Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2005 (talk | contribs) at 04:00, 25 July 2023 (→‎Category:Poker high rollers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 18
July 20 >

July 19

Category:XFL (2001) venues

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE and WP:NONDEFINING
The XFL (2001), or Extreme Football League, was a short-lived American football company and this category groups stadiums they played in from February 3, 2001 to April 21, 2001. (The 2020 version was even shorter, playing for 5 weeks before COVID19 hit and the league again folded.) All of the stadiums were pre-existing, not purpose built for either league. These seem like textbook examples of WP:OCVENUE. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The original Category:XFL venues was made a parent, then deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_30#XFL_categories, then disambiguated, and of course it will be deleted again under WP:G6 after these two. – Fayenatic London 06:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:OCVENUE says However, categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way for some or all of the year (such as Category:National Basketball Association venues) may sometimes be appropriate. The 2001 version of the league ran a full season, and the 2020 version wrapped up its second (and first full-length) season in 2023, with a 2024 season expected. You could make a case that the 2001 league category encompassed too few games to warrant a category for its stadiums, but the active 2020 league has had many more games. (By the way, if you read the article, XFL does not stand for "Extreme Football League"...) Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Eagles247. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is difficult to call it frequent when the initial XFL season only lasted a single season.--User:Namiba 22:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Namiba: What about the other league that has lasted more than 1.5 seasons so far, since that category is also up for discussion? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still does not make it a defining characteristic when a venue is used for this purpose for such a short portion of the history of the venue. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These stadiums are not defined by being XFL venues. They are defined by being the home stadiums of established NFL and/or NCAA teams.--User:Namiba 14:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond just the length of time, we've previously deleted categories for secondary uses for multipurpose venues here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That's non-defining, as none of these stadiums were built for, or are mostly known for their XFL team. I'm not sure if the present XFL is considered a continuation of the 2020 attempt or a completely new thing. Place Clichy (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Workplace bullying

Nominator's rationale: Reading through the list of articles and redirects in this category, it seems like this category is either unclear in its scope via its title or is not valid at all. At this point, I think WP:TNT applies. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibals

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the first album of the Fine Young Cannibals was The Raw & the Cooked (album). Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated, but propose ALT1:
Merge:

The by-continent groupings do have realistic potential for growth, per WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you will create the continent categories, I will support the alternative. It wouldn't be fair to leave the creation of new categories to the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: I am sorry to say that your approach here is sadly reminiscent of your approach to the emigrant and expatriate categories.
    Both here and in the other cases, the optimal merge of small by-country categories is to wider continental categories. If those targets do not exist, then they need to be created. But it is invidious to propose an overly-broad merge, and demand that a better merge be considered only if the objector does all to work.
    You are the one who has proposed upmerger, so if you want to save the closer from the sort of clerical work that I routinely did when I closed CFDs, then go ahead. But it's not my job. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not my job either. Then I will leave it to the closer either to proceed with the original nomination or to create new categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • BHG might get more buy-in if only she could be less BHG in her dealings with other editors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ALT1 - we have been moving away from using 'African' etc for people categories, African not being a nationality. User:William Allen Simpson proposed a slew of these a few months ago. Down with the tyranny of the demonym, for continents at least. Oculi (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the adjectival format is problem, then use "from" instead. "Cannibals from Asia".
    But a preference for Cannibals from Asia" rather than "Asian cannibals" is no reason to remove all geography from the categries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am further thinking about it, continent isn't really a common factor here. In contrast to what one might perhaps expect, the tree does not contain a significant number of "traditional" cannibals from Africa or Oceania. In contrast, it is mostly populated criminals e.g. serial killers. That has nothing to do with continent. So oppose ALT1 too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Countries and continents are simply the higher-level units by which en.wp categories group topics geographically.
    If we discard all geographical groupings because an activity is mostly related to populated places rather countries or continents, then we should remove vast chunks of the people-by-nationality and people-by-continent category trees. If that's really your goal, then open a WP:RFC to propose this widespread change rather than applying this novel principle to one small set of categories.
    This objection looks very like at pique at my unwillingness to be pressed into doing the clerical work. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact Category:European people (as are the others) is a container category and people are not in general directly placed at the top level. Alt1 will result in a person being directly categorised as African, which has racial overtones. it is the merging of categories to a non-existent and bizarre continental grouping using terminology often perceived as racial that is novel. Oculi (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As Nominated Definitely smallcat. Since these criminals broke national laws, continental ones don't seem like they would aid navigation in this case. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ALT1 Sorry about the double vote here. Regard it as as clarification of my Support vote above. For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to Indigenous cuisine was just one of my little jokes. Hope it didn't leave a bad taste in your mouth. Sorry for that too - just couldn't resist. Anyhoo... pique or not, Marco is actually correct; this whole tree is more akin to Category:Serial killers which does not have a "by continent" parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom. I think we need to take a look at the parent cat Category:Cannibals, before doing this. First, I presume that we're talking about Human cannibalism, and not just merely Cannibalism. And second, categorisation seems to be a mix and muddle of criminals and non-criminals. And looking at List of incidents of cannibalism, then we also have various cultures which may have engaged in the practice in the past. This is something that, I think, needs context. Which means this should be a list (per WP:CLN#Disadvantages_of_a_category, point #2) - which it already is. So I'm leaning towards Listify/Delete all. - jc37 09:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: I wouldn't disagree with deletion (especially since most subjects are criminals) but that would require a nomination of the whole tree, in a fresh discussion. For now, while the tree as a whole is not nominated, I am assuming you are neutral about the upmerge rather than opposing it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think UpMerging is going to create even more of a muddle. And make it more difficult to listify, if that's what is eventually wanted. - jc37 17:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imperials during the end of the Han dynasty

Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the purpose of the category. I guessed it would only contain emperors but it also contains their spouses. The category is a bit of an odd duck. Alternatively we may merge it to Category:People during the end of the Han dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English chronicles

Nominator's rationale: More WP:CATSPECIFIC. What all items have in common is that they are chronicles written in English (be it Old English, Middle English, or Early Modern English), with England (the Kingdom of England) as their topic. Category:Chronicles about England has been created as a parent, Category:Latin chronicles about England and Category:Anglo-Norman chronicles about England have been split off as siblings. Follow-up to recent renaming of Category:English manuscripts to Category:English-language manuscripts, as well as a follow-up to recently renamed siblings:
Category:French chronicles to Category:Chronicles about France (which has children such as Category:French-language chronicles about France, Category:Latin chronicles about France);
Category:Lithuanian chronicles to Category:Chronicles about Lithuania (most of which are written in German, Ruthenian, or Latin, not Lithuanian);
Category:Polish chronicles to Category:Chronicles about Poland (which has children such as Category:Latin chronicles about Poland).
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am opposed to any and all categories of the form "chronicles about [country]". These should all be changed. It just isn't a normal way fo speaking or writing. It is pretty much the rarest chronicle + preposition combination you can think of. Srnec (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively this may become just Category:English-language chronicles. The first article is in Latin, by the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also possible, but in practice they are all about English, so "English-language chronicles about England" is the most WP:CATSPECIFIC. If we do go with this shorted title, would you be okay with including English-language chronicles about Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and potentially other topics? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: The article Gesta Henrici Quinti does say in the infobox "Language: English and Latin" and already had the parent Category:English-language books, so I kept it here, but no citation is given for this claim that it is somehow bilingually English and Latin. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Do we have English language chronicles about other countries? Are all chronicles about England and/or Great Britain in English language? Like nominator, I also prefer all-things literature / written cultural monuments/heritage to be tied to language in sense of categorisation. ౪ Santa ౪99° 22:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some English-language chronicles are about Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, or still other countries. The mistake here is that "English" always refers to both England and the English language, quod non. This error occurs constantly throughout this category tree, which I am seeking to address. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there are Category:French-language chronicles about France, French-language/Category:Anglo-Norman chronicles about England, Category:Old French chronicles about the Crusades, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are also lots of French-language chronicles about Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. simply because French was the court language of much of Europe in the High and Late Middle Ages. Similarly, Category:Latin chronicles can have any country or any set of events as their topic, nobody is saying Latin chronicles could only be about the Roman Empire or anything. Language and country often simply do not coincide, that's a very modern idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish manuscripts

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (0 C, 2 P) + WP:NONDEFINING (not written in Polish, but Latin; they are preserved in 2 different libraries in Poland, but that's Category:Manuscripts by collection, not "area". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two entries, there may be more on Polish Wikipedia. I think this is a category that has potential to grow. There were notable Polish manuscripts. There is some overlap for example with Category:Chronicles about Poland. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'll ping some users interested in medieval Polish history: User:Orczar, User:Artemis Andromeda. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Okay, but before you do, what is your scope? Would you like to make this category about manuscripts about Poland, manuscripts written in Polish, manuscripts produced in Poland, manuscripts preserved in collections located in Poland, or something else? Because there is a risk of lumping everything that is "Polish" in all sorts of different ways together in a way that isn't very useful for categorisation. I've already made a lot of effort to make clear what was "Polish" about the "Polish chronicles", which led to it being renamed to Category:Chronicles about Poland. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw That's a good question. Commons-category is named "Polish-language manuscripts". What is the scope of the works we have in Category:Manuscripts by area? We also have there, for example, Category:Czech manuscripts and Category:French manuscripts, the latter (but not the former) under a rename discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Exactly. I'm working on clarifying that. I don't know the best solution for Category:Czech manuscripts yet, but if you'd like to take a look at my notes, this is what I've got so far:
Czech-language manuscripts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_Verborum Latin, Czech, dictionary, National Museum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Dalimil Latin, Czech, chronicle
Manuscripts in collections in Prague
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal, National Museum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_viaticus Latin, produced in Silesia, liturgy, National Museum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_Verborum Latin, Czech, dictionary, National Museum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passional_of_Abbess_Kunigunde Latin, passional, from Prague, National Library
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velislai_biblia_picta Latin, Bible, National Library
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vyssegradensis Latin, evangeliary, National Library
Manuscripts about the Czech lands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas Latin, chronicle, Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen_Codex Latin, history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronica_Boemorum Latin, chronicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Dalimil Latin, Czech, chronicle
Manuscripts produced in the Czech lands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp_Bible Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vyssegradensis Latin, evangeliary, National Library
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen_Codex Latin, history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passional_of_Abbess_Kunigunde Latin, passional, from Prague
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velislai_biblia_picta Latin, Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenceslas_Bible German, Bible, Austrian Nat. Library
I would like to have at least 5 items to create a new category, and this category should be WP:DEFINING. "Czech-language manuscripts" is my preferred option, but I've only got 3 items so far. The "Manuscripts in collections in Prague" shouldn't be thrown together (see my comment to Johnbod below about Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge). "Manuscripts about the Czech lands" may be a good idea, but I'd like to have at least 5, and Srnec said earlier today "manuscripts about Fooland" may not be the best choice for a category. "Manuscripts produced in the Czech lands" is WP:NONDEFINING in my opinion. So you can see I don't really know how to move forward with this category right now, haha! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw It is tough, and I certainly agree that Fooish manuscripts is not well defined. Your analysis above is very solid. I am pretty sure this can be applied to many countries, including Poland. Here's a Polish Wikipedia category named "Manuscripts in Poland": pl:Kategoria:Manuskrypty w Polsce. Here's a random entry I checked that exists on en wiki but is not in the Polish manuscripts category yet: Minuscule 653. And here's more headache stuff that you've likely seen: Category:Slavic manuscripts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Thanks, I appreciate your comments. And yes, this applies to many countries/languages, I'm looking all European chronicles / manuscripts in Europe since 26 May. I've been able to clarify, refine and reorganise a lot. But there is a lot left to do, and certain problems I have not yet solved. The Category:Polish manuscripts could be saved, but it needs to have a good purpose. I am open to any suggestions you have. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw maybe just follow sources? If manuscript is described as "Polish" than it has rights to be here? Polish literature was written in many languages, Polish and Latin primarily, but not only. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't solve the problem, but makes it even worse. Because now we're introducing two more possible meanings / category trees of "Polish", namely Category:Literature by country (manuscripts written by someone living in Poland?) and Category:Literature by nationality (manuscripts written by someone with Polish nationality). We already had to choose between Category:Manuscripts by collection (not applicable here, this goes by institution, not country) and Category:Manuscripts by language (not applicable to manuscripts that were written in languages other than Polish).
As with "Czech manuscripts", we can't just throw all items which are somehow "Polish" in different ways together. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm not sure where I gave an example like this before, but suppose the following scenario:
  • A writer born Austria in 1400
  • Whose native language was German
  • Who became a monk in the Duchies of Silesia and copied the Apocalypse of John in Latin there
  • And a manuscript of this copy is currently preserved in some library in Bratislava.
What does that make this manuscript?
  • "Austrian"? (Literature by nationality)
  • "German"? (native language, or claiming that the Holy Roman Empire was the predecessor state of modern Germany)
  • "Polish"? (Literature by country)
  • "Bohemian"? (Literature by former country, namely Lands of the Bohemian Crown)
  • "Czech"? (Literature by country, if we regard the Lands of the Bohemian Crown as a predecessor of the present-day Czech Republic)
  • "Slovak"? (Manuscripts by collection, because it is preserved in a library in Bratislava)
To everyone's surprise, you could even argue: No, it is a "Greek" manuscript, because the contents of the manuscript were originally written in Greek on the Greek island of Patmos by John of Patmos, so really, by country/nationality/original language/etc., it was "Greek". (And even that might not settle it, because John of Patmos was probably not born on Patmos, but only banished to it from elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Due to the high frequency of semitisms in the text, his native language was probably not Greek, but Aramaic, so he may have been born in Galilee, Palestine or some other Jewish diaspora community around the Mediterranean).
In other words, these adjectives can have WAY too many different meanings to be helpful for categorisation purposes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: follow sources, it solves all your problems Marcelus (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification is needed, for sure. Are there manuscripts written in Polish, other than historical documents? Perhaps not. I wouldn't object to the other cats, if large enough to escape WP:SMALLCAT. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly are manuscripts written in Polish, but I doubt that English Wikipedia has many stand-alone articles about them. Lots of manuscripts produced in Poland were written in Latin, including the two currently in this category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge

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:Manuscripts held by the University of Cambridge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B (majority), WP:CATSPECIFIC, to indicate we're talking about the manuscript collection of the University of Cambridge.
Incidentally, parent Category:Manuscripts by collection shows that manuscript collections are named inconsistently:
  • 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Bar' is the most common description (11X; 6 of them are libraries),
  • 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Library' is also common for library collections (6x),
  • 'collection(s)' is almost never used in combination with 'manuscript' (so the collection(s) in question probably preserve other items beside manuscripts, such as 'paintings' in the case of Category:National Library of Wales collections).
While I would prefer 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Bar collection(s)' as a rule of thumb, this seems unnecessary, impractical, and sometimes perhaps inaccurate. After all, 'of' seems to indicate ownership rather than location, and it's possible for manuscripts to be temporarily removed from their collections for expositions elsewhere. Grammatically, 'in' is fine for 'in the library', but not for 'in the university', so it also seems the wrong preposition for 'Manuscripts in the University of Cambridge'. Perhaps 'at' would be better if we wanted to indicate a university location. But 'of' to indicate ownership is probably the best option, and the easiest way to be consistent with the library catnames.
So... should we rename the 6 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Library' cats to 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Library'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename rationale: per Necrothesp (and Jc37). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it really matter? Not everyone will be aware that the Fitzwilliam Museum is part of the university - if I was. I'd forgotten it. We don't have other "MS by location" cats, but it wouldn't be a terrible idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod Well in this case it doesn't really matter. But I'm currently trying to reorganise Category:Czech manuscripts, and I've found out that 6 of them are preserved in Prague, but 3 in the National Library of the Czech Republic and 3 in the National Museum (Prague). They are two different, independent institutions located 1.5 kilometres from each other. Evidently, two separate collections, so it would not be a good idea to just throw these 6 items together as Category:Manuscripts in Prague as a child of Category:Manuscripts by collection. The point about "of/in/at" is more trivial, although for consistency's sake and because "ownership" rather than "location" seems to be meant, "of" is probably the best option. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge seems like a more natural choice of name than the alternatives offered so far, and it's mainly the placing of it within Category:Manuscripts by collection that's proving to be a problem. Is there any reason not to have a Category:Manuscripts by city for Cambridge, Prague and any others, just as we have Category:Paintings by city? Dublin, London, New York and Paris have multiple collections at Category:Manuscripts by collection. Ham II (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike paintings, and apart from highly significant manuscripts like Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (pictured), we usually don't put manuscripts on public display, so their location is WP:NONDEFINING. More defining is who is the owner / custodian of the collection they are part of.
    @Ham II Is there any reason not to have a Category:Manuscripts by city for Cambridge, Prague and any others? Yes. As I said, 'of' [in 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Bar'] seems to indicate ownership rather than location, and it's possible for manuscripts to be temporarily removed from their collections for expositions elsewhere.
    I might add that the University of Cambridge could have a permanent secondary collection depot, archive, museum, library or gallery that is located outside of Cambridge. Suppose that for some reason, the University of Cambridge decided to acquire the Cambridgeshire Archives and Local Studies, located in Ely, Cambridgeshire, but outside the city of Cambridge itself. (Acquisitions like that can happen all the time). Any manuscripts preserved in those Archives will be Manuscripts of the University of Cambridge, but not Manuscripts in Cambridge. This is the difference between ownership and location.
    • As the Prague example shows, manuscripts located in the same city aren't necessarily part of a collection or set of collections owned by the same institution/organisation (but National Library versus National Museum).
    • As my fictional Cambridge/Ely example shows, manuscripts which are part of a collection or set of collections owned by the same institution/organisation aren't necessarily located in the same city/town/village (but Cambridge versus Ely).
    For paintings, the city may be defining, because paintings are usually on public display (although many are also stored in depots instead). Manuscripts, on the other hand, are usually not on public display, except for very historically or culturally significant ones. E.g. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is the size of a credit card, but is of great importance to Textual variants in the New Testament and therefore on public display behind lots of protective glass for visitors to gaze at. But that's the exception rather than the rule. The average visitor of a museum or library etc. usually doesn't know the value of some letters written down on a very old scrap of paper if they can't even read it, but they usually do not have to be art historians/critics to be fascinated by seeing a painting they know nothing about. I think that makes all the difference. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: Cheers for the good-natured response, but much of the above is true for paintings (and other artworks in museums) as well as for manuscripts. I would have thought that paintings get lent out to exhibitions more often than manuscripts do. Paintings too can be in storage outside the city where the museum is, or in locations not disclosed to the public. It's especially likely that prints, drawings or photographs will be in storage rather than on display, because of their material fragility; in that respect they're like manuscripts. We can still refer to them as being in the museums which own them as a kind of shorthand, though, as I did in the first sentence of this paragraph.

    This is the problem my earlier painting-related CfD nominations ran into; the simplest unambiguous style ("Paintings in Foo") was felt to be imprecise because locations can temporarily change, while a more precise and versatile style ("Paintings in the collection of Foo", like your "Manuscripts in the Fooian Bar collection(s)") was thought to be too wordy so there wasn't any enthusiasm for changing instances of the first into the second. We seem to have settled on "Paintings in Foo" now, despite its not always being perfectly precise.

    Reading over the original nom again, I wonder whether "of" is best after all for university collections, and therefore for this particular category, simply because "in" has to be ruled out. The affected categories within Manuscripts by collection would be this one and Manuscripts of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; once the word "library" is added, as with the category for MSS in Leiden University Library, there isn't such a problem with using "in", as you say. Ham II (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good points, most of which I agree with.
    I would have thought that paintings get lent out to exhibitions more often than manuscripts do. Paintings too can be in storage outside the city where the museum is, or in locations not disclosed to the public. I agree. I think that's a good reason to prefer collection over city. You appear to agree: We can still refer to [prints, drawings or photographs] as being in the museums which own them. I don't necessarily seek to rename "Paintings in Foo"), it would require a separate nomination and discussion. Suffice to say that we agree city/location/area/geography is sometimes not knowable, and probably WP:NONDEFINING.
    Manuscripts of (the) Fooian Bar is currently the standard, which seems to best address all issues. Manuscripts of Leiden University seems perfectly fine as a catname. So does Manuscripts of the Leiden University Library. Libraries are the only exception to use "in", but only in half (6/12) of all cases, the other half being "of". "of" just has the most advantages as a preposition here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Lists such as List of Glagolitic manuscripts, List of manuscripts of Plato's dialogues, Vulgate manuscripts, Vetus Latina manuscripts, Septuagint manuscripts, List of Irish manuscripts, List of Hiberno-Saxon illuminated manuscripts, List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, , etc. will always mention the 'custodian'/'institution'/'library' and the 'designation'/'siglum'/'Ms. catalogue no.'. But the location/city/state/country is usually not mentioned, or only as part of the place where the main building/office of the given 'custodian'/'institution'/'library' is located. Especially the 'state/country' columns are probably irrelevant, because anyone can look up in which state or country a particular city is located; it is very irrelevant for the manuscripts we're talking about. (I bear part of the blame here, as co-author of Vetus Latina manuscripts). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Manuscripts are sometimes named after the cities in which they're situated – León palimpsest, Lichfield Gospels, Codex Madrid – so those cities can't be irrelevant in all cases. Ham II (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure. Manuscripts are named after cities
    1. which they tell a story or information about
    2. where they were purportedly written/compiled (authorship)
    3. where they were purportedly found (provenance; e.g. Nag Hammadi Library)
    4. where they have been preserved in the past (previous owners, e.g. Königsberg Chronicle is now in Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg; Book of Lismore).
    5. whose name has changed afterwards (e.g. Leningrad Codex)
    6. where they are currently preserved
    So city names in manuscript article titles have all sorts of different meanings, depending on context. I don't think we can say #6 prevails over all others. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think we can actually; it is by far the most common. And Lismore, County Waterford (pop. 1,374) is not a city. At pop 43,000 nor is Nag Hammadi imo (not that the MS was ever there). I don't see your point re the Leningrad Codex (no, don't tell me). I notice you can't easily find examples of #1 and #2, though I'm sure some exist. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been intending to eventually propose a single consistent naming convention for the subcats of Manuscripts by collection, but my plan was to focus on other kinds of objects in museums first before moving on to manuscripts, as they can also be in libraries (the naming conventions for which have developed rather differently from those for museums). I've started (or re-started, my earlier attempts having foundered in 2021) with a CfD nomination to make all subcats Paintings by collection follow the style "Paintings in Foo", which is still open. My view is that the "of" in "Paintings of Versailles", "Photographs of the Musée d'Orsay", "Drawings of the Louvre", etc., is unsatisfactory because it suggests depictions of those places, and so for consistency's sake I'd like to avoid "of" for other kinds of objects in museums – so I much prefer the style "Manuscripts in the Fooian Library". Ham II (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, I hadn't even considered that possibility. For manuscripts such a confusion is unlikely, but for paintings you've got a great point. "Paintings in the University of Cambridge" is probably incorrect, and "Paintings at" suggests they are just hanging there on walls for regular decoration just like plants or flowers, not as part of an artistic collection, doesn't it? "Paintings in the University of Cambridge collection" instantly clarifies the situation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there is no "University of Cambridge collection", other than the Fitzwilliam & faculties etc. It would have to be plural, as the colleges are independent. Generally I much prefer "in" or "at" to "of", but this would be an exception, I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plural is fine by me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since Category:Collections of the Fitzwilliam Museum is in Category:Culture of the University of Cambridge, so should this be. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we can move them together, which would be my preference. I understand university culture to be about university traditions, student culture etc. Collections are a very different topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather doubt that is the general understanding. I think most people would expect it to cover all that, plus "culture" in the sense of the arts, relating to the university. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Marco and I have difficulty understanding what "culture" is supposed to mean suggests that the name should be more specific. But perhaps a future nom should take care of that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "Culture in the University of Cambridge" ("in" replacing "of") do a better job of suggesting that the scope isn't just "university culture"? Ham II (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. I do see the parent is named Category:Traditions by university or college, but the whole tree is inconsistent with "culture" and "tradition(s)", sometimes both. I think this requires a separate nom (WP:C2C or something). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not about the naming, it is just odd to combine two entirely unrelated topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support. I wouldn't want this to close as no consensus when I do think that the different scope fits better inside Manuscripts by collection, and I've also come round to the phrasing a bit. I'm still not fully convinced that categorising manuscripts by city would be a problem, but as this is currently the only category that does that it sits awkwardly in Manuscripts by collection. I've been wary about using "of" rather than "in", but "University of Cambridge" seems like an exception where "in" doesn't work for manuscripts. I've been keen not to relitigate "Paintings in Foo" (the implications of which go beyond paintings to other works in museums) because we only got a single consistent style for all those categories two weeks ago. Ham II (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems to agree with the Alt rename option with "held by" if I'm not mistaken, so consensus has been achieved.
There is also agreement between Johnbod and Ham II 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), jc37 also believes that is not the intent, and I concur with that. With that out of the way, I think we're ready to rename. Thanks everyone! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 22 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:Zionist terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming this page in line with its main article Zionist political violence, per WP:C2D and move away from contentious labelling of ups, insurgents etc. instead of the value-laden and here obviously distinct POV categorization. The separate Category:Terrorism in Israel or Category:Terrorism in Mandatory Palestine exists for itemized acts of political violence that are consistently described as 'terrorist' in nature in reliable sources. Proposing here per suggestions in WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_15#Category:Palestinian_terrorism Longhornsg (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemplated enlargements of the European Union

Nominator's rationale: C2D per Potential enlargement of the European Union. Charles Essie (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The articles are not about applicants though, but rather about the process towards application or membership, so this alt 3 name isn't quite accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It's a mixture of applicants and bilateral relations. That's not good. Rename to alt 3, purge the remainder and create a new category for them. What do you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants by country --Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: Redundant middle layer. No other Catholic Bishops category has Middle East at this time period. It is anachronistic because nobody at that time would have called the area the "Middle East". It is a WP:Perfect category covering the only Catholic bishop in the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the two year period from 1098 to 1100. He has already been diffused to the other relevant parents. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: a WP:SMALLCAT. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poker high rollers

Nominator's rationale: A made-up criterion with an arbitrary dollar boundary. There are tournaments titled high-roller and super-high-roller (with five-, six-, even seven-digit entry fees), but there is no such set definition (certainly not $10K, as that would include every WSOP Main Event regular). The people who enter them are simply very good (or independently wealthy) players. Also, nobody in the poker world restricts this title to tournament players. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not, but cash game players are often not noteworthy. (The sport discourse yields the noteworthyness). And then again, most tournaments declared high roller or super high roller have a buy-in of $25,000 up to $1,000,000. That's a fact i.e not made-up (or arbitrary). TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rape films

Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: This whole category tree is redundant to Category:Rape and revenge films, which is the established genre for the films tagged with this category. The wider genre of films about rape is already covered by Category:Films about rape, so there isn't any reason to keep this category tree. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. The user who created these seems to misunderstand how cats should work. I've recently nominated a number of this user's new cats for speedy deletion as empty cats or cats that contain only circular links of cats. Meters (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: redundant. The items in question still appear to be in the Category:Rape and revenge films, so there is nothing to Upmerge, only to Delete. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GH family

Nominator's rationale: As per Glycoside hydrolase and the category's contents. Essentially WP:C2D and WP:C2A (for the pluralisation). 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_19&oldid=1167008335"