< July 19	July 21 >

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. MER-C 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:English Civil War weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Crossbow) and (sort of) WP:PERFCAT. See previous CFDs such as this. DexDor^(talk) 19:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, many articles in the category do not even mention the English Civil War at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2019 (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. MER-C 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Syrian Civil War weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for M1 Garand or MAT-49) and (sort of) WP:PERFCAT. See previous CFDs such as this. DexDor^(talk) 19:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and many of these weapons have existed for decades. After deletion of the category, the article Improvised artillery in the Syrian Civil War should be added to Category:Syrian Civil War though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Scientific plagiarism to Category:Scientific misconduct

Nominator's rationale: Two articles on scientific plagiarism in specific countries, and main page Scientific plagiarism redirects to Scientific misconduct. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The German case concerns doctorates found to depend on plagiarism. The Indian one is a mixture of plagiarism and suspected distortion of data (which is a worse offence). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2019 (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. MER-C 10:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rifles of the Chaco War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Weapons of the Chaco War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Vehicles of the Chaco War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for vz. 24) and (sort of) WP:PERFCAT. See previous CFDs such as this. DexDor^(talk) 11:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied answer] I did not know about this previous discussion. Feel free to delete this category, as well as Category:Weapons of the Chaco War and Category:Vehicles of the Chaco War if you think these are also Wikipedia:Overcategorization.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've added the other categories to this nom. DexDor^(talk) 12:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2019 (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 Category:Prince-bishoprics of Switzerland to Category:Prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire in Switzerland, merge the second as nominated. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Prince-bishoprics of Switzerland to Category:Prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:Prince-bishops in Switzerland to Category:Roman Catholic prince-bishops in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic categories, these were prince-bishoprics in the Holy Roman Empire before they were absorbed by Switzerland, or by its predecessor the Old Swiss Confederacy. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt merge the Prince-bishops but rename the Prince-bishoprics to Category:Prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire in Switzerland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Laurel Lodged's proposal. Usefull geographic distinction. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If Laura's suggestion is accepted, the rest of the target needs to be amended so that there is an "in Germany" category. In Germany after the Reformation, some of the bishops were Lutheran, so that care will be needed. However, "Roman" in one target is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Category:Prince-bishops in the Holy Roman Empire should suffice. We don't need to make it more complicated than that. In fact the proposed destination category seems like it could use a merge? PPEMES (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (1) We are neither Laura nor female. (2) Category:Prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire in Germany is now up and running with a few articles. (3) Category:Prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire in France is now up and running with a few articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per input of Laurel Lodged. PPEMES (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename For consistency with rest of category tree. --Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We should stop applying current boundaries across history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2019 (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: keep. MER-C 10:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Annie Lennox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary parent per WP:OCEPON. All can be handled by Category:Works by Annie Lennox --wooden superman 07:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the category, it doesn't need to be empty. Eurythmics, The Tourists, The SING Campaign, Annie Lennox discography should all go in there, possibly Tali Lennox as well. 1000MHz (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She should be in the categories for Eurythmics & The Tourists, but it doesn't need to be the other way around. Tali Lennox should not be included as we do not categorise people by other people. The discography article belongs in the "Works by" category, but you're right with The SING Campaign. However, still not enough to warrant keeping this per WP:OCEPON. --wooden superman 09:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as User:Woodensuperman seems to have retired, we might as well return to traditional arguments, where this would be keep (and would not have a 'Works by' subcat). Oculi (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we would keep it it would be for the sake of just one article: Sing campaign. I suppose WP:OCEPON is not dependent on one editor who now retired. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor now retired was moving at glacial speed to create new categories such as Category:Works by Scottish musicians to replace long-established categories such as Category:Wikipedia categories named after British musicians. So we now have the small Category:Works by Scottish musicians competing with the similarly small Category:Wikipedia categories named after Scottish musicians and there has been no consensus anywhere for the former. Oculi (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oculi. Previous precedent was trying to be overridden unilaterally. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:09, 22 July 2019 (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: keep. MER-C 10:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. WMF is apparently involved in at least 2 notable lawsuits that fill this category, unless someone has a WP:CRYSTALBALL they aren't currently sharing; this shouldn't be expected to change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a small but significant category. At worst it should be merged somewhere, rather than simply deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or else merge per Peterkingiron. The likely merge targets are Category:Wikimedia Foundation and Category:United States case law. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Agree completly with Marco and Peter. It's significant and you could argue it's "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" and thus an exception to SMALLCAT since Category:Litigation by party has many similarly sized categories. --Trialpears (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Works by Jimmy Somerville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Subcats are sufficiently interlinked. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OCEPON Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is already in more appropriate songs and albums subcategories, making this "works by" a duplicative and unnecessary layer. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories plural. That's the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not automatically create or keep a "Works by [Person]" category to parent every musician who happens to have the standard "Artist albums" and "Artist songs" categories — since every artist always gets one or both of those as soon as just one of their albums and/or one of their songs has its own article, practically every artist would always get an eponymous category as a result. Rather, the test for when a category like this becomes warranted requires there to be a substantial volume of spinoff content that requires artist-related categorization beyond the standard schemes that every artist already has: when it comes to Category:The Beatles, for instance, we don't just have to contend with songs and albums, we also have to categorize movies of both the "movies they made themselves" and "movies other people made about them" varieties, and wives, and producers, and Apple Records, and television specials, and individual concerts, and books. I love Jimmy Somerville, obviously, but he doesn't have anything else that's defined by his participation but not already categorized in the standard ways, so a category of this type is not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are already a lot of actual eponymous categories (see Category:Wikipedia categories named after musicians) that are only containing these subcats. Category:Jimmy Somerville was one. There often seems resistance to getting these deleted, so a "works by..." category seems a good compromise. Per WP:OCEPON, the "Works by..." tree is obviously preferable to the eponymous categories. Everything in other eponymous categories such as Category:Sinéad O'Connor, Category:Jerry Cantrell or Category:Earl Sweatshirt could easily fit in "Works by..." category rather than an eponymous one. --wooden superman 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a focus on removing needless eponymous categories but they don't need to be replaced by "Works by" parents just for "Foo albums" and "Foo songs" categories. If that scheme should be developed fully, it should be discussed first as thousands of "works by musician" child categories will have to be created, considering there only about 85 such categories right now and over 22,000 artists with subcategories in Category:Albums by artist and nearly 8,000 artists with subcategories in Category:Songs by artist. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Bearcat puts it very well, as usual. Oculi (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found Category:Songs written by Jimmy Somerville which was adrift. This might now meet @Bearcat:'s requriements. It is my personal view that 'Songs by X' should not be in '(Creative) Works by X' but 'Songs written by X' is a different matter. Oculi (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. We have discographies, song, album and even written by cats for nearly every artist, why would an average WP reader need more? And that's without mentioning the 'see also' on most of these cats. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Dingley's argument. I also disagree with the need to remove the so-called "needless eponymous categories". Wikipedia has the systematic problem of undercategorization, and acting like a windmill crusader against alleged overcategorization. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying any musician or group who has released one album or any author who has written a single book (and these albums and books have articles, obviously) should have an eponymous category? Where's your line? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Note that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 3#Category:Jimmy Somerville was closed as delete. MER-C 10:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albums and songs subcategories link to each other by default, so if it were just those two it would be a clear delete. But in this case there is also a 'songs written by' subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2019 (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. MER-C 10:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Lords of Balaguer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Ladies of Balaguer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, this is a secondary title of crown princes and crown princesses of Spain. None of the people in these categories are known for active rulership of Balaguer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to cat-redirect to the appropriate category for Spanish Crown Princes. Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Chester are subsidiary titles of British heir-apparent. I hope we do not have categories for them either. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the main article Lord of Balaguer, this has served as a subsidiary title since 1479. But there were previous holders since 1418, who were not crown princes. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as non defining. I see no evidence in the eponymous article of anyone apart from the first grantee, John II of Aragon, the brother of the king, having held the title. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then you did not read the article. The next holder was Ferdinand II of Aragon, a second-born son. The crown prince was Ferdinand's older half-brother, Charles, Prince of Viana. Charles died in 1461, rumored to have been poisoned. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, Ferdinand II of Aragon is not known for actually having ruled Balaguer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Since none of the people are actually known for ruling Balaguer. None of the articles mention Balaguer more than in a list of titles. --Trialpears (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2019 (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. MER-C 10:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manned missions to the Moon to Category:Crewed missions to the Moon

Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:GNL, this category should be renamed, as there is equally clear and precise gender neutral language available for it. Even though all Apollo astronauts were male, there's no reason to highlight their gender in the category name. Renaming the category would also make it more consistent with Category:Crewed Soyuz missions. - Sdkb (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - standard for category and article names, in addition NASA has highlighted many times that future missions to the Moon will also include women. --mfb (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to WP:CRYSTAL? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: In my opinion, sexism is a chief sin and I am supporting gender-neutral languages. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 17:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Spacepine (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info: I nominated the rest for renaming. --mfb (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:GNL. The term "manned" was never intended to be gender-biased; it harkens back to the older use of the term, but it may seem that way to a future reader. Far from convinced by the arguments above that sexism is best combated by ignoring it. Usually sins call for confession and repentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "crewed mission" is a phrase this is far less (an order of magnitude less) used than "manned mission" - see NGRAM. In the context of the moon landings - the disparity is even greater. Furthermore, "manned" - merriam-webster - is a gender neutral term defined as "carrying or performed by a human being" and is not man or woman specific. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There have been no "Womanned missions to the moon". Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ie WP:GNL exempts "cases where all referents are of one gender" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- "Man" can refer to mankind, not just male humans. In fact all the astonauts were men, so that the change is pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:GNL. --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Man" should not (or should no longer) be used as a gender-neutral term to refer to all humans. Future missions could include women and/or non-binary people, so our category name should be inclusive. Funcrunch (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2019 (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.

July 20

Category:English Civil War weapons

Category:Syrian Civil War weapons

Category:Scientific plagiarism

Category:Rifles of the Chaco War

Category:Prince-bishoprics of Switzerland

Category:Annie Lennox

Category:DAB ensemble

Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation

Category:Works by Jimmy Somerville

Category:Lords of Balaguer

Belgian awards

Sri Lankan awards

Maltese awards

Category:Manned missions to the Moon