Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UnitedStatesian (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 16 July 2023 (→Category:Depictions of people on film: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 20
March 22 >

March 21

Category:Films about honeymoon

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. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Grammar Police have tracked down this crime against English as she is spoke. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. While we're at it, if you wouldn't mind, Officer, might you be able to clarify how as she is spoke is grammatically correct? Blimey, I reckon I might have missed such a linguistic oddity in my education. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:03, 22 March 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:Germanic people by occupation

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS: people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. Having a native language that belongs to a certain language family is WP:NONDEFINING for an individual's career.
Similar noms:
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:Films about robbery

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 10:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for two categories on the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Dictionaries define heists as robberies, e.g. Merriam Webster: "to commit armed robbery on", Collins Dictionary: "A heist is a robbery", so while heists may not necessarily involve force or the threat of force, it's a subtle distinction. Furthermore, almost all of the films in the robbery category involve violent robberies, as do the subcategories (bank robberies and train robberies), one notable exception being The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie; studios figure audiences want to see some action for their money. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 2 April 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:Online dating services

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: split. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Talk:Online_dating#Requested_move_14_March_2023. Ideally, Online dating services should be a subcategory of Online dating. Either that or just rename the existing category. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:34, 21 March 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:Western Canada High School

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. – Fayenatic London 08:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one article and a subcategory of alumni. User:Namiba 21:38, 21 March 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:Monarchs of Anglo-Saxon England

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I will redirect it for the sake of the interwiki links. – Fayenatic London 08:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 21 March 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:Turkic Buddhist monarchs

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 10:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 21 March 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.

@Qwerfjkl: Has Category:Turkic female royalty been forgotten? It's been almost two months, and I don't see it at WP:CFDWM. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people

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. (For reference, the succeeding C17/18 categories are discussed here.) – Fayenatic London 08:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The standard seems to be "from". People from multi-ethnic empires should not use a demonym form. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also 22 March noms for 17th & 18th centuries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:56, 22 March 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.

Local historians

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 all. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one or two articles in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 21 March 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 Epirus

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 the first two categories; and merge Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus to Category:Medieval Epirus, Category:People of medieval Greece, and Category:Medieval rulers. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B. Category:Rulers of Epirus is in Category:Greek monarchs, and its children are kings (basileus/basilissa) and despots, so we're not talking about presidents, prime ministers, military dictators etc.
WP:C2D. Main article of Category:Rulers of Ancient Epirus is List of kings of Epirus, and all in this cat are labelled "kings". There is no need for "Ancient", there haven't been kings of Epirus in any other time.
Separately, Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus and Category:Monarchs of Epirus are WP:SMALLCATs; since we are already removing "Ancient" from the Kings of Epirus, there is no need for "Medieval" either; there is no risk of confusion between the despots and the kings, as these are clearly different titles, and there were several centuries between them.
The result will be 1 parent (Category:Monarchs of Epirus), 3 children (Category:Kings of Epirus, Category:Despots of Epirus, and Category:Despots of Arta), plus two items that do not fit any of the child cats (Anna Palaiologina Kantakouzene, Maria Angelina Doukaina Palaiologina). Incidentally, I've already removed Category:Byzantine governors of Epirus from Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus, as governors aren't "monarchs" or otherwise sovereign. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what to make of all the "Support but" votes, to be honest. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 21 March 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:Finnish homeopaths

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 2#Category:Finnish homeopaths

Category:Lithuanian National Prize

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. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct name of the prize: Lithuanian National Prize for Culture and Arts (Lithuanian: Nacionalinė kultūros ir meno premija), Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This is a major national prize given out annually to a single person in each category and therefore it is a defining characteristic for its recipients. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 21 March 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:Depictions of people on film

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. No consensus after 4 months; suggest the nominator re-nominate the "depictions/portrayals" separately from the "in film/on film". (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "In film" is predominantly used in other media rather than "on film", as shown in this Ngram. Granted, it also shows that "portrayals" is even more common than "depictions"; but "depictions" is used much more widely in Wikipedia categories for other media, and was just endorsed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 13#People depicted in music. I have tagged a few sub-cats to increase participation; the remainder can follow via speedy processing. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename parent Category:Films about people by subject.
Matching many existing children, and many entries in parent Category:Historical films. These should remain "historical". Wikipedia:Categorization: Do not categorize tags of every detail in the film. There's no reason to categorize a picture of Jesus on the wall, or any merely supporting character. A voice in a burning bush is a "depiction", but the film is not about Yahweh. As noted above, these categories are a bit of a mess.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose that. While obviously tiny details don't need categorising, there are plenty of notable portrayals of historical people in film and television that are not in films and shows that are about those people specifically. MClay1 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Portrayals of Moses in film was untagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london, Necrothesp, Marcocapelle, MClay1, William Allen Simpson, and P Aculeius: Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that the current name is meaningless, I do not think that "historical" improves it as it suggests living people are excluded. The category is nearly a container category by subject and should be named as such: Category:Depictions of people in film by subject. Similar to Category:Biographical works by subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Marcocapelle. Historical implies not contemporary, which doesn't fit the contents. Category:Depictions of people in film by subject sounds like a good suggestion. MClay1 (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the parent category be by subject, as I'd proposed that above. Still disagree about "depictions"; ambiguous, refers to a picture on a wall. Prefer "portrayals". Still hope to purge unless the film is about a person.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    Ok, first - in vs. on - "on film" means quite literally that it's part of that specific film production; part of a "product". "in film" means part of the film industry. Completely different. Let's please avoid confusing/conflating "in film", with "in a film".
    Second - Cultural depictions is a Wikipedia-created neologism. We need to not do that. The only usage I have seen outside of Wikimedia sourcing is "Outdated cultural depictions".. The usage of which is quite different than what is being discussed here.
    "Portrayal of: - work done by an actor or artist. This differs from "presentation of"/"producton of" - which is a work presented by a "producer" of a work..There can be some overlap. but the two are not completely equivalent.
    When "real people" appear in a non-documentary film, they are a character in a production and are no longer "real people". They are characters based on real people.
    So this all comes down to 2 concepts:
    1.) The depiction of a particular individual on film
    2.) a work that may be based upon a particular individual.
    I don't think that the first is something we should be categorising. (Every time the image of Jesus appears on film? which includes appearances of artwork, statuary, etc? no.)
    The second is questionable, but we seem to have lots of these "based on" cats.
    As a result of the above, Rename to "Works based on X" and prune.
    If there is no consensus for that, I weakly support: Split to "Works based on X" and "Works depicting X".And punting whether we want to delete the depiction cats to a later discussion. - jc37 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With apologies - pinging everyone above, to see if we can find consensus and get this closed: User:Fayenatic london, User:Necrothesp, User:Marcocapelle, User:P Aculeius, User talk:Mclay1, User:William Allen Simpson, User:Qwerfjkl, User:Dimadick, User:Anomalous+0. - jc37 09:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to ping me. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing new from my end: the first category should be "by subject" (or otherwise "by individual"); "works about" is better than "depictions of" as it more clearly excludes incidental non-defining depictions; and I have no opinion on "in" versus "on". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing has changed for me. I prefer the term "depictions" to include all depictions of the historical figure in film. I would oppose all used of "about", as it would render the categories subjective and useless. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will continue to maintain that "works based on" is very poor English when referring to people and will therefore oppose that. I also don't think we need to broaden the categories from film to wider works. I therefore continue to support "Portrayals of XXXX on film" (on reflection, I agree that "on" is preferable to "in"), although I will happily go with "depictions" if that is the consensus. The wider category still needs to be renamed, as almost all films depict people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depictions rather than portrayals, as it is a broader description, focusing less on individual actors and more on character; in film rather than on film, since the latter suggests that the physical medium—cellulose nitrate, Kodachrome negatives—is the purpose of the categories, rather than the fact that persons are depicted on television or in motion pictures. While "works about X" could be parent categories in some cases, many depictions of persons occur in works about someone or something else, so renaming any of these categories would narrow their scope considerably with relation to film, and leave various works in which persons are depicted or portrayed with nowhere to go, so better not to turn these categories into "works about X". P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • - There's a distinct difference between a.) a film based on George Washington, b.) a film which depects George Washington, and c.) a film in which George Washington was potrayed. So which one of these three do you each think that the inclusion criteria should be, and why? - jc37 13:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no difference whatsoever between b) and c), and a) is just bad English. You can have a film based on a biography of George Washington or a character based on George Washington, but not a film based on George Washington. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The inclusion criteria should be only films which are substantially about the individual, not just films in which the individual briefly appears. Both are portrayals or depictions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, for "a", why do you say that "based on" is "bad english? What's your evidence? I'm looking at Special:PrefixIndex/List of films based on and this Google search, among other things.
    As for "b" and "c", there is a difference. "Depiction" can include any image at all of a character, including photos and artwork. "Portrayal" merely means that someone portrayed the character in the film, regardless of how long the character appeared, and regardless of their seeming importance to the film (or lack thereof). - jc37 16:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it, "portrayals" focuses on the actor playing the role, and how he plays the character; "depictions" can apply equally well to the actions, circumstances, and consequences of the character's actions on history (or other contexts), or to the fact that an actor represented the character, whether or not the film was about that character. For instance, Caesar is portrayed in a film about Caesar, and you can meaningfully discuss how he's portrayed; Decimus Brutus might appear in the film, but it's not about him and the way the actor wishes to portray him might not be that important, although he and many lesser figures might be depicted in the film without significant character development. That said, I can see an argument to interpret it almost the opposite way, but depictions still seems more flexible. I also think that in film is a better choice to indicate the medium of motion pictures or television, whereas on film suggests that the physical medium—film reels, negatives, prints—is the subject. P Aculeius (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Category:Depictions of people on film to Category:Films portraying people by subject and Category:Films based on people by subject. The concepts have been inappropriately merged. Finesse "in" versus "on"; portrayals over "depictions"; based on is better English.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Threading the needle of proposals by Jc37 and Marcocapelle. If we don't use "about" as previously proposed, then "based on" is better than "based upon biography of" — it's not about the biography, it's about the subject person.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So those for the parent cats, and then "Films portraying X", and "Films based on X" as the individual subcats, respectively? I can accept that compromise. Using "portraying" is better than "depicting", at least. You could even do "Film portrayals of people by subject", with "Film portrayals of X", as subcats, if that makes people happier. - jc37 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "in film" but support "depictions of". "On film" should be used instead of "in film" in my opinion because its the general way to describe depictions from that medium, same way "on screen" and "on television" is. "Depictions of" is in my opinion the best choice because it's broader than "portrayal" (which often means how something is depicted and mainly pertins to actors performances in my experience). I don't agree that "cultural depictions" or "depictions of" is something like a neologism, its just a description of what the categories or article sections cover. I also don't agree that "Works about" or "Works based on" is better, not all depictions of something or someone is a work (intellectual work/creative work etc).★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide an example of a "depiction" that is not a "creative work". - jc37 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already asked me this once before and I have already provided examples. [1] You failed to get support for the idea that fictional characters are "works" back in February. And besides that, articles like Depictions of Muhammad and Buddha in art are often not about individual works or series of works but about trends, styles, types and reasons and reactions to depictions of persons. Artist impersonators like Michael Jackson impersonators are also not "works".★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) And before you link the creative work article again; no I don't find that article to be convincting since it's literally a stub about a legal concept with no more than 2 citations.★Trekker (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Failed to get support from you? : )
    That discussion you linked to had concerns withe "about", because - as we're noting here - just because something is depicted in a work, doesn't mean that that work is entirely about whatever is being depicted. Indeed, above it's been noted that a picture of Jesus might appear in a film, yet that film may not be "about" Jesus, just because an image was depicted. Using "depictions" is a really bad idea in categorization.
    Anyway, to respond to your examples, Performance art is still a work of art. Anything that falls under the fine arts are a work of art, for that matter.
    And you say the articles you note aren't even depictions, but rather "...but about trends, styles, types and reasons and reactions to depictions..." - if true, then those are not depictions but rather, are about "stuff" which are about depictions - why would they be categorised here? : )
    I get that you don't like the article. (Not sure what you don't like about a referenced legal definition, though.) And I get that you don't like dictionary definitions. The problem with that is that makes your position original research. I'm backing my assertion up with verifiable references. (Here's another: [[2].) What do you have besides your personal opinion? - jc37 21:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - wikt:depiction and wikt:portrayal. It's interesting how imprecise both terms can be. The fun part is that "in film", we could be talking about the film as the piece of art, or the appearance of a piece of art in the film. The difference between talking about The Thomas Crown Affair - a film - and about The Son of Man - a piece of art which appears in the film. And per the definitions I just linked to, both "depiction in film" and "potrayal in film" apply to The Son of Man's appearance in that film. The painting is about a person. What, you don't like that it's an artist's interpretation of a person? But that's what all art of people is. An artist's interpretation. Oh wait you want the art to be about specific people? Ok. How about House of Wax? Are we saying that we are going to categorize that film based upon all of the historical people depicted in that film? To be honest, after re-reading this discussion, and in light of the actual definitions for these terms, I'm starting to lean towards Delete all. If no consensus for deletion, I'll Support William Allen Simpson's compromise above. - jc37 06:08, 3 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 Pontus

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:Monarchs of Pontus. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of kings of Pontus. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: nomination amended from "Kings" to "Monarchs" to include queens regnant. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Updated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@William Allen Simpson: do you also agree with the amended nomination? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If you'd pinged us on the day you found them, we could have avoided the relist. Once I've !voted, I'll rarely look again without a ping.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll keep that in mind. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 23 March 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:Monarchs by religion

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: as follows.

There was no resolution oto whether WP:OCEGRS was applicable, but it was noted that the Zoroastrian category was not in line with the category naming convention, and that the Khagan ones are WP:SMALLCAT (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS. This is a trivial intersection with religion. Category:Rulers by religion, Category:Muslim rulers and Category:Buddhist rulers were recently manually deleted for the same reason. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS Adding Category:Christian Khagans (also per WP:OR and WP:SMALLCAT: 1 child, 1 item) and Category:Kievan Khagans (which has Category:Christian Khagans as its only parent; also per WP:OR). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting the Kyivan khagans category based on this discussion. It has nothing to do with religion. The given rationale doesn’t apply to it. —Michael Z. 07:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, because it is completely unconnected to other category tree, except through Category:Christian Khagans. The degree to which the early Kyivan monarchs were "k(h)agans" and Christian or pagan is subject to ongoing scholarly discussion. It is a fascinating topic, and I've written a lot about it recently at Grand Prince of Kiev. But it is also a complicated discussion that requires nuanced, evidence-based answers. It cannot be simply decided by some guy categorising them according to his own WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 21 March 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:Estonian cabinetmakers

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. – Fayenatic London 08:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 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:Renaissance Revival architecture in Estonia

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. – Fayenatic London 08:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 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:Horse racing venues in Estonia

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. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 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:Buildings and structures in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

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 to Category:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The small category, contains only one page. Why not to merge into existing Category:Buildings and structures in Western Sahara? Skovl (talk) 12:29, 21 March 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:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 2#Category:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Category:Estonian Eurodance groups

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. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 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:First ladies of Honduras

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: speedy renamed. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now, even in Honduras, a female president's male spouse has appeared. The category title must also be changed. Sangjinhwa (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things to note here. Firstly, this is an entirely uncontroversial issue with a clear explanation — it's no longer just theoretically possible that a male spouse of a female president of Honduras might happen in the indeterminate future, but is now a present reality — so this didn't need to come to CFR for a week of discussion, and could have been handled as a speedy. And secondly, the very next thing the nominator did after listing this for renaming was to preemptively move all of the articles into the proposed new category before the proposed new category actually existed, which is not the proper renaming process: even if the category name is wrong and needs renaming, articles still have to stay in the wrongly-named category until such time as the correctly-renamed category actually exists, and articles may never be preemptively moved into a redlinked category pending a future renaming that hasn't already happened yet.
    But since there was no compelling reason to move all of the articles back to the old category pending an uncontroversial rename that didn't need seven days of discussion, only to be moved back into the new category again next Tuesday, I've just gone ahead and moved the category. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 22 March 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.

Bulgarian emperors

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. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the Bulgarian monarchs were called tsar which has become a proper English-language word. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 21 March 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.

Bulgarian monarchs

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. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with mostly just one emperors subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 21 March 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:Sportspeople by ethnic or national descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Category naming does not provide for by region encapsulating by country, nor does Wikipedia:Categorization of people provide for by region or by continent encapsulating by nationality and occupation. WP:COP-HERITAGE Categories that intersect heritage with occupation, residence, or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right....
Summary: Trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. These are not harmless as these "regional" subcategories are also a proxy for race, and are understood that way. Continuing removals after categories were emptied by previous discussions.
Followup to:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 14#Category:Sportspeople of African descent
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 8#Category:Sportspeople of Asian descent
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 8#Category:Sportspeople of North American descent
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Category:Sportspeople of Caribbean descent
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Sportspeople of Latin American descent
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27#Category:Sportspeople of South American descent
  7. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 24#Category:Sportspeople of Oceanian descent
  8. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 12#Category:Sportspeople of European descent
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:41, 21 March 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_March_21&oldid=1165688833"