Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 18 February 20 >

February 19

Category:Proto-vegans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: I created this category years ago in 2019 before I fully understood the rules on categories. The "proto-vegan" is not
WP:DEFINING for such individuals. I believe it is best for the category to be removed. We already have a well-sourced category for veganism activists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:07, 19 February 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:Quaker meeting houses

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename per Friends meeting house. A RM on the article name just ended in no consensus. Before that, a speedy rename of the category was opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Namiba, TSventon, and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a parent is
    Oculi (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The problem with the parent category is the main article, "
WP:RM, not CFD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with a Redirect to match the main article and, while I did not participate in that RM discussion, in them I usually favor naming groups by how they self-identify. Leaving a category redirect would prevent any confusion among editors using
    WP:HOTCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:55, 20 February 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 episodes about the Crusades

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Television episodes about the Crusades

Category:Manuscripts written in undeciphered writing systems

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 17:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Until recently this has been a 4 item category. Some issues have arisen following a discussion on FTN and later the Voynich Manuscript talk page that for at least two members of the category (Voynich and Rohonc) we can't actually state that they are writing systems. They may be old hoaxes from the middle ages, or ciphers, and shouldn't really take a position on it. Renaming the category to avoid the statement on whether or not its in a writing system would resolve those concerns while still keeping the category useful for navigation in that it would contain manuscripts readers expect within it. --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:45, 19 February 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:Icelandic blind people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Icelandic blind people

Category:Icelandic sexologists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Icelandic sexologists

Category:Bronze sculptures in Calabria

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Cluster of newly created
WP:SMALLCATs. Again, it does not aid user navigation to obsessively subcategorize everything down to highly granularized subcategories of just a small handful of articles each -- these would be fine if there were five or six articles per category, but are not needed for just one, two or three. The city-level categories for Rome and Florence are large enough to be kept, so should just be moved to the target category along with the articles, but the region-level categories aren't needed for anything below five or six articles per region. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - entirely agree with the nom. Also, large numbers of English-speaking readers are at best vague about Lazio, Emilia-Romagna etc. Personally I'd re-upmerge even "if there were five or six articles per category" - only at about 80 would the Italian category get too big, imo. But Rome & Florence are ok. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 20 February 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:Regulation in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Regulation in Iceland

Category:Parishes in Denmark by diocese

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Cluster of newly created one-entry or two-entry
WP:SMALLCATs, crosscategorizing the same set of Danish parishes as the below batch on a different criterion -- but it still isn't aiding navigation to obsessively subcategorize everything down into granularized categories of just one or two articles each.
To be fair, one category here (Aarhus) actually does hit five articles, and could potentially be kept on that basis -- but I've still included it here for discussion anyway, because there's also a potential argument that Aarhus still doesn't need its own subcategory if it's the only one of the set that can be justified. And even if it is kept, the "Parishes by diocese" wouldn't be needed as an intermediate step between it and the parent category, which could just directly contain the Aarhus subcategory itself without needing to make editors two-step their way through a superfluous level of categorization to get to it.
So Aarhus is legitimate on size grounds but still only of debatable necessity, and can just be directly moved to the target category if it's kept -- but none of the other nine have enough articles to be justified at all, and the "by diocese" layer isn't needed. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
When we do have hundreds of articles to be subcategorized like this, then you're free to create the needed categories. But no, you do not get to create hundreds of empty or underpopulated categories first and then populate them later — you create the articles first and then the subcategories may follow only once they can be populated with five or six or ten or twenty articles right off the bat. It's "the articles come first and the categories wait until the content already exists to be filed in them", not "the categories come first and the articles to populate them with happen later". That is, you get these hundreds of articles in place first, and then you can sweep back through them to recategorize them by diocese or municipality after the articles are all already in place. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand deleting the municipality ones because they'll likely stay with only a couple articles in for some time, but i still strongly oppose deleting the diocese ones as they have a larger scope and will be filled up in no time. I understand everything you're saying, and I should've realised that before I made them all, but all deleting them will do is make another job for me to do later that's already been done.
talk 19:35, 19 February 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:Parishes in Denmark by municipality

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. Reparent instead any with more than 5 articles.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Cluster of newly created one-entry or two-entry
WP:SMALLCATs. As always, everything does not always need to be subcategorized all the way down to the most granular level possible right off the bat -- these would be fine if there were five or six articles to file in each category, but it does not aid navigation at all to obsessively diffuse everything down into categories of just one or two articles. It also warrants mention that in addition to these, the creator also created well over 80 other categories for other Danish municipalities that had no articles filed in them at all, and have had to be speedy deleted as empty categories — but even if these were justified, the rule still wouldn't be "create the entire set right off the bat even if some of the categories remain empty" anyway, and a category cannot exist at all until it has actual content. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I said above, I am currently working on translating hundreds of articles from the Danish Wikipedia about the parishes, and these categories will be helpful, however if these are deleted I will understand. However, I am against deleting the ones which sort them into diocese.
    talk 18:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
When we do have hundreds of articles to be subcategorized like this, then you're free to create the needed categories. But no, you do not get to create hundreds of empty or underpopulated categories first and then populate them later — you create the articles first and then the subcategories may follow only once they can be populated with five or six or ten or twenty articles right off the bat. It's "the articles come first and the categories wait until the content already exists to be filed in them", not "the categories come first and the articles to populate them with happen later". That is, you get these hundreds of articles in place first, and then you can sweep back through them to recategorize them by diocese or municipality after the articles are all already in place. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're willing to reassess after that happens of course. But categories are for navigation for readers to find existing articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most subcats: I would support deleting most of the subcategories, but oppose the deletion of the main category and the Aabenraa and Horsens subcategories, because those subcats have more than one article in them, and I'll focus on adding to those two first. I oppose the deletion of the main category because it's good for sorting, and in future will definitely be added to.
    talk 21:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge — if any contain 5 or more articles (not stubs), then re-parent to Category:Parishes of Denmark.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 1 Exception The Aabenraa one should be retained as it has 5+ articles and reparented. The rest serve no navigational purpose at this time. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since this category was nominated, I have created articles for all the parishes in Aabenraa Municipality (20) and Ærø Municipality (6). I will continue work on filling the others ASAP.
    talk 21:49, 20 February 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:Pakistani power station stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories with no evidence of approval by WikiProject Stub Sorting. As always, the bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, not just one, but these both have less than half of that -- and for that very reason, stub categories require approval from WikiProject Stub sorting before they can be created, and are not free for just any user to create on a personal whim. So these should both just be upmerged to the parent categories, and are not justified until another 30 to 40 articles can be found to populate them above the required minimum size. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 19 February 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:Israeli power station stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
overcategorize just one article with no evidence of approval by WikiProject Stub Sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to arbitrarily create for just one or two articles in an area of personal interest -- the bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, not just one, and accordingly the creation of a stub category has to be approved before it can be implemented. But even a search through both Category:Israel stubs and Category:Power station stubs failed to find even one other article that could be resorted here, let alone the 59 other articles it would take to legitimize retention -- so the page should just be upmerged to the parent categories rather than having its own dedicated category of one. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 19 February 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:Penjara F.C. players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Penjara F.C. players

Category:MacOS-only software

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:MacOS-only software

Category:Mahan confederacy rulers

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 & reparent.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "monarchs" is more specific than "rulers"; and re-parent to Category:Korean monarchs insread of Category:Rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, then I support renaming and re-parenting per nom, and moving
List of Mahan confederacy monarchs to List of monarchs of the Mahan confederacy. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:14, 26 February 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:IPhone video game engines

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:IPhone video game engines

Category:Former Liang rulers

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: reparent and rename to
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "princes" is more accurate than "rulers"; and re-parent to Category:Chinese princes instead of Category:Rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (revised) Rename and re-parent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The
    dynastic state, not a principality. Plus, wang is usually translated as king, while gong 公 is usually translated as prince, and the first ruler of the state proclaimed himself wang. The proposed name won't help, it will only confuse people. Why use "prince" or "king" when you can just use "ruler"? The category on Chinese Wikipedia, uses 君主, which is translated as "ruler". Mucube (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Alternative proposal: Rename Category:Former Liang rulers to Category:Former Liang royalty as proposed in my CfD on Category:Rulers. As I said over there: I think it's worth noting that English (and other Western) literature tends to be inconsistent in translating Chinese noble titles. For the Sixteen Kingdoms, a lot of "rulers" carried or claimed the title 王 ("wang", see en:wikt:王#Definitions), which is variously primarily translated as [1] "king, monarch", or [2] "duke, prince". This is inconsistency is reflected in the subcats of Category:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers: "Former Liang rulers‎, Northern Liang princes‎, Sixteen Kingdoms emperors‎, Sixteen Kingdoms regents, Southern Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) princes‎, Western Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) dukes‎, Western Qin princes‎, Western Yan rulers". I haven't checked, but apart from "emperors" and "regents", I suspect that each of these catnames was based on the Mandarin Chinese term 王 "wang". Renaming all of them to "royalty", just like the grandparent category, seems like a good pragmatic solution to avoid having to choose an exact translation of 王 "wang" and checking each item in each (sub)category if it applies in each specific case. So I disagree with Mucube's suggestions; neither "king" nor "prince" nor "ruler" is a good idea, because each of them will just create all the problems we can already see in my CfD. "monarch" isn't my favourite alternative, because it usually means a reigning sovereign, so lots of princes and princesses who never reigned could be mislabelled. Hence my proposal for "royalty", just like the grandparent Category:Sixteen Kingdoms royalty, which solves all these issues. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I now support William Allen Simpson's proposal to Rename Category:Monarchs of Former Liang and re-parent to Category:Chinese monarchs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: however this category does not contain any princes and princesses who never reigned, does it? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This should not be done because the Sixteen Kingdoms royalty category includes non-reigning royalty (e.g. Category:Northern Liang princesses) Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, you gave me stuff to think about. I've done some more reading and comparing, and I'd like to share some observations.
    1. If the goal is to limit ourselves to reigning royalty, then "royalty" might not be a good option. As you are both saying, the term "royalty" may be ambiguous: the disambiguation page Royalty indicates the term can mean either/both [1] Any individual monarch, such as a king, queen, emperor, empress, etc., or/and [2] Royal family, the immediate family of a king or queen regnant, and sometimes his or her extended family.
    2. On the other hand, there are two people in the current category, Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi (Former Liang), who were not "reigning" either; they governed as "Inspector of Liang Province". As the bio of Zhang Mao says, he was the commonly accepted first ruler of the Chinese Former Liang state. So either his predecessors shouldn't be in this category (Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi should be excluded), or we should make it broader to include such non-reigning royal family members.
    3. I see now that 3 out of 5 people in Category:Northern Liang princes are called a "king" in their bio's opening sentence (Duan Ye, Juqu Mengxun and Juqu Mujian), even though they are in a category of "princes"; 1 more is called a "ruler" and the last one is actually the only one identified as a "prince". This confirms to me that "prince" is still a bad alternative; with centuries of English/Western literature inconsistently translating 王 "wang" as "king", "duke", and "prince", I don't think we have much hope of trying to solve it here by opting for "prince".
    4. The term that Mucube says the Chinese Wikipedia category uses, en:wikt:君主 (jūnzhǔ), is translated as monarch; sovereign; king; ruler. "Monarch" is the first choice, "ruler" only the fourth. So "monarchs" is a better option than both "rulers" and "princes" (which isn't even mentioned, except, weirdly enough, as the Chinese trans-title for Macchiavelli's book The Prince).
    5. Almost all people in the Category:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers also have a Template:S-roy|ch at the bottom, which identifies them as "Chinese royalty", which itself is a link to List of Chinese monarchs. So according to this widespread template system, "Chinese royalty" are "Chinese monarchs". So as far as the bottom template system is concerned, there isn't actually much difference between "monarchs" and "royalty".
    Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I messed my Chinese up. 统治者 is ruler, not 君主, which is monarch.
    As for Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi, I think that they should still be counted as rulers of Former Liang. Zhang Mao was "the commonly accepted first ruler of the Former Liang state" but he also shared the Duke of Xiping title with all of the rest of the Former Liang rulers and Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi. And the Former Liang article itself says that the Former Liang itself was mostly a titular Eastern Jin vassal state, so there really isn't much of a difference with Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi and the rest of the rulers since they all were titularly subservient to the Eastern Jin by holding the Duke of Xiping title anyway. Plus, the Zhang Mao article only says he was the "commonly accepted" first Former Liang ruler. Zhang Zuo was the only one to formally break away from the Eastern Jin.
    "Ruler" is still the best option in my opinion as "monarch", strictly speaking, would only include Zhang Zuo, the only person to formally declare himself emperor (or wang, depending on the source) Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for that correction. en:wikt:統治者 (traditional) and en:wikt:统治者 (simplified) both transcribe as en:wikt:tǒngzhìzhě (pinyin), meaning ruler (a person exercising government or dominion). It comes from the verb en:wikt:統治/en:wikt:统治/en:wikt:tǒngzhì: to govern; to rule; to preside over; to control; to dominate. As I argued extensively at the (recently relisted) Rulers CfD (points A, B, and C), these nouns and verbs are way too vague and ambiguous to use as categorisation, because they make no clear distinction
    1. between head of state and head of government (does a prime minister "rule"? See the example of Mussolini vs. Victor Emmanuel III of Italy);
    2. whether the position is totally sovereign or still (significantly) limited (e.g. absolute monarch or military dictator vs constitutional monarch/president);
    3. whether one "owns/reigns" or "serves/governs" a country (a monarch "owns/reigns", a president "serves/governs");
    4. whether the position is seized illegitimately (by force or coup, e.g. a warlord or military dictator), is inherited dynastically (e.g. a king), is appointed through some mechanism (e.g. through rotation in Switzerland), or elected through some voting system (e.g. parliamentary vote in Germany, popular vote in France or the United States, cardinal conclave in Vatican City), and whether the term is lifelong (most monarchies) or legally/constitutionally limited for a set period of time (a few years in most modern republics).
    So no, I think "ruler" (統治者/统治者/tǒngzhìzhě) is a very bad option. And as you said yourself, the linked Chinese Wikipedia category is zh:Category:前凉君主, which is literally "Former Liang monarch" (君主 jūnzhǔ).
    I also see no reason for categorising people such as Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi as "monarchs" (or "rulers") if they are not commonly accepted as such; it would mean the Wikipedia categorisation defies historical consensus, which is tantamount to
    WP:OR. If we want to group people who held the title of 西平郡公 (Xīpíng jùngōng, "Duke of Xiping"), then the right course of action is creating a Category:Dukes of Xiping. The fact that Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi were posthumously proclaimed to be 王 (wang) doesn't count either; these are symbolic titles that don't change historical facts. Compare e.g. Category:Cao Wei emperors; it doesn't include Cao Cao, even though his son and successor Cao Pi declared himself "Emperor Wen of Wei" (魏文帝) a few months after Cao Cao's death and posthumously declared his father "Emperor Wu of Wei" (魏武帝). Wikipedia categorises people according to how their occupation during their lifetime (which in Cao Cao's case includes "3rd-century heads of government, Han dynasty politicians/prime ministers/warlords, Politicians from Bozhou, Political office-holders in Hebei/Shandong, Regents of China", but not "Cao Wei emperors"). So it would also be an option to include Gui and Shi in Category:Jin dynasty (266–420) politicians and Category:Political office-holders in Gansu
    instead, for example, just like Cao Cao.
    Incidentally, I note that both Category:Former Liang rulers‎ and Category:Former Liang princesses are already subcats of Category:Jin dynasty (266–420) people, and they are almost the only subcategories there which currently do not contain the phrase Jin dynasty (266–420) in their names, so in that sense they already appear the odd ones out. These people appear to be much more Eastern Jin than the subcategories seem to suggest. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I now support William Allen Simpson's proposal to Rename Category:Monarchs of Former Liang and re-parent to Category:Chinese monarchs. But I still think Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi should be excluded, and that they are better placed in other categories such as those I have proposed in my previous comment. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment on the name "
WP:COMMONNAME I'm afraid we're stuck with "Sixteen Kingdoms" for now (just like Three Kingdoms, which I suspect may never change because of how deeply entrenched that term is in English literature). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:52, 25 February 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:Greece in the Roman era

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Greece in the Roman era

Category:Tungus rulers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 19 February 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:Geoparks in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 19 February 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:Jurchen history in film

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 19 February 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:Funerals in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:38, 19 February 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:Folk high schools in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 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:Private schools in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Private schools in Iceland

Category:Disaster prevention in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Disaster prevention in Iceland

Category:Defunct video game companies of Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Defunct video game companies of Iceland

Category:Defence of Iceland

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 18:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: "Defence of Foo" is rather unused (three times) phrase in our category system and probably linguistically ambigious as well.

To be deleted along with

To be upmerged: military of Foo, or military history of Foo, respectively Estopedist1 (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Lampang

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 for now.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category. Possibly add that article to Category:People from Lampang province. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 19 February 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:Databases in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 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:Darts in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 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:Dairy products companies of Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Dairy products companies of Iceland

Category:Convention centers in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of the Kingdom of Marwar

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 (updated) and reparent.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Kings of Marwar re-parent to Category:Asian kings
Category:Monarchs of Marwar re-parent to Category:Asian monarchs
Nominator's rationale: rename, "kings" is more specific than "ruler" (and besides the proposed name is quite a bit shorter); and re-parent to Category:Asian kings instead of Category:Rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 19 February 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:Conspiracy theories in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer. One article to be merged into Category:Icelandic activists and Category:Conspiracy theorists Estopedist1 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 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:Confectionery companies of Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Confectionery companies of Iceland

Category:Beer festivals in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Beer festivals in Iceland

Category:Animal welfare organizations based in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Animal welfare organizations based in Iceland

Category:American football in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:American football in Iceland

Category:Rulers of Ladakh

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 & reparent (as per nom).
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "kings" is more specific than "ruler"; and re-parent to Category:Asian kings instead of Category:Rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) "monarchs" is a second best option - in English these monarchs are mostly described as "king". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you're right. Gyalpo as a title is pretty consistently translated as "king" in English texts as far as I can tell. The predicate "Lhachen" and the word "Namgyal" after a Ladakhi monarch's name appear to indicate their dynasty, not their title (although this does make Lhachen Gyalpo a weird one: apparently "King" was his given name according to this logic). In that case, if "king" feels more natural to the English reader and is more in line with English literature, this rename seems fine to me. I see you have already removed the "Category:Rulers", but kept the "Category:Indian monarchs", so adding "Category:Asian kings" seems fine; the Ladakhi kings were both Asian kings and Indian monarchs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:09, 24 February 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:1st millennium in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:1st millennium in Iceland

Category:Belarusian rulers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Belarusian rulers

Category:Proposed energy infrastructure in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Proposed energy infrastructure in Iceland

Category:Plastics companies of Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Plastics companies of Iceland

Category:Filling stations in Iceland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Filling stations in Iceland

Category:Ontologists and Category:Metaphysics writers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Ontologists and Category:Metaphysics writers

Category:Strong women (influencers)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear inclusion criteria. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I planned to populate this category - Categories provide a discriminating identity, which facilitates peer association. All women are amazing not just those who are celebrated or notorious. But women who inspire through career (writing, acting, singing, dancing, science, politicking, feminism) are already associated by category. But there is a group of women, real and fictional, who inspire just because they took control of their lives despite traditional cultural norms, like aviators, engineers, scientists, artists and philosophers or because they made a difference. This category seeks to identity potential role models, good and bad, who might otherwise go unnoticed or those who are noticed (Queen Elizabeth I) but still change the way behaviours are set in a cultural context. Geneus01 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key for me is granularity (in definition) - categories are exclusive but in easily identifiable ways - this proposal may be unmanageable because it may be too inclusive. Social media may have co-opted the term "influencer" but we can substitute with "icon" "exemplar" but influencer speaks to the (modern) audience - who influenced you and that can be historical (Queen Elizabeth I). I bow to consensus (no agenda here) because each selection constitutes a judgment, which is inherently subjective. Geneus01 (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is only one article in the category and it is totally unclear why it is there. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on it through collaborative definition Geneus01 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd better write an article about the topic and make sure it is properly sourced before "working on a definition". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I think about this, the more I agree with you - this category would make an interesting article - I admit, I created it on a whim without knowing the process (if I were to relaunch it, perhaps I would call it Strong women (historic influencers)). Diana Caldwell reminded me that women are often remembered for notoriety simply because they used their natural attributes (beauty, skills or intelligence) to distort cultural norms that didn’t allow them to be acknowledged for those attributes beyond the affront they presented. These women were often overlooked, dismissed, vilified, even burned at the stake, for being better than their male peers because they didn’t conform to what was expected of women of their time. I am researching Lady Elizabeth Hatton, who falls squarely into this category. What I would like is for others to recognise the “genre” and attribute other contenders tarred with the same brush by history. Geneus01 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will stall population until the category itself is accepted as valid (Erin Brockovich, Golda Meir, Amelia Earhart, Marie Curie, Christine Keeler, Elizabeth I, Ray Costelloe....) Geneus01 (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category size is currently 2. Diana Caldwell is already in several categories, as a libertine, mistress, and socialite. There's no evidence that she "influenced" anybody, or had any skill other than promiscuity in England and Africa. AFAICT, she has nothing in common with Erin Brockovich, an educated environmental activist with an identifiable profession or skill.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - but the terms you use are all pejorative (historical legacy) - is she not someone who just decided to possess her life (we don't judge as authors)? I have thought a bit more about the category (see response above to Marcocapelle's observation) what do think? - are categories defined anywhere to qualify or if they need defining (as this probably does), does that make them problematical and hard to apply? Geneus01 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Act - @DrKay, Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson, and Place Clichy: Well guys - I blundered in to categories so I may as well blunder out. There are more categories in heaven than there are articles in Wikipedia but as uniqueness is the enemy of identity and we use categories to identify, one less will do no harm. I will propose deletion of the eponymous category if that is still the view of those who proposed to do so. Having viewed all the arguments, please vote with your Moniker and I will act on your decision. Geneus01 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not need to act. The discussion will be closed and consensus will be implemented by an editor who was not involved in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - thanks for that...Geneus01 (talk) 07:27, 21 February 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:Burials at Graceland Cemetery (Washington, D.C.)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:PERFCAT
)
The biography articles in this category were buried at the short-lived
1892 but all the remains were relocated by the late 1890s. (A 5th person may or may not have been buried there for about a year.) This seems non-defining since all of these articles are also in the cemetery category for wherever their remains ended up. The category contents are already listified in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 19 February 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:Commonwealth War Graves Commission Crosses of Sacrifice

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT
The Cross of Sacrifice is a type of monument placed in each cemetery of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission so they're quite common. The problem is that, while the cemeteries are individually notable and have Wikipedia articles, the crosses aren't so there's only 1 article. (The Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice is individually notable because it was relocated from the cemetery to become a stand-alone monument.) No objection to recreating later if 5+ articles ever get created. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 19 February 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:Treasure Planet characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: While all of these characters are present in the adaptation in some form, none of the entries are the characters from this adaptation, but the generic character pages. It is unneeded with Category:Treasure Island characters existing. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support None of these are the specific Disney characters.★Trekker (talk) 15:26, 19 February 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:Sports competitions in Aveiro, Portugal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles in each sports competitions category. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 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:Sports competitions in Weert

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT. One article. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 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:Sports competitions in Valkenswaard

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT. One article and one sub-cat. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 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 writers of Native American descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale There is already a category for Category:Native American writers. There is no reason for a category of non-Native writers who claim to have Native ancestry. There is no other category by occupation for people of self-identified Native American ancestry. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I can understand your rationale, but what I think it may be slightly different than non-Native people claiming to be Native. For example in the category "American writers of Jamaican descent" we have Colin Powell who does not claim to be Jamaican as far as I know. There may be writers who have some more distant Native descent who do not claim it as an identity. Is it relevant to their being a writer? Perhaps, if it's mentioned in their article. But ... as I said I weakly oppose deleting it, if people really think it's a useless category I won't make fuss.
Dan Carkner (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Colin Powell's Jamaican ancestry has no relation whatsoever to his written work, then he should probably not be in Category:American writers of Jamaican descent in the first place. Placing articles in categories is only ever useful if they have some actual connection with the subject of the article (as summarized in
WP:OCEGRS). Place Clichy (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough. Probably the right choice to get rid of it then. Dan Carkner (talk) 00:38, 20 February 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:Sports competitions in Papendrecht

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT. One article. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 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_February_19&oldid=1141952184"