January 8
Category:The Railway Series populated places
- 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, then rename to Category:Thomas & Friends locations. MER-C 19:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:The Railway Series populated places to Category:Thomas & Friends populated places
- Nominator's rationale: The Railway Series = the original books, Thomas & Friends = the TV series based on the books. Per CFD 2019 Dec 27 both these categories were renamed from "locations"; the nominator suggested merging these two in his text, but that was not pursued. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional locations in The Railway Series was closed as "delete", only Thomas has a list, so I have proposed Thomas rather than Railway Series as the category to be kept. Note: following the last discussion I have de-categorised Gordon's Hill, and moved Barrow-in-Furness railway station up to the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's difficult to see why it was changed from 'locations' to make it at odds with everything else in Category:Fictional locations by series. 'Location' and 'populated place' are not synonyms. In fact the discussion in CFD 2019 Dec 27 lists about a dozen categories, the others all being 'cities and towns' (which are quite correctly 'populated places'). Oculi (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the last few contributions: the two categories have substantially the same content. There are not enough to split populated and unpopulated places, so that Category:Thomas & Friends locations provides a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2020 (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:Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza
- 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 19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Dinesh d'Souza has directed four films. He also wrote the screenplays (see category:Films with screenplays by Dinesh D'Souza). He directed two of them (see category:Films produced by Dinesh D'Souza). So that's three categories for his strikingly bad propaganda films (one scores a coveted 0% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), which are also obsessively added to a bunch of documentary and non-fiction categories despite the wealth of evidence that they are neither. I suspect that a single category for d'Souza would be enough, if not too much. Guy (help!) 12:32, 8 January 2020 (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:Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
- 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 19:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: En dash between names. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename WP:C2A. (Note: not C2D as article was recently moved without discussion.) – Fayenatic London 13:50, 8 January 2020 (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:Science martyrs
- 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: selective merge. MER-C 19:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: New category seems to be a ragtag bunch of people who were killed by the authorities for having scientific beliefs, people who died in the course of experiments (like letting infected mosquitoes bite them), deaths in the course of exploring Africa and Pliny who was rescuing someone from a volcanic eruption. That's not to say there isn't the germ of something here, but it perhaps fits better as a list or something - at present there's no equivalent article to Martyr (politics), although there is Category:Scientists by cause of death. Le Deluge (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Selectively merge to Category:Executed scientists and no objection to listification if anyone likes to start the list. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as the category will consist of more people, who willingly sacrificed their lives for the noble pursuit of science, e.g. Marie Curie. The need for such a category stems from the fact that there are only individual blog articles on the web and no "comprehensive" listing of such people that have pushed humankind for a better existence. I plan on working on an equivalent article to Martyr (politics), after I scrutinize for existing listings as Category:Scientists by cause of death.Quantumdaniel 09:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Martyrship is not a recognized cause of death for scientists, while being executed is. In case of Marie Curie, one might argue that scientific research is the cause of her death, but I am not sure if this would make a good category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ill-defined and subjective at best. Willingly dying in the name of science or advancement would potentially encompass nearly all early aviators, cosmonauts/astronauts, Magellan, and many others whose (mis)adventures to prove something to someone didn't end well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge and delete per Marco. buidhe 06:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- This is a ragbag of people whose causes of death are far too diverse to make a useful category. Of the present content, we have a man executed for anti-Trinitarian heresy: Unitarianism is no more scientific than Trinitarianism; an explorer who was murdered on his journey in circumstances that are unclear; Mungo Park, a man who died by experimenting on himself while researching disease; and some whose cause of death is not stated in the articles. There may be a case for finding alternative death categories for some. Scott of the Antarctic and colleagues (not in category) and Mungo Park would fit in a category. In some cases whether they were martyrs is a matter of editorial POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2020 (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.
Countries and territories by language family
- 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 19:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Baltic countries and territories to Category:Baltic-speaking countries and territories
- Propose renaming Category:Indo-Iranian countries and territories to Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories
- Propose renaming Category:Romance countries and territories to Category:Romance-speaking countries and territories
- Propose renaming Category:Slavic countries and territories to Category:Slavic-speaking countries and territories
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, and in order to align the format with the other sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The proposed new titles are not equivalent to the existing titles. For example, Kazakhstan is a Russian-speaking country, and thus a Slavic-speaking country, but Kazakhstan is nevertheless classified as a Modern Turkic state, as the Kazakhs are a Turkic people. Similarly, Brittany is a Romance-speaking territory, but is classified as a Celtic nation, as the Bretons are a Celtic people. A better solution than renaming would be to create separate categories at the proposed new titles. Krakkos (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Kazakhstan should also be classified as Russian-speaking. Brittany does not have to be added to Romance-speaking since the whole of France is already in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Bretons are a Celtic people" -- I am not saying you're wrong, but you have to admit this is only part of the story. All of France was once Celtic speaking, there was no huge population replacement, French shows evidence of prolonged bilingualism just 1.5 millenia earlier than what is happening now in Brittany. The idea that there are "six Celtic nations" is not the WP:TRUTH, it is the specific POV of the Celtic League (-- or should I say "Insular Celtic League") whose explicit goal is promoting "pan-Celtic" interests including cultural autonomy from the two major states -- England and France -- involved. A central part of this POV is a narrative of "autochtony" whereby the Celtic heritage of the English and the French is intentionally ignored and/or considered "tragic" (or even a case of "betrayal"). On the other hand, views in and outside of Brittany promoting unity between Bretons and the rest of France often speak to a shared Celtic heritage. Why exactly are we making categories that align up to only one side of a dispute? --Calthinus (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - leaning towards a keep per Krakkos, but whatever happens, some naming change s probably desirable given that - for example - "Baltic countries and territories" does not seem to equate to the three Baltic republics (no Estonia), nor to countries with a coast on the Baltic (no Finland, Poland, Sweden, Russia...). Grutness...wha? 12:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes it perfectly clear we need "-speaking" indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as the language family of the language most spoken in a country is not a defining topic for a country, and is not a good basis for Wikipedia categorization. Wikipedia articles on the language families and the countries themselves are usually clear which countries and territories they are associated with, this is a more efficient way to present information. Alternatively, rename as nom to -speaking category names, to make it explicitly clear that these are for language families. The example given by Grutness is excellent: Estonia is a Baltic country, but Estonian is a Finno-Ugric language, not a Baltic one (and a sizeable population in Estonia natively speaks Russian). These categories are coming from the people who count everything loosely related to Brittany or Galicia as Celtic, which can be argued for the eponymous languages but is very debatable about other cultural aspects of the modern regions. Place Clichy (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as non-defining; this changes over time; much of Poland spoke Germanic languages a short time ago (e.g.) and much of Russia still speak non-Slavic languages. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all—I'm not convinced that it's defining. buidhe 06:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Countries dont speak. Languages spoken in places vary over time. Rathfelder (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/partial vote change, three of the four targets (except Baltic) have already been created and populated during this discussion, which then automatically changes my vote for the three original categories from rename to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the proposed deletions will not be an improvement to Wikipedia. Take Category:Slavic countries and territories, which is here being proposed for deletion. It has existed for more than ten years, includes hundreds of pages and subpages, and has entries in thirty-four languages. The names of Slavic nations such as Yugoslavia, Slovakia and Slovenia display neatly that being Slavic is a defining characteristic of those countries. A similar connection is displayed in the relationship between Romania and Category:Romance countries and territories. The idea that traits which may change over time are non-defining is absolute nonsense. The United Kingdom is about to leave the European Union, but Category:Member states of the European Union is still a defining category. Given the major repercussions of the proposed deletions, i hope admins will refrain from closing this discussion prematurely, so that editors who contribute to articles impacted by these deletions may participate in the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The case of Romania is actually instructive. In Romania there is a strong sense of "Latinity" and brotherhood with other Latin nations. But the reciprocation is a bit lacking. In France, especially, the idea of "Latin" brotherhood is clearly overruled by a fiercely civic sense of nationhood that certainly precludes this supra-ethnicity idea. "Indo-Iranian" is even worse. I don't think there's a single country that has a meaningful "Indo-Iranian" identity--Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom The "speaking" makes it clearer that we are talking about linguistic regions. Dimadick (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (first choice); rename per nom (second choice). I'm not convinced we should classify countries by language families, but what we definitely shouldn't be doing is classify them by some vague notion of supra-ethnic group association that is sort-of derived from language families but then again maybe not so (as in Krakkos' examples of Kazakhstan or Brittany, where he wants territories classified as belonging to some ethnic conglomerate even though that doesn't correspond to the predominant language.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all; languages do not define the country's culture, religion or politics. There is no clear definition what is Slavic, what is Romance and this categorization does not impact anything in modern-day states. Countries evolve and so does the culture. Every culture is unique and should not be grouped or categorized. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename as per Krakkos' comments. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all non-defining categorization.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all (if only based on language family). Such catergories make sense for individual languages (e.g. Category:English-speaking countries and territories, Category:Swahili-speaking countries and territories), but not for language families. Language families alone do not form a common denominator for peoples and nations. The above may be kept if there is a culturally significant denominator (other than linguistic affiliation) that unites the dominant ethnic groups of these countries (this arguably holds for "Slavic countries and territories"). –Austronesier (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename as per Krakkos' comments. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except Baltic, because obviously Baltic is a geographic definition too (Estonia's inclusion is an orthogonal issue) and it does not have the same problems that I'm about to elucidate. For the rest, it reeks of ethnonationalist POV and flies straight in the face of some countries' constitutions in fact. For example, France. French is a Romance language (with some noticeable Celtic and Germanic influences), however the French state has zero sense of kinship with other "Romance" states on any sort of "ethnic ground". That doesn't mean not celebrating Roman heritage, but remember that non-Romance countries have that too. Instead French nationality prizes civic allegiance to the state, regardless of geographic or ethnic origin and the dominant ideology has for centuries. Indo-Iranian is completely baffling. No country has a meaningful "Indo-Iranian" identity; there are three self identified Iranian countries plus maybe some Kurdish/Ossetian territorial entities, and four "Indic" countries (though Pakistanis may dislike it), and I really doubt you could find anyone on the streets in these places who could tell you what it means that they are an "Indo-Iranian"(??) country. --Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2020 (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:AFC Ajax Vrouwen players
- 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: do not merge. MER-C 19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: They are the same thing! Best to remove category name: AFC Ajax Vrouwen players because all other subcategories in Category:Women's footballers in the Netherlands by club have (women) and not vrouwen in their name Dutchy45 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as parent article is located at AFC Ajax Vrouwen, so these categories should match that. If the nominator wants to change that then they should use WP:RM to obtain consensus to move the parent article, and then simply use WP:CFDS to move these categories accordingly. GiantSnowman 14:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose only because category names have to be consistent with the current title of the article. As stated, whether or not this article is titled correctly is probably a question for WP:RM. Incidentally, the wiki-titling of foreign women's football teams is a longstanding issue: they keep getting moved from the imperfect "Xyz (women)" to whatever the native word for "woman" is... and back again. The situation is even worse in Spain where we have a rotating cast of various (women) articles, "Femenino" articles, "CFF" articles, a couple of Catalan "Femení" articles and an Andalusian(?) "Féminas"... what a mess! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2020 (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:AFC Ajax Vrouwen
- 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: do not rename. MER-C 19:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Vrouwen is a Dutch word. Renaming it would bring this category in line with other subcategories and pages in Category:Women's football clubs in the Netherlands and Category:Eredivisie (women) teams Dutchy45 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as parent article is located at AFC Ajax Vrouwen, so these categories should match that. If the nominator wants to change that then they should use WP:RM to obtain consensus to move the parent article, and then simply use WP:CFDS to move these categories accordingly. GiantSnowman 14:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 02:57, 8 January 2020 (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:Die Hard (film series) arcade and video games
- 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:Die Hard video games. MER-C 19:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No need for the (film series) disambiguation here since the main name is also occupied by the series, Die Hard. "Arcade and video games" is redundant since arcade games are video games. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but to Category:Die Hard (film series) video games. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to match main category, see discussion below. There is consensus to drop "arcade and". – Fayenatic London 22:41, 8 January 2020 (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:Die Hard (film series)
- 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 19:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No need for the (film series) disambiguation since the main name is also occupied by a movie in the series, Die Hard. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominated. The article on the film series needs "(film series)" to distinguish it from the article on the first film; but the category does not need any qualifier. The other sub-cats of Category:Action film series show that while it is common to have "(film series)", it is not universal or necessary. Alternatively, consider Category:Die Hard (franchise); there is a long-standing redirect Die Hard (franchise), which is a good name as the lead article covers novels and comics as well as the films and video games. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 8 January 2020 (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:English MPs 1553
- 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 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The current title is ambiguous and should be rename with a template like this there left in its wake. ミラP 02:17, 8 January 2020 (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:Carl Spitzweg
- 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 19:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON: Little content & unneeded parent. Ewulp (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2020 (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.