Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 12
May 14 >

May 13

California articles missing geocoordinate data

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no longer a need for these by-county maintenance categories. They were created 15 years ago when the backlog was much larger and separating by county was useful. The backlog has been greatly reduced; at the moment, every one of these categories is empty. (Special thanks to User:Oona Wikiwalker who has added a lot of coordinates recently.) The rate of new California-related articles is low enough that the statewide category is sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but where have the remaining articles been moved to? I can't seem to find them.
And thank you for the kind words!Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oona Wikiwalker: I removed the last remaining articles today by adding coordinates to some and removing the others that didn't need coordinates. There are currently no California-related articles that have been tagged as needing coordinates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine which articles don't need coordinates? I suspect I've wasted a lot of effort on pages that didn't need coordinates... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some US counties are very small in area or population. For example, the category tree for Alpine County, California, has only 194 articles according to Petscan — this county has only about 1,000 people and is smaller in area than most counties in Texas. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 14 May 2024 (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:Trinitrotoluene

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.
(non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Category name should be consistent with the title of the article TNT. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as there are lots of meanings. Unlike articles, where it's easy to find and correct mislinking ("TNT" but not the chemical meaning), cats are less well patrolled, harder to notice, and and create more problems when mis-set. In fact, the original
    WP:MOSCAT
    notes:
"Avoid abbreviations. Example: "Category:Military equipment of World War II", not "Category:Military equipment of WW2". However, acronyms that have become the official, or generally used, name (such as NATO) should be used where there are no other conflicts."
and in this case the name is not "official", just COMMONNAME and there is a conflict. I have no objection to {{Category disambiguation}} or similar solution (I see that Category:Disambiguation categories does have other entries where the eponymous page is a redirect to a better-named article). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals notified of this discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DMacks' rationale. --Leyo 20:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the Oppose arguments. HertzDonuts (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the other arguments above and also this abbreviation is used in many other areas. Just look at
    talk • contributions 21:58, 14 May 2024 (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 communists of the Stalin era

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Communists in the United States are not necessarily defined by the leader of another country. User:Namiba 17:03, 13 May 2024 (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.

Newspapers published in Western Australia by region

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Newspapers published in Western Australia by region

Category:Ernest Cline

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer of categorization. The "works by" category suffices as a top level parent category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:51, 13 May 2024 (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:Electoral reform in Jersey

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to differentiate the electoral reform referendums from the others. At the very least, have it nested under the referendums in jersey category rather its own separate category alongside it. Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (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:Yoruba police officers

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCEGRS. There are MANY Yoruba occupation categories which could also be nominated. Moreover, many of the people in these categories are put their because of their name, not because sources say that they are Yoruba. User:Namiba 14:10, 13 May 2024 (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:Beringia

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... 01:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Dimadick. Nom seems to ignore the fact that the English term Beringia is also used for a present-day region. That it doesn't usually appear on present-day maps is an argument from anecdotal evidence. If nom could demonstrate that the category arbitrarily mixes up past and present in a confusing manner, that would be interesting to consider for a renaming or split, or something. NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except a spurious touristic source, all sources referenced to are related to prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... wait, I may have judged too soon. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That one source, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/beringia/index.htm, claiming that Beringia still exists today, evidently represents a fringe view not supported by the first 10 other sources I checked. All other language versions also support the idea that it is a region which no longer exists, and equivalent to "Bering Land Bridge". So let's remove that spurious source, and delete the whole category that has nothing to do with the geological, geographical and human migratory aspect of Beringia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:48, 13 May 2024 (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:Battles involving Bengal

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 per Fayenatic london, as unopposed. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok that is a reasonable alternative, but then still the content should be added to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: it should only be a selective merge to that parent, because many of the articles are already in other subcats of that one, and I'm not sure whether the others belong there. I suggest you watch the category and merge any valid missing items yourself if the rename goes through. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input in general would be great, but in particular input on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (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:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

Nominator's rationale: merge, per article List of bishops of Macau, Catholic bishops are primarily bishop of a diocese. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16#Category:16th-century_Roman_Catholic_bishops_in_Portuguese_Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Although I'm on the fence about merging to Category:FOO-century Macau people, because not everyone is from Macau. Mason (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category tree is now a big mess.  · There were Catholic bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere but stationed in Macau, some of them as coadjutor/auxiliary bishops or administrators or governors of this diocese. These bishops were not bearers of the title Bishop of Macau although they were bishops who worked in Macau. Further the diocese covered a much much larger area in the Far East. It's only since the 1950s (or the 1980s if the two parishes in Malacca Malaysia and Singapore are taken into consideration) the Diocese of Macau is coterminous with the present-day territorial extent of Macau. From its founding in the 16th century hundreds of dioceses have been carved out from this diocese. The first proposal regarding Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau is therefore opposed.  · Likewise the second and the third proposals for the 19th and 20th century categories are opposed for the reasons as stated above, and that this is also a vote for the restoration of the 16th to 18th century categories. If the 19th and the 20th century categories (and the 16th to 18th century categories as well) were to be merged the target should be Portugal since the territory was over the period a Portuguese province (save for the last twelve days of the 20th century).  · For the fourth proposal on the 21st century category, bear in mind that the bishop does not participate in any conference of bishops or anything similar of the Chinese catholic church, and that the present bishop is not a native of Macau – There is no point to proceed as proposed.  · Overall this is a keep vote (and a vote to clear the mess under the preexisting structure prior to CfD 16 April). 58.152.55.172 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To the closer, this IP is
    WP:HKGW and has been the one making a mess of this and other similar categories. Mason (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This user labelled me as such with no explanation and I simply don't understand why she gave me such a label. It appears she just labels when she's running out of supporting arguments. I took no part in making this mess. The categories nominated in this CfD or the 16 April one were created by other editors, and I'd done nothing to change them. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means purge bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere, but stationed in Macau. If the tree is a mess we simply should have a clean-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a larger categorisation scheme. Moving articles from categories of dependencies to those of the sovereign powers is not uncontested. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily
WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as originally nominated. The alt proposal is no good because it would leave the articles directly in Category:Fictional invertebrates orphaned and I see no reason true taxonomic category need to be categorized separately from folk taxonomic ones. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of
WP:RS
.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent
WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe
tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many
WP:ARBITRARYCATs
. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link:
WP:SYNTH
was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These
    populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough commentary on the proposal to listify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick Do you support the proposal to listify before deleting? NLeeuw (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there are enough independent sources for such a list. Dimadick (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are plenty of libraries full of sources writing about this. But as Marco said, documenting and verifying all that takes a lot of time, so it would probably be best to list the content on a relevant WikiProject talk page. I think the most appropriate would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. NLeeuw (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT:JH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. For starters, we already have
    WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH a Jewish community which no longer exists due to the Holocaust, it's not a good enough reason to create a special category for it. Even including a Jewish shtetl like Lozisht in a cat like this is at the very least problematic; in the shtetl article we read that a shtetl is defined by Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern as "an East European market town in private possession of a Polish magnate, inhabited mostly but not exclusively by Jews" and that Despite the existence of Jewish self-administration (kehilla/kahal), officially there were no separate Jewish municipalities ... As nom explained above, this kind of classification is arbitrary—is a town considered Jewish if populated only with 40% Jews? Or maybe 60% or higher is needed? In a similar vein, it seems wrong to me to have Johnston City, Illinois included in Category:Lynching in the United States when lynching seems to have only a loose association with that town (a single lynching occurred there 100 years ago); maybe even less than Category:Kidnapping in the United States has to do with Chowchilla, California, a town that was completely traumatized by that activity, and yet cannot be found in said category. StonyBrook babble 20:50, 19 May 2024 (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 buskers

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was previously discussed and agreed at
WP:ENGVAR allows us to use the American English term. Buskers is not a word generally used in the United States. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (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.

Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India

Category:Military history of Lorraine

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, Lorraine is a defunct administrative division, meanwhile part of Grand Est. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It's true that it is no longer an administrative division, but we've got lots of other "Military history of former country/province X" cats. But I suppose it's okay to merge if that makes navigation easier. NLeeuw (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: if you know other "Military history of former province" categories let me know and I will nominate them too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm I suppose there aren't that many, actually. I expected to find them everywhere, but all I could find that semi-qualifies is Category:Military history of Savoy, Category:Military history of Baden etc. But those have arguably been independent countries at some point before becoming provinces of larger countries. If I do find others, I'll let you know or nominate them myself. At any rate, seems like your rationale is in line with common practice. NLeeuw (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (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:New South Wales rugby union team players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Category:New South Wales rugby union team players

Category:Battles in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur

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: manual merge.
(non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2024 (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:Battles in Grand Est

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: manual merge.
(non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (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:Kyrgyzstani politicians of Korean 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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there'd no need to diffuse Kyrgyzstani people of Korean descent by occupation. Mason (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per given reasoning. Also only one page in the politician cat 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2024 (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:Jules Dassin

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for one subcategory of films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:42, 13 May 2024 (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:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute

Category:Political linguistics

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/delete. This category contains one page and a redirect, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (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:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty

Category:NBA 2K 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. Discussion about the categorization of
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Only one subject in category Let'srun (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. (If not deleted, merge per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marco. Being in the video game is not defining for the sole member. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2024 (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:19th-century Canadian people (post-Confederation)

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between century and confederation status. There isn't a Canadian people (post-Confederation) category. Mason (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the problem is rather in pre-Confederation Canada, when Canada did not yet exist and the term British North America is controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canada did not mean all of what you now know as Canada in that era, but it most certainly did exist. A person from the pre-1867 Province of Canada most certainly was a Canadian; a person from the pre-Durham provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada most certainly was a Canadian. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which can be easily fixed by creating the more appropriate categories and moving those people to them, and doesn't require this. Until better categories for where they were really from actually exist, however, categorizing pre-confederation New Brunswickers or Newfoundlanders as "Canadian", while certainly not ideal, remains preferable to leaving them completely out of the entire tree. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The question of whether a person died before or after 1867 isn't particularly relevant in this context; as I explained above, a person from Upper Canada/Canada West or Lower Canada/Canada East between 1791 and 1867 was still very much a Canadian. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please convey that to the JPL? I've tried again on his talk page, and there's just no reasoning with him.Mason (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2024 (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:Fran Saleški Finžgar

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This entire category tree only has two pages in it: the author and one novel they work, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Notably it has just as many categories as pages). Mason (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2024 (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:Fran Levstik

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This category only has two pages in it, the author and the list of their works. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (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:Fujiwara no Shunzei

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has two pages in it. One of which is the author's work and the other is the author. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2024 (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/2024_May_13&oldid=1225903384"