Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 22

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bengali-language newspapers published in the United Kingdom to Category:Bengali-language newspapers

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nominated. Note that both articles are already in Category:Newspapers published in London, which is a subcategory of Category:Newspapers published in the United Kingdom. Animal lover |666| 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This is an appropriate follow up to a recent nom to get rid of SMALLCATs. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2022 (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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:People in history occupations to Category:People in history occupations and Category:History educators

Nominator's rationale: At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#Category:History teachers it was agreed that "History teachers" is generally not defining, but the nomination identified three school teachers as having a sufficient connection with the subject to be moved up to Category:People in history occupations. The rest of the contents were mostly dispersed to Schoolteachers by nationality. However, two more pages Bob Filner and Hugh Llewellyn Keenleyside were found to be university lecturers rather than schoolteachers, so I moved them to the nominated category as well. There was no mention of them writing history books, so I don't think they qualify to be put into Category:Historians, although Yuan Tengfei's article identifies him as a historian. Should these biographies be (a) kept in "People in history occupations", (b) split to Category:History educators, (c) moved into Historians by nationality, or (d) removed from the History hierarchy? (I could have just done a WP:Bold split, but thought it would risk speedy deletion as WP:G4.) – Fayenatic London 14:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer option a, as option b may well lead to the same problem as we had before. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerise by moving most articles to Category:Historians (or perhaps elsewhere in the tree). In one case (an ambassador), I could not work out why he was in the category. The category has the feel of a container in covering historians, archaeologists, archivists, etc, which are all history-related but not strictly historians. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Admittedly Peterkingiron's proposal requires option b. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 06:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow up -- Archaeologists are a different profession from Historians and are not necessarily educators. Suggest rename to Category:People in history-related occupations and containerise. With the possible exception of an Hugh Llewellyn Keenleyside, an ambassador who had been a lecturer (subject not clear). The rest should be moved into a appropriate subcats of history educators.

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Belarusian nobility to Category:Ruthenian nobility

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have the same main article Ruthenian nobility. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Belarusian is what the Russians called it after they had conquered part of Lithuania, one of whose ethnicities was Ruthenian. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsence. The name Belarus appears in the easter part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania centuries before it was annexed by Russians. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Against A significant number of entries in Category:Belarusian nobility, e.g. Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz, Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky, Konstanty Kalinowski, Raman Skirmunt - cannot be categorised in Category:Ruthenian nobility. They were prominent figures in Belarusian nation-building and self-identified as Belarusians, not Ruthenians. There is a significant body of scholarly literature about Belarusian nobility, there is Association of the Belarusian Nobility - there is no reason to remove Category:Belarusian nobility. --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz should not be in any nobility category. It makes sense to merge manually though because some people in this category are said to be Polish nobility. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some does not mean all. The same person or thing may belong to several categories: what one may prefer to call Ruthenian for others will be Belarusian (was Skaryna Ruthenian or Belarusian or both? No a serious scholar nowadays would deny that he was the first Belarusian book publisher in the sense we understand Belarusian heritage nowadays. Same would be with nobility.) Unless you prove there have no people who regarded themselves or are being regarded now Belarusian nobility, your argument does not stand. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What one may prefer to call Ruthenian for others will be Belarusian: that is exactly the point why we do not need two categories next to each other. The difference is just in the name, not in the essence. It is not a coincidence that Belarusian nobility redirects to Ruthenian nobility. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you familiar with Eiler diagrams to visualise sets? Belarusian nobility includes some entities from Ruthenian nobility (and of course they will be at the top of the list) but is not limited to them. The difference actually is the essence, not the name. Especially when you deal with such sensitive subject as national identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:571A:D901:2139:B76C:B1CA:67DA (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 06:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If terms are being used interchangeably it is impossible to prove that one term does not exist. Let's dive a bit deeper and look how these people are characterized in the articles:

• Angel Bogdanovich: Polish/Lithuanian nobility
• Mikhail Dmitriyevich Bonch-Bruyevich: Lithuanian nobility
• Ihnat Bujnicki: nobility
• Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz: nothing about nobility
• Aleksander Bychowiec: Russian/Polish nobility
• Czetwertyński family: Polish/Ruthenian nobility
• Ignacy Domeyko: Polish nobility
• Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky: nobility

In other words, it is a mess and the only thing that is clear is that this category contains (descendants of) nobility of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Again, the articles should be recategorized, and after that the category will be empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bułak-Bałachowicz was from petty noble family; their identity was Polish-Belarusian-Lithuanian; of course it will be a mess because history is a mess. Many figures can be categorised as Polish, Lithuanian or Belarusian nobles, but there is no reason to prioritise only one of the categories. Belarusian National Archive in Minsk published Гербовник белорусской шляхты (Armorial of the Belarusian nobility) with the lists of names and families; so the category has a proper scientific basis. So of course oppose Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator's rationale.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2022 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dentsu films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Page creator was indef for sockpuppeting -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 16:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dentsu is an advertising and PR company who, according to the article, "does business with almost every major institution in Japan". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 23 August 2022 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:List of wikipedians who do not have the best attitude (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate joke/nonsense user category. If this was somehow intended seriously, then it fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add myself to funny category DragonsBreathUP2 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not necessarily useful. NavjotSR (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Certainly not useful. --Bduke (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2022 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians concerned about China–United States relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unclear how a category expressing concern over off-wiki politics has the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not necessarily useful. NavjotSR (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2022 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Formerly papal dioceses established in the 11th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Bizarre quadruple conjunction of established + late 11th century + papal + subsequently disestablished. The mind boggles. The are plenty of disestablished and former categories of which the articles are already members. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but merge to Category:Dioceses established in the 11th century and to respective subcategories in the tree of Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have manually parented all articles per @Marcocapelle: suggestions. So merging is no longer needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, then simply support. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the basis of LL's work to avoid any orphaning. However, what is Chichester (founded 681) doing in the category? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I have recategorized Diocese of Chichester. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2022 (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.