< February 4 February 6 >

February 5

Category:Articles using E without any arguments

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Category:Articles using E without any arguments

Category:Works based on Street Fighter

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Category:Works based on Street Fighter

Category:Pop-folk albums

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: split. There was no real discussion despite efforts to re-list. I am not competent to split this, so it will be added to WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Bulgarian and Western styles need to be distinguished and not mixed together. Deleting is also an option as is simply moving the more Western folk-pop albums to Category:Folk rock albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 22:18, 5 February 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.

Category:American people of Arab-Jewish descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not sort by religious descent.
Alternative
to Category:American people of Algerian descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Egyptian descent
and Category:Egyptian-Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Iraqi descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Lebanese descent
and Category:Lebanese-Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Moroccan descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Syrian descent
and Category:Syrian-Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Tunisian descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Yemeni descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
Also, many/most of these are not Arabs. Just because they currently speak Arabic does not make them Arabs, any more than speaking English makes me a bloody sassenach (as my grandad would say).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- similar categories should also be nominated (see under Category:American people of Jewish descent)
- it should be a merge instead of a deletion, e.g. merge Category:American people of Algerian-Jewish descent to Category:American people of Algerian descent - however that does not apply to the Arab subcategory
- Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Category:Mizrahi Jews should be added as the second merge target. Still there is no reason to distinguish e.g. people of Tunisian-Jewish descent from people of Algerian-Jewish descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not ideal to populate a topic category (Culture) with biographies. Instead I would suggest creating a new Category:American people of Mizrahi Jewish descent and use that as a second merge target throughout. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim was heritage, rather than religion by descent. There's no such thing as "culture by descent" or "heritage by descent". If these biographies are about a notable contribution to culture, then they belong in the culture category. Otherwise, delete.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:29, 8 February 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.

Category:Australian Living Treasures

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of a category previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 8#Category:Australian Living Treasures. The same issue still applies, however: having been named as icons in a listicle compiled by a subjective public opinion poll is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of justifying a category. We've regularly deleted things like this when they were tried for other similar poll-based lists like The Greatest Canadian, music magazine rankings of songs or albums, and on and so forth. Listing them in National Living Treasure (Australia) (where they're already listed) is fine, but it's not a strong or defining basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 5 February 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.

Category:People of Ningbo descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect categorization of people who came from Ningbo city as "descent". This is neither a notable ethnicity nor a nationality.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:53, 5 February 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.

Category:Scottish emigrants to England

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't make any sense. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland and England are different nations. In the U.K. we talk about the "nations of the U.K." Philafrenzy (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you really want to keep the category then you should populate it with Scottish emigrants to medieval or Tudor England. Otherwise the category should be deleted as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea but it is valid even if it only had members from the post-union period. See this link "In the mid-fifteenth century, somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of England's inhabitants (about 6 percent in London) were immigrants. Most—about three-quarters—came from a handful of nearby realms: from France, Scotland, and Ireland..." Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These percentages are irrelevant if you are not going to add articles to the category. Categories are not a goal in itself, they exist to aid navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are merely to indicate the scale of pre-union migration. In the current era, our own article says 795,000 Scots live in England. They won't all have settled permanently but clearly this category has plenty of potential. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:59, 5 February 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.

Category:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, in the spirit of WP:G4, this category was created under a different name after it became clear in this discussion that the original category would not be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert, Place Clichy, Prisencolin, Carlossuarez46, William Allen Simpson, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors in the earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When asked to identify themselves, the residents of the city readily respond ‘‘Shanghaiese,’’ whose connotations today reflect an attitude of superiority, confidence, and high self-esteem. With such a sense of special identity, the residents of Shanghai essentially constitute a distinct ethnic group in the People’s Republic of China. - Olson, 1988


Ethnic neighborhoods (where both primary and secondary relationships are ethnic) are thus clearly distinct from ethnic communities (where primary relationships alone tie the group together). To demonstrate the usefulness of this approach, analysis is made of the Fujianese and Shangainese ethnic neighborhoods and communities of Hong Kong's North Point area. The applicability of this model to American ethnicity is also tested. - Gulden 1980


Distribution of Cotton Spinning Mills by Ethnicity of Owners, 1978 Ethnicity (shows a chart with items including "Shanghainese" "Chaozhou" "Cantonese", "Fujianese, "Sichuanese" - Wong 1988

  • (procedural reply) By default, in case of follow-up on a previous discussion, I am pinging all contributors to that discussion, whether I agree with them or not. When you look at this and other CfD pages you will find confirmation of that. The fact that in this case there were so many delete votes should not make a difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (substantive reply) On the contrary with the header on the category page you made it perfectly clear that this is just a replacement of the previously deleted category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? The previous category specified that it was only consisting of people from Shanghai. Just because it is "similar" in scope means that it's straight up the same thing. In anycase, the fact that the header has around 2,000 bytes more information suggests that it's not eligible for G4 because "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement" .--Prisencolin (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, Run Run Shaw: As a child, his family moved to Shanghai. He graduated from the Shanghai YMCA School, where he learned English. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright so would you be fine with Category:Shanghainese emigrants to Hong Kong or Category:Lower Yangtze emigrants to Hong Kong? Either way I think it's extremely helpful for the navigation to articles related to this topic to have a cross section. This is not something that arbitrarily appeared out of thin air, it's something that is widely attested in sources, as I have stated. The specific phrase "Shanghainese emigrants" is used in sources like David Faure; et al. (1984). From Village to City: Studies in the Traditional Roots of Hong Kong Society. Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No we do don't have category migrants by city or region of the country they come from. Meanwhile the article with a list of these people is perfectly fine to cover the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming you mean "don't have"... is there actually a relevant guideline or policy that says this? Categories like Category:American people of Sicilian descent have existed for a long time, and this one actually survived 2 CFDs. The premise of that category is "This category includes articles on American people who immigrated to the United States from Sicily and their descendants." Meanwhile, there's no reason not to have both a list and a category, per WP:NOTDUPE, if you accept that a list of article should exist in the first place. The only instance where I'm aware of a consensus otherwise is the fact that films are not categorized by the actors that appear in them.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note concerning the name of the category, the phrase "Lower Yangtze descent" appears in such works like

Second, in all of these Lower Yangtze descent groups and lineages (Hazelton 1987, Dennerline 1987, Hymes 1987, Davis 1987) it was a small group of elites that actively promoted the lineage, through the research and printing of genealogies and other activities. These active elites doubtless had a variety of motives, but they tended to encourage the creation and reproduction of a lineage identity - Takacs, Jeffrey Lee (2001). All Heroes Think Alike: Kinship and Ritual in Baguazhang (PDF) (Thesis). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

--Prisencolin (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed snarky aside from my original !vote. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC about how to even create definitions for categories[edit]
Category talk:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent has an RFC
  • Category talk:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Prisencolin (talk) 21:53, 8 February 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.

Category:Barcelona Metro line templates

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; populate instead. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single media member, almost eponymous Lithopsian (talk) 14:27, 5 February 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.

Category:Members of the Women's Engineering Society

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. Category:Women's Engineering Society was not nominated, but it too seems to be categorizing members, so a follow-up nomination would likely be appropriate here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "Members" sub-category doesn't seem to be needed, as the parent category is effectively used for the same purpose anyway. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:29, 5 February 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.

Kings of Anshan (Persia)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2-3 articles in each category, together 4 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:SMALLCAT : "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," Which in this case is sub-categorization for monarchs of individual states. Dimadick (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not necessarily diffuse monarchs of every country by century and this is a case where it is certainly not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 6 February 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.

Mayors of places in Arizona

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham: Delaware lets resort towns have both residents and non-resident property owners vote and run for office to ensure that the local residents have diluted political influence. Connecticut let's the ultra-wealthy reside in their penthouse in Manhattan but still vote locally at their rolling "country" estate. For the other 48 states, we can assume residency (citation). - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:18, 5 February 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.

Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Britain

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article name Roman Britain and category name Category:Roman Britain.
copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose both. The main article is, quite properly Roman Britain, which did not extend to the United Kingdom. These other categories should be "...in Britain" or "...in Roman Britain". Rathfelder (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- "Roman Britain" (RB) is a well-known and well-understood term. It is no doubt unfamiliar to Irish and others, but refers to that part of GB which was under Roman rule. This was England and Wales together at times with parts of Scotland. Any UK or GB category will inevitably have nothing in it but an RB subcat, making it a waste of space. We do not talk of Roman England, because that is an anachronism: England derives from Angle-land, referring to a post-Roman immigration. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The top category and one of the subcategories were previously opposed for speedy rename to Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in the United Kingdom and Category:Roman villas in the United Kingdom, @Wikihistorian and Rathfelder: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is also related to this full CfD discussion, @Fayenatic london, Laurel Lodged, GPinkerton, Sillyfolkboy, Oculi, Peterkingiron, Johnpacklambert, and Justus Nussbaum: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that sort of works if you're happy to use the fudge of "Britain" to paper over unsightly cracks. But what about Ukraine? Would you be happy that this nom would set a precedent for the same to be done to Ukraine? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Ukraine didn't exist as a concept in Roman times, the title of such a category would explicitly limit the scope to the modern state. It might be less than ideal in the case of things that no longer exist, or in the sense that people might imagine that some sort of "Roman Ukraine" existed. But the same concerns don't apply to Britain, which existed then and now with substantial overlap—Scotland didn't exist as an entity, and while some of its territory lay outside of Roman control for most of the history of Roman Britain, the Romans were aware of it and interacted with it (Agricola even built a series of forts stretching far into the highlands), so from a certain point of view you could say that it was still part of "Roman Britain"—the unconquered part. I'm not terribly concerned with "precedent", because nothing about Wikipedia says that once you make a decision about the best name for category 'A', you have to reach the same conclusion for category 'B', even if the facts and considerations are different. We can excavate the ruins of that bridge when we come to it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What these arguments really amount is "We're special. We don't have to play by the rules because we're British.". That argument fell apart in the Brexit negotiations with the EU when every "we're special" claim was carefully but politely rebuffed. In Wiki space, the myth continues but not unchallenged. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bridges and theatres were in Roman Britain while the archaeological sites are in England or Wales. I would not have an issue with having some of these articles in an Archaelogical sites category (also, or maybe even instead), but that concerns a different tree than the ones we are discussing. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 7 February 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.

Category:Recipients of the Sniper's Badge

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (Likely WP:OVERLAPCAT and definitely WP:OCAWARD)
We have 4 articles total under Category:German military snipers and all 4 are from the Nazi period and all 4 had more than 20 kills. The Sniper's Badge is a Nazi award for snipers who had more than 20 kills, although only 2 articles currently list the award. (I assume all 4 probably won the award per WP:SYNTH but, when I tried to confirm that theory, I got search results from Storm Front and similar sites I'm not going to click on.) Both the articles treat the Iron Cross as prominent but give only passing reference to this award so it doesn't seem defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 5 February 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.

Category:Recipients of the Egypt Medal

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Egypt Medal
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Egypt Medal is a British campaign medal that was automatically issued to all British participants in both the Anglo-Egyptian War and the following Mahdist War. While participation in those conflicts may be defining, we already categorize those same people under Category:British military personnel of the Anglo-Egyptian War and Category:British military personnel of the Mahdist War. This award category seems redundant and non-defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 5 February 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.
  1. ^ https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/tungcheehwa
More