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.
Marcocapelle has a good point. This isn't really / just about Maduro. There are also some pro-government / pro-Maduro protests (although not nearly as many). Defer, I want to wait if anyone wants to revert the undiscussed move before I decide what to !vote here.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
05:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The move has not been disputed since it was done on 4 November 2022, and the title was proposed even earlier in 2019, without any feedback, so this really seems like a uncontroversial move. I have mentioned Maduro in both the first paragraph and in the infobox now, but if anyone finds the move objectionable I don't mind that there is a wider discussion on the matter. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
12:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Trans men
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.
Works by writer nationality
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus on whether the possessive was necessary. The additional discussion about whether nationality is defining could better and more thoroughly discussed in a separate nomination, but insofar as it was discussed in this discussion, there was no consensus.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk17:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming
Category:Poems by writer's nationality. It was renamed thus at cfd. A longer version would be 'Poems by the nationality of the writer' which seems to me to shorten to 'Poems by writer's nationality'. 'by writer nationality' is not grammatical at all.
Oculi (
talk)
14:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid your vote might be misinterpreted if read literally -- you seem to be opposing the counter-proposal, thus supporting the original proposal, no?
fgnievinski (
talk)
20:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying the adding the 's is bad grammar (if rephrased), just that it isn't appropriate for our usage in this case, because it would create issues. - jc3717:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak support for the original proposal, "... by writer's nationality". It's not an uncommon expression and it also doesn't seem to require "the", e.g., "... provides details of a writer’s nationality" in a dictionary by Oxford University Press
[1].
fgnievinski (
talk)`
"A" is not a definite article, it's an
indefinite article. In either case, they are not mandatory. For example, "writer's nationality" would be fine at the beginning of a sentence. And in
headlinese, as often adopted in category titles, it's not uncommon for minor words to be dropped (typically articles, short prepositions, and some conjunctions).
About the possessive or not, I've consulted ChatGPT
[2]:
In terms of English grammar, the expression "writer's nationality" is preferable to "writer nationality." Here's why: In English, when we want to indicate possession or association, we typically use the possessive form by adding an apostrophe and an "s" ('s) to the noun. This construction is called the "genitive case" or "possessive case." It helps clarify the relationship between two nouns. In the case of "writer's nationality," the noun "writer" is being used to indicate possession or association with the noun "nationality." By using the possessive form, we show that the nationality belongs to or is associated with the writer. The apostrophe-s ('s) indicates the possessive relationship. On the other hand, "writer nationality" does not convey the possessive relationship. Instead, it presents "writer" and "nationality" as separate nouns without any indication of ownership or association between them. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference: Correct: The writer's nationality is British. (The possessive form clarifies that the nationality belongs to the writer.) Incorrect: The writer nationality is British. Correct: I'm interested in knowing the writer's nationality. (The possessive form indicates that we want to know the nationality associated with the writer.) Incorrect: I'm interested in knowing the writer nationality. Therefore, when discussing the nationality of a writer or any other possessive relationship, it is more grammatically accurate to use the possessive form "writer's nationality."
Anyway, you're correct, "a" is an indefinite article. I phrased that poorly. Though that's pretty much immaterial here, as I note below.
As for the rest, category titles double as the inclusion criteria of a category. So when we categorise, we're talking about a topic. So "writer nationality" is the topic, not 2 unrelated words. So no, you're incorrect about usage in this case, because we are not writing a sentence about a particular writer's nationality. - jc3703:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)reply
We're not discussing article content, so I'm not sure WP:RS applies. I've brought usage examples and guidance from a popular tool. It'd be nice to have any external source supporting your interpretation. Anyways, I've weakened my vote in deference to your vehemence. Kind of reverse appeal to authority, as I assume you have special training in the subject.
fgnievinski (
talk)
20:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Question At the risk of making a complex discussion even more complex: how is the nationality of the writer of a work
WP:DEFINING? Who cares if a book about, say, civil engineering has been written by an Austrian, a Liechtensteinian, a Swiss, a German, a Luxembourgian, or an eastern Belgian writer, or an expat/migrant living in - I don't know - Canada, if the text of the book is written in German? Why should the reader care about the author's nationality? Books can and are published around the world and even online nowadays. I think a basic understanding of the German language and civil engineering are what actually matters if you want to read the book. (And even language might not be a barrier if the book has been translated and published in a language you do understand). I'm getting the impression this whole category tree may be
WP:NONDEFINING. But maybe I'm wrong? Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
05:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Somewhere (I forgot where) there is an instruction that we may diffuse by e.g. nationality, irrespective of definingness, if otherwise it would lead to exceptionally large categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Except in this case (as I note below) there's no need for this entire tree at all - it should probably be uprooted... - jc3705:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Also good points. When I read the opening lines of
Italian opera, I see Italian opera is both the art of opera in Italy and opera in the Italian language.Category:Italian-language operas (language-based) might thus be even more accurate and specific than
Category:Italian music (country-based). If some opera performance group in, say, the Swiss region of
Ticino, would like to write and perform a new opera piece in the Italian language, I think - depending on several characteristics - we would still call it "Italian opera". It's not like Italy as a country or Italians as a nationality have a monopoly on writing or performing an Italian(-language) opera. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if we changed
Category:Opera by country to
Category:Opera in Italy more specifically, as Italy is where this style/genre of opera originated and is apparently the dominant form of opera in that country (not surprising).
PS: Nationality is evidently relevant for biographies of creators, writers etc. but I don't see how it is relevant for the works of those creators. Is a civil engineering book written in German, translated to English, published in EPUB format by some publishing house in the UK (say,
Palgrave Macmillan), distributed online by U.S. corporation Amazon and bought by me from my home in the Netherlands, "Liechtensteinian" just because the author, who might be living in Zürich since her teens when she began studying at
ETH Zurich, has Liechtensteinian nationality due to being born in
Schaan? I really don't see the point in categorising the book as such. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think the two chains need to be connected.
Category:Works by Foo Bar would be under
Category:Works by creator. Which is my point, there's no need to intersect "works by creator" with "creators by nationality". So I'm saying that we uproot the triple intersection of "works by creator by nationality". - jc3707:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Strong oppose to the later suggestion of deleting these categories. The nationality of a work's author is treated as defining in many contexts; for instance, consider the WP articles on
Italian opera,
Chinese art,
Russian literature, or
Japanese poetry. The defining trait of all of these topics is that they concern works by people associated with a specific country, and RSes cited on these articles, likewise, treat them as such. In addition, Wikipedia typically mentions the nationality of a work in the first sentence of an article for a creative work, fulfilling the requirement for
WP:DEFINING. Here are some examples: the To Kill a Mockingbird article begins, "To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel by the American author Harper Lee"; Ulysses begins, "Ulysses is a modernist novel by Irish writer James Joyce"; The Three-Body Problem begins, "The Three-Body Problem ... is a science fiction novel written by the Chinese writer Liu Cixin"; Revolver begins, "Revolver is the seventh studio album by the English rock band the Beatles"; Mona Lisa begins, "Mona Lisa ... is a half-length portrait painting by Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci"; Carmen begins, "Carmen ... is an opera in four acts by the French composer Georges Bizet". There are literally thousands of articles that begin like this, defining the work in the first sentence as the product of an author of a given nationality. The work-by-artist-nationality categories thus reflect standard Wikipedia practice for articles about creative works. There is also another practical consideration here, which is that the artist nationality categories allow works by artists without their own categories (or even their own articles) to be easily sorted, without having to make dedicated "works by [name of artist]" micro-categories for all of them. Either of these reasons would be enough to keep the categories on their own; together, they reflect both established Wikipedia practice and serve a useful navigational function, making them essential for articles about creative works.
Phediuk (
talk)
16:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 no scheme for redirects for songs from specific television series. I'm not sure the redirects need to be categorized or even need to exist at all, but for the discussion I'm suggesting an upmerge to its parents. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:History of the Pakistan Super League
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:Patreon creators
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: Patreon is a platform used by nearly current every content creator, thus making this a non-defining characteristic.
User:Namiba13:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Vietnamese posthumous empresses
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: Redundant layer. I was able to populate its only child
Category:Nguyễn dynasty posthumous empresses though. I checked
zh:Category:阮朝追封皇后 with a lot of autotranslate and checking linked enwiki articles. Not all of the latter could confirm the women in question had been posthumously granted the title of "empress", so I didn't simply copy whatever zhwiki (or viwiki) said. I can't find posthumous empresses from other Vietnamese dynasties with enwiki entries for now.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Maybe that subcategory should be merged too, as a very narrow intersection, but that is not what this nomination is about.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Đinh dynasty empresses
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.
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.
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. Users agree that there is a need for some other countries, such as Mexico, to have a similar holding category for both national and sub-national symbols.
(non-admin closure) –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep and build category tree - there should be a category tree for symbols by country. And a category for symbols for a country as a whole. Build that category tree to fix the problems pointed out by Nederlandse Leeuw with the current category tree. Symbols are not restricted to countries and subnational divisions. There are other symbols found in countries that represent other groupings as well. --
67.70.25.80 (
talk)
15:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ethnography of Canada
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:Indo-European archaeological artifacts
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:Armorials of the Netherlands
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Question An
armorial or
roll of arms is like a book full of coats of arms, right? (Dutch wapenboek, German Wappenbuch etc.). There is an odd mismatch between those two articles and the
Category:Armorials category tree. The catinfo says:
This category is for Wikipedia articles and subcategories that contain galleries of
coats of arms. For historical, notable printed or handwritten works of similar nature, see
Category:Rolls of arms.
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:Fictional zebras
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.
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: Head of government and head of state have no uniform interpretation or usage across the world regarding their top officials. Articles often have both categories. In some countries for example, the president is head of state and government (
President of the United States), while in others, the president is head of state but not head of government (
President of Israel). In the page
List of current heads of state and government this situation is well illustrated.
In addition, in monarchy systems of government, the monarch could be head of state but not of government as is currently the case in most monarchies, but historically, monarchs could be head of state and government. Also, relevant subcategories could be more accurately placed in the parent category. For example,
Category:Murdered monarchs, some of which have the issues mentioned above. One drawback I can think of is that some editors might be looking specifically for heads of state, for instance, and not heads of government. Thinker78(talk)04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose, they are very different offices in many countries. The comment about monarchs is not relevant because monarchs have their own category tree anyway. This is mainly about the distinction between presidents and prime ministers.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Western Connecticut Wolves
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.