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.
Template:Architecture-firm-stub
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: Template of unclear necessity. It just sorts pages it's used on directly into
Category:Architect stubs rather than a dedicated "Architecture firm stubs" subcategory -- but {{architect-stub}} itself says it's for "an architect or architectural firm", and many (although not all) of the country-specific "Country-architect-stub" templates also contain "architect or firm of architects" language (and even the ones that don't could easily be made to), meaning that this is very little-used because very nearly all potential uses are already in one of the subcategories anyway, and thus adding this template alongside one of those adds nothing but unnecesary parent-and-child duplicate categorization. If there's consensus that there's actual value in making stub categories separate architecture firms from individual architects more effectively than they do right now, then I'm certainly willing to withdraw this -- but if nobody is willing to actually undertake a project of creating a separate
Category:Architecture firm stubs subcategory and going through all the existing architect stub categories to add all the firms to that, then there's no real point in keeping this if the country-architect-stub templates already say they're covering both sides of that coin as it is.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:38, 15 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:Enslaved workers at the University of Virginia
Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of slavery in 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.
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:Buildings damaged by the 2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake
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:Christian abolitionists
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:containerize, as such it is not a defining intersection since maybe 99% of notable abolitionists were Christians, but it can stay as a container category, holding the Quakers subcategory in particular.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, especially if you nominate Baptist abolitionists, Congregationalist abolitionists, Methodist abolitionists, and Presbyterian abolitionists for deletion as well.--
User:Namiba17:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Only keeping the Quaker subcategory is quite a bit different than the current nomination, but I am not opposed to it per se. Let's see what other editors think.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:48, 15 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:Cemeteries in Brighton, Boston
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:Neighbourhoods in Tambaram
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 deletion:The creation of Municipal Corporation is only for administrative purpose and doesn't make Tambaram or Avadi separate cities or "satellite cities". They're still neighbourhoods of Chennai. Only Thirumazhisai, Chengalpattu, Minjur, Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur, and Madambakkam are proposed to be made "satellite cities" of Chennai (
[1][2]).
Rasnaboy (
talk)
16:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)reply
(1) This Act may be called the Tambaram City Municipal Corporation Act, 2022.
(2) It extends to the city of Tambaram.
(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 3rd day of November 2021.
Please note that the "It extends to the city of Tambaram." is used in the same way Central Acts use, "It extends to the whole of India" and State Acts use, "It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu."
Additionally, I think the Category would also be useful in identifying and correcting pages with outdated or erroneous information. There are many Wikipedia Articles on neighbourhoods and localities, which inaccurately states they are part of Chennai. The Category could help editors fix those pages as well.
Oppose for now, the subjects of the articles are described as neighbourhoods of Tambaran. If that is wrong a discussion about it should take place in article space.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:43, 23 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:1990s Soviet and Russian fighter aircraft
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:1920s Soviet and Russian fighter aircraft
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.
Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Yugoslavia
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:Russian and Soviet emigrants to 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:Soviet and Russian military aircraft
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: Russia is not the Soviet Union. Military aircraft are defined as originating in one or the other. Soviet military aircraft were also designed and built in Ukraine, so this category and many of its children elevate Russia to a privileged status while denigrating Ukraine as beneath inclusion. —MichaelZ.03:03, 15 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.
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 It's not clear what the distinction between renaming and splitting is; at the time of close the category only contains "YYYY Soviet patrol aircraft" categories so there's nothing to split. This discussion does not bar the creation of
Category:Russian patrol aircraft if content to populate it is found.
* Pppery *it has begun...01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This is also new to me, but aircraft are categorised according to country of origin + "decade of first flight". So it doesn't matter which aircraft still fly 1 or 12 decades later, nor if it flies in the country of origin or in Liechtenstein, because those data are considered
WP:NONDEFINING. So
Ilyushin Il-114 (first flight: 29 March 1990, so over 1.5 years before the Soviet Union ended and the Russian Federation began) is "Soviet", not "Russian".
It may be that the border guards version of a civilian utility aircraft may be considered a patrol aircraft, but that cannot be
WP:DEFINING for the whole series, can it? So it's not currently categorised as such either. If that version gets its own standalone article, I would agree with you.
NLeeuw (
talk)
06:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
When there’s an article about the
Il-114MP, or whatever version originated in Russia, it should be categorized as such. But that a Russian variant exists is not a defining characteristic of the Il-114. —MichaelZ.19:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
They are categorised as: "Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer". So it doesn't matter when and where a particular type of aircraft is still "in use" later.
NLeeuw (
talk)
06:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename. a) Country of origin is a defining attribute, countries of employment is not, for good reason. For example, the
Douglas DC-3 has been used in at least a score of sovereign states, but adding those 20 categories would not be helpful to readers, and obscure the defining fact that it’s a US plane. b) Russia is not the Soviet Union but one of twelve successor states. There were Soviet aircraft that were designed in and continue to be manufactured in Ukraine. However stupid a category like
Category:Soviet and Russian and Ukrainian military cargo aircraft would be, this one is worse because it reflects a colonial POV, elevating the Russian Federation to special status while discounting Ukraine as insignificant. —MichaelZ.02:48, 15 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:Celtic legendary creatures
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: Follow-up to
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 26#Category:Indo-European legendary creatures. Some of the items in this tree may genuinely be properly associated with
Celtic mythology, such as the
Aos Sí. But most are not specifically "Celtic", or a blend of various cultural traditions in the British Isles, Scandinavia, mainland Europe or other parts of the the world. For instance,
Wild man,
White Lady,
Black dog (folklore), are all hardly exclusively "Celtic". The
Loch Ness Monster has nothing to do with "Celtic" mythology at all; its first purported sightings date from the 1870s and the only thing "Celtic" about it is the fact that the word "
loch" is
Scottish Gaelic. It's just one of many modern
Category:Cryptids that has no demonstrable roots in ancient Celtic mythology (pre-500 CE).
This is why I am suggesting a manual merge. This split needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. I've given a few examples, not an exhaustive list. I'm not denying that the Loch Ness Monster is European. I just don't see how it's "Celtic".
NLeeuw (
talk)
20:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)reply
As I said, it depends on the reference. And it's not necessarily the name. Just because you or I mighty see a similarity between dragon, wyvern, wyrm, and drake, does not mean that they are the same creature in various folklore. And indeed, some scholars differ in opinion on this. But you are doing a grave disservice to our readers if you group legends by continent, when the legends themselves are not by continent at all. Legends are regional. And so while certain concepts may move around and travel with people - like the concept of a sky-god - that does not necessarily mean that the sky-god of scandinavia is the same as the sky-god of greece or is the same as the sky-god of the gaels or celts. To make that determination without sources with be synth. In everything, we need to lean on the sources (which, I know, can be challenging at times when they may not have been added yet : ) - jc3712:29, 29 August 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.
Objects in museum collections
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.
It's per
WP:STRONGNAT, yes, given that the parent category has Artifacts not Artefacts, and I previously applied a similar rationale for
Category:Jewelry in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where a sibling category has Arms and armor and not Arms and armour. Merriam-webster.com gives "armour", "artefact" and "jewellery" as "chiefly British" spellings. As "chiefly" doesn't mean "exclusively", I don't know whether there's a
WP:COMMONALITY case to be made for those spellings in category names, but I've chosen to follow the precedent set by other categories for objects in those same American museums.
Ham II (
talk)
10:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This nom is about applying the style "Foo in the Bar Museum" as standard, so I've largely avoided rethinking the "Foo" part of these categories. The scope of the first Smithsonian category is troublesome, because how is it any different from that of its parent category
Category:Collection of the Smithsonian Institution? I would support upmerging the "Artifacts" cat into its parent for the "Collection". We can't and shouldn't do the same thing for the works lent to the National Museum of Women in the Arts, so I would support deleting that one.
Ham II (
talk)
08:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Standardization for standardization's sake often leads to trouble. Do we have other "Artifacts in the Foo Museum" cats? If so, we almost certainly shouldn't. Support upmerging that one.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:36, 31 August 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:Recipients of the Medal "For Strengthening of Brotherhood in Arms" (Ministry of Defence of the Russia)
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: "Ministry of Defence of the Russia" isn't proper grammar. I'm not sure what the actual award is supposed to be called in English, so this might not be the totally correct destination, but the current title is definitely not where it should stay.
HappyWith (
talk)
19:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This medal is not awarded by the Russian Federation but awarded by the Russian Ministry of Defense. However, I'm in favor of revising the 'title' if it needs to be revised.
Blinashin (
talk)
01:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. I went through the first 10 articles and 9 didn't so much as mention this award, so it's not treated as defining. (The 10th was
Viktor An who mentions it in passing and still doesn't seem defined by it.) No objection to listification or renaming this category if kept. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This medal has a name space. Two medals are the same medal. I don't understand how a group of over 200 people can be referred to as small.
Blinashin (
talk)
02:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American people of Québécois 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.
Calling French-Canadian emigrants and their descendants Québécois is an anachronism. Québécois identity is a relatively recent development and only really began with the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s.--
User:Namiba15:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Because, if we are to be attuned to history, the sources do not describe emigrants from Quebec to the United States as Quebecois. They are overwhelmingly described and self-identify as French-Canadian.--
User:Namiba17:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support: I have come around on this in the past two weeks. In the end, the root category,
Category:People of Québécois descent, and all its subcategories combined, contains only 36 people.
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.