< May 23 May 25 >

May 24

Category:Irregular military in Lebanon

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: Not renamed; no prejudice against a new nomination to an alternate title. There's a clear problem with the current title but the proposed alternative is considered worse and no clear counter-proposal has yet emerged. Timrollpickering 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Irregular military in Lebanon to Category:Rebel groups in Lebanon
Nominator's rationale: No other countries have a national category called "Irregular military", but very many have a category in Category:Rebel groups by country, where I added this one today. (The French equivalent fr:Catégorie:Faction armée au Liban is part of fr:Catégorie:Faction armée par pays which corresponds to "Rebel groups" in English wikipedia.) – Fayenatic London 22:33, 24 May 2018 (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:American bisexual men

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. Timrollpickering 11:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not useful to subdivide Category:Bisexual men by nationality. There is no other sibling category for any other country, and other comparable categories (e.g. Category:Gay men, Category:Lesbians, Category:Bisexual women, etc.) are not (and should not be) subcatted by nationality at all. In the "LGBT people" tree, it is not useful or productive to crosscategorize the "LGBT people by nationality" subcategories with the "People by combination of orientation and gender" subcategories — it is not useful to isolate American bisexual men from American gay men and American bisexual women and British bisexual men. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2018 (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:Native American LGBT-related films

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: relisted, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was originally created to contain just one film. I was aware of just two other films I could add to it (and even one of those two is technically stretching it, because while one significant character in the film happens to be Native American the film isn't really about that) -- but even a comprehensive category comparison between Category:American LGBT-related films and Category:Films about Native Americans in AWB failed to turn up even one other film besides the two I already knew about. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more knowledge about this subject area can populate the category over the WP:SMALLCAT barrier -- but three films isn't enough to warrant this yet, and I've been unable to find any others. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Thank you for your feedback. I'm not sure how many Native American LGBT films exist. I would like for Native American LGBT films to have their own Wiki page if possible so that Native American LGBT people can easily search for their own films. While one could collapse these films into American LGBT films, if someone just wants to view culturally distinctive LGBT films, especially those pertaining to Native American culture, where one or all protagonists are LGBT, they can do so. Or, if this is more so related to the lack of the number of known Native American LGBT films, perhaps it would be better to create an Indigenous LGBT films page, to encompass Native LGBT films not just from the United States, but also from Canada, Latin America, and other parts of the world."
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:18th-century Belgian artists

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 noting this only contains one subcategory so this is not a clear precedent for more populated categories. Timrollpickering 22:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belgium didn't exist in the 18th century, should be in Category:18th-century Flemish painters (or another region or country if not Flemish) Fram (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the discussion should extend to Category:18th-century Belgian lawyers, Category:18th-century Belgian painters, Category:18th-century Belgian women and Category:18th-century Belgian people as well (ie the whole 18th-century category). In fact "Belgian people" goes back to Category:6th-century Belgian people. Hugo999 (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wide deletion. On the narrow issue, there is now only one artist, who was Flemish. So that can be merged to Category:18th-century Flemish painters; it was only set up on the 24th May. On the broader issue, you might as well tackle Category:Belgian people (before 1830), the head of the tree (since 2010), (where Category:18th-century Flemish painters is also parented). But this is far smaller than Category:Flemish people and Category:Walloon people. We don't have categories for artists or other people by occupation from "another region or country" ie non-Flemish Belgium, except for 3 Walloon cats. Obviously, deleting all these would be really stupid and the question is how to rename them, if a rename is needed. This is a somewhat thorny question, about which Belgians have strong views, and where the terminology in English differs from the local one (on defining "Flemish" for example). "Southern Netherlands" might be best. Personally I could live with "Belgian", which is at least clearer, but it might be better to merge all lower categories to Flemish or Walloon, which I think works in English, but not locally (Bishopric of Liege etc), and just have a "Belgian" container cat above that. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with "pre-1830" Belgian people, where there is modern Belgium flag in the category. This is an attempt to create anachronisms and impose modern Belgian identity on past.GreyShark (dibra) 11:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree with using Low Countries for this period (while it would be okay to use until ~ 1580). In the 18th century, the Southern Netherlands, largely consisting of the Austrian Netherlands, were entirely separate from the Dutch Republic, in political and cultural sense. Agree with Johnbod that Category:18th-century artists from the Southern Netherlands may work best. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the ones who were Walloons - a minority but a large one. That's taking the English definition - to the Belgians themselves Dutch-speaking people from Antwerp etc at this period were not "Flemish", but we should ignore that. But French-speakers from Brussels etc were never "Flemish", even in English. Mostly Walloon painters followed French styles rather than being part of "Flemish painting". Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends. Many people who would currently be described as Walloon or Brussels are considered "Flemish" painters anyway (and in Belgium, Rubens and other painters from outside the county of Flanders are also considered "Flemish" painters by everyone but the most hardline reductionists). "French-speakers from Brussels etc were never "Flemish"" is not true (well, Brussels was largely Dutch-speaking anyway, but French-speakers from e.g. Tournai or Maubeuge were seen as Flemish painters for many centuries. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have Category:18th-century painters from the Southern Netherlands; what does this extra layer then add? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good question. I hadn't checked if we have categories for other types of artists from 18th-century Southern Netherlands. Since we do not have that, an extra parent category is premature. So it can be deleted for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It groups all proto-Belgians (Flemish & other Southern Netherlands, ie Walloons) together at a useful level, ie lower than the main Category:Belgian people (before 1830). In fact much of Category:18th-century painters from the Southern Netherlands was also in the Flemish sub-cat, thanks to edits last December by User:Jane023, some of which I've reversed. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of the category by itself is clear, but within 18th-century Southern Netherlands we currently don't have any artists but painters, so that artists is a redundant layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both, actually. Category:18th-century painters from the Southern Netherlands may be parented directly to Category:18th-century Belgian people and the latter category should be nominated for rename as well, in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly should be an artistic parent before Belgian people, though otherwise I agree. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And delete also the Category:18th-century Belgian lawyers, Category:18th-century Belgian painters, Category:18th-century Belgian women and Category:18th-century Belgian people per Hugo999.GreyShark (dibra) 11:25, 30 May 2018 (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:Monroe Twins

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. Timrollpickering 21:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just entry, the team itself. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would go against current conventions. We have more than 4000 players categories and only some 1000 team categories, so there are must be many players categories around that do not have a team parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2018 (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:Sports players and officials awarded knighthoods

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:People in sports awarded knighthoods. Timrollpickering 21:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Sports players and officials awarded knighthoods to Category:Sporting knights
Nominator's rationale: To match Category:Sporting dames and improve the title to cover non-players/officials. An alternative would be Category:People awarded knighthoods for sport. SFB 01:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in the prior two comments doesn't distinguish between those awarded a knighthood for contribution to sport(s), rather than someone who has done any number of things among which sport(s) is included, who gets a knighthood (perhaps for charity, broadcasting, political office, or marrying into a noble family)... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2018 (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.
More