Category:Wikipedians who wish Ched would come back
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 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 Members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority
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 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:National symbols of the Republic of China
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.
Still looking for sources, but as I said above I have seen a book published in Taiwan describing the old ROC flags as old national symbols (it was a government published children's dictionary).--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:26, 20 March 2021 (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.
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.
These follow the decision in
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_28#Category:Bishops_by_nationality where it was decided to move all bishop categories from nationality (which is ambiguous - is it the nationality of the individual or the see?) to country but were opposed at Speedy. All these categories, as far as I can see, are populated by bishops in their native countries. Those with non-native incumbents will need further discussion, but the proposal was to categorise them as Fooish priests where that was appropriate if their diocese was not in Foo.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I doubt whether Rathfelder has checked all the articles in
Category:Argentine bishops including the subcategories (hundreds of articles). I expect Rathfelder would like to rename
Category:Argentine popes to 'Popes in Argentina'. (Of course the nationality of a cleric is important - this is not either/or as we can have both.)
Oculi (
talk)
11:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose bishops should be categorized by nationality. We can create seperate categories for location of service, but that is a seperate issue. This is also way to broad a set of categories to group together.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment We should stop placing categories for those who served as bishops of specific diocese as sub-categories of categories by nationality.
Category:Albanian bishops should include all Albanians who served as bishops, without regard to where they were bishops, but exclude all non-Albanians who served as bishops in Albania. The same with the Lutheran bishops categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Stop spouting lies. That was not a decision, that was a running roughshop over any and all objections to reimaging Wikipedia by a small group of editors who ignored the actual contents at hand.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The previous "decision" was a small minority of editors trying to impose their own idiosincratic reimaging of categories without broad discussion or concensus.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The previous decision was implemented with reckless disregard for the likes of
Michael Banach, someone who holds the rank of bishop but has never held an actual bishop's office and instead has been Papal Nuncio to multiple countries. Banach is clearly American, but was not bishop there.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment In this case my biggest objection is procedural. There are too many categories grouped together. I can see case by case arguments for repurposing some of these categories. However in some of those I think splitting is better. For example my guess is that
Category:Estonian Lutheran Bishops is going to bring up 4 issues. 1-do we want to group together in 1 occupational category nationals of the nation state Estonia which only has existed in 1918-1940 and 1991-the present with ethnic Estonians no matter when or where they lived? 2- are we willing to compromise with the de facto treatment of Estonia as a quasi state from 1941-1991, ignore the large often transient population from elsewhere in the Soviet Union, and back categorize? 3- do we want to group all Lutheran bishops who served in Estonia, many of whom in the earliest centuries were probably ethnic Swedes, especially when the area was under Swedish control. At what point does conflating nationality and ethnicity into one category become anachronistic, and at what point do we draw lines? At what point do we draw lines against use at the time? These are complex questions and to date they have been too rarely discussed, and in general there has been an imposition of the view of 19th and 20th century nationalists even when it does violence to the way historic people viewed themselves. The holding to as clunky names to identify past countries subjects as possible does not help the situation. My view is that we really need to limit by occupation and nationality categories much more to the intersection of the two than we have.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
For the record I think
Category:Albanian bishops should be limited to bishops who in some ways were nationals of the modern nation state of Albania. We should not be putting in one by nationality category what in theory could end up being people from at least 4 nations. Those would be Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Montenegro. This is assuming we will exclude those of Albanian descent from the US, Australia and many other countries. Unless we want this to be bishops by ethnicity?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Each of these nominations really needs to be a separate one with separate discussion. For example what is up with the proposed
17th-century bishops in Albania? Is there even an Albania in the 17th-century for a bishop to serve in? In the 17th-century Albania was under Turkish rule. It was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. There was no unit of the Ottoman Empire that corresponded to modern Albania.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
So I have read through the odd category
17th-century Albanian bishops. This is a mess and we really need to apply more non-nationalistic scholarship to the whole matter. One of the men was a native of Turin who probably at best was an Italian or Savoian expatriate in the Ottoman Empire. 2 of them seem to have been part of an armed revolt against Ottoman rule, which seems to indicate they were Otyoman subjects. People who revolt against a given rulership are still under it a d subjects of it. A few more our current articles are so colored by post-1878 nationalism it is hard to tell. Another is categorized with the Republic of Venice and another with the Republic of Ragusa. Another we have no info on his origins at all. However this srt served in at least two bishopric and there is no clear evidence that they should be grouped together at all. I would say as a first step we should delete the category totally as anachronistic step retroactively assuming the boundaries drawn in the 1910s have some intrinsic value. Wikipedia needs to stop doing Whiggish history. We need to stop anachronism. We need to really reconsider how many articles we have that POV push a certain nationalist agenda and support founding myths of various countries instead of reflecting the reality of good scholarship. It is past time we stopped having articles saying "x was an important freedom fighter". At this point I think we are best categorizing the people in this category by the specific diocese they served in. The other possibility would be to figure out a greater than diocese level grouping that existed in the Catholic Church in the 17th-century for them. What we should not do is group 17th-century bishops by boundaries drawn in the 20th-century. This is all the more so considering how contested the process of actually drawing those boundaries was in the 20th century.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment on the other hand with
Category:Argentine bishops, [:Category:Mexican bishops]],
Category:American bishops,
Category:Peruvian bishops,and
Category:Columbian bishops, for sure, and maybe some others I would use the following strategy. A- I think it is worth debating whether we should have trans-deniminational bishop groupings at all. Bishop
H. David Burton is a case I can think of really fast who is clearly notable as a bishop, and yet some would question if he was a bishop in the sense meant here. So would some say about thousands of Pentecostal bishops, when worldwide Pentecostals rival the number of Catholics. I can point out other cases where bishop is used in a different way, and considering some Episcopalian dioceses have under 2000 members and one the Diocese of Northern Michigan has less than 500 attendees in all parishes, while many Catholic dioceses exceed 1 million members, some of the notions we keep to about uniformity and all bishops being notable begin to be suspect. Something is clearly off when we have thousands of articles on bishops sourced to only one directory style blog. Hmm this is a mess.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I am starting to think that we need to abandon the by nationality bishops categories but keep them in the case of some denominations. We also need to avoid pre-reformation general bishops categories and post reformation categories being conflated. The issue is that bishop is a title that in the end is tied to a particular denomination and philosophy. Too long Wikipedia has taken the POV that Amish, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Pentecostals are wrong in how they use the term and Catholics, Orthodox Christian's and high church Protestants who use it similarly are right. The way this was justified has been claiming the later are way more numerous than the former, but this is only possible because Pentecostals largely coming from the global south, the poor and ethnic minorities can be ignored, not because their numbers are really small enough to ignore. The problem with the current situation is seen when we look at what point t comes under
Category:American bishops. Some are also under
Category:Bishops in the United States. We have several Anglican bishop categories, the largest connected to the Protestant Episcopal Church covers an almost all American body where even among those bishops that were not serving in the US a majority were American. The best way to handle this category to keep down category clutter is to categorize them by denomination. The same applies to at least some Lutheran categories. On the other hand the Roman Cathlic Church is a truly trans-national body. There it makes sense to categorize bishops by both nationality and place of service. We can basically create categories per diocese and then group dioceses by location, so any one bishop will be in say in
Category:American Roman Catholic bishops and
Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Salt Laje City. I am not sure what to do about auxiliary bishops.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The large majority of bishops, at least in established churches, serve in their native countries. If categorised by diocese that links them to their country and trying to run country and nationality separately has led to chaos because editors often assume that nationality refers to the nationality of the diocese, not of the individual bishop. I agree that bishops need to be anchored in their denomination, but I dont see that Wikipedia has authority to decide whether such titles are legitimate.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment From a historical perspective I think in the cases of the US, Brazil, Argentina, Colimbia for sure, and probably cases like Peru and Mexico we should only apply
Category:American bishops,
Category:Argentine bishops etc. To those who served as bishops after independence. With the US I think this will be fairly easy since I am fairly sure that no Church appointed bishops in the 13 colonies. Even in Sana Fe there was not if I remember correctly a bishop until 1850. Louisiana had a bishopric before purchase. We also need to exclude European expatriates from this category. A good example of why is
Louis William Valentine DuBourg. Yes he was head of the Catholic Church in Louisiana for 13 years, but he then returned to France and was bishop there the rest of his life. He would always have been described and viewed as a French priest or bishop, no one would have ever described him as an American born in France. He was a French expatriate in the US. Yes Archbishop Hughes and others would have been described as immigrants to the US. Both exist, but one is not the other.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural close and renominate in parts – This might in the light of previous discussions have been uncontroversial. However there are several problems with it:
Bishops in countries that did not yet exist: before 1912 for Albania; and 1918 for Estonia (though we may treat Estonia SSR as the same country).
Hungarian bishops can probably be described as “catholic” rather than “Roman Catholic”, as I doubt there is a rival Greek Catholic hierarchy; indeed does the Catholic Church maintain rival Roman and Greek hierarchies anywhere?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Not to make this American-centric but the U.S. has a history of foreign-born clergy serving in the country. When I was doing my research in the early 2000s, 24% of American clergy were born outside the U.S. and while these priests are usually not elevated to bishops or archbishops it has happened, especially in the 19th century. Would an Irish-born archbishop serving in New York, who became a U.S. citizen at 40 years of age, be an Irish archbishop or an American archbishop? I don't think they should be classified as a "Missionary priest" even though this is exactly what they are in this example.
This issue much have come up before with other occupational categories. CFD is a pretty idiosyncratic place but precedence rules here. How has it been settled with other professions? LizRead!Talk!00:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I dont know of any other occupation where people are allocated territory by a supranational organisation. But dont forget that to say a person is "from" somewhere is always ambiguous. Most biographies are categorised as "Workers from somewhere". That somewhere may well be in a country different from the subjects nationality. And very few biographies say anything explicit about the subject changing nationality. I've worked through several thousand articles about clergy and not a single one has said anything explicit about nationality when the subject moved between countries.
Rathfelder (
talk)
09:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I've changed my mind about all this. I think we should exploit the ambiguity of nationality. If we characterise bishops by nationality, so for each country there is a category of Fooish bishops, then we can have a subcategory of Bishops in Foo - where not all the individual bishops will personally be Fooish - if its needed. Those in the superior category will be the Fooish bishops who served somewhere else. The Bishops in Foo can be subcategorised by diocese in Foo. The migrant bishops will be categorised as Fooish bishops but also as Bishops in Bar. If we go about it like that perhaps we only need one superior category - Bishops by nationality.
Rathfelder (
talk)
11:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Bishops shouldn't be categorized by nationality! For what reason? Are we partisans of identity politics? No, we are non-partisan at Wikipedia, we need no nationalist spectacles and supporting actions. --
Just N. (
talk)
21:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
There isnt a clear distinction between categorisation by country and nationality in practice. Both terms are a bit ambiguous, and many categories of Fooish people actually include many people who do not appear to be of Fooish nationality. Not that most articles say anything explicit about nationality. Bishops in Foo is less ambiguous. In these categories there is little difference. Almost all the Albanian bishops were bishops in Albania.
Rathfelder (
talk)
09:58, 30 March 2021 (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:Planters
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 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:Novels by John Green (author)
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.
Nominator's rationale: John Green is releasing his first nonfiction book, The Anthropocene Reviewed (book). It seems silly for this to not be included in a category with all of his other books, but since it is not a
novel, it either needs to be excluded from this category or we can change the name to "Books by John Green (author).
Cerebral726 (
talk)
13:48, 17 March 2021 (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:Ion Television subchannel-only affiliates
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.
Delete. No other American television network has a separate subcategory to segregate the "subchannel-only" affiliates from the "#.1" affiliates, and Ion has no unique need of special treatment on this basis.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:40, 17 March 2021 (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.
Squatting by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge and purge. There are currently 4 articles for the Philippines; none of the others contain more than 3. –
FayenaticLondon21:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as is. Per
WP:SMALLCAT "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have 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" - many of the cats have been recently created as a part of a
WP:SQUAT project drive to create "Squatting in X" pages. It makes sense to categorise squats by country and the categories have realistic potential for growth; it does not make sense to have
Category:Squats with 100 entries.
Mujinga (
talk)
14:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm sympathetic to that. There are 55 pages currently that do not exist in a Category with 9 more siblings (so excluding Italy, US, UK, Netherlands, Germany), which seems low enough to keep within
Category:Squats. If they were recently created, that does change my view.
Another option would be to categorize them by continent. Generally though, what's the criteria/rule to create a category? If there are 2 or more articles?
WP:SMALLCAT does explicitly state that small categories can exist, if it's a structured schema, which countries certainly are.
Shushugah (
talk)
14:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Yup many are recently created and to be honest I'd rather have help filling out the categories than be discussing their deletion. But each to their own and we all see things differently; I'll just say that it's helpful for me to have things categorised by country as I compile more "Squatting in X" articles ...
Squatting in South Korea dropping next.
Mujinga (
talk)
14:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment thanks for the comments, seems like here is the best place to centralize a rather sprawling discussion which also encompasses
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Marcocapelle are you suggesting that categories should have five items minimum? I could see the merit in that but I don't see it in the policy. Three seems reasonable to me and would include most of these cats. But then we get into specifics, for example
Category:Squats in Czech Republic is (I would say) unlikely to increase from three items in the short term, but it seems much more logical to me to have
Klinika,
Ladronka and
Squat Milada easily linked than those three items dumped amongst a 100+ items in
Category:Squats. However, most of the other "Squats in X" categoires will be expanding in the short term, especially majority world ones, and people are welcome to help with that. Remember also that as already explained, "Squats in X" is a subcategory of "Squatting in X". I am currently working on and expanding these categories, so for me it would be better to keep them and expand them like this (hence my appeal to SMALLCAT), otherwise I'll be fored to keep offwiki notes and that doesn't seem as easy for workflow. I'm happy to follow policy but then we need to discuss policy with examples, RevelationDirect saying the whole tree is anemic without justification makes me wonder how much you have looked into this, i'd be happy to discuss specific examples. I'll answer to Carlossuarez46 above.
Mujinga (
talk)
10:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
You need to realize that the category information is not lost, since all the articles are still retained in
Category:Squats. So there is no reason to keep track of anything offwiki. Even if a country would reach e.g. 10 articles and you would not realize this it would not harm to still have them in
Category:Squats.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply, you misunderstood my point I think. I don't see the use in having
Category:Squats filled with over 200 squats (not 100!), which is what would happen if we emptied all the subcats into it. I'm currently building these categories so would need to keep track of which squat is in which country, having thought about it more I don't need to do it offwiki, I could do it in a table on WP:SQUAT, to me it still makes sense to use categories to do this. And breaking things down by country seems useful. Maybe you didn't see it, I asked you below if there was a policy guideline backing your suggestion to categorise 5 items or more .. to me 3 or more seems adequate, but I looked and couldn't find a guideline on that specific point.
Mujinga (
talk)
10:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge most, but purge -- The normal minimum is 5 articles per category. However none of the categories seems to have a main article; in some cases (e.g. Luxembourg) the article does not mention squatting. In others it may have been a short-lived event that is clearly a NN aspect of the building's history. The Pakistan item is about a whole town. In it and other third world countries there may be informal settlements, whose status is problematic: a landlord may well be collected ground rents, but the settlement may be without government authorisation. Possibly this is a case for merger by continent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment. For some reason referenced info was deleted from
Orangi Town, i've re-added it and the relevant bit is "The Orangi area was the largest squatter settlement in Karachi at the time". When it's an area that is squatted (and often informal settlements start off squatted) then I think it's better to use
Category:Squatting in X than
Category:Squats in X, so I've changed it. Is there a guideline on this five article per category thing? Someone else mentioned it being as well, but I still haven't found the guideline. And as explained already I'd rather have 3 members if there must be a minimum, I'll don't see the advantage of placing them all into
Category:Squats. ::* I'm not sure why you say none of these cats don't have an article, the hierarchy is
Category:Squatting in X with the subcat
Category:Squats for specific squats, so then the article would be Squatting in X. For the Pakistan cats I don't mind if they're deleted, I can recreate them if necessary when I make
Squatting in Pakistan. For the others well there are already
Squatting in X pages eg
Squatting in AustraliaSquatting in the Czech Republic,
Squatting in Norway, other are coming soon, it's a current project and the overall page is
Squatting. There's plenty of sources for informal settlements in the majority world being squatted, see for example
Squatting in ZimbabweMujinga (
talk)
17:03, 22 March 2021 (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:Squatting in Zimbabwe
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:selective merge for now as there are fewer than five articles for which squatting is
WP: DEFINING. No prejudice against re-creation when there are five or more. –
FayenaticLondon10:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Purge, meanwhile many articles have been added for which squatting is not a defining characteristic. If after purging the category is small again, support merge per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm interested which articles you mean to purge, as part of the ongoing process of filling out these newly created categories, I've added squatted informal settlements and
Operation Murambatsvina in which 700,000 squatters were evicted.
Mujinga (
talk)
10:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
So the deletion of squatting categories began with LaundryPizza03 doing a masspurge despite me asking them to stop and discuss. Fayenatic london has now broken the existing hierarchy by merging Squats in X into Squats despite nobody telling me why a three item category is not acceptable. Now we are discussing whether to merge a cat with seven items, I must say this is becoming bizarre. What's most irritating is that people aren't looking at the sources at all, that should be step number one, otherwise it's just opinions being spouted and there seems to be a general ignorance that of the fact many places in the majority world begin/swell as squatted informal settlements, which much more of a defining characteristic than being "about squatting".
Mujinga (
talk)
12:17, 12 April 2021 (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:Squatting in Sweden
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 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:Squatting in South Korea
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 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:Squatting in Ghana
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 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:Squatting in Peru
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 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:Squatting in Nigeria
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 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:Squatting in Malaysia
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 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:Squatting in Ireland
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 hierarchy as it stands is "Squats in X" for individual squats in an individual country, "Squatters" for people who squat, "Squatting in X" for things related to the phenomenon such groups, zones, laws, books etc etc
Mujinga (
talk)
11:04, 19 March 2021 (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:Squatting in Chile
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.
Keep per
WP:SMALLCAT: "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have 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". Squatting was not incidental to the event, which was the eviction of the squat. I've added
Anarchism in Chile and
Squatting in Chile will be added soon. There is a current drive to create "Squatting in X" pages and as part of the
WP:SQUAT hierarchy of categorisation we have the cat "Squatting in X" with "Squats in X" as a subcat. This makes sense for general navigation I think and asked the nom to pause the deletion proposals so I could explain this.
Mujinga (
talk)
14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks that's an interesting idea about 5, I would be ok with 3, but is there a policy guideline on this because I haven't seen it (sorry I wanted to centralize discussion above but I think this is really worth discussing and don't want it to get lost)
Mujinga (
talk)
10:58, 19 March 2021 (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:Geographical naming agencies in Australasia
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.
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough of these agencies to subcategorize by continent or region, so I suggest upmerging (to the category that I just created).
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - we generally use the term Oceania anyway - as the parent cats do. That has wider scope and would allow for the possibility of agencies in (e.g.) Fiji or Samoa. But there doesn't seem to be much need for distribution by continent yet anyway, so deletemerge per nom.
Grutness...wha?23:04, 17 March 2021 (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:Recipients of the House Order of Hohenzollern
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
House Order of Hohenzollern was general purpose award from Prussia and the reasons for issuing include being a member of the Hohenzollern, being a prominent teacher, and
George V for some reason. The overwhelming majority receiving it as soldiers in WWI either because they were prominent during that war like the
Red Baron or young soldiers who didn't become prominent until WWII like
Hermann Göring. Across all the types of recipients, the award is usually mentioned in passing and doesn't seem defining. I created a collapsible list right
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:08, 17 March 2021 (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:Recipients of the Empress of India Medal
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.
Queen Victoria was pronounced "Empress of India" in 1877 and the
Empress of India Medal was created as a one-time award as part of the celebration. According to that main article, "the medal was awarded in gold to Indian princes and senior officials, and in silver to selected British and Indian officers and civilians, as well as a selected soldier from each British and Indian regiment serving in India at the time". There wasn't a list so I created one right
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:08, 17 March 2021 (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.