesting that a bot tag the categories for you.. You say that you followed the instructions ... so if you read the instructions, you had ample opportunity to seek assistance instead of replicating your errors.
            Every en.wp editor makes mistakes, because we are human. That's not a problem, because mistakes can be fixed. But there is a problem when an editor doesn't acknowledge the mistakes. There is a problem when an editor doesn't learn from their mistakes. And there is an even bigger problem when the editor who made the mistakes repeatedly lashes out in anger at the editors who identify the errors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • As a workaround I have added a cross-reference section at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 18, so that editors can now find this page from the categories that were tagged. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, here are two ways to build a multi-category nomination:
    • (1)(a) Use the template e.g. {{cfm}} on each category page, with the extra parameter exactly matching the heading used in the CFD log page (in this case, "1983 establishments in India by state and union territory").
    • (b) After saving, check the link. If it does not match, edit it - the section name is parameter "1=" in the expanded template. (E.g. another fix here.) Also, if adding more categories after the end of the original date of the log, it is necessary to edit the parameter for the date, because it defaults to the current date when you tag the category page.
    • (2) After one category has been tagged, you can instead copy the expanded CFD template (about 6 lines) from that page, paste it into each additional category page, and just amend the name of the target category before saving the page. If it's a merge nomination, check before saving that the target link is blue (rather than red, as on all the pages added above). If adding categories after the original date, this method is less work. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I used to do 2, but I was trying to just follow from the CfD page. I will do 2 if I need to in the future, however I have to admit I still really, really, really do not like doing multiple nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • John Pack Lambert, if you really do not like doing multiple nominations, you have the option of not doing them.
          However, if you choose to do them, then do them properly. There is no harm in seeking help, and when faced with a set of more than about ten categories,I personally think that doing them manually is a form of masochism.
          But if you create a procedural trainwreck as you did here, then expect severe criticism for impeding consensus-formation and messing people around. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep -- The targets would ideally be containers, in which case the merge might have been sensible, but the one that I sampled had a lot of content that would need to be moved to subcats in order to do that containerisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with BHG that
    Oculi (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose I'd say the India 'by state' subcat is reasonable for usability and overview. --Just N. (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2021 (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.

1940 and 1941 establishments in Bihar

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. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:1941 establishments in Bihar to Category:1941 establishments in India
  • Merge Category:1940 establishments in Bihar to Category:1940 establishments in India
  • Comment Here we actually have a potential target in Bihar Province. That article neglects however to cover that some areas of what became Bihar State were not under Bihar province. With the 2000 division of Bihar state and the seperation of Jharkhand, it might be better to name these Category:1941 establishments in Bihar Province and Category:1940 establishments in Bihar Province. However since the India categories in total only have 55 and 44 articles total for this year, this division is hard to justify. Especially since these categories only have one article a piece. We have a whole article on Presidencies and provinces of British India. There were 17 at the time of seperation, some covering what are today multiple Indian states, some covering what today is one district within a state, and there were also the princely states and many other matters. I really do not think it is worth the effort to subdivide along these lines a category of the size we are talking of. Some of the entites listed as existing at the time of seperation, such as Delhi, you have to dig deep in the article on the modern entity to learn anything of its pre-partition boundaries. However if people want to pursue this complex splitting path, we probably should rename to clearly link to the province.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not enough content in the parent category to split by state. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. The geographical of pre-independence was horrendously complicated and fragmented. In addition to the frequently-revised boundaries of the British administrative entities, there were at the time of the British withdrawal, 565 princely states.
This kaleidoscope is a very poor basis for categorisation. It would involve the creation of tens of thousands of small categories, and bewilder editors who tried to populate them, unavoidably creating lots of errors as editors struggled to grasp this fluid historical geography.
As John Pack Lambert rightly notes, most of the pre-independence "YYYY establishments in India" are not currently big enough to justify sub-categorisation. If that changes, it would be much more helpful to subcat by broad topic areas, such a the educational establishments which form a bug chunk of the set. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 18 March 2021 (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:Non-larid gulls

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Category:Non-larid gulls

1917 establishments in Bihar

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. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This kaleidoscope is a very poor basis for categorisation. It would involve the creation of tens of thousands of small categories, and bewilder editors who tried to populate them, unavoidably creating lots of errors as editors struggled to grasp this fluid historical geography.
As John Pack Lambert rightly notes, most of the pre-independence "YYYY establishments in India" are not currently big enough to justify sub-categorisation. If that changes, it would be much more helpful to subcat by broad topic areas, such a the educational establishments which form a big chunk of the set. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 18 March 2021 (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.

1786 establishments in Bihar

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. I don't think anyone will object to me doing this on the grounds of
WP:INVOLVED. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge Category:1786 establishments in Bihar to Category:1786 establishments in India
    • Nominator's rationale The history of the British Raj in India involves very complex boundaries, that in some ways exceed the late Holy Roman Empire in complexity. Bihar was an ill-defined non-jurisdicational area at this point. In 1765 the Bengal Subah, which included much of what would after 1936 become Bihar, was put under British Control. See Bihar and Orissa Province for some insight on that matter. Some areas that would later become Bihar (mainly in what now Jharkhand) were princely states (the Chota Nagpur Tributary States) throughout the British period. Just to make things more complex some of modern Bihar was part of the Mithila (region), which includes also parts of Jharkhand and even part of Nepal. Also the current boundary with Nepal was formed in 1816, before that Nepal took in a small portion of what is now the north of Bihar. Much of Mithila was under the control of the Raj Darbhanga who ruled a non-contiguous territory until the end of British hegemony. There is also a proposal to create a Mithila state, since the area is dominated by one of the 22 recognized languages of India. There is no political entity of Bihar before 1912 at the very earliest, so having this category makes no sense at all. Beyond this the target category will with this merge have 4 entries. Subdivision of the category is not justified based on our current contents. It may be in the future, but if that becomes the case we can discuss the issue then. I have my doubts, but I cannot predict the future. However, we need to at least a little base categories on current contents and usefulness. The previous discussion on the matter made no observations about pre-independence areas of India. The only clear consensus was to keep the Sikkim categories, and there was some indication that sub-dividing modern India by state would be a possiblity, but there was no will to impose ahistorical categorization in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_1#Establishments_in_Sikkim, which resulted in consensus to "keep", with no qualification about starting dates. After a discussion on my talk page, I was seeking the consent of the creator of these categories, BrunoBauer (talk · contribs), in order to merge the pre-independence categories by simple consent, but the nominator has chosen not to wait for that. – Fayenatic London 11:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a total misrepresentation of what the discussion entailed. That discussion focused almost completely on the Sikkim issue. There was no discussion at all of the issue of Bihar. The fact that it was headlined as Sikkim made it a very poorly named and way to inherently broad discussion, and predictably actual discussion focused on the headline, and not the totally unrelated material unreasonably tacked on and grouped into one discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not disputing your commentary, John; but I fail to see where you find a misrepresentation in the little that I have said here. I just made the effort to provide a link to the previous discussion, whereas you had merely made a cryptic reference to it. Then I explained why I had followed that consensus until now, and what I was going to do following your and BHG's comments about it on my talk page.
      • But since you are now attacking the 2020 August 1 nomination, here's what happened: I started by nominating Sikkim categories, then I found that the category creator had made a few others, so I rounded up all the remaining India state sub-cats by year and tacked them on to the nomination. Mea culpa, I did not consider changing the heading to something more generic, which would have required manually re-linking all the Sikkim CFD templates to the revised heading... like you still have not done for the categories that you listed above on this page under #1983 establishments in India by state and union territory. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was a horribly broad nomination that conflated too many unlike things, and should never have been all one. I am tied of proceduralism that classifies me as "lazy" because I am not willing to undertake 150 plus edits to do something. CfD is becoming way, way to tedious, and I am tired of being insulted so often.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not enough content in the parent category to split by state. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this is probably true I want to emphasize that Bihar in no way existed in 1786. The establishment in question would be properly placed under Bengal based on the situation of the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes two good reasons for not keeping the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. The geographical of pre-independence was horrendously complicated and fragmented. In addition to the frequently-revised boundaries of the British administrative entities, there were at the time of the British withdrawal, 565 princely states.
This kaleidoscope is a very poor basis for categorisation. It would involve the creation of tens of thousands of small categories, and bewilder editors who tried to populate them, unavoidably creating lots of errors as editors struggled to grasp this fluid historical geography.
As John Pack Lambert rightly notes, most of the pre-independence "YYYY establishments in India" are not currently big enough to justify sub-categorisation. If that changes, it would be much more helpful to subcat by broad topic areas, such a the educational establishments which form a big chunk of the set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Black Star

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:TRIVIALCAT
)
The
John H. Hughes) tend to mention the award in passing with other honours. There wasn't a list so we created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2021 (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:Grand Order of King Petar Krešimir IV recipients

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
The Grand Order of King Petar Krešimir IV is a Croation award and "only highly ranked state officials, foreign officials, and senior military officials are eligible for this order." In other words, this award reflects the recipients' pre-exisinting notability and the articles treat it as non-defining: about half the category contents mention it in passing with other honours while about half don't mention it at all. There is already a list right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2021 (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/2021_March_15&oldid=1017104446"