< August 10
August 12 >

August 11

Category:1st-century BC rulers

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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to "6th-century BC rulers" (Upmerged). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2023 (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:9th-century women rulers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:9th-century women rulers

Category:Romance legendary creatures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Romance legendary creatures

Category:International Railways connecting Italy

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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is inappropriate and it duplicates the existing category Category:Cross-border railway lines in Italy. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2023 (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:Coaching associations based in the United Kingdom

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Coaching associations based in the United Kingdom

Category:Alumni of Preston Lodge High School

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Alumni of Preston Lodge High School

Category:8th-century women rulers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:8th-century women rulers

Category:7th-century women rulers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:7th-century women rulers

Category:Antiquarians from the Kingdom of Bohemia

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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category. A merge is not needed, the article is already in Category:17th-century Bohemian people and Category:Czech antiquarians. The category may well be recreated if a handful of articles fit the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2023 (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:Indo-European archaeology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Indo-European archaeology

Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus

Category:Italic history

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (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:Ancient Italic peoples

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories have Italic peoples as their main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2023 (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:Italic people

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:CROSSCAT. The fact that their native language belonged to the Italic languages family is unimportant and fails WP:OCEGRS. All 6 are already included in the relevant subcategories of Category:Ancient Italic peoples, namely Category:Falisci (3), Category:Sabine people (2) and Category:Marsi (1). See long series of precedents such as those mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2023 (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:Empty tomb

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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the articles in this category are not specifically about the empty tomb but more generally about the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not of anyone, but of Jesus. These chapters do not only discuss the empty tomb but also all the appearances until and including the ascension, i.e. they are much broader in coverage. So they should be in the broader category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zxcvbnm: the point of the nomination is that the Bible chapters do not belong here. Once they are moved we have a case of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the correct thing be to propose deletion then? After all, empty tomb is already in the "Resurrection of Jesus" category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zxcvbnm: I am proposing merging in the sense that I propose moving all six articles to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:44, 11 August 2023 (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:Archaeological cultures of Central Asia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Archaeological cultures of Central Asia

Category:Latin-language songs

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:Songs in Latin. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Latin-language songs to Category:Latin songs
    • Alt proposal 1: rename Category:Latin-language songs to Category:Songs in Latin
    • Alt proposal 2: keep; hold broader discussion on renaming entire tree from Category:Latin works/texts to Category:Latin-language works/texts etc.
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C per parent Category:Latin texts and all siblings within it. Relevant article Latin; it can have other meanings, but Latin (disambiguation) shows the language is the primary topic. No need to add "-language". See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:Hindi-language works, showing that the current Latin tree is very inconsistent in adding or omitting "-language" in catnames, e.g. Category:Latin language but main article Latin; Category:Latin-language literature but main article Latin literature; Category:Latin texts instead of Category:Latin works etc. I'm using this as a test case to see what naming convention we would like to follow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt proposal 1 rationale: WP:C2C per grandchild Category:18th-century hymns in Latin and per most cousins in Category:Texts by language, e.g. Category:Texts in Koine Greek, Category:Texts in Hebrew, Category:Texts in Coptic, Category:Texts in Syriac‎ etc. This option of [works] in [language] has already come up in an earlier discussion about chronicles/manuscripts by language (I think). It would make things a lot clearer than us having to go around checking whether Category:English chronicles (the CfR of which ended in no consensus recently) are written in English, written in England, written about England, written by English authors, etc. It could also cause a massive chain reaction throughout the Category:Works by language parent tree, however, and I am not sure if that is desirable.
Alt proposal 2 rationale: WP:C2C per the rest of the Category:Works by language tree. Regardless of whether main articles Latin and Latin literature use "-language" or not, it's just better to be consistent with all our other current trees. Overhauling the whole parent tree from Category:Fooian-language works to Category:Works in Fooian is a lot less attractive as an option than just renaming Category:Latin works/texts to Category:Latin-language works/texts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Hindi-language works CfD participants. @Pppery, Marcocapelle, LaundryPizza03, and Johnbod: For your consideration. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also value the input of Srnec on this matter, who has written extensively about texts in Latin (e.g. much of Recovery of the Holy Land literature), and probably has important insights on categorisation of works and their creators by language (as opposed to their nationality or ethnicity or whatever). such as Occitan troubadours being "French" by "nationality", but their songs being in Occitan. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's information:
Inconsistency of the Category:Latin language tree and the Category:Texts by language tree (copy)

Category:Latin texts is in Category:Texts by language. However, that is a bit of a strange tree, and one may well ask the question why it exists separately from Category:Works by language; Johnbod is correct that the others all have "-language" in Category:Works by language. The only exceptions are Category:Latin texts (the only one which is also in Category:Texts by language; why isn't it called Category:Latin-language works, Category:Latin works or Category:Works in Latin?), and Category:Works by ancient Latin writers (which might as well just be Category:Ancient Latin works, or Category:Ancient works in Latin, to avoid the impression we mean only works in Old Latin or something, but works written in Latin during antiquity as opposed to after antiquity).

Looking further, the Category:Latin language tree (main article Latin) is very inconsistent, with catnames such as Category:Latin-language writers, Category:Latin-language literature (but main article Latin literature and child Category:Latin books, however grandchild Category:Latin-language Christian hymnals), and Category:Latin-language songs, which in turn is a child of Category:Latin texts. The tree can't make up its mind whether we need to add "-language" or not. I have consistently used just "Latin" for building on the Category:Latin chronicles tree, but there is a lot more to bring into alignment here if we value consistency (WP:C2C).

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is a strong argument I had not thought of yet. So now I am swapping my weak preference around: prefer alt1, then alt2, then original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate Srnec's thoughtful explanation, as well as jc37's addition. Seeing Marco also in favour of Alt 1 (Category:Songs in Latin) now, this is now my preference, too. Although it may start off a chain reaction throughout the tree, this is the most unambiguous and future-proof naming convention I can think of. Thanks for your contributions so far. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2023 (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 Turkic people

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: manual upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 22#Category:15th-century Turkic women (manually upmerged all to Xth-century women on 30 July 2023) and CfD "16th-century Turkic women" (Deleted on 21 July 2023). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2023 (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:British colonial officials

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 Category:British colonial officials, rename Category:British colonial governors and administrators to Category:British colonial governors. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories cover exactly the same ground. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I understand Category:British colonial governors and administrators is that it is for governors, or for administrators with a governor-equivalent office. As an overarching category for all colonial civil staff, Category:Colonial Service officers may be more suitable. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was never its purpose. That's why "administrators" is included in the title (thus encompassing all administrative officials, not just those of governor status). The problem with Category:Colonial Service officers is that the Colonial Service only came into existence in 1931. Before that, each colony had its own civil/administrative service and associated services. And India was never administered by the Colonial Service, but retained its own independent services. I don't really care whether the category is named Category:British colonial officials or Category:British colonial governors and administrators, as both are accurate, but there's only a need for one category. Having two is ambiguous and unnecessary. Note that governors of each territory generally have their own subcats in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we do need two categories, but they may be named differently. One would be overarching, across occupations (with e.g. Category:British colonial judges‎ as a subcategory), and one for governors (also to become a subcategory of the overarching one). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2023 (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.

Suspended animation

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/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The films category was just renamed using the word cryonics instead of cryogenics, but Dimadick has justifiably inserted an explanation referring to preservation of human remains, from the definition in Cryonics. The intention of these categories is clearly suspended animation, as the lead article of "Fiction about cryonics" is Suspended animation in fiction. As for "Biostasis", this may have have been chosen as it's the French word for suspended animation, and no separate categories are required for the English-language topic of biostasis. – Fayenatic London 08:09, 11 August 2023 (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:Bohemian writers

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, as User:Johnbod noted in another discussion, the current name is ambiguous because of Bohemianism. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2023 (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