Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 28

< June 27
June 29 >

June 28

Category:Russian political parties in Moldova

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:Russophilic parties in Moldova. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Russian political parties in Moldova to Category:Pro-Russian political parties in Moldova
Nominator's rationale: None of these parties are "Russian". We are talking about political parties in Moldova, they're Moldovan. However, they take a pro-Russian approach. It does not mean they're "Russian". Super Ψ Dro 23:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not ethnic Russian parties so I would accept the second alternative. Super Ψ Dro 07:37, 29 June 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:Nike Inc. advertising

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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nike, Inc. (with a comma) is the name of the parent category and of the Nike article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Deansfa (talk) 23:40, 28 June 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.

Parks by year of establishment

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: Multi-Merge to Category:Parks established in (decade), and buildings and structures as nominated; and "protected areas" as discussed; as well. And special thanks to User:Marcocapelle, for implementation help : ) - jc37 18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the following were created during the discussion and merged likewise. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Parks are not exactly "buildings" or "structures", nor would Wikipedians assume to look or tag them like that. There are probably many articles that can be added to these categories with minimal effort; just do it. ɱ (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Parks is part of Category:Outdoor structures is part of Category:Buildings and structures. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the nominator is just looking at the current parents per Marcocapelle, I see what you mean. I'm open to a better merge target, if you have specific suggestions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Parks is a child of "protected areas", which makes logical sense. I removed "outdoor structures". A park is not a structure. Even for parks with structures, the structures are auxiliary, far from the highlight, and not important. ɱ (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Ɱ. The targets are the least-worst choice of parent cats, but they are a poor fit. This tree has plenty of scope for expansion: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25058388 finds 4,248 articles with Wikidata property Q22698 (parks). My quick spot review of the titles in those Petscan results seemed to show a low rate of false positives. @Marcocapelle: what tests did you do on the possibilities for growth? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opens up a new discussion, namely is the nominated tree meant for Parks in a narrow sense (as it is currently) or Parks in a broad sense (as it is in the wider tree that you investigated, i.e. including national and regional parks, also including zoos, gardens and trails)? I am inclined to argue that the similarity between a park and a national park is just in the name. Parks are in essence outdoor structures, while national parks in essence are protected areas. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the first five articles and dates by establishment are often challenging which reduces how many could be added to this tree: 1 (Structures built in 1914 made public in 1926), 2 (I couldn't determine a clear date), 3 (designated in 1839, 1844, and again in 1871 but the article makes clear those designations were not honored), 4 ("late 19th century"), 5 (1662). But looking at those specific dates (1662, 1839, 1844, 1871, 1914, 1926), none has a current category so, in addition to presumably adding some articles to current cats, we would also be generating a lot of additional potentially small categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Parks established in (decade) and buildings and structures as nominated. Grouping parks establised in 1801 and 1899 in the same category doesn't aide navigation but separating them by decade does. See Category:Cemeteries by decade of establishment--User:Namiba 23:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Buildings and structures" is a poor choice when many parks have 0 structures, and Category:Protected areas by century of establishment exists. This is a much better parent cat, and already in use for many parks. ɱ (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Parks established in (decade) and buildings and structures as nominated, per Namiba. I think it is the responsibility of creators of categories to populate them (or at least most of them) adequately before moving on. Oculi (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Buildings and structures" is a poor choice when many parks have 0 structures, and Category:Protected areas by century of establishment exists. This is a much better parent cat, and already in use for many parks. ɱ (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (city) park is a structure by itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background Here is an earlier nom merging in an undeveloped "Parks and open spaces by year of establishment" tree". - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Parks established in (decade) and buildings and structures as nominated, per Namiba. That seems like a reasonable level of granularity which "does have realistic potential for growth" as outlined in WP:SMALLCAT. The current by year ones likely don't and whole anemic tree of small categories doesn't fit the "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" envisioned in WP:SMALLCAT. (Addressing the no votes above, the buildings and structures categories are the current parent and populating this tree seems more likely to add yet more small year categories, not to address the issue of each cat being small.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Buildings and structures" is a poor choice when many parks have 0 structures, and Category:Protected areas by century of establishment exists. This is a much better parent cat, and already in use for many parks. ɱ (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::* A (city) park is a structure by itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (2 Issues and CFD Scope) There are really two topics in this nom: 1) How granular the establishments categories should be and 2) Whether the whole Category:Parks tree should be under Category:Buildings and structures. Beyond which target categories to use, these topics aren't connected and you may agree with other editors on one topic and disagree on another which will make it hard for a closer to gauge consensus on each.
I agree with User:Ɱ which just boldly removed the B&S parent category. Nonetheless, I suggest we settle only the 1st question in this nomination for now since removing Parks from Buildings & Structures will take a lot of cleanup beyond this CFD nomination. (Take a look at Category:Outdoor structures in Brunei to see an example of that cleanup.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: a (city) park is a structure by itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (city) park is certainly a structure. Not sure why there is any discussion about this. Oculi (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shall I then replace the "buildings and structures" targets by "protected areas", and "parks by century" targets by "parks by decade" targets? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, parks by decade seems to have a consensus forming from the support iVotes and protected areas would address the very valid target category concern raised by the two oppose iVotes. (I don't want to speak for either of the latter though, since they also were encouraging keeping the individual years.)- RevelationDirect (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think parks fit under both buildings and structures as well as protected areas and should be added to both. FWIW, they are already under cultural infrastructure.--~~
I really don't think it's on a smallcat nomination if the existing parent categories for a much larger group are potentially incorrect. If there's not a clear consensus for addressing this now, upmerging to the buildings and structures for now would maintain the status quo and we can have a subsequent nomination on the parenting issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for Parks by decade, FWIW Crowsus (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to processing admin, if you need help with rewriting the nomination in terms of different merge targets, just ping me. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I not only agreed with Ɱ, but I agree that there are many articles that are missing the proper categorization. This category tree can easily be expanded. Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether the tree can easily be expanded. Sure, many years are still missing. But the question is whether the categories can be better populated other than by adding national parks which are a completely different thing than "city parks" and only share the park name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. This is an example of where WP:COMMONSENSE has completely left the conversation. There are lots of parks in the world that would pass WP:GNG for which we currently lack articles. We can populate these cats by article creation. Further, there is a certain usefulness for maintaining the cats in their current state for those looking to research events that occurred within a given year. If it's isn't broken don't fix it.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exception mentions large established tree for a reason. A tree with mainly very poorly subcategories does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Milan

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 This close was discussed at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Category:Rulers of Milan * Pppery * it has begun... 15:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Virtually all members in this category were "Lord of Milan". I suggest we manually (re)move everyone who might not fit "Lord of Milan" (e.g. Carlo Gonzaga of Milan?) to somewhere else. The subcategories Category:Dukes of Milan and Category:Duchesses of Milan have been made its siblings rather than its children in the Category:Nobility from Milan. The new sibling Category:Ladies of Milan has also been created for the consorts of the Lords of Milan. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Nederlandse Leeuw: Then it's done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's beneficial having a category which can encompass more than one title, and can catch the few articles which don't fit neatly elsewhere. Some of the suggestions made here would be useful sub-categories under this category. There is no reason that this has to be an either/or choice, as we can build out the category tree. BE BOLD and create some sub-cats.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: There is a requested move at Talk:List of Milanese consorts#Requested move 13 July 2023 which is relevant to this CfR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to hold off closing this until the RM is closed. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've made the process easier by WP:BOLDly splitting off Lord of Milan (already a redirect), and renaming List of rulers of Milan to List of dukes of Milan. Now the latter is the main article of Category:Dukes of Milan, and Category:Rulers of Milan can now be renamed to Category:Lords of Milan to align with the new main article Lord of Milan. This seems to solve most issues that have been caused by trying to fit two titles into 1 list and 1 category, which just doesn't work very well. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Nothing has been done to deal with the fundamental issue that the lords of Milan and dukes of Milan were a similar kind of thing (i.e. heads of state) who are now being categorised as if they were the same as a whole lot of very different things (i.e. nobles). There is a fundamental difference between what the Duke of Milan was and what, say, the Duke of Argyll is. The heads of state of Milan are left outside the "Heads of state of former countries" category tree and the "monarchs of Italy" tree.
    Thanks to NL's crusade against the word "ruler", we now deal with this issue of rulers changing their titles in other states by having a category "Monarchs of" (e.g Category:Monarchs of Württemberg), or a category "heads of state of" (e.g. Category:Heads of state of Florence). There should be something like this for Milan, too.
    This bold change has made the matter worse by propagating this matter of categorisation into the main article space and in the process breaking a bunch of links to List of rulers of Milan (which will now take readers to the dukes when the article was dealing with the lords or with both). Furius (talk) 21:49, 24 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:Draft articles on comics and anime

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Category:Draft articles on comics and anime

Category:Immigrants to the Colony of New Zealand

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: manual merge as per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Until very recently, people who migrated to New Zealand were all in the same tree Category:Immigrants to New Zealand and its many subcats. User:Johnpacklambert has created this new cat for the 19th c. migrants, and is depopulating the many subcats of the original global cat by removing people who moved to New Zealand in the 19th c, e.g. here, here and here. The end result of this new division is thus that we have less informative categories on the articles, and less people in the correct New Zealand cat, all for the sake of some pedantry. This should be undone. Fram (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse among subcategories of Category:Immigrants to New Zealand, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Fram couldn't this just be solved by making Category:Immigrants to the Colony of New Zealand a sub-cat of Category:Immigrants to New Zealand? I do think there is some value to grouping immigrants from the colonial era into a separate group for aid in historical research.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it exists (on the articles) next to the subcats of the "to New Zealand" category (e.g. Category:French immigrants to New Zealand, then it isn't really a problem. The cat creator though intended to replace the by country subcats of the "to New Zealand" cat with a single cat "to the Colony of New Zealand", which may aid historical research on the New Zealand side, but loses the "from" information (if you want historical research about e.g. what was the role of French immigrants in New Zealand). And creating the by country subcats for the "to Colony" cat would create very small cats, which isn't enouraged either. So my proposal is either to get rid of the "to Colony" cat completely, or to let it stand in articles together with "country to New Zealand" cats, not instead of. Fram (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Subdivision of NZ topics by historical period is usually by century, not by the constitutional status of the country – e.g. Category:19th-century New Zealand politicians. So if Category:Immigrants to New Zealand was to be divided by period, it would be Category:19th-century immigrants to New Zealand etc. By the same token, Category:Colony of New Zealand people should be scrapped in favour of the existing Category:19th-century New Zealand people etc.; Category:New Zealand artists to Category:19th-century New Zealand artists etc.; Category:Sportspeople from the Colony of New Zealand upmerged to Category:New Zealand sportspeople. There are a few other cats to consider too – perhaps the odd one is actually tied to the constitutional status and could remain?? Nurg (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Imperial Chinese people by occupation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Imperial Chinese people by occupation

Category:Rulers of Lithuania

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: alt (downmerge and rename). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose downmerging Category:Rulers of Lithuania to Category:Lithuanian monarchs
  • Alt proposal: downmerge Category:Rulers of Lithuania to Category:Lithuanian monarchs; rename Category:Lithuanian monarchs to Category:Monarchs of Lithuania
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt proposal rationale: In addition to downmerging, the resultant category should also be renamed from Fooian monarchs to Monarchs of Foo, as the latter is more precise (suggested by Laurel Lodged and Marcocapelle; see also "Suggestion B" at the "Category:Monarchs of Bohemia" CfD, where the same point has been made). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle just checking: the terms "reverse merge" and "downmerge" mean the same, don't they? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nederlandse Leeuw: I meant "support" for sure. The term "reverse merge" is used as contrasting to the original merge nomination, so as a nominator you can't propose reverse merge. "Up" (=default) and "down" are the directions in the hierarchy of the tree. The original nomination can be up or down, so a reverse merge is down or up, respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle oooh now I get it! That makes sense. Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So, if I propose to downmerge Category:Rulers of Lithuania to Category:Lithuanian monarchs, that means I would like "Lithuanian monarchs" to be the name of the merged category, right? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query What about those Kings of Poland who were also Grand Dukes of Lithuania? Being in personal union doesn't mean that you swapped nationalities or languages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of the adjective in this context does not suggest ethnicity; many Polish kings and Lithuanian grand dukes were 'ethnic' Hungarians, French, Germans, etc. Marcelus (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per LL's comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Laurel Lodged: they are in Category:Polish monarchs but I am not sure how your question relates to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt Let me clarify my intent: the nomination proposes a switch from a 'by country' tree structure to a 'by nationality' tree structure. This is incorrect as it would force non-Lithuianian nationals (Polish kings) into the category. It would be better to Rename it to Category:Monarchs of Lithuania. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further elabotation I think that a renmaed "Rulers" to Category:Monarchs of Lithuania could sit in parallel with Category:Lithuanian monarchs. Some monarchs of Lithuania were not Lithuanian nationals (e.g. John II Casimir Vasa). Some Lithuanian monarchs were monarchs of states that were not in Lithuania (e.g. King of Hungary). Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate? In what sense they were non-Lithuanian nationals? Also if monarch of Lithuania isn't Lithuanian national, then who really is? Marcelus (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. John II Casimir Vasa was Polish of Swedish descent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not a elaboration. Secondly, you are talking about his ethnicity, and it so happens that on both sides he was descended from the Jagiellons, who were of Lithuanian descent. Apart of that he also had Swedish, German, Italian, French etc. descendants. But this is irrelevant. Because he was a Grand Duke of Lithuania, and you cannot be more Lithuanian than that. Marcelus (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: You should be bound by your own logic. In a CFD on March 25th you wrote: "people from Palestine and Palestinian people aren't the same". The same applies to Lithuania and Lithuanian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need to elaborate. And please explain what you understand by "Lithuanian national"? Marcelus (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Perhaps I could better answer if your were to first explain what you meant by "Palestinian people". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think good idea is to stay on topic here. Marcelus (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a very bad idea to have Category:Monarchs of Lithuania in parallel with Category:Lithuanian monarchs because of the enormous overlap and (based on above discussion) because of disagreement about what Lithuanian monarchs means if not monarchs of Lithuania. There should be one category and the slightly more precise name is Category:Monarchs of Lithuania. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Just 1. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've added the suggestions of Laurel and Marcocapelle (and indirectly my own at the Bohemian monarchs CfD) as Alt proposal to the nom. The current balance is 3 in favour of the Alt proposal (Laurel, Marco and I). Marcelus has not yet formally taken up a position on this CfM, but at least appears to reject the Alt proposal. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance so far: 3 Support Alt proposal (myself included), 1 implicit Oppose Alt proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_3#Category:Monarchs_of_Bohemia resulted in Keep with an implicit endorsement of Suggestion B to rename/rescope all "fooian monarchs" to "monarchs of foo", AND take Category:Political office-holders by country out of Category:Political people by nationality., including an explicit endorsement from Marcelus. @Marcelus just to clarify, do you agree with the Alt rename proposal? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I firmly oppose taking Category:Political office-holders by country, especially monarchs, out of Category:Political people by nationality, because why we would do that? None was more Lithuanian by nationality than monarch of Lithuania, even if he was ethnically Chinese. Marcelus (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcelus Because nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for political office-holders in general, because certain political offices can be held regardless of one's nationality. But no worries: in this case it won't have much effect anyway. Category:Rulers of Lithuania is in Category:Lithuanian people by occupation, which is in Category:People by nationality and occupation. Therefore, Monarchs of Lithuania will be considered to have Lithuanian nationality due to their "job".
    By the way, today Laurel and I just so happened to find out that the "Category:People by country" tree seems to be based on country of residence rather than nationality, but the tree doesn't make that very clear so far. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't share that opinion Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your opinion then? I'd like to understand how you see things. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We could decide here and now as a convention that monarchs of Foo will always be put in Fooian people by occupation. I.e. we automatically grant them the nationality of the country they reign over (regardless of any other nationality they might have). I would not be opposed to that idea. I am opposed to the idea that people with Barian nationality should be considered automatically disqualified front holding every type of political office in Foo. Because that is factually legally wrong. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New precedent The recent Cypriot monarchs > Monarchs of Cyprus CfR has set the precedent as the first unambiguous confirmation of the Suggestion B principle. This precedent favours the Alt proposal that the end result should be Monarchs of Lithuania. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:19, 28 June 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:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation

Category:Fictional zebras

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17#Category:Fictional zebras

Category:Cricket events official songs and anthems

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cricket events official songs and anthems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. The fact that these songs were used at different World Cup events doesn't mean they need a separate category. They are already appropriately categorised in the tournament categories Category:2011 Cricket World Cup and Category:2014 ICC World Twenty20, but having a category of "official songs and anthems" is unnecessary overcategorisation Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 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:Cricket paintings

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cricket paintings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 3 articles and unlikely that there are any more notable cricket paintings likely to get separate articles Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 28 June 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:Cricket poems

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cricket poems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, as only 3 articles, and When an Old Cricketer Leaves the Crease is about a song not a poem. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 28 June 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:Filmmakers from Bosnia and Herzegovina

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Identical topic ★Trekker (talk) 04:35, 28 June 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:Rape victims in Brazil

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, in addition the article is about a rape case rather than about a victim specifically. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is also consensus that a rape victims category is a bad idea (the category is protected from creation). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies Award

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:The Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies Award
  • Propose Deleting Category:The Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies Medal

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING We don't have a main article on either award but we do have two redirects that both point to the Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies, a Greek scientific organization. These biography articles don't treat the award as defining, mentioning it in passing with other honors (except for one where the category creator added it to the intro). The contents are already listified right here in the organization article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bduke (talk) 06:09, 29 June 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:Fraternity Award

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Fraternity Award
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, and WP:NONDEFINING
The Fraternity Award is given to artists by the B'nai B'rith of Uruguay and consists of a trip to Israel and Europe so the winner can perform a concert, exhibition, play, or lecture. It sounds like a neat cross-cultural exchange but the biography articles don't treat the performance as defining, generally mentioning it in passing. The contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 28 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_28&oldid=1172512444"