Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 29

< January 28 January 30 >

January 29

Emigrants from former countries

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 these, but no consensus to consider this an overall precedent. No prejudice against a broader/group nom at editorial discretion. - jc37 01:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "From" is more applicable than "of" in the case of emigrants. This nomination will achieve consistency with others where there is not a single-word demonym, namely Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire‎ and its sub-cats (just renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_3#Russian_Empire_people), & Category:Emigrants from Nazi Germany and its sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 22:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. What's wrong with the "FOO emigrants" and "FOO emigrants to BAR" form? That's the overwhelming format used for nationalities (using FOO instead of FOOian when we don't want to use the FOOian form). I'm not clear on why former countries/nationalities need to be different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Category:Emigrants from Nazi Germany needs to use "from", as "Nazi German emigrants" would be misleading, and "Nazi Germany emigrants" sounds wrong. But perhaps that's the only one. In that case it's the Russian Empire ones that don't fit the pattern; I could rename them simply as a revision to the former CFD close. The Ottoman one should then probably simply be Ottoman emigrants, like its subcats. I'd still want to rename the first (top) category as nominated. Shall I withdraw this and start again? – Fayenatic London 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Emigrants of the Ottoman Empire aligns with Category:People of the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman people is ambiguous, it might well imply people of the Ottoman dynasty only. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know why it wouldn't be "Ottoman Empire people" then. This would match the format for nationality categories. Perhaps this ship has sailed; I just don't understand why we would develop a new format for former countries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ottoman Empire people (and subsequently Ottoman Empire emigrants) would probably be fine, the issue is in Ottoman people. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support principle but not detail: "from" adds to clarity for Ottoman Empire. However the common name of Holy Roman Empire was Germany, so that it should be emigrants from Germany before 1805 (or is it 1867). "REpublic of" is redundant for Venice, though it may need an end date (in 1790s). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Holy Roman Empire was disestablished in 1806. I do not agree with renaming to German though, because the HRE also contained half of Italy, Austria, the Southern Netherlands and Bohemia. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but oppose ther pernicious idea to destroy the Holy Roman Empire category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Editors with serious concerns about other details are free to start follow-up cfds. Oculi (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Much clearer. MClay1 (talk) 09:08, 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.

Schools in Sri Lanka

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Vidyaloka College
  • Propose deleting Category:Manipay Hindu College
  • Propose deleting Category:Wesley College, Colombo
  • Propose deleting Category:D. S. Senanayake College
  • Propose deleting Category:Union College, Tellippalai
  • Propose deleting Category:R. K. M. Sri Koneswara Hindu College
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only an eponymous article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not all the articles and sub-cats were linked, but I have added links where needed, so the nominated categories are no longer needed for navigation. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:43, 2 February 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.

Heritage registers in Sint Maarten

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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Heritage registers in Sint Maarten to Category:Designated Monuments in Sint Maarten
  • Propose deleting Category:Historic sites in Sint Maarten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Landmarks in Sint Maarten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Tourist attractions in Sint Maarten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: there is only one heritage register in Sint Maarten with content on Wikipedia, and it does not seem appropriate to have 2 different categories about it. All other categories are empty parents with no other content, forming a long string of unnecessary categories. Place Clichy (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is adding category layers with no navigational benefit. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Category:Heritage registers in Sint Maarten, whose name is that of the sole register. This could appropriately be placed in the parents of the other trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:44, 2 February 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.

Kidnapped Roman children

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I have put the two articles in Category:Kidnapped children and Category:Roman victims of crime. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Kidnapped Roman children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Roman children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't see the use for these categories. The first contains only two people, one of whom didn't die as a child (he may have been kidnapped while as a child), and there is simply very little information on the other. As for the other category, not only is it basically empty (but for the equally questionable subcategory of kidnapped children), but 'children' could technically encompass every single person that has ever existed, and, in any event, very few children will meet notability standards. I suggest the two "children" contained in these categories be moved to Category:Kidnapped Roman people, seeing that it's otherwise empty too. Avilich (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It does not matter at which age they died, but their status as victims during their childhood. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT to Category:Roman victims of crime (one layer higher than nominated) and to Category:Kidnapped children. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I assume it is Category:Kidnapped Roman people you want to merge upward? Avilich (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would still contain only 2 articles, that is why I am proposing a further upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: in Roman times, where slavery was ubiquitous, it is not unheard of to have children captured and offered or sold as slaves. Bissula and Musa of Parthia are examples. Would this be considered for potential for this category, or is it too anachronistic to establish a parallel between these situations? Place Clichy (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bissula (a German, not a Roman) seems just like a normal spoil of war, whereas Musa of Parthia is not said in her article to have been kidnapped specifically. I don't think either fits into this particular category. I'm fine with either deleting the two nominated categories or upmerging them with Category:Kidnapped Roman people. Avilich (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote they were examples. I'm interested to know if according to you this situation (of children captured at a young age and sold into slavery) meets the category definition. Also Bissula, by her slavery and subsequent release, was indeed a Roman. We don't, and probably shouldn't, have Category:Kidnapped Alaman children, although as do have Category:Kidnapped German children. Place Clichy (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be demonstrated that they were Romans and children at the time of their kidnapping, then it fits the definition. I just don't think childhood alone is a particularly good qualifier (the kidnapping is what really matters here), especially in this case, since we just have very few, if any, examples to work with. Avilich (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Antonia was aunt of Mark Antony when he was a proconsul, so a kidnapped person (but not child). The other person was a kidnapped child, but only in the sense he was taken somewhere against his will to see his father's body: no reference to ransom. Man-stealing (e.g. for enslavement) did occur, but this is not what the category is about. The one article should have a substitute category and be deleted. Its Deletion will leave Roman Children empty so it can also be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 'proconsul' in question was Marcus Antonius (orator), Antony's grandfather. So she was probably a child. Avilich (talk) 19:14, 30 January 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:Mayors of former municipalities in 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Mayors of former municipalities in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Aldermen of former municipalities in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Municipal councillors of former municipalities in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic categories, while these people were mayor etc of that municipality, the municipality was not a former municipality yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the were city officials, there was a city to be an official of. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for info, in most cases it concerns villages or small towns that were later incorporated in larger rural municipalities (so not exactly cities). But in principle you are right of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually disperse content, and delete when empty -- The practice for alumni categories is that an alumnus of a merged institution is deemed to have attended the successor, though this does produce slightly bizarre results: in one case I saw, a person had apparently attended a college long before it existed, because he was a student at a preceding hall. This concerns village mayors, etc of places absorbed into another place. He should accordingly be categorised as if mayor of the successor. This scope can be expressed in a head note. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorised as if mayor of the successor would be entirely wrong in this case. It is not a matter of attendence but of heading. The mayor of one village never headed the neighbouring villages that were later merged into a new municipality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:46, 2 February 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:Urdu journalists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge the Pakistani and Indian category, no need to split journalists by country and language, especially since both are not very well populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- These are the same thing. Urdu is a language, not an ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge language category, not an ethnic one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is no actuall difference. Urdu is only a language, not an ethnic or national designation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge language category, not an ethnic one. --Just N. (talk) 21:47, 2 February 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:Country subdivisions by administrative level

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Sixth-level administrative country subdivisions; no consensus to delete the rest. As long as they are being kept, rename those remaining to Category:Administrative divisions by level and country, Category:First-level administrative divisions by country, Category:Second-level administrative divisions by country, Category:Third-level administrative divisions by country, Category:Fourth-level administrative divisions by country, and Category:Fifth-level administrative divisions by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Third-level administrative country subdivisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Fourth-level administrative country subdivisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Fifth-level administrative country subdivisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Sixth-level administrative country subdivisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No need for this amount of navigational detail, as "levels" don't really translate well from country to country, or province to state to territory. Many false equivalencies.
Each level has long head notes about how to categorize, but they have not been followed rigorously (or at all). By the 5th and 6th levels, they are mostly France, yet communities and communes are equivalent to other "levels" in other countries.
As with continents, most are duplicated in both the level and the subcategories of the level, as well as the "by country" tree under this same parent. WP:OC category clutter.
WP:CSD#G5 Creation of banned User:TurkChan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st-5th, support 6th, the latter only contains French content hence it does not aid navigation. In general I can't see what is wrong with these categories, they share a common and defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in the nomination, arbitrary numbering isn't a useful navigation. The top "level" of Micronesia is not the equivalent of the top "level" of Russia or China or the US. Of courrse, both the US and Canada have wrong levels. The "first level" administrative division in the US is commonly the "County".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top level of Micronesia is equivalent to the top level of Russia or China or the US. There is just a quantitative difference (they are obviously smaller), not a fundamental difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh hell no! Only their relationship to the word "1st" or "2nd" or "3rd" is the same. It is not merely size, they do not have the equivalent government structure, elected officers, policing, or geography. Wikipedia is NOT not an INDISCRIMINATE collection of random data.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The US and Canada do not have wrong levels per se, the category structure apparently assumes that political divisions and administrative divisions are overlapping, which is worth a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because these are not named consistently, and in some cases we are rough translations, it's difficult to know what comes where: In Peru, districts are third order; in Portugal, districts are first order; in Turkey districts are second order - not all "districts" are created equal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is my point. If they'd been developed bottom up, where a village or township is approximately the same, it would make some sense. This is top down, so scattershot.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Carlos on the naming issue. Turning it around: in Spain they are called Regions, in Germany they are called States, but despite the different names they have the same functionality of first level country divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • restructure -- As I understand it in France the basic structure is department and commune, the department being a portion of an ancien regime province and a regional strucutre may have been imposed in modern times. In England, we have counties, districts and parishes, but in some parts there are unitrary authorities which cover county and district. I would support renaming than restructuring. The difficulty is with the counting of levels. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st-5th, support 6th. As we are in the process of renaming country subdivisions categories to administrative division, I would suggest a renaming to Category:Administrative divisions by level and country, Category:First-level administrative divisions by country etc. It is clearly defining for these visions to be 1st-, 2nd- or 3rd-level, both in federal and unitary countries. These categories have proved useful for navigation of comparable entities with very different names, and a number of categories organized by (first)-level administrative division should also be kept. Numbering for the 4th level and below is probably a matter of opinion or OR though. About France, as a Frenchman, the administrative levels are (at least since 1982): 1. Regions 2. Departments 3. Arrondissements 4. Cantons and 5. Communes. Other administrative structures (such as metropoles and communes groupings) have been created but they are intermediate levels with some administrative powers transferred or delegated from the other levels, not levels in their own right. Also, arrondissements and cantons have pretty much lost all administrative powers, cantons being an electoral constituency only, so that some would not list them as administrative level in their own right. Place Clichy (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Place Clichy's rename proposal as well, for consistency with earlier discussions. This is my second vote, though the votes refer to two different proposals. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 8 February 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:Country subdivisions by continent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions in Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions in Oceania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Country subdivisions in South America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Continents are divided by countries (political divisions), not by lower level municipalities and neighborhoods (administrative divisions).
Most are duplicated in the continent category itself, and also a subcategory per country per continent, and again in the "by country" tree under this same parent. WP:OC category clutter.
WP:CSD#G5 Creation of banned User:TrueColour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi. Possibly an effort to make it difficult to rename or reorganize.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, the content belongs (and is) in country categories rather than continent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is perfectly standard to group country categories by continent, regardless of the contents of the categories. The rationale is true but irrelevant. (I would support Category:Country subdivisions in Africa (etc) being converted into a container category, as the top level articles are all contained in subcats.) Oculi (talk)
  • Keep -- I see no problem as long as these are limited to general articles on types of division by country. In the case of Europe they are arranged so that those for each country appear together. This is potentially a useful navigation aid. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I see no problem as long as these are limited to general articles on types of division by country. --Just N. (talk) 21:52, 2 February 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:Mergers of country subdivisions

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D main article, and WP:C2C parent Category:Administrative divisions
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support. "Subdivisions" has multiple meanings — it certainly does exist as a technical term for what towns and cities are, but in common speech it's much more likely to be misinterpreted as a housing development or neighbourhood within a town or city. So the proposed name is indeed better and less prone to ambiguity. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:52, 2 February 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.

Russian SFSR

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Normally, we don't use country abbreviations in categories. Do we want to use the full name in these cases? The category names would be quite long. These are the only three subcategories of Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic that use the abbreviation. Some existing categories have names that are equally long as those proposed here, such as Category:Council of People's Commissars of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Category:Prisoners and detainees of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nowadays few people will know what SFSR means. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent article name at Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. GiantSnowman 14:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While the expansion is strictly correct it is wholly unnecessary. When it existed no one regularly expanded USSR or SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) for its member republics; and SFSR equally does not need expansion. I know WP policy discourages abbreviations, but the expansion is much better given in a head note to the category, rather than adding to category clutter. The best category names are short ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What users call "category clutter" is a subjectively based concern. It depends on what device you are using, the size of your screen, the size of your font, etc. It's not a great standard to use in making decisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent article name at Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. --Just N. (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:C2D. Keeping main articles and categories aligned helps aid navigation, especially among readers who might be new to a topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:39, 7 February 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:History of European art music

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 to Category:History of classical music. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:History of European art music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Stumbled across this will cleaning up Category:Classical music, it seems largely unhelpful. No real defining features and a seemingly random choice of articles. All of the articles here already have plenty of appropriate categories. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested by Marcocapelle. I think this covers most of it, so that I do not think anything needs purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested by Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 21:54, 2 February 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.

Art Nouveau architecture by city

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. Some users indicated that they would keep those that contained five or more articles. At the time of this close, none of the categories had more than three articles in them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @Paul 012: pinging contributor to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/comment. I am not very familiar with the conventions relating to categories but I am surprised by this nomination. Category:Art Nouveau architecture in Antwerp, for example, contains a main article (Art Nouveau in Antwerp) and is one of several notable assemblies of Art Nouveau architecture in Belgium (cf. Category:Art Nouveau architecture in Brussels). I suspect that separate articles could be sustained for at least half-a-dozen relevant individual sites in Antwerp and a number of relevant local architects too. I see no rationale for deletion beyond a misplaced concern for neatness and the reliance on WP:SMALLCAT ("Small with no potential for growth") is entirely misplaced. I'd also highlight WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be happy to withdraw categories from this list if you can decently populate them. That is, it would be helpful to populate them (if possible) even regardless of this nomination because it serves nobody's interest to have half-populated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I would obviously love to, I am not required to "decently populate" 40-odd categories simply because you have nominated them. It is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. With respect, have you actually read the criteria for deletion at 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." The French version of Category:Art Nouveau architecture in Antwerp, I note, is populated by 36 separate articles on individual buildings and a sub-category of eight Antwerp-based Art Nouveau architects!
I actively disagree that "it serves nobody's interest to have half-populated categories" which seems contrary to the Wikipedia's whole project which is, by definition, gradual and incrimental. There was doubtless a time when Category:Presidents of the United States was only half-populated. In my opinion, this nomination should be withdrawn and re-submitted in smaller groups to enable each to be considered on its own merits. It is possible that some indeed fall foul of WP:SMALLCAT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you are not required to do anything. But as you seem to be eager to keep the categories, I suspect you should also be interested in making the categories more useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle:, we've established that the issue here concerns the categories you nominated rather than my contributions to Wikipedia. Do you actually have any policy-based arguments? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMALLCAT, still. I heard your objection to the Antwerp nomination, but with the few references in Art Nouveau in Antwerp I do not expect any spin-off articles about separate Antwerp buildings any time soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of the 36 separate articles on individual buildings and a sub-category of eight local architects in Antwerp was lost on you, then? The position may well be similar for some of the other cities you have nominated. WP:SMALLCAT is about potential for the category to be populated, not whether it will imminently be so. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't lost, it was ignored. Wikipedias in other languages have other criteria for accepting articles, so it is not relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any with fewer than five articles (with no prejudice against re-creation should there be more articles found/created), Keep the rest. Please note that if deleted, articles should be double Upmerge (also into Category:Buildings and structures in Foo. I agree with Brigade Piron that this is a potentially useful tree, mirroring similar ones for the likes of Art Deco, but also echo Marcocapelle's suggestion of "to keep them, populate them". Grutness...wha? 03:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the articles are still in Category:Buildings and structures in Foo anyway, so that is why I have not listed the as the second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:SMALLCAT has exceptions, but in this case we probably do not need subcategories for every city with a single such building. Dimadick (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick, it may be true that some of these cities have only a couple of notable buildings but there are far too many currently at issue to reach that conclusion for all. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Part of an established category tree. As long as each has at least two articles I don't see the problem. WP:SMALLCAT certainly doesn't say we shouldn't create cats if the contents can be expanded, as almost all of these can. Since a large percentage of Art Nouveau buildings are heritage-listed, they meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT so articles could be created. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate -- Yes, 5 is the usual minimum, but I do not think that Birmingham and Bournemouth are more Philistine than London, Manchester and Liverpool, which have at least 5 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any with fewer than five articles (with no prejudice against re-creation should there be more articles found/created), Keep the rest. --Just N. (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any with fewer than five articles (with no prejudice against re-creation should there be more articles found/created), Keep the rest. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:41, 7 February 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.

OMX

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 Category:OMX to Category:Nasdaq Nordic and Category:Companies listed on the OMX exchanges to Category:Companies listed on Nasdaq Nordic. However, since the consensus for this was not particularly strong, this close is without prejudice to a follow-up nomination of the newly named categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:OMX to Category:Nasdaq, Inc.
  • Propose renaming Category:Companies listed on the OMX exchanges to Category:Companies listed on the Nasdaq exchanges
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to the category:Nasdaq, Inc., which originally was named category:NASDAQ OMX Group. The name is OMX is not in use any more and the group structure has been modified and does not include the corresponding structure. Also all relevant articles including the name OMX have been renamed. It will simplify the categories tree and assist our readers. As an alternative, also merge category:NASDAQ with those two categories. In that case, the name of trilateral merger should be category:Nasdaq. Beagel (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this merge/rename; they should be renamed to Category:Nasdaq Nordic/Category:Companies listed on Nasdaq Nordic instead; Nasdaq Nordic is a brand still used by Nasdaq for which we have an article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could use Nasdaq Nordic, of course, instead of the proposal above, but I am afraid it complicates the structure. As for the Nasdaq Nordic article, that article was recently redirected to Nasdaq, Inc. and this redirect was reverted just few days ago, so it is not so well established. Beagel (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The main Nasdaq exchange is an American one. I am not sure that shares quoted on Nasdaq Tallin or Nasdaq Iceland are necessarily quoted on Nasdaq in New York, even if it may be possible to trade them there. For a company to be quoted requires it to comply with a variety of regulations, which are not the same between countries. There are certainly very considerable differences between American and European regulations. A Nasdaq Nordic target would be viable, but I am not sure that these are one exchange (as opposed to eight). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are seven of them, as there are also seven subcategories. The fact that regulations differ is not relevant for this discussion because the seven subcategories will be kept anyhow. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NASDAQ is the largest stock exchanges owned by Nasdaq, Inc. (former name: NASDAQ OMX Group), which was created by merger of NASDAQ and OMX owner companies. Since then, the Nasdaq, Inc. structure has modified and the name OMX is not in use any more. In this context, it is irrelevant which companies are listed on Nasdaq in New York and which companies are listed on Nasdaq Tallinn. These are different stock exchanges, but they belong to the same group, which parent is Nasdaq, Inc. Beagel (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, I have reverted the closure of the discussion after this talk with the closer. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Companies listed on the OMX exchanges is now empty. Liz Read! Talk! 15:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not moved and the new category is not identical to Category:Companies listed on the OMX exchanges but it is broader. I knew and fully agree that it is not allowed to empty categories during open discussion but it was actually done after the close of this discussion and before the close was reverted. It was a good faith attempt to bring the structure of Nasdaq exchanges' categories more up to date. I will restore Category:Companies listed on the OMX exchanges for those subcategories; however, the created Category:Companies listed on Nasdaq exchanges is needed even in the case Category:Companies listed on the OMX exchanges will be renamed Category:Companies listed on Nasdaq Nordic exchanges. Beagel (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge somehow either along the lines of nominator or according to the alternative of User:UnitedStatesian. It is obvious that OMX is outdated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It had been closed Keep, now has been reopened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge somehow either along the lines of nominator or according to the alternative of User:UnitedStatesian. --Just N. (talk) 21:59, 2 February 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 Order of Work and Production

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Work and Production
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:SMALLCAT)
The Order of Work and Production is an Iranian award for supporting industrial production. This award might be defining to the winners but all but one are redlinks who are likely non-notable. (The one exception is Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar who received the award for missile construction as the Defence Minister of Iran and is already well categorized under Category:Defence ministers of Iran.) We have a Catch-22 where, when the award is defining enough for a category, they aren't notable enough for an article and, when they're notable enough for an article, the category is no longer defining. The recipient(s) are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a case of overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 3 February 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:Heroes of Labour (GDR)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Heroes of Labour (GDR)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The Hero of Labour (GDR) is an East German award usually given for for economic output, like with this list of recipients from a watch factory. Despite the Communist era effort to elevate the status of workers, the vast majority of the 3,688 total recipients are non-notable and won't ever have a Wikipedia article, the only exception being Ernst Wulf. The other 12 articles in this category are all very high ranking national officials and all 12 are already under Category:Members of the Volkskammer (the GDR Parliament) and mention this award in passing with other honours. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We previously deleted the equivalent Vietnamese award right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hero awards were the highest awards in communist countries, confering prestige and notoriety unlike any Western award (see Hero (title). Place Clichy (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That applies most probably to the more than 3000 people who do not have an article, but they aren't served by a category that only contains high-ranked politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as applied this category just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 3 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_29&oldid=1015713712"