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 without prejudice to renaming Category:Light TV affiliates to Category:TheGrio affiliates in that other discussion (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:TheGrio affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category; discussion at Category:Light TV affiliates on renaming to this title Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (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.

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. bibliomaniac15 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:English-language writers from Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. English is by far the most common language in Canada so a non-Francophone writer from there *not* writing in English would be exceptional. In this light, Category:Canadian writers in French, which is a well-established part of the category tree, makes a lot more sense. Graham87 15:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator - JarrahTree 15:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – it is a necessary subcategory of English-language writers. By deleting this category and continuing to imply that Canadian writers are English-language writers by default, you end up having to choose between 1) making English-language Canadian writers inaccessible from the English-language writers category or 2) putting Canadian writers under English-language writers, which is incorrect, because doing so makes French-language Canadian writers a subset of English-language writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iketsi (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it's true that Category:English-language writers would be unnavigably large if it was just indiscriminately added to every writer from every majority-English country, it's also true that it's just silly and pointless to maintain dedicated subcategories for English-language writers from countries where English-language writers are the clear majority of all writers. So the long-established consensus has been that instead of either having dedicated subcategories for English-language writers from Canada, Australia, the United States or the United Kingdom or directly adding all of them to the parent, instead the categories for Canadian, Australian, American and British writers are simply listed on the Category:English-language writers page with a "Most but not necessarily all writers in the following countries also wrote in English" proviso, so that the category itself can be restricted for size management purposes to English-language writers from countries where English-language writing is the exception rather than the norm. I don't see a reason why that practice isn't working, or needs to be overturned in favour of something different. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Canadian writers in English as a sibling to the French category. Canada is explicitly bilingual, even though English is large majority — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
• Oppose there are two official languages in Canada, one used by a very large minority. There are large numbers of French-language writers who are award winning, and translated into English. And there are growing numbers of writers of indigenous languages in Canada, due to the promotion of traditional languages. Per Iketsi, the default should not be English, as award-winnng writers of non-English languages exist in Canada, for not just French. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider carefully the meanings of the phrases "unnavigably large" and "unmaintainable". It's never, ever helpful to maintain a category that would have to have considerably more than 10,000 entries in it. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, following the longstanding explicit guidance at Category:English-language writers which has been stated there since 2007, and which has been replicated to various siblings e.g. Category:English-language singers in 2012. The latter was endorsed and followed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_23#Category:English-language_songs. – Fayenatic London 17:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not just that the vast majority of writers in Canada write in English. The bigger problem is that our articles on Cnaadian writers do not mention in gneral that they wrote in English. So even though we know that this is the case, it is not going to be stated in the articles, and often will not be stated explicitly in the sources. So adding this category will end up involving a lot of original research. For notmuch gain, because it will be an 80% of more overlap with the Canadian writers category, which in turn is huge. It basically boils down to why we do not have a category like Category:White American politicians. Like analogies there are limits to it, but it makes sense to use reason. It is also basically the same reason why we do not have Cateogry:American English language writers, the US lack of an official language is another factor, and there may be a lower percentage of the Hispanic and Latino American writers that write not in English when compared to Frnech-Canadian writers, but the US also had a hugely flourishing German-language news media before World War I, and also had several other non-English news medias, and many other forms of non-English writing. No country are you going to find 100% overlap between writers and language, but we need to avoid creating categories that will substantially overlap with the main language and lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2021 (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.

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. No merge is needed. – Fayenatic London 17:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:English-language writers from Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Per the Australia article, English is the de-facto national language here, so an Australian writer *not* writing in English would be exceptional. Graham87 15:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nominator JarrahTree 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – it is a necessary subcategory of English-language writers. By deleting this category and continuing to imply that Canadian writers are English-language writers by default, you end up having to choose between 1) making English-language Canadian writers inaccessible from the English-language writers category or 2) putting Canadian writers under English-language writers, which is incorrect, because doing so makes French-language Canadian writers a subset of English-language writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iketsi (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Canada it may be a different situation with a substantial French-speaking minority, but Australia does not have that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This item is about Australia and I fail to be convinced how the Canadian case has anything to do with Australia, as the response has been made word for word as if the two countries are the same.JarrahTree 22:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it's true that Category:English-language writers would be unnavigably large if it was just indiscriminately added to every writer from every majority-English country, it's also true that it's just silly and pointless to maintain dedicated subcategories for English-language writers from countries where English-language writers are the clear majority of all writers. So the long-established consensus has been that instead of either having dedicated subcategories for English-language writers from Canada, Australia, the United States or the United Kingdom or directly adding all of them to the parent, instead the categories for Canadian, Australian, American and British writers are simply listed on the Category:English-language writers page with a "Most but not necessarily all writers in the following countries also wrote in English" proviso, so that the category itself can be restricted for size management purposes to English-language writers from countries where English-language writing is the exception rather than the norm. I don't see a reason why that practice isn't working, or needs to be overturned in favour of something different. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge) -- in contrast with Category:Canadian writers in English, English is the default language, so that there is no need to split Category:Australian writers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:8th-century BC kings of Rome to Category:Kings of Rome (also to Category:8th-century BC monarchs and Category:8th-century BC Romans)

• Category:7th-century BC kings of Rome to Category:Kings of Rome (also to Category:7th-century BC monarchs and Category:7th-century BC Romans)
• Category:6th-century BC kings of Rome to Category:Kings of Rome (also to Category:6th-century BC monarchs and Category:6th-century BC Romans)

Nominator's rationale: All fail WP:SMALLCAT, there are 7 or 8 kings in total, no need to have 3 separate categories for this Avilich (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nomination is focused on the immediate Category:Kings of Rome and fails to take account of the more important Category:Rulers by century tree. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look for more than 2 seconds you'll see that they're still being categorized by century, just not through the same category Avilich (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your response begin with a confrontational and sarcastic note like "look for more than two seconds"? You could just as easily have written something like: "They are still categorised by century, just not through the same category". Surely you can discuss a topic without being ill-mannered?

Anyway, having already considered this for a reasonable amount of time, I still oppose the nomination. I'll use Category:6th-century BC kings of Rome for example as all three are the same in categoric terms. If you upmerge this to Category:6th-century BC monarchs, you ignore the sub-category split by realm while just adding the Roman kings to the miscellaneous items in the category. That would be poor categorisation because we need to focus on the historical aspects of each realm and I would think Dimadick had that in mind when he rightly split Category:6th-century BC monarchs. That is where your idea fails the Category:Rulers by century tree. As for upmerging to each of Category:Kings of Rome and Category:6th-century BC Romans, it makes complete sense to have the by century split in the former and to separate the kings from the rest in the latter due to their historical importance. Finally, in systematic terms, the split into kings by century across all these trees is the best navigational solution. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "we need to focus on the historical aspects", "due to their historical importance", what does that even mean? They're still being categorized according to their historical importance, they're still classified as both "Kings of Rome" and "6th-century BC monarchs", and they're still descended from the category "Rulers by century", only difference is there's now one less category. Having lots of smll makes navigation harder, not easier. Avilich (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comments mean what they say. I fail to see what could possibly be so difficult to understand. As I have tried to explain to you below, navigation is about helping the users to find what they are looking for. As Dimadick says, if all the 6th century Romans are in one category, how does the reader see which are the kings if he doesn't already know their names? The sub-category makes it easy for him by presenting the three of them at a glance. That is good and effective navigation. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose How would navigation be helped by having all Romans in the same category, regardless of their social rank? Dimadick (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. In a case like this, historical importance outweighs WP guidelines. In any event, SMALLCAT includes: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Which is just what we have here with these three historical category trees. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Because most Romans aren't categorized by social rank in this context, and having unnecessary subcategories within the already small Kings of Rome doesn't improve navigation, it worsens it. Avilich (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Dimadick is saying is that the purpose of navigation is to enable the user to find things easily. The kings are arguably the 8th to 6th century BC Roman subjects most people will want to read about so, to ease navigation, they have been set apart from the rest in an identifiable location. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, normally I would support nominations like these because in ancient times there are often not many biography articles besides about rulers and their spouses, see Category:8th-century BC Romans and Category:7th-century BC Romans. However in this case Category:6th-century BC Romans is quite decently populated so having a kings subcategory here is meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: A considerable amount of these are political officeholders, for which a category like "6th-century Roman officeholders" would be a better solution than a permanent smallcat like "6th-century kings". If you think the category 6th-century BC Romans is unwieldy (it's far from it), a 6th-century kings category with only 3 articles will hardly change anything. An officeholder category, which I can support, will surely be a better solution. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nom. This will not result in the loss of data and will eliminate some small categories, created due to an unnecessary split. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I also generally support such nominations, I think that Rome is a worthy exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged: please tell me how does 'worthiness' translate into not being able to conveniently see the whole of 8 articles in a single category, and instead having to navigate back and forth between 3 different subcategories to view this extremely limited pool of entries. I could argue that Rome being 'worthy' should imply the exact opposite (that superfluous subcats should not stand in the way of convenience), or I could cite an actual policy/guideline to back up such a subjective argument. Avilich (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rome is special in many ways: culturally and historically in western civilisation; the depth of articles in each topic that few other monarchies can match. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: I'll ask again, how does this translate into having unnecessary subcategories that will make navigation worse? Rome being 'special', if anything, only makes the existence of unnecessary smallcats that more egregious, and you yourself stated you generally support their elimination. Avilich (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I oppose the nom as an exception to my usual position on such noms due to the exceptional nature of Rome and the quantity of Roman articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you dodge the question. There is no excess quantity of Roman articles, and you have not explained how ROme being special, if at all, has any bearing on this Avilich (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Avilich's proposal to have a category like "6th-century Roman officeholders" seems quite reasonable to divide the huge Category:8th-century BC Romans. The extra cat Roman Kings would be dispensable. --Just N. (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nominator. --Just N. (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after all. Nom's implicit point that there are very very few pre-Republic articles is correct. I have been hesitant to react once more because I would not be in favor of creating Category:6th-century Roman officeholders at all, that would be far too broad and vague. But we can create a Category:Roman consuls by century tree; that would help diffusing the 6th-century BC category a lot too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I looked at the 6th-century ROmans category more closely and found that many of the entries there are bogus, and were just listed there because they were assumed (without evidence) to have lived in that century. That is, they were not actually 6th-century officeholders and are not in any way attested in the 6th century. I have substantially trimmed the category, so it's significantly smaller than it was when the discussion began. I don't think a '6th-century officeholders' category is even necessary now, though of course the idea of splitting that or other categories remains valid. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have created Category:6th-century BC Roman consuls just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and created the 'by century' container, seems like a good idea Avilich (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, this refers to Category:Roman consuls by century. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge there are only 7 Ancient Kings of Rome, we only need one category for them. They are mostly semi-historical figures and it is difficult to ascribe specific years to their reigns. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (nom). Another argument for an upward merge, aside from SMALLCAT and navigational clutter, is that (as has been more or less noted above) the 7 kings of Rome are mostly legendary and apocryphal, as is most of early Roman history in general. Assigning arbitrary and specific chronological frames to each of these figures is bound to be speculative and inaccurate. The arguments for keeping rely on special pleading, such as that appeal to alleged common sense or the bizarre 'it's Roman-related so it must exist'. Still not seeing a good case for keeping these these intermediary period-based categories. Avilich (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2021 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Songs written by Mike Leeson to Category:Songs written by Michael D. Leeson
• Propose merging Category:Songs written by Mick Leeson to Category:Songs written by Michael D. Leeson

Nominator's rationale: There's been a lot of confusion with this category over the years, being speedied in 2015, moved in 2017 as a result of this CfD, and the content was unilaterally moved again just recently. According to ASCAP.com, the credited writer for the songs now in Category:Songs written by Mick Leeson is Michael D. Leeson. Since there is no article for this person, the category should follow an official source. The history of the original category, Category:Songs written by Mike Leeson, should be retained. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - it seems likely that the article would be Michael D. Leeson if there were one. The songwriter is a defining characteristic of a song, regardless of whether there is an article. Oculi (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Songs written by Mike Leeson has been emptied by Jhlechner and articles placed in Category:Songs written by Mick Leeson. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The only public database entry was by his artist nickname e.g. Mike Leeson. His civil citizen name doesn't play any role! Or would anybody vote for renaming the musician Moby with his real name Richard Melville Hall? --Just N. (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2021 (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.

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:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to the Kingdom of England, and nominate siblings for speedy renaming likewise. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ottoman emigrants to England to Category:Ottoman emigrants to the Kingdom of England

Nominator's rationale: The only article is well before 1707 Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The one article refers to a Greek refugee from persecution by a Turkish governor of Athens. He was not an Ottoman, a term which refers only to the ruling family. The one article is well categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The intention of the category and of the whole tree is probably something like Category:Ottoman Empire emigrants to the Kingdom of England or Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to the Kingdom of England. Deletion is premature, as the solution can probably be found in renaming the whole tree in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming them all along the lines of Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to ... is a good idea. Could we do that speedily, as its consistent with the parent category Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire? Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it should be speediable. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The category should not cover anyone who emigrated between 1707 and 1924, when England was no longer independent. Dimadick (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I still say that a Greek citizen of the Ottoman Empire was NOT an Ottoman; nor was he a Turk, which might be the appropriate demonym if he was a Muslim. The statemetn that England ceased to be independent is highly offensive. In 1707, Scotland accepted Parliamentary union with England, which remained independent though with a Scottish dependency. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Could it not be said with equal accuracy that "In 1707, England accepted Parliamentary union with Scotland, which remained independent though with a joint dependency." ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Peterkingiron. WP:SMALLCAT applies and, as Peter says, Greek subjects of the empire were not Ottomans or Turks. I don't get the reference to 1924 and to say England lost its independence is plain wrong. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We all agree that Greeks are not Turks or part of the Ottoman dynasty, that is not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about whether to rename to "from the Ottoman Empire". If the tree is going to be renamed in a fresh nomination then Christopher Angelus belongs in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- 1924 refers to the foundation of the Republic of Turkey (I think). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2021 (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.

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: procedural close, the category has already been deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Star Utsav original programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The catagory is for the original programming of the channel, but all shows were aired on different channels. Shinnosuke15 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2021 (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.

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, but I will move the lead article into appropriate categories. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bulgarian scholars, writers and artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I think "Bulgarian scholars, writers and artists" is supposed to be the name of a c.1920 organization these people were part of, but it isn't attested in any of the biographies I spot-checked. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete TheRollBoss001 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2021 (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.