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: Poorly named category. This was created as a completely uncategorized category, which categories are never allowed to be, but we do not have any "scenic spots" tree for this to be a part of -- and even if one were desirable, "Country's scenic spots" would absolutely not be its correct name.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah thanks for the clarification. I'd support a merge, but would want us to think through the category name so that it's clearer to people what it is.
Mason (
talk)
18:49, 11 October 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:Paul Malliavin
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 issue is that there are just 3 articles, two of which for things named after Malliavin rather than by him. Other guidelines often linked to discussions about eponymous categories are
WP:SHAREDNAME, according to which things named after someone don't necessarily belong in a category linked to them, and
WP:SMALLCAT, which calls into doubt if a category for 3 articles is useful at all, as it is primarily a navigation tool. The potential for expansion is small here, as it is unlikely that Malliavin (now dead) will produce many new lemmas.
Place Clichy (
talk)
10:22, 13 October 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:Zainichi Korean male professional wrestlers
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:Czech Marxist poets
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:Charter preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory
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: Non-
NPOV cross categorization: Russia is not the Soviet Union, and categorized subjects include emigrants from other Soviet and former Soviet countries. —MichaelZ.20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry if I messed up. @
Place Clichy, are you saying I didn’t check the parent category’s categories and add them to the removed category?
I wonder if Russian X and Russian-Empire X should be separate category trees. Not only were there 7 decades of separation, but like for the Soviet Union, residency in the Russian empire represented many nationalities, birth in one of many countries, not just Russian.
Indeed, when removing a category, its "gap" must be filled in the chain: if A => B => C and B is removed, then we must have A => C. The default behaviour when removing / deleting a category is to "up"-merge its content to all of its parent categories.
I don't think that Russia and the Russian Empire should be in completely "separate trees". After all, the latter was generally called Russia and its inhabitants Russians, both by its contemporaries and today. Sure there are differences, in political regime, border, population etc. but there is an undeniable heritage of one to the other. They are not separate countries. I disagree with the tendency, in terms of categorization, to treat subsequent political regimes in the same country as entirely different countries.
Place Clichy (
talk)
23:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The way you accept a very restricted meaning of “country,” and the vague way you use “heritage” as if that had some basis in our guidelines, denies the heritage of a number of other countries and thousands of article subjects from them. —MichaelZ.02:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wow, I am not sure of the direction is going. I don't think the heritage of any country is denied. I think that the very core of what we on Wikipedia should base itself upon is reliable sources, every time. There's plenty of content relative to e.g. Poland and Finland in the time of the Russian Empire and we, of course, should call such nations the way the sources call them. I believe that's already the case. And if by denies the heritage of a number of other countries you mean the 15 Republics that reached (or recovered) independence at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, you usual topic of focus, I believe that applying this expression retroactively to the Russian Empire denies a number of ethnic groups that have not reached post-Soviet independence such as the Cherkess or the Tatars. In a way, Russia was an empire then, and is also an empire now.
Place Clichy (
talk)
08:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The generalizations that everybody under the Russian empire is always called “Russian” today, and the implication that terminology about these nations hasn’t changed significantly since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are factually incorrect.
For those unfamiliar with the subject, for example, there has been an academic movement to decolonize Ukraine and other former Russian colonies since the 1950s and especially recently.
[8]
Galleries have relabelled the artists they exhibit and many “Russian” imperials have been recategorized by their country of birth and/or their nation, or country of significant activity. For example, the Met now doesn’t call Repin and Kuindzhi “Little Russian,” “Ruthenian,” or “Russian,” but classifies them as “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire,”
[9][10] and Aivazovsky “Armenian, born Russian Empire [now Ukraine],”
[11] and the authoritative Getty Research ULAN has categorized many from the Russian empire (and Soviet Union) by their nationality,
[12] where “"nationality" is shorthand for nationality/ethnicity/culture/religion/sexual orientation,”
[13] and “to reflect changes in scholarship or usage of names and biographical information.”
[14]
I didn’t say anything about 15 states formerly ruled under the Soviet Union.
I am saying we should follow current reliable sources sources and be aware of changes in recent centuries, decades, years, and months. I hope they respect the identification of people from Cherkess and Tatar nations too, and welcome your findings on their treatment in good sources. —MichaelZ.15:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I have mixed feelings about the russian empire category, german empire category, as most articles don't describe people as being from the "russian empire" or "german empire". They tend to define them as Russian, German, or in the case of people within the empire, Ukrainian, who happens to be living in the empire, such as “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire" . If presented with “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire", I'd want to call them Ukrainian, as that seems to me to be the more defining nationality identity (even if it isn't a nationality with a distinct political entity).
Mason (
talk)
19:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a bit of an issue if the person in question didn't even call themselves Ukrainian but happened to be born or lived in what is now Ukraine. (
t ·
c) buidhe01:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Self-identification was subject to colonial pressure. We should follow up-to-date, reliable sources on what to call people, especially colonized people, and not appeal to such arguments to keep presenting historical Ukrainians as Russians. —MichaelZ.15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Ukraine has been a country before the Russian empire existed, since at least about 1648 depending on how you look at it, and still a country later while large parts of it were colonized by Muscovy and then the Russian empire. It is common for reliable sources to refer to people there as Ukrainian or born in Ukraine, and not resort to hackneyed formulations that few sources use (my least favourite is “in what is now Ukraine,” as if it was invented from whole cloth in 1991). —MichaelZ.15:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
To clarify the previous debates, these categories must be upmerged and split, and also maybe purged, but not deleted as that would leave orphans.
Place Clichy (
talk)
01:00, 26 October 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:English navy 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 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:Military personnel of the Kingdom of England
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.
Comment these would be the pre-Union military, pre-1707, for which
Category:Military history of England shows subcategorization, so can be slotted into there by making it a container of the by-century personnel categories found in the by-century categories.
Act of Union 1707 created the United Kingdom, superceding the Kingdom of England, so this is a different country from the United Kingdom --
67.70.25.175 (
talk)
13:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd be ok with a container category. My concern is that these categories have huge overlap with the more specific Xth-century English people
Mason (
talk)
19:54, 20 September 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:Places in the deuterocanonical books
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 With four different proposals being made and nobody agreeing with anybody else there is clearly no consensus here. Any purging can follow the standard bold-revert-discuss cycle.
* Pppery *it has begun...23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Many of these places are already in the OT/Bible (the parent cats). per Overlapcat, etc. Listify, if wanted, to explain the appearances and how they may be the same or different from the appearances in the OT or the Bible, in general. - jc3711:14, 13 October 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:Odd-toed ungulates
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: Consistency with a rename for the other category to "artiodactyls," and the name is a misnomer since tapirs have four toes on their front legs.
PrimalMustelid (
talk)
18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've tagged the categories in both this and the below nomination. Courtesy ping to the creator of both of the , @
Pcb21. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk20:00, 19 October 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:Even-toed ungulates
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: Consistency with the Artiodactyls page itself since the rename, "even-toed ungulate" is a misnomer or non-taxonomic paraphyletic group. Artiodactyls works also as a compromise between "Artiodactyla" and "Cetartiodactyla." Same reasoning applies to categories like "Eocene even-toed ungulates."
PrimalMustelid (
talk)
18:11, 11 October 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:Galician toponymic surnames
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.
Support in principle. I think either of the targets is a good solution. I'm inclined to merge both the surname target categories together.
Mason (
talk)
19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of museums in insular areas of the United States
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.
I'm inclined to a double merge to the broader category of Germany, as I don't think the nature of the regime is defining for expatriates. (Obviously there are exceptions like Nazis, Soviets etc). But I don't feel very strongly about it.
Mason (
talk)
19:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
single merge per Marco. Prussia is not a particular "regime" or government of Germany, it was an independent state. (
t ·
c) buidhe02:07, 12 October 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:Phantom islands of the Atlantic
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.
Following up here, I think the original nomination is too long. Purportedly is implied by the definition of
Phantom islands. In my opinion, there are two options:
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:British scholars
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: Overlapping category that is pretty small category. Honestly, I'm inclined to nominate the entire tree, because I really struggle to make a consistent distinction beyond that scholars don't need to have academic afflation/credentials (which more reflects the era or subject matter of the scholar). I envision that the final category would look like
Category:Irish scholars and academics, whose category description notes "In Ireland, scholars refer both to pre-modern scholars and modern academics". See
this discussion that I dug up from 2009.
Mason (
talk)
11:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Academics is a subset of scholars, so having "academics" in the name at top level is not necessary per se. But keeping academics as a subset seems generally fine.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose - So, I'm looking at
Category:Scholars and academics. Which I think makes a good container cat for all the different knowledge/study-related occupations. But I don't think we should merge the subcats to match this container. For one thing,
Scientists are not necessarily a
scholaror an
academic. We're dealing with some subjectively applied terms here, and could very well be creeping towards
WP:OR when applying these to a person. I mean, I could also probably argue that many of these could be merged to
Category:Researchers, or how about to
Category:Theorists? There's Overlapcat going on all over these trees, but due to
WP:PRECISION, and really, to avoid miscategorising people (per
WP:BLP), I don't think merging is the way to go. I think for acuracy, these all should stay separate. All that said, I would welcome ideas and discussion on this. - jc3711:14, 13 October 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: down merge (or perhaps reverse and upmerge?) Overcategorization, as there's only one fort in the categories
Mason (
talk)
15:38, 19 October 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:World Heritage Tentative List for Senegal
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:Hutaib
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:Ridges of Jebel Hafeet
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:Aconcagua
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.
This should be speedy merged (C2F: One eponymous page). Also if deleted, it would at present orphan the page. (I've now added back the relevant categories
[16])
Mason (
talk)
14:27, 19 October 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:Bridgeport Bluefish guest managers
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: This is a frivolous category of no real significance. It only really serves to clog up the category section of it's host articles. The host article do not mention "Bridgeport Bluefish" as significant to their careers nor is their guest managing verified by sources.
CeltBrowne (
talk)
11:13, 19 October 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:Template sandboxes
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: The name of this category is misleading as it also contains Lua modules, which are not templates. I am proposing to move the Module namespace pages into their own category. Eyesnoretalk💬00:00, 19 October 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.