Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 135: Line 135:
:* The question is not whether the tree can easily be ''expanded''. Sure, many years are still missing. But the question is whether the categories can be ''better populated'' other than by adding ''national parks'' which are a completely different thing than "city parks" and only share the park ''name''. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:* The question is not whether the tree can easily be ''expanded''. Sure, many years are still missing. But the question is whether the categories can be ''better populated'' other than by adding ''national parks'' which are a completely different thing than "city parks" and only share the park ''name''. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep all'''. This is an example of where [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] has completely left the conversation. There are lots of parks in the world that would pass [[WP:GNG]] for which we currently lack articles. We can populate these cats by article creation. Further, there is a certain usefulness for maintaining the cats in their current state for those looking to research events that occurred within a given year. If it's isn't broken don't fix it.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 15:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep all'''. This is an example of where [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] has completely left the conversation. There are lots of parks in the world that would pass [[WP:GNG]] for which we currently lack articles. We can populate these cats by article creation. Further, there is a certain usefulness for maintaining the cats in their current state for those looking to research events that occurred within a given year. If it's isn't broken don't fix it.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 15:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''Query''' Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception? [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


==== Category:Rulers of Milan ====
==== Category:Rulers of Milan ====

Revision as of 16:17, 6 July 2023

< June 27
June 29 >

June 28

Category:Russian political parties in Moldova

Nominator's rationale: None of these parties are "Russian". We are talking about political parties in Moldova, they're Moldovan. However, they take a pro-Russian approach. It does not mean they're "Russian". Super Ψ Dro 23:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not ethnic Russian parties so I would accept the second alternative. Super Ψ Dro 07:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nike Inc. advertising

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nike, Inc. (with a comma) is the name of the parent category and of the Nike article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Parks by year of establishment

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

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

  • Keep: I not only agreed with Ɱ, but I agree that there are many articles that are missing the proper categorization. This category tree can easily be expanded. Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether the tree can easily be expanded. Sure, many years are still missing. But the question is whether the categories can be better populated other than by adding national parks which are a completely different thing than "city parks" and only share the park name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. This is an example of where WP:COMMONSENSE has completely left the conversation. There are lots of parks in the world that would pass WP:GNG for which we currently lack articles. We can populate these cats by article creation. Further, there is a certain usefulness for maintaining the cats in their current state for those looking to research events that occurred within a given year. If it's isn't broken don't fix it.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rulers of Milan

Nominator's rationale: Virtually all members in this category were "Lord of Milan". I suggest we manually (re)move everyone who might not fit "Lord of Milan" (e.g. Carlo Gonzaga of Milan?) to somewhere else. The subcategories Category:Dukes of Milan and Category:Duchesses of Milan have been made its siblings rather than its children in the Category:Nobility from Milan. The new sibling Category:Ladies of Milan has also been created for the consorts of the Lords of Milan. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Keep It's beneficial having a category which can encompass more than one title, and can catch the few articles which don't fit neatly elsewhere. Some of the suggestions made here would be useful sub-categories under this category. There is no reason that this has to be an either/or choice, as we can build out the category tree. BE BOLD and create some sub-cats.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Draft articles on comics and anime

Nominator's rationale: Similar to the outcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 21#Category:Draft articles on media and per WP:Overcategorization, these are two very distinct mediums that are not necessarily the same and cover differing audiences. Bundling them together under one category makes it difficult for one set of audiences to find what they are looking for, especially when there is a separate cat for Drafts about comics that also exists now. We also have Category:Draft articles on books, so clearly not all literature ought to be put together. I am also suggesting we harmonize the names, so that Drafts about comics moves to Category:Draft articles on comics. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proposal is infeasible. This category is populated by AfC submission wizard based on ORES classifications. ORES uses comics-and-anime as a single topic, see mw:ORES/Articletopic. If the category is split, no automatic categorisation would possible and editors will have to manually go through each existing page to resort them.
    The discussion you linked resulted in a reverse-merge outcome where a manually populated category was merged into the automatically populated one, which required no human resorting and hence was not disruptive. – SD0001 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles should in general not be categorized automatically, it often leads to WP:SUBCAT violations. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but these pages are drafts, not articles. – Fayenatic London 15:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't those just be manually changed? It would be tedious, but Wikipedia is always improving and changing to adapt. These are not inherently the same coverage of topics. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per historical stats 75% of these drafts will end up G13-deleted in 6 months' time. I'm not sure why would anyone want to spend their time manually tweaking categories, and carry on doing it for newly created drafts, knowing that their hardwork wouldn't even be visible in contribs logs. – SD0001 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if manga and comics are combined, why should anime not be combined with cartoons? It should be Category:Drafts about animation -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Drafts about comics cat does not include any manga drafts or subcats in it, and I have not seen manga and comics combined in other cats to my knowledge, nor was I implying such. Anime is distinct from traditional animation (which is what that drafts cat is for), as are manga and comics, as well as books, so it is adequate form to categorize them as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conceptually I agree with the nomination but SD0001's overhead concerns seem pretty compelling. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom.Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am withdrawing my vote. If 75% is deleted it may not be worth the effort to split. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SD0001. Splitting seems like a lot of manual work that will either be forgotten about eventually (as every single new draft in this ORES category will need to be manually split), and even if it is done the underlying purpose of doing so is unclear. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SD0001. While I can theoretically agree with the nominator, there are practical structural concerns which are more prescient.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immigrants to the Colony of New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Until very recently, people who migrated to New Zealand were all in the same tree Category:Immigrants to New Zealand and its many subcats. User:Johnpacklambert has created this new cat for the 19th c. migrants, and is depopulating the many subcats of the original global cat by removing people who moved to New Zealand in the 19th c, e.g. here, here and here. The end result of this new division is thus that we have less informative categories on the articles, and less people in the correct New Zealand cat, all for the sake of some pedantry. This should be undone. Fram (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse among subcategories of Category:Immigrants to New Zealand, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Fram couldn't this just be solved by making Category:Immigrants to the Colony of New Zealand a sub-cat of Category:Immigrants to New Zealand? I do think there is some value to grouping immigrants from the colonial era into a separate group for aid in historical research.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it exists (on the articles) next to the subcats of the "to New Zealand" category (e.g. Category:French immigrants to New Zealand, then it isn't really a problem. The cat creator though intended to replace the by country subcats of the "to New Zealand" cat with a single cat "to the Colony of New Zealand", which may aid historical research on the New Zealand side, but loses the "from" information (if you want historical research about e.g. what was the role of French immigrants in New Zealand). And creating the by country subcats for the "to Colony" cat would create very small cats, which isn't enouraged either. So my proposal is either to get rid of the "to Colony" cat completely, or to let it stand in articles together with "country to New Zealand" cats, not instead of. Fram (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Chinese people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the history of China (and hence the category tree) is divided in Ancient China up to 221 BC and Imperial China from 221 BC to 1912. The content of the nominated categories is about Imperial China rather than about Ancient China. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt as these relate to empires, then the use of demonyns is inappropriate. I disapprove of the the use of demonyns in general, but in the case of multi-ethnic empires, their use is particularly egregious. Use the form "People of Imperial China" instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom with exceptions Some of these people actually were ancient Chinese and should remain categorised as such.
Incidentally, the following may be upmerged/deleted as WP:SMALLCATs:
I also suggest we upmerge Category:Ancient Chinese military engineers, because it has just 3 items (1 ancient Chinese, 2 Imperial Chinese), and its parent Category:Chinese military engineers has just 1 item (modern Chinese), so division by period is unwarranted. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if the above rename goes ahead, two follow-up actions are needed. Instantly, some content (as noted above by Nl Leeuw) needs to be moved from Imperial to Ancient. Second, not urgently, a lot of subcategories should be nominated for upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as some individuals in the cats are from Ancient China. The nominator and any other volunteers can and should create the suggested categories for Imperial China and do the work of properly sorting the cats into the correct place. There is space for all of these cats to co-exist.4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rulers of Lithuania

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt proposal rationale: In addition to downmerging, the resultant category should also be renamed from Fooian monarchs to Monarchs of Foo, as the latter is more precise (suggested by Laurel Lodged and Marcocapelle; see also "Suggestion B" at the "Category:Monarchs of Bohemia" CfD, where the same point has been made). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle just checking: the terms "reverse merge" and "downmerge" mean the same, don't they? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query What about those Kings of Poland who were also Grand Dukes of Lithuania? Being in personal union doesn't mean that you swapped nationalities or languages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of the adjective in this context does not suggest ethnicity; many Polish kings and Lithuanian grand dukes were 'ethnic' Hungarians, French, Germans, etc. Marcelus (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Care to elaborate? In what sense they were non-Lithuanian nationals? Also if monarch of Lithuania isn't Lithuanian national, then who really is? Marcelus (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. John II Casimir Vasa was Polish of Swedish descent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not a elaboration. Secondly, you are talking about his ethnicity, and it so happens that on both sides he was descended from the Jagiellons, who were of Lithuanian descent. Apart of that he also had Swedish, German, Italian, French etc. descendants. But this is irrelevant. Because he was a Grand Duke of Lithuania, and you cannot be more Lithuanian than that. Marcelus (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: You should be bound by your own logic. In a CFD on March 25th you wrote: "people from Palestine and Palestinian people aren't the same". The same applies to Lithuania and Lithuanian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need to elaborate. And please explain what you understand by "Lithuanian national"? Marcelus (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Perhaps I could better answer if your were to first explain what you meant by "Palestinian people". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think good idea is to stay on topic here. Marcelus (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Just 1. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS: triple intersection of occupation and nationality and descent is not defining.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. Note that it would be non-trivial if there were a political party advocating the rights of the Hungarian-speaking minority, but then we would have a category by party. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are in Category:Romanian politicians of ethnic minority parties, and they are not nominated.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been around half a dozen Hungarian parties in Romania. Obviously it’s appropriate to group by party and then by general affiliation (Hungarian politicians in Romania). — Biruitorul Talk 09:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for politicians categories (1) How are these trivial in countries that actually have/have had ethnic minority political representation? Moldova even has an ethnic Gagauz autonomous region, and historically Romania has had a Hungarian autonomous region. (2) Of course a reader may get the sense that the categories emptier than they should be after the nominator proceeded to empty them (!), as here and here. Dahn (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for all — makes no sense for politicians, as ethnic minorities have had their own parties in Romania for over a century. Makes as little sense for Hungarian religious leaders (who are of a different religion from the majority) or artists (distinct community) or athletes (very large number, studied as such). — Biruitorul Talk 09:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: People who are recognizably Romanian in pre-1918 Hungary (or rather Austria-Hungary) are nowhere near the categories we're discussing here, because they are simply not categorized as Hungarian politicians in Romania. So I don't see any relevancy to that claim. People who had obscure(d) Romanian ethnicity in pre-1918 Hungary but identified as Hungarian are and will always be viewed as Hungarians, even as we can note their ultimate Romanian roots -- for instance, if they were politicians of first Hungary and then Romania, while having distant Romanian roots and identifying as Hungarian, we can have them as both "Hungarian politicians of Romanian etc." and "Romanian politicians of Hungarian etc."; though I cannot for the life of me come up with any example where this would be the case!
Moreover, he claim that all politicians with a relevant minority background would be active within minority parties is quite absurd: Dumitru Topciu, who made it clear that he was a community representative of the Gagauz, never served in a Gagauz party while in Romania; virtually all local leaders of the Magyar Autonomous Region were only affiliated with the Romanian Communist Party while being no less Hungarian; said Communist Party had ethnic quotas throughout the interwar, making Ștefan Foriș affiliate with a "Hungarian faction". And so on. Dahn (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no claim that all politicians with a relevant minority background would be active within minority parties. The claim is that politicians should be categorized by political party and that (minority) activists should be categorized by their activism. In either case the nationality of their ancestors is trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What if these activists are organized into political parties revolving around “the nationality of their ancestors” (more like the language they speak, and the other signifiers of ethnicity they have) — and what if multiple such parties exist, and have been, as a collective, the subject of academic interest? Biruitorul Talk 10:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As said, politicians should be categorized by political party (that is, regardless of the party's program - we can read about the party's program in the article about the party). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, as I have said, there is no legitimate reason not to have at least a container category for the half dozen or so Hungarian parties in Romania, between the individual party categories and the generic minority parties category. — Biruitorul Talk 06:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. Politicians of ethnic minority parties are defined by the party they belong to, not the nationality of their ancestors. Especially for politicians from a minority background who are/were active in mainstream parties and not in ethnic-oriented parties, the proposed solution (being in both Romanian politicians and Romanian people of Hungarian descent) is a lot better. The intersection of Romanian politicians of Hungarian descent gives them a political identity assigned by their background, which is wrong. Note that in any case, the articles will remain in a Hungarian descent category. Place Clichy (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t quite get this “nationality of their ancestors” talking point. Yes, I agree someone like Ludovic Orban doesn’t belong, because he was always part of pan-Romanian parties. But politicians who are themselves ethnic Hungarians, and who are active in political parties promoting the minority’s interests, absolutely should have their own categories: fragmented by party, but also with a supra-category uniting them all. Biruitorul Talk 16:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biruitorul: just look at the name of the categories: Romanian politicians of Gagauz descent, Romanian politicians of Hungarian descent, Romanian politicians of Serbian descent. Indeed, these are for Romanian people who have Gagauz/Hungarian/Serbian ancestors but who would not be e.g. ethnic Hungarian themselves. I agree that politicians of Hungarian minority parties are a topic that needs to be covered one way or another, but these categories are clearly the wrong way to do it. Place Clichy (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: Please contribute a suggestion as to how we should reflect Dumitru Topciu and Anton Novakov's activities as Gagauz politicians in Romania, without mimicking the "politicians of X descent" category tree, which has long existed without controversy. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest a double inclusion in Category:Gagauz people and the most precise child of Category:Romanian politicians that describe their political activity. I also note that Topciu is already in Category:Gagauz nationalists, which is even more precise than just Gagauz people. Looking at Novakov's article, historiography seems to actually consider there is little evidence to consider him either Bulgarian or Gagauz, but merely a representative of the Budjak in the short-lived 1917-18 Moldavian Democratic Republic.
    long existed without controversy is a very questionable statement. There are frequent (some would say endless) discussions on what is considered the most appropriate way to present information related to ethnicity (and gender, religion, sex orientation) in articles, categories, lists etc. That's why we have guidelines like WP:EGRS and WP:CLNT. In short, not every information is good for a category. A category tag has the big default of assigning a characteristic or an identity in a black-or-white fashion (either you are in, or you are out), whereas these topics are much better served by longer descriptions providing all the necessary context, nuance, and reliable sources. It's interesting that you argue for keeping a Romanian politicians of Gagauz descent category for an article like Anton Novakov that has a long paragraph discussing his ethnic background, to conclude there is little evidence to support that he was Bulgarian or Gagauz at all. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: What is that most precise child of the politicians category that is not this subcategory -- the one that you're advocating deleting based on a very peculiar reading of the word "descent"? I mean, you sure can come up with more or less grounded objections against existing categories, we get it; but can you propose an alternative sense that makes sense for these articles? It would seem that no, you just didn't bother.
    "Looking at Novakov's article" -- take a closer look, seriously. Historiography, and in fact the exact same author, lists sources which refer to him as both Gagauz and Bulgarian (because many people were both), and argues that he was a representative of both communities in Sfatul Țării (the crux of the argument is that both communities did elect a slate of representatives such as Dumitru Topciu and Krste Misirkov, in a shared caucus, but that Novakov came to the same caucus through the co-operatives, not directly through the Gagauz-Bulgarian constituency; and yes, ethnically Topciu was a Gagauz, Misirkov was just a Bulgarian, but some other politicians who represented both communities had the two ethnicities at once, and at least one source spells out that this was the case with Novakov -- did you still not manage to find that precise info and its source in the text?). Excuse me if I have to actually question your familiarity with this topic, after it seems you are fabricating a standard and then trying your best to make Novakov fit into it, to the point where you contradict published sources just to make it "stick". Dahn (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: Allow me to make it more simple. I suppose you do understand the fact that Sfatul had ethnic representation, and that a single representation was granted to the "Bulgarian-Gagauzes". I suppose you then do understand that some of those representatives had a single background of the two, while some had both -- and that Novakov appears to be of the latter variety (as in: one primary source calls him ethnically "Bulgarian-Gagauz", and it is quoted by the exact same author who calls him a "Bulgarian"; a third source calls just "Gagauz"). I do suppose then that you understand what the ethnic component of his mandate was, and why it is relevant to his biography. Because, if you don't in fact understand these as prerequisites for what is being discussed regarding Novakov, I have no idea why you would imagine you have a point. Dahn (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So if the ethnic component is part of the mandate, I guess that Ethnic minority deputies in the Sfatul Țării (or something along these lines) would be an acceptable category scope regarding Wikipedia policy, in the same way we have e.g. Category:Ethnic minority members of the House of Representatives (Fiji). But you just fail to address that what is discussed here is the category for the intersection of an occupation (politician) and an ethnicity (various Romanian minorities). Nobody wants to remove any information about ethnic minorities and their politics, which are of course a valid topic for an encyclopedia (in article text). However, placing individuals in these intersection categories of occupation and ethnicity is exactly what you yourself call fabricating a standard: an all-in-or-all-out label that covers too many complicate and different things, often regardless of the individual's own ethnic identification. The fact that you need such great lengths to explain the context of these individuals' ethnic identification alone demonstrates that nuance is needed, not a made-up label. Anyway, I don't want to add anything more to a flame war, as points have been made clearly enough and discussion is deteriorating. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The intersection between an ethnicity and an occupation such as politician is only trivial because you decided to declare it so, against a consensus which has resulted in such categories being created by hundreds of others, who are not involve in this rather surreptitious discussion (I myself only discovered by accident the sustained effort to remove long-standing categories). I am rejecting the very claim that it is trivial, at least so in the Romanian case, not "failing to address" it. Also, how would placing Novakov in a vague "ethnic deputies" category that will not reflect his ethnicity address all of what I described above? See, instead of noting that the supposed principle "descent/ethnicity is non-defining for politicians", and revising this claim, you would rather uproot a whole category tree an leave a simple issue unaddressed by categorization. Dahn (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but what are you talking about, Place Clichy? Alok Sharma, a man born in India and serving in the British parliament, is under Category:British politicians of Indian descent. I’m pretty sure he not only has Indian ancestors, but also identifies as ethnically Indian too. It’s how we do things here. Biruitorul Talk 19:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the common OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. As Mr Sharma is both British and Indian (not by descent) and he had a political career in the UK (not just defending Indian interests), I would place the article in Indian emigrants to the United Kingdom, next to all the appropriate MPs/cabinet minister/political party categories. No more, no less. If you put everybody that is actually Indian in an Indian descent category, you pretty much lose all the purpose of descent categories. That's what the WP:COP-HERITAGE guideline tries to sum up. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I think you fail to realize is that “of descent” categories are routinely used for ethnic minorities. And we are talking about people who themselves belong to said minority, not their parents or grandparents. Take, for example, Csaba Böjte. He is as Hungarian as you can get in modern Romania. He is placed in the “Romanian people of Hungarian descent” category, simply because that is where individuals like him belong. If not there, then where? Biruitorul Talk 10:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably Category:Hungarians in Romania. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck imposing this (needless) change across hundreds of long-established categories. — Biruitorul Talk 06:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that I am fascinated by the refusal to recognize the elegance and simplicity (and tradition) of "descent" categories also covering origin and identification. Instead of focusing on an irrelevant distinction between these, and claiming that we should have someone (namely, themselves) do a POV take on who "really" is and who "really" isn't of X descent, some editors could simply deal with the logical step: "while not all people of X descent in Y country are X-born, all X-born people in Y country are of X descent". It really is as simple at that; you could see the benefits of this logic instead of holding us all hostage to a very very sectarian absolutism. Dahn (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Hungarian-related ones, weak oppose for Serb and Gagauz. Biruitorul explained the several distinctions between Hungarians and Romanians in Romania. I am also not sure how does someone think it is a good idea to merge a category with 171 contained articles. Weak oppose for Gagauz and Serb categories because they're not very populated. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — there is a severe problem with these politician categories. Editors have been populating Hungarians born during the Russian Empire in "Russian descent" (with no hint of actual Russian ethnic heritage), with descent based upon the last name, with 2 descents where sources cannot agree, with descent based upon a great grandparent, with descent that the article says the person has actually rejected. I've explained in edit summaries and on Talk pages that these violate our long-standing guidelines (since 2006 and even earlier).
  1. WP:COP-HERITAGE: historical people only are allowed a single descent category, and only where directly tied to their notability.
  2. Vladimir Cavarnali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is unequivocally in Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians. He self-identified as such. That is the single allowed category for a historical person. We do not categorize based upon his last name that indicates distant Gagauz descent, no matter how many sources mention it (currently 1 or 2).
  3. Anton Novakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is unequivocally in Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians. According to the article, he self-identified as "Moldovian", and protested Moldova's unification with Romania. He has no hint of Russian descent, and that is not mentioned in the article. There is disagreement in sources as to whether he had distant Gagauz descent more than 100 years before his birth. We do not categorize based upon the odious one drop rule, even for non-blacks.
  4. Dumitru Topciu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is unequivocally in Category:People from Gagauzia. According to the article, he spoke the Gagauz language. Therefore, he is not of Gagauz descent. We never categorize people in a descent category who are already that ethnicity or nationality. That leads to "Asian foo of Asian descent", "European foo of European descent", and other nonsense that we've recently deleted.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is precisely this willi-nilly halfway-through reading, by editors who don't even understand the cultural and historical setting, that leads to absurd solutions such as this one. For instance, Novakov is identified as both Bulgarian and Gagauz (at least one source mentions that he was both, and at the same time), and he represented both ethnicities in the legislature; there is absolutely zero indication that he identified as a Moldavian -- at most, he considered himself a loyalist Russian of Gagauz ethnicity, though even that is disputed -- it was disputed by Novakov himself, when he asked not to be included on a list of those who had voted against union with Romania, because he had not voted against it, but had been absent. The source mentioning that he may have in reality, and for a while, opposed the union, is also the same source explicitly stating that Novakov embraced Romanian citizenship -- this is also an indication of how clueless William Allen Simpson's comment how Novakov "identified himself" is, since , as an objective fact, Novakov was a Romanian citizen, and a politician of Romania, affiliated with Romanian parties, for all his years after 1918. Seriously, this guessing game is ludicrous, regardless of what ultimately happens to the categories -- at least read the articles you are "correcting". Dahn (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further: in the goddamn Vladimir Cavarnali article and the sources it cites, anybody will actually be able to read that Cavarnali identified himself primarily as a Romanian (if nothing else, his affiliation to something called the Crusade of Romanianism may offer some indication), though his Romanian heritage was exactly zero -- which makes him a fascinating case, and precisely proof of why this categorization is so delicate; he did not reject categorization as anything other, and was generally categorized as a Bulgarian (which he was); this did not, and does not, exclude that he was (also) a Gagauz, a fact supported by two authors, who identify him as both Bulgarian and Gagauz, including in a book specifically dealing with the Gagauzes of Bessarabia. Now, it may be construed that he does not belong in a category of politicians who were also expressly Gagauz (and Romanian), such as Novakov or Topciu, though I for one take the view that all politicians of documented Gagauz descent should in fact be placed in the narrowest category (the intersectional one, in this case), since this reduces the activity whereby wikipedians think they can impose their view on who is really a Gagauz and who isn't (like the lecture we get from William Allen Simpson above); even so, he would still clearly belong in the larger category of "Romanian people of Gagauz descent" -- regardless of Mr Simpson's pet peeves, and per the sources. It is Mr Simpson's own inference, based on thin air, that the sources referring to his Gagauzness point to his last name or "distant" ancestry -- the fact is they simply call him a Gagauz and a Bulgarian; something which plenty of people are. Dahn (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Topciu: please for Christ someone inform William Allen Simpson that (a) not all people from Gagauzia are ethnic Gagauz; (b) not all Romanians are of Gagauz descent (which is why he was a Romanian of Gagauz descent between 1918 and his death); (c) not all Gagauz are of Romanian citizenship (which is why he was a Romanian of Gagauz descent between 1918 and his death); (d) very few people from Gagauzia (currently in Moldova) have actually lived half their lives in Bucharest. Dahn (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, William Allen Simpson: please understand that Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians is a transnational category (defining a kind of Bulgarian), and that those members of it who were/are Romanian citizens will clearly also belong in categories for Romanian Bulgarians, whereas the others will not. The category for Bessarabian Bulgarians will not supplant the category for Romanian people of Bulgarian origin just because you yourself have not grasped the difference. Dahn (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it's time to invoke WP:COMPETENCE. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your personal attacks. I'm simply quoting the articles. It would be helpful for you to respond by numbered assertion, as otherwise your blocks of text are difficult to parse.
  1. Again, each person is allowed only one ethnicity category. That is usually based upon the culture and language where they were born and raised. However, there is no requirement that they are assigned any ethnicity. It must defining, and tied to notability.
  2. Please identify which Cavarnali parent is Gagauz (not of descent) according to which source, and why no other parent is relevant, and why he never considered himself as a person from the place he was born and raised. That is not apparent in the article.
  3. Please identify which Novakov parent is Gagauz (not of descent) according to which source, and why no other parent is relevant, and why he never considered himself as a person from the place he was born and raised. The article says industrialist and legislator of the Moldavian Democratic Republic and later alongside four "Moldavians". If he is not self-identifying as Moldavian, then the article is unclear.
  4. The Topciu article says: "I speak Gagauz", and cites his continued inability to speak proper Romanian. By any standard, he is culturally Gagauz (not of Gagauz descent). He devoted his life to Gagauz politics and Gagauz refugees, so his ethnicity seems defining and notable. If it not so, then there's no reason to discuss this further.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That idiotic and obscure "rule", that you boasted having contributed yourself, has been traditionally disregarded (Elvis Presley became an FA with him included in five or so heritage cats), and is inoperable -- if anything, the dual nature of people who were both Gagauz and Bulgarians should be a test case of the rule's absurdity, not an invitation to have you deciding which one of two is important. "Is allowed only X" translates to: "I am allowing only X, and I managed to get this POV scripted in a rule that nobody on wikipedia bothers with, and which I am now selectively enforcing".
  2. I will do no such thing, I will repeat, again, that the source I read identifies Cavarnali as a Gagauz-Bulgarian/Bulgarian-Gagauz, and one of the Gagauz diaspora. Your claim that we should be debating sources is laughable.
  3. Please make an effort to read the article, which clearly says that sources see Novakov as a Gagauz, a Bulgarian, or both (the latter possibly explains the former two, since he may have been both in equal measure); further, the "alongside four Moldavians" doesn't mean he was a Moldavian, but precisely the opposite: that the others were Moldavian. The phrase right at the end of that same paragraph (you can't possibly miss it) says that he was an ethnic representative of both Bulgarians and Gagauz, in that they sent him here through the co-operatives; of course he was a Moldavian by citizenship for a few months in 1918, but he was also a Bulgarian and Gagauz, just like he was a Romanian Bulgarian and Gagauz for the remainder of the interwar. Again, you seem to be utterly clueless.
  4. William Allen Simpson: Can you please wrap your head around the concept that Topciu is "of descent" because as a Romanian (citizen) and as a Moldavian (citizen) he was of Gagauz descent, something which is not the case for all other Romanian/Moldavians/Moldovans? That this is why he is in those categories? That his being included in the Category:People from Gagauzia does not supplant either category, since not all people from Gagauzia are Gagauz, and since not all people from Gagauzia became Romanian citizens, let alone politicians of Romania? That it merely reflects the narrowest category we have for people born in Tomai, who may theoretically be of any ethnicity? That currently Gagauzia's westernmost point is still about 30 km away from the border with Romania, meaning that Romanian Gagauzes are a rather peculiar overlap, not implicit in any other category? That there is another category linking Topciu to Gagauzes of various citizenships, from various eras? That the same goes for Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians, which does not supplant categories for Romanian Bulgarians when the subject of an article was both? Is this really so abstruse? Dahn (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I add, William Allen Simpson: Claiming that a citizen of the Moldavian Democratic Republic should be automatically regarded as a Moldavian ethnic is on par with claiming that a Soviet citizen was an ethnic Soviet and a Canadian citizen is an ethnic Canadian. It is especially ludicrous for people who were in Sfatul Țării explicitly as corporate representatives of non-Moldavian/non-Romanian ethnic constituencies. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I point out that the sacred WP:COPHERITAGE is a guideline? It says right at the top of the page: “it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply”. — Biruitorul Talk 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. The cats are well populated and I am not seeing any compelling evidence/ a strong argument as to why these various forms of intersectional indentity shouldn't be used as a defining category. In looking at google books there is a whole range of books on Hungarians in Romania in relation to issues of ethnic identity, and as such this is a cross-categorization that would seem to be backed by published academic RS for an existing category tree.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional zebras

Nominator's rationale: because if there's Category:Camels in art, why can't zebras have that as their category name? ChameleonGamer 13:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket events official songs and anthems

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. The fact that these songs were used at different World Cup events doesn't mean they need a separate category. They are already appropriately categorised in the tournament categories Category:2011 Cricket World Cup and Category:2014 ICC World Twenty20, but having a category of "official songs and anthems" is unnecessary overcategorisation Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cricket paintings

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 3 articles and unlikely that there are any more notable cricket paintings likely to get separate articles Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cricket poems

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, as only 3 articles, and When an Old Cricketer Leaves the Crease is about a song not a poem. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Filmmakers from Bosnia and Herzegovina

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Identical topic ★Trekker (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rape victims in Brazil

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

Category:The Hellenic Society for Systemic Studies Award

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fraternity Award

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, and WP:NONDEFINING
The Fraternity Award is given to artists by the B'nai B'rith of Uruguay and consists of a trip to Israel and Europe so the winner can perform a concert, exhibition, play, or lecture. It sounds like a neat cross-cultural exchange but the biography articles don't treat the performance as defining, generally mentioning it in passing. The contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_28&oldid=1163822004"