Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 26
June 28 >

June 27

Psychics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Psychics

Category:Borders of Vatican City

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, only two subcategories with largely overlapping content. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 27 June 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:Trans men

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Category:Trans men

Mass shootings in Canada by year

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Mass shootings in Canada by year

Category:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene

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 over redirect.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Hygiene is a subtopic of health, so saying health and hygiene is redundant. Reverts an undiscussed move from 2018. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is unclear which target is being suggested in the Merge !votes, as the target proposed by nom is a redirect to the nominated category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:27, 27 June 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.

Mass shootings in Mexico by year

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Mass shootings in Mexico by year

Active shooter incidents in the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Active shooter incidents in the United States

Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe

Category:Austrian knights

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: containerise.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: containerize, purge articles directly in this category who aren't real knights. This is merely a case of
WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Containerise & purge per nom. The Austrian nobility is a status group that was officially abolished in 1919 after the fall of Austria-Hungary. The nobles are still part of Austrian society today, but they no longer retain any specific privileges. At the very least, the category should be purged of all people born after 1919, because after that having the rank of Ritter has become
    WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH other people (their ancestors) for whom it used to be significant for their career. So I think nom is right. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Place Clichy: note that for many articles in this category it merely functioned as an award, granted to famous artists, scholars etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also support renaming since it will help with maintenance. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:03, 28 June 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:BBC Idents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Not only is the current title is vague and incorrectly capitalized, but the proposed title provides covers the wider subject of television presentation and matches the parent category "Television presentation in the United Kingdom". —theMainLogan (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is indeed populated solely by idents then renaming to Category:BBC station identifications would make more sense given the name of station identification. There's nothing vague about that (although "ident" is a common enough industry term). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:BBC station identification would work better, but I definitely see where you're coming from. —theMainLogan (t•c) 04:12, 28 June 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:St. Anthony's High School (South Huntington, New York) alumni

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 as
WP:SOFTDELETE Category:Nipomo High School alumni, Category:Paul W. Bryant High School alumni, [[:Category:Uvalde High School alumni], Category:Woodcreek High School alumni, Category:Notre Dame Academy (Staten Island) alumni, Category:Michael J. Petrides School alumni, Category:Ralph R. McKee CTE High School alumni, Category:Staten Island Technical High School alumni; keep others. I have listed the deleted ones in the school articles, and added members to "People from" where this seemed appropriate. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two people each. As always, every high school does not automatically get one of these the moment one alumnus of that high school has an article to file in it -- there would have to be five or six alumni with articles before a category for them was warranted, not just one or two. Bearcat (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added several more to
WP:SMALLCAT states that categories with a "realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Active high schools should fit into this exception since they will continue to add alumni year after year.--User:Namiba 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but there's nothing notable about going to school, otherwise we would all have articles. THe exception is intended for the likes of
Oculi (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:EPCATPERS specifically says "Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution and People by company, as well as numerous more specific categories." One's educational institution is considered inherently defining by current guidelines.--User:Namiba 23:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oculi (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
These are all subcategories of Category:People by educational institution, which is specifically cited in the policy. If you want to define one's high school as less defining than their university, that is an argument to make but should be made elsewhere.--User:Namiba 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A
Oculi (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The primary school of most people is not known but their high school/secondary school is typical for a biography.--User:Namiba 23:29, 6 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:Former polities in the Netherlands

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 action - This has been open quite awhile, and several different ideas have been tossed around, but nothing really had consensus at this point. I'm doing this as a procedural close of "no action" rather than a "no consensus" close, simply due to the age of discussion. No prejudice against renomination for any of these or other proposals. - jc37 06:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In practice, the category also includes areas outside the current Netherlands (Nederland) such as in modern Belgium and Luxembourg, including areas that were never part of the
Principality of Liège. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional rationale:
WP:C2C Category:History of the Low Countries is already the common ancestor of Category:Former polities in the Netherlands (5 generations) and pretty much all subcategories in it; e.g. Category:Habsburg Netherlands‎ and Category:United Kingdom of the Netherlands‎ are its children; Category:Burgundian Netherlands and Category:Seventeen Provinces‎
are its grandchildren etc.
WP:COMMONNAME in English for this region, and consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. In its parent Category:Former countries by region it sits alongside Category:Former countries in the British Isles, Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula, Category:Former countries in the Balkans etc. This grouping by region is also consistent with established conventions also used on other-language Wikipedias such as nl:Categorie:Historisch land in de Nederlanden, fr:Catégorie:Anciens Pays-Bas, de:Kategorie:Historische Niederlande etc. to which this category is Wikidata-linked. All that is wrong with the current category is the English term Netherlands instead of Low Countries, really. This should clear up some confusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle and I are both from the Netherlands. Until I nominated the Rulers category, we had barely interacted, we got to know each other here, just like I got to know you. (And I quite like the cooperation so far).
  1. Yes, 'polities' is indeed rare.
  2. The relevant parent is Category:History of the Low Countries, which existed since 2014. I didn't create it, and I didn't create Category:Low Countries, so why should that be 'suspect'?
  3. Irrelevant. Low Countries is the
    WP:COMMONNAME of the region (certainly for pre-1944 history; the Benelux
    was created at a time when the 3 current modern countries already existed, and there have been no state establishments or disestablishments since 1944).
  4. Yes, 'states' is better. @Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson, and Laurel Lodged: I've change the target to Category:Former states in the Low Countries
  5. Normally I would agree, but in this case, the modern-day countries didn't exist yet. Category:Former countries in the British Isles is a good comparison.
  6. Categories should aid navigation. They don't display more than 200 entries for that reason. Most of the Low Countries entries are already in this hardly navigable clutch of 1,800 entries in Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire. More importantly, this category just serves a different function, namely the political history of this region (that's why it's in the Category:History of the Low Countries tree, and has Category:Political history of Belgium and Category:Political history of the Netherlands as its parents). That is broader than 862 to 1806, and includes states that were outside the HRE during this period.
  7. Any split (or deletion) would only make it harder to navigate the Category:History of the Low Countries tree and between different language versions of this category connected through Wikidata.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the above three periods are relatively short and dispersed and the items in this category exactly refer to duchies and counties etc while they had no shared history yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to have a shared political history in order to be a region.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is obvious we do not agree anyway but I will add a late comment to the Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee: this is referring to the county of Holland, not to Gelre, Namur or whatever we now consider to be part of the Low Lands. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not quite. J.M.C. Verbij-Schillings, "Heraut Beyeren en de Clerc uten Laghen Landen", (1991) Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. indicates the chronicle is dedicated to a certain William of Bavaria, the count of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, but it's unclear whether he was William V = William I, Duke of Bavaria OR William VI = William II, Duke of Bavaria. There is a question when exactly it was written, since both Williams have also been count of Hainaut, but aren't called that by the text, and Hainaut isn't really a subject in the text. On the other hand, the chronicle is apparently closely related to the post-1393 Holland-Utrecht chronicle (Croniken van den Stichte van Utrecht ende van Hollant) in contents and style. It's indeed unlikely that uten laghen landen bi der zee means all Low Countries as we understand them today, but evidently, the chronicle is not just about Holland either, but also around the surrounding provinces, especially those where this William of Bavaria reigned or had frequent or occasional interactions with (Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Hainaut, Utrecht, Flanders, Guelders etc. are all mentioned in Verbij-Schillings' quotations). But the toponym Nederland likewise didn't yet have its current form and application yet either at the time. The oldest reference to Niderlande by Berthold von Regensburg in c. 1275 equated Niderlande with Sahsen ("Saxony"), not with what we today know as the Netherlands: Die von Oberlant, dort her von Zürich, die redent vil anders danne die von Niderlande, von Sahsen. The meaning and application first shifted to the Rhineland and eventually to the Rhine/Meuse/Scheldt delta as we know it today. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, maybe it's time we tried to work out some sort of compromise, like we did with Category:Medieval Low Countries. There is actually quite a lot of overlap between the two. Perhaps we should manually merge some of the children and items to Category:Medieval Low Countries or its children? What we would be left with are pre-500 things like Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior (which may not need to be in this tree at all), and post-1500 things, which we might divide in some sort of North and South categories if we really wanted to. I'm afraid that 1580 will remain somewhat arbitrary, and the HRE category is a bit too big for our purposes here. But I'm open to a lot of options. We need some movement here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and add parent per nomination. Sometimes I find that we are taking ourselves too seriously, and treating category policies as if they were civil or scientific laws. They are neither; rather, to follow them well is an art. This is a category that has stood the test of time and has also been created in multiple other-language Wikipedias. Unless there is a nomination to delete History of the Low Countries, I would even say that this category is required – and should be at the target name. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 25 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.

Water polo 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: rename.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
about 55 more
Rationale: these are
Oculi (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Rename per nom. We generally use the national demonyms, even when they match ethnonyms, where they would not cause ambiguity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Not sure some of these are needed as a layer, e.g Bosnia and Herzegovina only has a players subcat which itself only contains 2 articles, in contrast to e.g Australia which has male, female and Olympic players, coaches and an official so merits the umbrella. But anyway, logic for the rename is sound. Crowsus (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not rename the categories from "people" to "players"? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 04:05, 10 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:Bandstands in Brazil

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support: Could not find any other articles to which the category would apply. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:11, 27 June 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.

Works by writer nationality

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Works by writer nationality

Category:Films directed by Eché Janga

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Category:Films with screenplays by Eché Janga, here are three more categories for redlinked filmmakers on the same film as in that nomination (Buladó). I'm not sure whether categorising by director is always defining – in which case I would withdraw the first one – but I don't think that would apply to producers. Fayenatic London 09:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nelissen and Warrink have other producing credits on Captain Nova (both), Juze (just Warrink), and Cuban Love (just Warrink), which brings both categories up to three entries. Whether that negates SMALLCAT, especially for redlinked subjects, I don't know, but it's at least worth noting. Found no other credits for Janga. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:19, 27 June 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:Border crossings of Vatican City

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Sole subcat also exists in Category:Italy–Vatican City border which is the only other subcat in Category:Borders of Vatican City. No need for both when they exist to complete the same job, especially when the other also does more than this could. Not sure what the appropriate redirect target would be, if any exist, but I imagine that would be preferred and I will accept that as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:36, 27 June 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:Voodoo texts

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the pages in this category pertain to books about Haitian Vodou. Renaming this category would more accurately describe the religion in question (Haitian Vodou rather than more ambiguous "Voodoo") and would also clarify that the category is for books about the religion, rather than authoritative texts or scripture (as a comparative example, see Category:Books about Buddhism versus Category:Buddhist texts. —Matthew  / (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 27 June 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:Four Digit Wings of the United States Air Force

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Major command controlled wings of the United States Air Force. The RM being referred to is developing to a consensus to merge the article away (so the capitalization is moot), but nobody either here or there has argued in favor of capitalizing "Major Command", so the lowercase title stands. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proper use of capitalization and hyphenation. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHAREDNAME, or renamed to Category:Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 27 June 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:Treaties of ancient Greece

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 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale (ancient Greece): Possibly
state actor nor a non-state actor. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world where similar factors are at play. If we choose to regard ancient Greece as a predecessor of the modern Hellenic Republic, known as Greece (per parent Category:Treaties of Greece), it might be different. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale (al-Andalus): Similarly,
state actor nor a non-state actor, see above. If we choose to regard al-Andalus as a predecessor of modern Spain and Portugal (through parent Category:Military history of al-Andalus, grandparent Category:History of al-Andalus, great-grandparent Category:Al-Andalus, great-great-grandparents Category:Medieval Portugal and Category:Medieval Spain), it might be different. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Al-Andalusi @Marcocapelle @Fayenatic london FYI because you have commented on the "Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, which led to this CfM. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous CfM (which you nominated) is hardly a precedent. Just because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. Since no specific guideline on the scope of the Treaties categories has been established, then everything remains open to debate. Especially considering the fact that Category:Medieval treaties and Category:Ancient treaties still exist in violation of the alleged state/non-state actor criteria. You're not being consistent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NONDEFINING
for treaties. (while you Opposed this rationale with the argument that There is no requirement that a treaty category be strictly limited to a state). Nobody brought up any other argument in favour of merging, so there is no reason to assume it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale".
That means the precedent has been set to limit treaty categories to state actors (i.e. the Category:Treaties by country tree) and non-state actors (i.e. the Category:Treaties by organization tree), and that "the medieval Islamic world" was neither, even though it was (incorrectly) categorised as such. Similarly, Category:Treaties of ancient Greece is a child of Category:Treaties of Greece and thus in the Category:Treaties by country tree, and Category:Treaties of al-Andalus is a child of Category:Treaties by former country and thus also in the Category:Treaties by country tree.
Category:Treaties by period is a different tree, categorising treaties not by state or non-state actors, but time. Something like "Antiquity" or "the Middle Ages" obviously does not constitute a country/organisation and thus not a state or non-state actor, nor does the category tree claim them to be. This whole thing is a red herring. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 27 June 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:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary
Talk:List of the mosses of Britain and Ireland#Requested move 27 June 2023 which covers all the similarly titled lists in this category and one other list of non-vascular plants. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:33, 27 June 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:Latino sitcoms

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming convention of the parent category Category:Hispanic and Latino American television, which is a more clear scope then the current title as well. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:44, 27 June 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_June_27&oldid=1173558632"