Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 8
November 10 >

November 9

Category:Chaldean settlements

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the only article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 22:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Upmerge to Category:Chaldea, so that the relationship with the parent category isn't lost. Mason (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says the city was located in the vincinity of current Baghdad, which means it was not in Chaldea at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Thanks for clarifying. Mason (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artists from the Colony of Victoria

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 17#Category:Artists from the Colony of Victoria

Category:Writers from the Colony of Western Australia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 17#Category:Writers from the Colony of Western Australia

Category:People of Roman 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: rename and merge the subcat.
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to this CfD, in which we decided that we should consistently use "Ancient Roman" for category names. Mason (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of these people were Byzantine Romans not ancient Romans.★Trekker (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Iran university user templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Same scope. A reverse merge would also be appropriate, though we have Category:Universities and colleges in Iran. (For some reason, the template categories, use mostly "college and university" whereas the mainspace categories use "Universities and colleges".) Pichpich (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against merge my reason there seems to be only one college in Iran by looking at the articles, which is Civil Aviation Technology College. This college will soon be a university by what the article is hinting at.

It would make more sense to merge Category:Iran college and university user templates to Category:Iran university user templates. Also the userbox category that I created is older. Catfurball (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)@Pichpich:[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:Museums in Michigan

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT (2 articles) User:Namiba 17:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Note I added East Lansing after the previous comment but the same rationale applies.--User:Namiba 18:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diplomats from Dedham, Massachusetts

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
defined by their individual birthplace, so there's no comprehensive scheme in place of subdividing American diplomats by where they came from -- there are a few sibling categories for big cities like NYC or Boston or Chicago whose "People from City" categories were out of control and needed diffusion on sheer size grounds, but Dedham isn't a big city and its people-from category only has 22 people in it and thus isn't large at all. So Dedham doesn't need special treatment that no other small town in the United States is getting, because there's no particularly unique relationship between Dedham and diplomatic service.
And for added bonus, a couple of the articles in this category fail to contain any stated or sourced indication that their subjects were ever actually "diplomats" at all, and the ones who were diplomats are already in other appropriate specific-diplomatic-role subcategories of Category:American diplomats anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Participant in 1945 Moscow Victory Parade

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
defining characteristic of their careers. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish Expressionist

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed (singular instead of plural) category for a
non-defining intersection of characteristics. We already have a category for Category:Jewish painters, which every single person here is already in, and it's remarkably unclear that we would actually need to start microcategorizing that for individual different styles of painting at all — it's large enough that diffusion could be useful, but subbing them by nationality would be more important and valuable and useful than subbing them by individual painting style. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Against Deletion: Category come to encompass wide range of Jewish artists who were expressionists. (not just painting) You have dozens of Israeli and School of Paris painters who were expressionists. Furthermore, there was a very interesting trend in the 20th century, especially in the first half of the 20th century in which multiple persons of Jewish origin played pivotal roles in expressionism. Actually planning on eventually writing a page on this (didn't get round to it).
Examples of Jewish expressionists
Painting: Soutine, Chagall, Kikoine, Frenel, Pascin, Kremagne, Modigliani (him specifically up to debate) Levanon, Castel, Holzman, Mintchine, and dozens more. (All these included, are not from the Abstract Expressionist world in which there are dozens more).
Also in other fields like Expressionist Cinema, Architecture (Erich Mendelshon), Sculpture etc.
Basically, I actually think the category may have been too broad, but I decided to take the precaution and expanded it instead of focusing solely on painting. I didn't get around to adding too many people to, of course you're welcome to help :). Homerethegreat (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection. Of course there are people who happen to be Jew and expressionist at the same time, but there isn't anything like Jewish expressionism. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is scholarly research regarding the link between Jews and Expressionism, especially in light of 20th century suffering and their use of art to express this etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] On development of Jewish Expressionism
    [2] Book on Jews and Expressionism
    [3] Jews in German Expressionist Cinema etc.
    [4] Jewish Expressionism and how it affected German Expressionism
    [5] Another book discussion Jewish influence on Expressionist work of Jewish artists
    [6] Hebrew Expressionist Poetry
    And of course there is a lot of material of Jews in Expressionist movements, such as German Cinema, Literature, Poetry, School of New York, School Of Paris, etc..
    regarding renaming category, Its totally fine to rename to Jewish Expressionists, or some other form instead of deleting. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial intersection. Jewish expressionism is not an artistic movement. Place Clichy (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Young Bukharans

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
WP:SMALLCAT for membership in an organization. The organization's head article, Young Bukharans, certainly documents that it existed, but fails to make a case for why it would be highly meganotable enough to warrant a category for its members -- and while that article also lists a few other members besides the one who's been filed here, it doesn't list so many members that the list itself would require a matching category on the grounds of being too large as a list. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:James Goldsmith

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 17#Category:James Goldsmith

Category:List of battles During the Georgian-Ottoman Wars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Improperly named category. For starters, categories for things are named "X", not "List of X" -- "lists of" categories (which have to be pluralized as lists) are for grouping together pages which are lists, not for adding articles about things to lists -- and for another thing, "battles in specific war" categories are named "Battles of war", not "battles during war". (And even if we overlooked that problem, "during" is still capitalized incorrectly here anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Argentine people of Calabrian 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: merge.
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: follow-up to this CfD (itself coming after this one), in which we decided that it is not pertinent to split American people of Italian descent by region of origin. The same logic applies to Argentine people. Place Clichy (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Lombard 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: merge.
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Left-over from WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 12 § Category:American people of Lucanian descent, in which all other categories of American people by region in Italy were merged to the parent. Probably forgotten because it was not properly categorized at the time. Place Clichy (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Medieval wine merchants

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
non-defining intersection of characteristics. We do have a couple of categories that chunk out wine merchants by nationality, but we don't have any other categories that chunk out wine merchants by historical era, and the nature of selling wine (buy wine from winemaker, take wine somewhere else, give wine to somebody else who gives you money in exchange for wine) hasn't changed enough that a "medieval" vs. "modern" distinction would have any research value -- so this isn't necessary for just one person. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Happy to support changing this category. I think the concern with this was more "modern" vs "historical." I agree that medieval is specific, but I am working with a student who proposed this because they'll be creating more art history-related pages that feature several more medieval wine merchants. Avoiding confusion around a list of several medieval folks diluting a list of current merchants seems like a good idea. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when a lot more articles about medieval wine merchants are written. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Given names inspired by songs

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
Non-defining category that gets the what-inspired-what relationship bass ackward. The names here were not "inspired" by songs, in the sense that the name didn't exist until somebody "invented" it for a song and then subsequently started getting used as a name -- the songs were inspired by the names, in that the name already existed and then somebody came along and wrote a song with that name in it later. (That is, Dolly Parton met a real woman who was already named Jolene first, and then wrote a song about a woman named Jolene second, not vice versa.) But having had a song written with that name in it isn't a defining characteristic of the name, so just renaming this wouldn't magically make it a keepable category either. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Use of the names increased after the songs were released, which is why I included them in the category. References note as much. That’s why the category is notable.
Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, we categorize topics by their
defining characteristics, not by every random factoid you can think of. None of these names are defined by having been used in songs. Secondly, even if they were defined by having been used in songs, the names inspired the songs and not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
    • I wouldn’t call them random factoids. In several instances, the references attribute increased use to the songs. There are also references that group all the names in song. If anything, the category could be rephrased rather than eliminated if someone can come up with a better wording.
Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if use of a name did increase after the release of the song, that is still not a
defining characteristic of the name. We categorize things on their defining characteristics, and only on their defining characteristics. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, the fact that usage increased due to the songs is worthy of a category and I would consider them defining characteristics. I oppose deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Names are defined by their etymologies, not by their pop cultural associations and usages. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. It would have been different if the names really would have been inspired by the songs, but that appears to be not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as problematic in many ways. First, it is plain wrong to say that these given names were inspired by songs. In all cases, the names existed way before the songs. Some of the names got a noticeable but temporary bump in popularity following a hit song. That's not a defining characteristic. In most cases, the articles don't even mention the song (so they shouldn't be in the category) and when they do, the references tend to be of dubious quality. Pichpich (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mason (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - clearly doesn't satisfy
    WP:DEFINING and most entries are, as mentioned, "bass ackward" :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wallachian innkeepers

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. There isn't really a reason to delete it now given
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: no innkeeper category exists, potentially could be renamed/broadened to Wallachian businesspeople Mason (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the category is a subcat of "Romanian hoteliers" and "Romanian restaurateurs", reflecting the dual nature of the innkeeping business and, most importantly, the historical role that those people had as ancient restaurateurs and ancient hoteliers. The "let's just merge it back into the people category" approach seems to be entirely unresponsive on that other reason why we have category to begin with. Dahn (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you assume good faith? You calling my nomination unresponsive feels unnecessarily combative. Mason (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting on good or bad faith, I am commenting on judiciousness: the consequence of not weighing in the fact that this category is an intersection when proposing a merger that would leave half of the intersection unadressed and lost. It took me a while to conceive of this category, after having researched several articles in it, then grouping them by this characteristic; now, on a whim, I had to create more of this category tree, because the philosophy here seems to be "if you don't create the category tree yourself, you haven't proven that the intersection is valid". All the while without the nom making a basic mental experiment to note what eliminating the category would mean for the information it contains, for the other intersected level, and for the sort of effort that went into populating the category. I find that uncollegial, yes, but what I was commenting on is its other aspect, the gung-ho nature of it all. I would expect that the nom would at least bother to make a point as to why the category is superfluous or stupid -- it instead suggests that "someone else should do more work than they've already done, to convince me that we should keep it". Dahn (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... you're making a lot of leaps about what my thought process was. You could have just asked, instead of making these assumptions what what I did or didn't think about. I thought about the intersection, and had in fact wrote that I didn't think the category was defining, but I wasn't sure... so I deleted that part, and just listed the facts as I had them. And I proposed an alternative in recognition that it might have some intersectional value. But its pretty clear that you've taken this nomination very personally. Could I have articulated my thoughts better? Yes; but the lack of a parent category was a solid signal that perhaps innkeeper wasn't defining.
I'm glad to see that there's now a larger parent category. However, I'd encourage you to ask rather than make so many assumptions. Mason (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I won't make "assumptions" about the eleven words containing your original rationale for deleting the category, and I will ask you questions. Do you have any solution for not duplicating the categories, presuming the !vote here is to "merge", and once it becomes apparent that all the articles in the category are already on various levels of the parent category you propose we merge them into? Will you be handling that chore, after proposing merger as the solution? Do you have any solution for replicating the subjects' status as restaurateurs and hoteliers (and therefore innkeepers), other than arguing that we should delete the category and merge all articles in another level of the other tree? Should your general merger be applied: will you then add the hoteliers and restaurateur categories to the articles removed from "Wallachian innkeepers", or add the "Romanian hoteliers" and "Romanian restaurateurs" to articles which will only be in the non-national category "Innkeepers" (lumped together with articles on English, Canadian and Bosniak innkeepers)? And lastly: while I sort of gather why you would think it is a non-defining trait (though I cannot read your thoughts on this one, and would not be expected to read anything beyond the rationale you have provided), have you at any point argued that the category itself is stupid? (I mean: you cannot at once propose that "Wallachian innkeepers" is non-defining, but "Innkeepers" is. If the latter is true, then the only issue to raise here is if a subcategory is warranted. Is it? And, if not, why isn't it? Do state your case.)
The factor here is not me "taking it personally". The issue here is about editors fasttracking proposals to remove categories that have required some work, and make at least some sense, because they won't consider the implications -- pointing out why this is not judicious is not "taking it personally", incidentally, though being irked that someone points it out is very much so. Also consider this: the expectation here is that I be active on wikipedia around the clock (when I could be missing for weeks at a time), to police nominations of categories I have created, which could very well end up being deleted with just two !votes, based on an evidently faulty rationale. No matter how you look at it, this is a waste of resources, and simply removes content and connections between articles that would take time, concentration, and physical effort to restore. Let's work on the principles of contesting categorization, let's agree on some more sensible approach. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not engaging in your wall of text. You are bludgeoning this conversation. Mason (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you weren't really asking me to ask you questions, or at least not if they get too complicated. This may now illustrate why I kept my original reply short and more to the point. Dahn (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking for you to give me a wall of text around those questions. You can't realistically expect someone to engage in a conversation when you give them paragraphs to dig through. Mason (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is annoying to expect that you would interact with paragraphs of text, and I do apologize for that. In my defense: the issues I see with this nomination, and with what I can presume are its underlying methodological assumptions about categories, are complex issues, and need to be spelled out (not necessarily for you, but for anyone reading this). I will summarize the main point: this nom does not object to the intersectional category being valid, it just asks that it be deleted until an entire tree can be created and populated. This is a good-faith approach, but unintentionally destructive, and burdening other users with the supposed need to redo the work at some point or another. Dahn (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. By all means add the articles also to Category:Innkeepers when this is created and decently populated, but as of now this does not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle I will be creating it right now, then. Any reason why this can't be a subcategory, other than sheer obstinacy? Dahn (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: did the nominator even bother to check that, on the side of the tree that relates to these people's nationality, the articles already are includes in subcats of "People from the Principality of Wallachia", making this supposed solution simply sloppy duplication that someone else would have to fix? Dahn (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this poorly-conceived nomination. Inn-keeping was an important profession in Wallachia (and not just), amply studied by professional historians, certainly deserving of its own category. The right approach is to create more categories for innkeepers of other nationalities, as opposed to eliminating this one. — Biruitorul Talk 19:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dahn, also because now we have a general innkeeper category. Maybe it could be better to widen the scope of the category to Romanians in general (Category:Romanian innkeepers). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus: Widening into "Romanian" would present a tad of a problem, as most innkeepers were not at all active in the unified Romanian state, and some were not ethnically Romanian. The intersection of innkeeping still existing as an activity and a Romanian state being established is extremely slim, and would be anachronistic for people such as Manuc. It could work as an intermediary parent category combining innkeepers from several historical Romanian provinces, with the Wallachian one as a subcategory, but I could find no innkeepers that are notable enough in other such provinces (presumably because Bucharest was much more of a travel destination than Iași). Dahn (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In theory there should be no problem if we organised the subcategories by ethnicity since the start (we only have one) like we do in many other cases, but if there were no notable innkeepers from the other historical provinces then fair enough. I must say I am not too knowledgeable on this topic. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, I am not excluding that others in other provinces were significant, I just haven't chanced into any such examples. But my larger point is that, even in that scenario, we would/could/should still have a Wallachian subcategory, simply to reflect that these people were under a particular jurisdiction. (In any scenario, it does emerge that Wallachians were more seriously into the innkeeping business than Moldavians, presumably because of the oft-cited issue of their head-start on capitalism, and their closeness to the main trade route. Transylvania, the Banat, and Bukovina, other than being paradoxically less economically and socially mobile than Wallachia by 1820, and therefore being prone to having less per-capita tourists, were quicker to adopt the modern hotel -- meaning that they had comparatively fewer such institutions, but these were more modern. I hope this is a fair assessment of things.) Dahn (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the very category we're discussing is a quick way to gauge what early capitalism looked like in Wallachia, and how the society transitioned seamlessly from impoverished quasi-feudalism to "let's see what can make us a quick buck". Notice how all the entries are great boyars with a "side business" (significant in itself, but not their most prestigious work). Dahn (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus I don't think that Wallachia is an ethnicity. I think it is a nationality, that happens to be nested within Romania for a lot of reasons that aren't worth litigating now.
I think that it's fine to leave it as Wallachian, given that there is a criteria mass of articles. Adding Romanian Innkeepers as a parent category might be helpful. Given that there's a parent category now and in spite of Dahn's bludgeoning, the infrastructure is now in place for other categories to eventually be diffused by nationality. Mason (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will just ask again why we should consider it a good approach to delete intersectional categories as long as the whole infrastructure isn't created. Under any scenario, this asks of the people who create the intersectional category to create and populate the whole tree, or at least part of it, just so that a category, which nobody actually contests is valid on its own, can be kept. Dahn (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't proposing a deleting of the category. I was proposing that we consider a merge or change in scope. Mason (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merger means deletion, for all practical purposes, since this intersection cannot be revived (at least not without some effort from your fellow editors) once the merger is carried out. Dahn (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(As a side note: I think we are actually all in agreement that Wallachian/Moldavian (at least Western Moldavian) is not an ethnicity, and that the categories for Wallachia should be included, at least by proxy, under more generic Romanian ones, without being invalidated as subcats. Just as categories for the erstwhile Kingdom of Saxony are part of the German category tree, just as the Piedmontese and Florentine categories link into a larger Italian category tree.) Dahn (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that I did not imply Wallachians are an ethnicity. My logic when I proposed a category based on ethnicity was that it would in theory be more populated. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to hijack this, but to clarify a minor point: "Romanian fooian" categories are not technically ethnicity based either, they reflect nationality as well (though in a Romanian context the two overlap), and generally strive for the widest definition -- just like any other such categories do. For instance, going through the nationality based trees sends the reader to categories for diaspora or for predecessor states which are largely accepted as such (Wallachia being to Romania what the Thirteen Colonies are to the US, what the Duchy of Tuscany/Milan is to Italy, what Kastrioti is to Albania, what Pfalz is to Germany, what the Duchy of Normandy is to France, etc.). Dahn (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian plays performed in Britain

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially
defining characteristic of a play in and of itself. This would also engender extreme category bloat, as with almost 200 countries in the world it would require tens of thousands of sibling categories for every possible combination of X and Y. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Understand these concerns. For an Australian play to be performed in Britain was a massive thing for Australian plays - far more so than any other country. I thought it was a useful way to categorise. Is there any other way of perhaps noting a play enjoyed a notable overseas success? Britfilm (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the body of the article? Perhaps a list? Mason (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possibly write an article about the topic, that will at least create the opportunity to discuss the impact. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. I also share the concern over category bloat if we start adding "Country X plays performed in Country Y" categories. (add 200 or so categories to Romeo and Juliet!) Pichpich (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Siem Reap Province FC players

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
WP:SMALLCAT for just one person. As always, every football club does not automatically get one of these the moment one person with a Wikipedia article has played for it -- there would have to be at least five past or present players for the club with articles to file here before a category for them was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Saxony

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 22#Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Saxony

Category:Politicians' deaths due to animal attacks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 18#Category:Politicians' deaths due to animal attacks

Category:Military personnel of the Austrian Empire

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping category Mason (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knights from the Austrian Empire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 22#Category:Knights from the Austrian Empire

Category:Saikū

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 17#Category:Saikū

Category:Films directed by Samantha Lang

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 22#Category:Films directed by Samantha Lang

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_9&oldid=1186373578"