< May 16 May 18 >

May 17

North-West Territories establishments

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. ✗plicit 05:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Until 1906, the Northwest Territories was styled the "North-West Territories". See History of the Northwest Territories#20th century. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 17 May 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:Association football goalkeepers who have scored

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. I have created a bare list for reference, see Talk:List of goalscoring goalkeepers#List from former category. I will make a procedural nomination for the sub-cat Category:Women's association football goalkeepers who have scored. – Fayenatic London 18:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored to Category:Goalscoring goalkeepers
Nominator's rationale: More concise, and in line with the main article List of goalscoring goalkeepers. Nehme1499 20:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 21:08, 17 May 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:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing a merger between these two categories. Although the "of Anaheim" category states that the team name changed after 2015, this did not seem to be very "official", and it has been difficult to find an exact date for the name change. The infobox on the Los Angeles Angels article simply shows "Los Angeles Angels (2005–present)", possibly to avoid the confusion of these name changes. The name changes have been discussed many times on the talk page, including here, here, and here.
Therefore, I believe these two categories should be merged, as there does not seem to be a clear delineation between the era of the "Angels of Anaheim" and "Angels" eras, in contrast to clear name changes, e.g. Anaheim Angels to Los Angeles Angels (of Anaheim) or California Angels to Anaheim Angels. Natg 19 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 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:Figure skating websites

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only entry in the category (Jackie Wong) is not a website so this is basically an empty category. Wong does have a podcast but I don't think this warrants a category. Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 17 May 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:Post-apocalyptic role-playing 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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is necessary. It contains a single game (game series to be exact) and we already have Category:Post-apocalyptic video games and Category:Role-playing video games. Pichpich (talk) 18:43, 17 May 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:17th-century Flemish educators

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, taking into account the weight of the discussion below.– Fayenatic London 22:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rathfelder (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not categorize people by language except performing artists and writers. For other occupations it is not defining at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as a province of Flanders in the 17th century. Place Clichy (talk) 15:51, 25 May 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:16th-century Belgians

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, as I find that the opposing arguments have been successfully countered. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:16th-century Belgian women to Category:Women of the Habsburg Netherlands
  • Propose merging Category:16th-century Flemish writers to Category:Writers of the Habsburg Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:16th-century Flemish physicians to Category:Physicians of the Habsburg Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:16th-century Flemish educators to Category:Educators of the Habsburg Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:16th-century Belgian lawyers to Category:Lawyers of the Habsburg Netherlands
  • Propose renaming Category:16th-century Belgian scientists to Category:Scientists of the Habsburg Netherlands
  • Propose merging Category:16th-century Belgian writers to Category:Writers of the Habsburg Netherlands
Nominator's rationale: Before Belgium existed. Contemporary Flemish categories are about language, but the 16th-century ones seem to be about location. Happy to change the format to "of" or "from" if there is agreement in respect of the earlier nominations. Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly and would urge the nominator to revert his out-of-process depopulation of these categories, where they knew before starting that it was opposed anyway (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Category:16th-century Flemish people by occupation, where they nominated the parent cat of three of these categories, only to get clear opposition: I even explicitly named Anna Bijns as an example of someone who is regularly described as a "Flemish writer" by high quality English sources.[1] The "Habsburg Netherlands" are a much wider entity, and this merge loses important, pertinent information from the category tree. (The Belgian cats should go though, mostly replaced by Flemish ones were appropriate). Fram (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that meanwhile the nom Rathfelder has completely depopulated some (or all) of these categories, against all accepted practices here. I would expect an editor who so often deals with cats and CfD to know and respect this (even more so if, as said above, the renaming or merging of these categories is already opposed in another open nom by the same editor). I have asked them to stop and self-revert, if not I'll have to do it for them. Fram (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not categorize people by language except performing artists and writers. For other occupations it is not defining at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as a province of Flanders in the 16th century. (Even in modern Belgium, there are provinces called East Flanders and West Flanders but not Flanders, whereas the region of Flanders includes many other areas that were never part of the former County of Flanders, but of course not French Flanders and Walloon Flanders which were part of it.) Anyway, good luck in establishing with certainty the language(s) spoken by these 16th- and 17th-century individuals. Many writers and scientists of the time wrote in Latin; are you going to call them Romans? Trying to apply to the Renaissance period the concept of Flemish as understood by modern-day Flemish nationalists is anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:51, 25 May 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.
More