Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 31: Line 31:
:Note that https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25489375 finds 5 articles which could populate [[:Category:Irish astrophysicists]]. I had no chance to populate it it, because I was not notified of the nomination, and became aware of it only a few days ago.
:Note that https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25489375 finds 5 articles which could populate [[:Category:Irish astrophysicists]]. I had no chance to populate it it, because I was not notified of the nomination, and became aware of it only a few days ago.
:If Oculi wants to use CFD to punish editors for not following a personal principle of his which contradicts the guideline, then he should open an RFC to seek a census to amend [[WP:SMALLCAT]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:If Oculi wants to use CFD to punish editors for not following a personal principle of his which contradicts the guideline, then he should open an RFC to seek a census to amend [[WP:SMALLCAT]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:* The lack of notification is very unfortunate, especially considering the earlier clashes we had about [[WP:SMALLCAT]]. That said, I can't imagine why anyone would create a category and not immediately populate it to the best of their knowledge. We don't need ''rules'' for that, do we? It is obviously unhelpful to the community to create half- (or less than half-) populated categories. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


==== Category:Musical fantasy films ====
==== Category:Musical fantasy films ====

Revision as of 16:31, 2 August 2023

< August 1
August 3 >

August 2

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Irish astrophysicists

Nominator's rationale: 1 article (10:43, 24 June 2023). An editor who creates a category has a duty to populate it if possible before moving on to other matters. A category consisting of one article is useless and gives the impression in this case that the Irish are not gifted Astrophysicists. I could populate the category quite easily (eg this elementary google search) but would rather spend my time trying to encourage editors to complete their self-allotted tasks properly. Note also that Astrophysicists are not explicitly gathered together by continent; a sad omission which someone contributing to this category tree might care to address. Oculi (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "Merge" on July 2. I am reopening and relisting per a request on my talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per WP:CSK #2 as an overtly vindictive nomination:
This is a highly problematic nomination of a category created by me:
  1. There is no policy or guideline to support the nominator's assertion that An editor who creates a category has a duty to populate it if possible before moving on to other matters. It is contradicted by SMALLCAT's focus on "potential for growth".
  2. The nom's claim that A category consisting of one article is useless is not supported by WP:SMALLCAT.
  3. The nom explicitly acknowledges that the category could be adequately populated, but instead of doing so, he takes the time of multiple editors to delete.
  4. The nom explicitly states his desire to punish: would rather spend my time trying to encourage editors to complete their self-allotted tasks properly
  5. Oculi used WP:TWINKLE to create the nomination[1]. By default Twinkle automatically notifies the creator, as it did for Oculi multiple times that week. See e.g. June 20[2], June 22[3], June 23[4], June 25[5]. But no notification on 24 June, to me.
    I did not even spot his nomination until 27 July, when checking Oculi's contribs for the SmallCats case.
Note that https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25489375 finds 5 articles which could populate Category:Irish astrophysicists. I had no chance to populate it it, because I was not notified of the nomination, and became aware of it only a few days ago.
If Oculi wants to use CFD to punish editors for not following a personal principle of his which contradicts the guideline, then he should open an RFC to seek a census to amend WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of notification is very unfortunate, especially considering the earlier clashes we had about WP:SMALLCAT. That said, I can't imagine why anyone would create a category and not immediately populate it to the best of their knowledge. We don't need rules for that, do we? It is obviously unhelpful to the community to create half- (or less than half-) populated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical fantasy films

Nominator's rationale: A cross-categorization resulting in a made-up and ill-defined genre. When you get down into the "by decade" weeds, some entries are films of operas (which technically aren't films of musicals), some are films of stage musicals which someone decided had some fantastical element, and some apparently were categorized simply because they are animated. Even split back out to the parent Category:Musical films and Category:Fantasy films there are plenty of (IMO) inaccurate categorizations, but there's no parent article for this, and a quick search makes it quite plain that such a genre is a fantasy (as it were) of Wikipedian construction. I have not tagged the tree of subcats due to lack of time and Twinkle, so I would appreciate if someone better equipped for mass tagging could take care of that. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mangoe: if at least you list the categories that need to be tagged, that would help for the actual tagging. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are as follows:
Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the issue. Of course there are films that are of musicals, and films that have fantastical settings, but unless you are willing to advance the thesis that all musical films are fantasies by their nature (which isn't entirely implausible, but which also obviates this categorization), these are independent characteristics. There's no genre of fantasy musical theater, and there's no corresponding film genre, but that's what this category tree seems to be saying. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unless you are willing to advance the thesis that all musical films are fantasies by their nature Why would I need to? I don't understand you. Compare one of the more famous musical films, The Sound of Music (film). That is in Category:1960s romantic musical films, for example. Do you need "to advance the thesis that all musical films are romantic by their nature" in order to justify that category's existence? I really don't think so. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Oh well let me put a similar follow-up question to you. Is there something wrong with having a Category:Romantic musical films tree without having a Romantic musical films main article? I don't think so. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing, there need to be sources confirming that this is a well recognized genre. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion and mergers A perfectly valid category tree. And WP:SMALLCAT is ridikculous as an argument, since there is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of an article about Musical fantasy films gives the nomination the benefit of the doubt. It is up to the opposers to demonstrate that this is a valid genre after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a reversal of the burden of proof. It's always the nominator who needs to provide a rationale, and if no consensus can be reached, the category is kept by default. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a frequent nominator I am sometimes on the "losing" end of a discussion, and that usually means there was something wrong with my rationale, so I know what it's like hahaha . Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The burden of proof for creating an article lies with the creator, the burden of proof for a category too unless there is already a well accepted article about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. So why do we need to delete a well-established category tree created on 14 March 2007? If this category tree was created last week, it would be different, but this tree is really no stranger to Wikipedia; it's been around here longer than I have. The burden of proof now lies with the nominator. Not the opposers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The age of a page is not very relevant. We need reliable sources (of the genre's existence in this case), preferably incorporated in an article and else added in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only defender of this category tree, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs), has resorted to well-known arguments to avoid such as WP:OSE. However, we do have a main article for this genre: Romantic fantasy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Romantic fantasy follows the conventions of the chivalric romance. Where is the musical element in it?Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @LaundryPizza03 I (and apparently Dimadick aa well) think you are confusing several things:
      1. I am not the only "defender": with you, me and Dimadick that makes us three, so we actually constitute a majority.
      2. Categories do not require a main article to justify their existence (unlike on German Wikipedia).
      3. Obviously WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a sufficient argument, but it may help to draw insightful comparisons. Nom's rationale is "A cross-categorization resulting in a made-up and ill-defined genre." So I just made a comparison of another combination between "musical films" and another "[genre] films" tree. That just happened to be "Category:Romantic musical films" (which has not been nominated).
      4. I think you are confusing this nom (about "Category:musical fantasy films") with my comparison (about "Category:Romantic musical films") to produce something entirely unrelated (about Romantic fantasy film). If you deliberately brought it up as your own comparison, doesn't your own criticism of using WP:OTHERSTUFF undermine your own comparison? I believe you are just confused, because I can't make sense of it.
      5. Given all of the above, what are you actually !voting for? I'm at a loss. Do you agree with Dimadick and me in Opposing the nomination? Do you have your own reasons for Keeping Category:musical fantasy films? Or do you really want to Keep Category:Romantic fantasy films (which has not been nominated)?
      I hope you could clear this up. I assume you've just been a little confused about the nomination and the discussion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I intend to !vote Keep on the basis that the premises of the delete arguments are false, and that the existence of a main article that defines the genre is a valid reason to keep. I made no attempt to compare against the romantic musical tree, and in any event the redirect Romantic musical points to an existing section in Romance film. I do not foresee why either genre can be ill-defined if they are a combination of romance and, respectively, fantasy and musical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-European law

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between language group and ancient society. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another arbitrarily defined category based on a group of peoples. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Do not delete, this would orphan some children and items. (Heh, that sounds a bit dramatic, "orphaning children"? Oh well, I didn't invent this categorisation terminology). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But yes, you're both right. There seem to be lots of "Indo-European" WP:CROSSCATs we should look at. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Peterkingiron used the term "orphaning" a lot, he may well have invented the usage of the term for this context. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hah well no, I recently found out that this term dates back to at least 2004 (before he joined). But I suspect it is probably much older than that, predating Wikipedia, in the earliest days of computing when the categorisation of items was invented. But it could even stem from elsewhere, like libraries or archives. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marge/Delete per User:LaundryPizza03. Another dubious Krakkos creation. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what is the reason to delete over upmerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manuscripts by collection

Nominator's rationale: Renaming to match such categories as Category: Museum collections. This isn't a category of manuscripts, it's a category of collections. - jc37 11:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as nom. - jc37 11:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't vote for your own nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. And closers are (presumably) not clueless. Commenting "as nom" has been done for years. - jc37 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is true, your nomination has already made your opinion on the category clear - all you've done here is repeat it unnecessarily. Grutness...wha? 17:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I have no problem with commenting as nom, I do that all the time. What I don't do is voting for my own proposals. At most I will indicate that I support an Alt proposal rather than my own original proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, it could have been ok as a container category but in fact there are also articles about collections. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer (edit: not opposed anymore, see comment below relisting) to await the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge, which might set off a chain reaction of renamings of this category's children. I think it's not a good idea to be renaming and possibly rescoping the parent category Category:Manuscripts by collection at this time. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This nom, doesn't affect that one at all. A collection can be a collection of any number, including 1. And the naming of this doesn't affect determining whether Cambridge may have 1 or more collections. And finally, this doesn't affect whether that nom changes its name to: in, of, held by, or whatever else. - jc37 13:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure about that. E.g. the Category:National Library of Wales collections aren't only manuscript collections, as subcategory Category:Paintings in the National Library of Wales demonstrates. I'm afraid we'll have to split such child categories first before we can rename the parent, while the current naming doesn't seem to lead to this problem. This is one of the reasons why I prefer to defer.
    Second, you can't vote for your own nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A category (or an article for that matter) can be multi-categorised. So if something holds 2 concepts (manuscripts and art in your example), they can have 2 parents. But that still has little to do with changing the name of this category name. This is about changing the inclusion criteria from grouping manuscripts to grouping collections - which matches what's actually in the category, currently. - jc37 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm maybe. One more objection I've got is that the proposal wants to turn individual manuscripts into groups of manuscripts, which may be a change of scope that leads to problems, but to be fair I cannot give examples of problems that might cause. I don't know. I just prefer to Defer to await the outcome of the other renamings that I think are coming, I worry it will disrupt the process. Your proposal may actually be fine otherwise, but I'm not sure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (as it is not a subcat scheme). Commenting as nom has indeed been done for years if not decades. Oculi (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I have no problem with commenting as nom, I do that all the time. What I don't do is voting for my own proposals. At most I will indicate that I support an Alt proposal rather than my own original proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the present example has been in use for many years without any problems. Eg 2008 August 25#Category:Comics-related websites. I've used it myself quite a few times. Oculi (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge has been closed in favor of renaming Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge to Category:Manuscripts held by the University of Cambridge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment, LaundryPizza. I would like to add that There is also agreement (...) that the wording "held by" should remain limited to manuscripts, and not serve as a precedent for future renamings of "other kinds of works in museums" (such as paintings).
Nom's rationale states Renaming to match such categories as Category:Museum collections. I think this does not necessarily contradict the agreement, but we should be careful to not be trying to match the subcategories of Category:Museum collections with the subcategories of Category:Manuscripts by collection to prevent exactly the precedent the agreement warns against.
With that said, I do not oppose the nomination anymore, although I still don't think it's necessary to change the current name. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athos manuscripts

Nominator's rationale: This is a nomination in line with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge and the associated article Mount Athos, but it is unclear which preposition should be used: at, by, or in. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, it would probably require purging. The category page header says "Manuscripts discovered or preserved in Mount Athos (Greece)" (my italic). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to change the current name per precedent. Athos is not an institution which preserves all these manuscripts. This is a grouping of manuscripts by their common provenience. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NL. Several are now elsewhere (London, St Petersberg, Belgrade etc - in fact most of the more famous ones). Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza

Nominator's rationale: Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge, except that the manuscripts listed are no longer in Cairo Geniza, so the applicability of the new naming convention is unclear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts "held by" seems inadequate indeed. WP:C2D would favour just Category:Cairo Genizah per Cairo Genizah. I would prefer Category:Cairo Genizah manuscripts to indicate what we are talking about. Preferably that would involve renaming the main article. After all, we're not interested in the "storage room" in Cairo, but the manuscripts held there. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main article uses the spelling Cairo Geniza. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This is one of those where original provenance would seem to apply... - jc37 19:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As the "held by" standard is just that, about manuscripts held in collection by some entity. These manuscripts were "found in" this location. So the "held by" standard is inapplicable in this case. - jc37 19:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others. The Cairo Geniza was not an institution, but a forgotten deposit of papers in an outhouse roof-loft. The current name is fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscripts

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19#Category:Manuscripts_in_Cambridge. Most of the subcategories of Category:Manuscripts by collection that are not named "Manuscripts of X" are collection categories that may contain non-manuscripts, and will need to be assessed separately. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per Cambridge precedent. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose to all I supported the Cambridge nom, but with an explicit caveat that I did not want this to be a general precedent, just a solution for a particular problem there. Libraries and archives may have "holdings", but museums have collections, as in the parent category names for most of these. These are works of art that happen to use the book format. There is no problem that this is designed to solve, and it would create unnecessary differences and confusion in museum trees. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an evident lack of standardization in the category names — some use in, while others use of. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Standard terminology. "Manuscripts of" is very poor English. Apart from anything else, it implies the manuscripts are about the institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it is not the "standard terminology". only a few currently use "Manuscripts of", the rest use "Manuscripts in", which is the "standard terminology" - these are not archive holdings, or printed books. I'm fine with changing those to match. "Apart from anything else, it implies the manuscripts are about the institution" seems extremely far-fetched to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeological cultures by ethnic group

Nominator's rationale: The main article Archaeological culture says in its opening lines: An archaeological culture is a recurring assemblage of types of artifacts, buildings and monuments from a specific period and region that may constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society. The connection between these types is an empirical observation, but their interpretation in terms of ethnic or political groups is based on archaeologists' understanding and interpretation and is in many cases subject to long-unresolved debates. (emphasis by me). The categorisation of archaeological cultures by ethnic groups (by which they appear to mean "language family") by a single editor in 2017 is deeply flawed, and should be undone. For now I just propose upmerging it to parent Category:Archaeological cultures. We might do the same later with its language-family-based subcategories as a follow-up. What the hell, we're doing all language-family-based subcategories right now as well, woohoo! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean clan names of Vietnamese origin

Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names" toobigtokale (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean clan names of Mongolian origin

Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names" toobigtokale (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean clan names of Japanese origin

Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names" toobigtokale (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean clan names of Chinese origin

Nominator's rationale: Concision; no need to specify "names". toobigtokale (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional military ranks

Nominator's rationale: This fails SMALLCAT. I've just removed Grand admiral from it, Fleet admiral (science fiction) is about to be deleted at AfD, and what's left is a redirect to the Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology. Potential for future expansion - close to zero. Fancrufty category for stuff that is now effectively gone. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of East Timor since independence

Nominator's rationale: merge, category is largely overlapping with the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian culture to Culture of Fooland

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D main article Culture of Fooland. For some background: in the early 2000s most articles and categories on English Wikipedia were actually named Fooian culture. Somewhere in the 2010s almost all articles were renamed Culture of Fooland, but only some categories were renamed Category:Culture of Fooland. E.g. Category:Georgian culture was already renamed to Category:Culture of Georgia (country)‎ back in 2009; while as recently as 30 March 2023, "Irish culture" was speedied to Category:Culture of the Republic of Ireland; nevertheless, they are so far quite lonely in parent Category:European culture by country. So to be honest, at the moment, there is quite a mismatch between almost all articles being named Culture of Fooland after renamings, but most categories still being named Category:Fooian culture. Meh...
I've tried making the article names consistent first. On 23 August 2022 I had Ukrainian culture moved to Culture of Ukraine; it was the only article about culture of countries in Europe which had still not been renamed to Culture of Fooland (somewhat ironic considering the events since 24 February 2022, but I digress). This morning I had the undiscussed move of Culture of Albania to Albanian culture reverted back to Culture of Albania. I thought speedying "Greek" to "Greece" and "Dutch" to "the Netherlands" would be a good follow-up as a test case, as I didn't want to speedy all children of Category:European culture by country just yet. I'm glad I didn't. @Marcocapelle: Opposed the request per WP:C2C, so here we are at full discussion. Hopefully this rationale explains why I think renaming per WP:C2D should be favoured. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear on this, I do not have an objection to the principle (i.e. I no longer have an objection, after an earlier discussion about this), but renaming just two categories to a different format than all of their siblings is not speediable. If reactions with respect to the principle are favourable, I would advise to add the siblings immediately to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Would it not be good practice to nominate the siblings in a follow-up CfR instead of adding them long after the discussion has opened? I don't want to end up with a situation in which early participants have only !voted for Renaming "Greece" and "Netherlands", but when I later add "Germany" etc. they are upset that I hadn't notified them of significantly expanding the nomination, some nominees of which they might Oppose and thus the nom as a whole. I'd rather not change the eligible candidates in the middle of an election after some people have already cast their votes, so to say. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Unlike with the archaeological cultures nom, I expect this nom to be a little more controversial, so I prefer being more cautious and setting a precedent first before doing a great, big, bundled nom that might fail. Compare how the political prisoners by country nom is going because lots of people object to the Polish category alone... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the lack of comments about the proposal at hand, the categories were not properly tagged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 Yeah sorry about that, I just noticed that you fixed them, thanks! Is it common practice to replace the speedy tags as soon as a nomination has moved to full discussion? I wasn't sure about that because with the Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, the regular CFD tag was just added on top of the speedy tag. I'm relatively new to speedy noms, this is only the second time or so that a speedy of mine was moved to full. I'd like to do it correctly in the future. Thanks in advance! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:District attorneys in Vermont

Nominator's rationale: Nominated by Billmckern for PROD with the rationale "Redundant. Federal prosecutors from Vermont are categorized as Category:United States Attorneys for the District of Vermont. State prosecutors from Vermont are categorized as Category:State's attorneys in Vermont" as categories cannot be deleted via PROD, I am procedurally turning it into a CfD. TartarTorte 20:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again editors have emptied this category that whose deletion is supposed to be discussed first. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a cached version on google from not long before the page was tagged and attempted to restore the categories to the pages from which they were removed and added them back. TartarTorte 13:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bohemian literature

Nominator's rationale: merge per actual category content. I have already moved Bartholomaeus of Drahonice and Johannes von Tepl to Category:15th-century Bohemian writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - seriously? What does a "Bohemian writer" suggest? Terminally ambiguous. "Writers from Bohemia" might work, though I don't really see why they need to be distinguished from Czechs. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to "Writers from Bohemia" but Category:Bohemian writers happens to be its current name. Feel free to nominate it if you wish. People from Bohemia weren't necessarily Czechs though, they could also be Germans. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Empty tomb

Nominator's rationale: merge, the articles in this category are not specifically about the empty tomb but more generally about the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The articles are the specific chapters of the Gospels about the empty tomb and the Myrrhbearers who encountered it. Not a general topic about the resurrection of anyone. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not of anyone, but of Jesus. These chapters do not only discuss the empty tomb but also all the appearances until and including the ascension, i.e. they are much broader in coverage. So they should be in the broader category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_2&oldid=1168416301"