Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< July 28
July 30 >

July 29

Category:Medieval rulers of Thessaly

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Category:Medieval rulers of Thessaly

Category:3rd-millennium executions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Category:3rd-millennium executions

Category:4th-millennium BC deaths

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 18:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NONDEFINING to me. Given that the BC(E) / AD/CE chronology was not invented until 525, people thousands of years before then would not have had any clue they died just before or after crossing that millennium-threshold anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete In any event, the birth and death dates of people who died prior to about the 3rd millennium BC are often not well-constrained. The only current entry is already in Category:32nd-century BC Pharaohs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:14th-century rulers of Monaco

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Category:14th-century rulers of Monaco

Category:East Bengal MLAs 1954

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Category:East Bengal MLAs 1954

Lords by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename: "of" suggests it is followed by the name of the lordship, but that is obviously not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 29 July 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:Lords of Serbia in the Middle Ages

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 18:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category which is already in Category:12th-century Serbian nobility. Merging to Category:Lords is questionable because lord is not an exact translation of Župan. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 29 July 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:Female-led UK punk bands of the 21st Century

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: narrow intersection (
WP:NARROWCAT). 1857a (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep The 21st century etc is not a narrow intersection. Rhagfyr (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, female-led punk bands is not a defining characteristic, and altogether it is a very narrow intersection indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the category talk page, this refers to a specific scene/generation of bands affiliated to the current UK punk scene (the wave of bands championed by Steve Iles). Ideally there should be an article on this wave (see talk page and draft article). Unfortunately this a relatively recent scene/generation of bands and musicians operating in a time after the collapse of the conventional UK music press who in the past would have given them a name/label and boundaries (which makes it easier to write articles on earlier scenes).Romomusicfan (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't quite imagine that "championed by Steve Iles" would be a defining characteristic, but in any case an article should precede a category, not the other way around. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is the problem, the demise of historically the main source for UK music scenes/waves/movements such as this, which creates a problem for articles on scenes/waves/movements after said demise. At the moment there is a section on this scene in the Women in punk rock article which myself and a couple of other editors have been trying to farm off to make a separate article, and that section is cited as the main article for the category. There is an interview quote from Healthy Junkies' frontwoman Nina Courson referencing the scene which has come in useful for referencing mentions in articles such as 2010s in music and Music of the United Kingdom (2000s and 2010s).11:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Romomusicfan (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is also a strong movement of bands with girls and it is very refreshing to see, it gives new life to the scene" – Nina Courson, lead singer of Healthy Junkies interviewed by Bruce Turnball, Vive Le Rock issue 61 p35 Romomusicfan (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would partly address the narrowcat concerns, but not the nondef issue. A band is not primarily known for being female-led, instead the lead singer is known for being a woman. We are mixing up the subjects of gender here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says female led not female-fronted. These are not manipulated chanteuses, they are - AFAIK without exception - the musical directors and dominant artists within their bands. A significant proportion lead all-female or mostly-female bands. Generally, as artists they have gravitated to the more liberal punk scene and away from the highly testosteronish metal scene and an indie rock scene still obsessed with the "Four Young Lads" ideal 25-30 years after Britpop.
    They are also the dominant demographic component of the younger generation of the UK punk scene in the 21st century. If anything, it is younger male-led bands of comparable standing that are becoming the "novelty" and the "rarity" such as Hazard from Luton and possibly Pizzatramp (not sure of the latters' ages), although "Old Man Bands" (mostly male survivors of the first two waves of punk) are still the biggest drawing acts at the box office.
    Ideally there should exist an article on this whole wave of bands and subsequent waves - most of the first wave except Maid Of Ace and Dragster have their own Wikipedia articles - but with the collapse of the traditional music press there is no-one to give the phenomonon a collective name and define parameters. A category is the next best option, although at the moment what we do have is a bulging subsection of a wider article (the 2010s section of Women in punk rock). Romomusicfan (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the band is all-female then gender is a defining characteristic of the band. If they are not all-female it should (hypothetically) need to be "mixed-gender bands" instead of "female-led". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the artistic leadership of the bands is female (unlike, say, indie rock band The Lottery Winners who include one side woman but are male led.) Romomusicfan (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • or the kind of "female fronted" band such as
      Theaudience or Bow Wow Wow (up to 1982) where the female vocalist was just an employee with no artistic vote.Romomusicfan (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oculi etc. - intersection, non-defining. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 6 August 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:Lords of Emmeloord

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 18:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article, and if I understand correctly this has been the only Lord of Emmeloord. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 29 July 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.

Same articles in multiple Lords categories

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 18:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, and overlapping with Category:Counts of Egmond which is the more distinctive title. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 29 July 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:Counts of Egmond

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Category:Counts of Egmond

Category:Governors of the medieval Islamic world

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, repatent, and populate.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to several recent precedents:
Currently, this is an
WP:DEFINING category that takes 'Middle Ages' as its scope. Category:Governors by century is already a thing, Category:Ancient Roman governors is already a thing, so we could establish Category:Ancient governors and Category:Medieval governors as new trees by analogy with Category:Ancient monarchs and Category:Medieval monarchs etc. The alternative would be to delete this category, but I don't think that's necessary. We can Rename and Populate it, and Re-Parent it to make it much more DEFINING, useful and appropriate than it currently is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
PS: Went ahead and created Category:Ancient governors already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:25, 29 July 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:Use of the term Illyrian in modern history

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Category:Use of the term Illyrian in modern history

Category:Solar System bodies

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 19:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant per
Closhund (talk) 08:07, 29 July 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:Videocassette formats

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Category:Videocassette formats

Category:Advertising-free websites

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 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of everything other than the Wikimedia projects, which have their own category. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:10, 29 July 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:Wikimedia Philippines

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 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of Johnny Alegre; removing him would make this a C2F. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:59, 29 July 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:Wikimedia DC

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 19:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Sole content is the eponymous article and a bunch of project pages that should be in
Wikimedia DC can be manually recategorized into appropriate parents. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:59, 29 July 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:2nd-century women 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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. I checked them all. All were
Yasovati, Queen of Kashmir should be recategorised as Category:Characters in Hindu mythology (compare sibling Category:Characters in the Bhagavata Purana). Follow-up to 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

It seems to me like there is already agreement, and no objection. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I received some complaints on my user talk page about this relisting. One was that I did not properly sign it ... I thought the 4-tilde would work but it did not, so consider it signed as a reposting now. Second, there was a complaint that it didn't need to be relisted at all. That's a matter of opinion and style and not protocol. Third, I did not leave a subst:cfd relisting template on the origin CfD page; that has been rectified. Then there was a fourth complaint about my not adding a clickable link to a page from which I removed a category; that was due to trying to link to a particular version of a page and won't be done again. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ceyockey, I would consider this an unnecessary relisting. It has a detailed rationale and support from two CfD regulars, who are as such familiar with category policy. I'm addition there is nothing contentious about it that warrants any further discussion.
      Regarding the technical errors, I would suggest using the gadget XFDcloser to relist discussions.
      If you want to discuss this, feel free to to continue this at my talk page. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 6 August 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_July_29&oldid=1171501170"