August 17

Evangel Valor

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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Evangel Crusaders to Category:Evangel Valor
Propose renaming Category:Evangel Crusaders football to Category:Evangel Valor football
Propose renaming Category:Evangel Crusaders football coaches to Category:Evangel Valor football coaches
Propose renaming Category:Evangel Crusaders football players to Category:Evangel Valor football players

Nominator's rationale: The intercollegiate athletics teams at Evangel University were renamed from "Crusaders" to "Valor" in 2021; cf [1] Jweiss11 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Leaving Redirects I was thinking this would be WP:C2D but there's not a main article, but Evangel University#Athletics provides reliable sources. Leave redirects though since references before 2021 will use the old name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all in the spirit of WP:C2D, the team has clearly changed names. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 18 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:Art by country

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Art by country to Category:Visual arts by country

Nominator's rationale: This category in the top commentary indicates that it only collects visual art. We also have a specific category Category:Arts by country. To avoid confusion I suggest to keep only Arts and Visual arts. Solidest (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020 February 21#Visual_arts. Solidest (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Solidest: if this goes ahead, are you planning a follow-up nomination to have every Art subcategory of a country renamed to Visual arts? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it should be done by mass renaming. Since these categories are mostly formed from the titles of related articles, which are likely named so because of the most commonly used title. Perhaps both articles and categories should also be renamed in the future to avoid ambiguity. But it's probably worth doing one by one. In this particular renaming, we already have duplication that needs to be corrected to keep it from spreading duplicates and misplacing. And I think "visual arts" + "arts" is a much better pair than "art" + "arts". But in the end I would prefer that after moving the content of the category "Category:Art by Country" to Visual arts it would be redirected to "Category:Arts by Country". This option is also suggested by Wikipedia:Category names#Works of art categories by artist (Work of art -> Visual arts). Solidest (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: asking advice on the merits of this proposed merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, on the basis that not all art is 'visual' (I can never understand the Wikipedia-only concept of all art being 'visual art'). In any case, in this particular case, "arts" are far broader than the more specific "art". Sionk (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if that's what you think, you aren't understanding. The arts are always far broader than visual art, but in most contexts "art" by itself, when refering to the "products", means the visual arts, without in any way detracting from the artistic nature of music, literature etc. This is mildly confusing, but is just how the meaning of the words has evolved in English. How you can think this is a "Wikipedia-only concept" is beyond me. Do you expect to find musicians playing, or actors acting, in an art gallery? Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand perfectly well. But I am disagreeing. There is a big difference between art and "the arts". Sionk (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not how you understand it, but that looking at it, no one will have a clear consensus on where the category Category:Art by country overlaps with Category:Visual arts by country and Category:Arts by country. You literally show this by your words that such categorisation cannot be interpreted unambiguously. In this case, only replacing one category with a redirect will help to solve this problem. And calling for things to be left as they are is literally refusing to follow a few rules for maintaining categories. Solidest (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are allowed to oppose a proposal without having to suggest an alternative. As I've said above, not all "Art" is visual - Sound art, Conceptual art for example - so it shouldn't be a sub-category of "Visual arts". I'd suggest removing the "Art by country" category from "Visual arts by country". Otherwise, the "Visual arts by country" needs populating. "Art" does not need redefining or erasing. Sionk (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other way Category:Visual arts by country is new (2020) and only contains a few sub-cats; I don't see the need for it. I don't feel too strongly against merging the proposed way, but I feel strongly that all the national subcats should not be renamed to match, which someone is bound to propose, now or in 5 minutes. Very few of the national articles use "VA", and I don't think they should. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this as well. Although I have the only doubt that it might still raise questions for those who see it for the first time ("art" at first sight does not actually feel like it should only mean "visual art") + also I feel like one day someone might recreate "visual arts" as a more unambiguous name, which is basically what happened here. But anyway, for now the focus is to get rid of duplicated category. Solidest (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people in fact do think "art" means visual art rather than say music, and the category has two (for some reason) head notes explaining what it covers. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Setting aside for a moment whether both of the cats are necessary, I thought it might be worth noting that these could be about the difference between a topic category and a set category. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_conventions. That one is singular and the other plural, might be the first indication about these. - jc37 05:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think it's that at all. It's that "art" and "arts" mean different things, as explained above. "Art" meaning visual arts is a collective plural in any case, the singular would be work of art ("art object", painting etc). Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of West Asian descent

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American people of West Asian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:American people of Caucasus descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and redundant layer. West Asia says: The term West Asia is used pragmatically and has no "correct" or generally agreed-upon definition. Caucasus doesn't have an agreed definition either. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Unless and until ALL 'West Asian' and 'Caucasus' categories are nominated for deletion, there is no justification for deleting just these two categories. These terms may not be perfect (geographic areas often have problems), but they are in use in WP to denote specific areas for categorization. Hmains (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I often start with just one or two test cases before I nominate entire trees. This is an easy one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent categories. It is not helpful for navigation to have too many intermediate category layers. When it comes to geography, a continent layer and a country layer are sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Upmerging is probably better than Deleting. I thought they were all already in their parents, but that turns out not to be the case. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent categories and then nominate ALL 'West Asian' and 'Caucasus' categories per @Hmains: if successful. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment does this mean that all these region categories and their subcats are to be up-merged to Asia continent categories: Central Asia‎, East Asia, North Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, West Asia? How exactly will this improve the user navigation experience? Of course, this will have to continue to all continents such as Europe with its regions of: Central Europe, Eastern Europe‎, Northern Europe, Northwestern Europe, Southern Europe‎, Southeastern Europe, Southwestern Europe, Western Europe‎. This would be a major change. This needs to be considered by all interested parties, not just the few here so far. Hmains (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh definitely. I also think we should upmerge Category:American people of Western European descent etc. I've been working on cleaning up regions of Europe categories a lot already, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31#Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe Perhaps it was easier if I started with Western Europe before going to West Asia, but I'm following the same principles and precedents. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unanswered question remains.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties

The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Hindu political parties to Category:Hindu nationalist political parties

and Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties to Category:Politicians of Hindu nationalist political parties (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no political party in India or outside India which identifies itself as "Hindu political party". There exist "Hindutva political parties" but again, "Hindu" and "Hindutva" aren't synonymous. Dympies (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies: shouldn't you start at Category:Hindu political parties? This currently has subcats for Nepal, Bangladesh and Malaysia. The latter may be mis-categorised since they appear to have an ethnic rather than religious focus, but e.g. Akhanda Nepal Party "calls for the reinstatement of Nepal as a Hindu state". – Fayenatic London 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Given that parent Category:Hindu political parties identifies List of Hindu nationalist political parties as its main article, all items and subcategories in this tree should be "Hindu nationalist" / "Hindutva", or purged, and the categories should be renamed accordingly. "Hindu nationalist" or "Hindutva" may be comparable to "Islamist" in this case, compare Category:Banned Islamist parties.

I don't see any Christian equivalent yet in our current categories. Category:Christian political parties has a child called Category:Christian democratic parties; I suppose the opposite of that might be Category:Christian theocratic parties if there are any, but we'd have to carefully group them if we ever did. Category:Theocrats suggests that the United Christian Party (United States) would qualify as such, and that is probably correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that the Reformed Political Party (SGP) from 1918 until the mid-2000s or 2010s officially sought to turn the Netherlands into a theocracy, but operated within the bounds of parliamentary democracy in the meantime. Not sure if it is categorisable as a Christian theocratic party then, but it certainly used to be for most of its existence. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london, even if Akhanda Nepal Party wants to reinstate Hindu state, it would still be wrong to categorise it as a Hindu party. A political party has no religion. And yes, Category:Hindu political parties should also be removed along with Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties. Dympies (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a change is needed, it should probably be in the form of a rename instead of a deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Btw could you name other Christian theocratic political parties if we ever wanted to populate that category? There are probably enough to be found in the early 20th century in Europe and the Americas if we delved into it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know. It would not surprise me either way, it is also possible that the Reformed Political Party is just an odd duck. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  They are odd alright haha. I suppose you meant a wikt:vreemde eend in de bijt?
  
  I am seeing some other odd parties, e.g. In 1943-44, Homer Aubrey Tomlinson, older brother of Milton, left to form a denomination headquartered in Queens Village, Queens. This denomination would become the Church of God (Huntsville, Alabama), when it relocated its headquarters after Homer's death in 1968. Homer founded the Theocratic Party and was its candidate for U.S. president in 1952 and 1964. He was a Bishop who planned to crown himself King of the World or "King of All Nations of Men" in Jerusalem on October 7, 1966. His bio's infobox says a funny thing as well: King of the World self-proclaimed. Love the fact that someone added "self-proclaimed" there, just in case anyone was confused that he was generally recognised as such. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't want name change but deletion of this category. As per my nomination, it is not making any sense because there are no "Hindu political" parties in India where the subject is mainly focused. Dympies (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies: this needs some further clarification. Is e.g. Hindu Mahasabha not a Hindu nationalist party? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, again "Hindu nationalist" and "Hindu" aren't synonymous. Dympies (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies: I presume this party on a "Hindu nationalist" party in your view, but then I still do not understand why you are against renaming the category to "Hindu nationalist". Please explain. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, I am not against renaming it but here, people have taken this discussion to somewhere else due to which no action has been taken place yet. Thats why asking them to stick to the topic. Dympies (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as they are discussing renaming, and you are not against renaming, then apparently there is consensus to rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also Category:Indian nationalist political parties, Category:Indian Hindu political parties, and List of Hindu nationalist political parties. Several parties are mentioned in both categories and/or the list, either as subcategories or as items. The list is the main article of Category:Hindu political parties. That leads me to the conclusion:

Rename Category:Hindu political parties to Category:Hindu nationalist political parties per WP:C2D main article List of Hindu nationalist political parties.
Rename Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties to Category:Politicians of Hindu nationalist political parties per WP:C2C per no. #1, because the parent will thus be renamed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I do think the list will need to be purged. E.g. the Progressive Reform Party (Suriname) really can't be called "Hindu nationalist". It was known as the "United Hindustani Party" until 1966, but that was only focused on Hindustani minority interests in Suriname, not ethnoreligious nationalism. These days it's a big tent left-wing social democratic party. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support both per WP:C2D. I have tagged Category:Hindu political parties too. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above. Dympies (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch stadtholders

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 25#Category:Dutch stadtholders

Category:Political prisoners in former countries

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 25#Category:Political prisoners in former countries

Category:Political prisoners in Azerbaijan

The result of the discussion was: delete/rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 14:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting for now Category:Political prisoners in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting for now Category:Political prisoners in Myanmar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alt proposal Myanmar: rename Category:Political prisoners in Myanmar to Category:Political prisoners held by Myanmar

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now, without prejudice against re-creationin the future if it can be properly populated (I recommend at least 5 items). This category, which is supposed to categorise individual people, currently only contains a very general tangentially related article Human rights in Azerbaijan, and a redirect called Political prisoners in Azerbaijan which redirects to Human rights in Azerbaijan. If at least 5 can be found, I think we could keep it. But the only person who AFAIK would qualify right now is Eynulla Fatullayev, who is already in Category:Azerbaijani prisoners and detainees. We could also add him to Category:Political prisoners for now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added Myanmar: Same exact situation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no biographies in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are plenty of people who fit here, but they're already in another category. Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Azerbaijan and Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Myanmar should be subcategories of these. I have no opinion as to whether the nominated categories should be deleted as a redundant middle layer or retained to preserve the tree structure. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that if the categories are kept, the AI categories should become subcategories of these. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with Marco. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Political prisoners in Myanmar now has 3 biographies and thus 5 total entries. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Pppery's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt proposal Myanmar rationale: WP:C2C child category: Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Myanmar. With thanks to Marcocapelle for populating it and making the AI cat its child. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alt proposal now, my deletion rationale is no longer applicable. ~~To be fair, I did not add the biographies.~~ Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I can see you added Tin Oo, Tin Tun, Win Tin, Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Myanmar to the category on 10 August. Do you mean you didn't write them? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, completely forgot about it. I did recall the AI subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First Macron presidency

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:First Macron presidency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Second Macron presidency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't have categories to define a term of a political leader, a first or second term, in this case, a president. For other presidents, we don't use a category for each term under their presidency. Instead, just a single presidency category. It's best, for now, to have the main Macron category replace the usage of these two. In the future, a main "Presidency of Emmanuel Macron" category will replace the usage of the main Macron category for articles for events during his presidency. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge both to Category:Presidency of Emmanuel Macron, not Delete. Compare Category:Presidency of Barack Obama etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. We actually do split head of government tenures into individual cabinet periods. See Category:Cabinet of Japan and Germany Category:Federal cabinet (Germany). ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 21:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The French President doesn't form the cabinet. The PM of France does. The President of France is the head of state. Not government. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WCM is correct. Multiple cabinets/governments can exist during a single presidency. Category:First Macron presidency has Castex government, First Philippe government, and Second Philippe government; that's 3 cabinets within 1 single presidency. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep both: The different terms/mandates/presidencies imply different governments. The Borne government and the Philippe government have, for example, only *one* common minister. The categorization is also useful as it allows one to see at a glance the different challenges faced during the two terms. As for the choice of the cabinet, well, if you say so... the latest cabinet reshuffle is thought to have been much less thorough than the PM would have wished had she had her druthers. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you say, the governments have shifted significantly, but the president hasn't changed. As I said above, multiple cabinets/governments can exist during a single presidency. Category:First Macron presidency has Castex government, First Philippe government, and Second Philippe government; that's 3 cabinets within 1 single presidency. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to argue about terms and their implications. There is only one presidency, not two presidencies. A second term does not mean it's a second presidency. A second presidency can only exist if he wasn't relected in 2022, and elected after another five years. This is not the case. He was reelected to a second term. Not a second presidency. Both keep votes haven't even been able to define the difference between terms and presidency and how they're the same even though they are not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WCM is again correct. I would think you're not opposed to a merger as I have proposed, and Marcocapelle now supports? In your rationale, you've already said In the future, a main "Presidency of Emmanuel Macron" category will replace..., but why wait instead of merging these two right now? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. For the moment, it does not appear there is consensus to change the status quo. I will grant that the argument "that's the way we've always done it" is a cop-out. AI would create two pages/categories since each term is a separate entity with potentially widely divergent characteristics. Taking the example of Chirac, his first term was 7 years long (ending in divided government), whereas the second one was only 5 years (without divided government). It seems very strange to argue that someone who has two discontinuous terms has two presidencies/quinquennats/mandats/terms (in the US the classic example is Grover Cleveland, and who knows maybe soon Trump), whereas someone who has two terms that follow one another does not. I guess it's logical from the point of view of whether there is a cleaning bill between the two occupants of the presidential palace or not... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's make this very simple. We should Merge because:

WP:C2D. The main article is Presidency of Emmanuel Macron. Per WP:C2D, is therefore logical to have one single category called Category:Presidency of Emmanuel Macron.
WP:C2C. As I pointed out with the Category:Presidency of Barack Obama example, several cousin categories in Category:Presidencies of the United States are two-term presidencies in which the entire presidency has one, single, main article. Similar examples exist in, say, Category:Presidencies of Argentina, where Cristina Fernández de Kirchner gets 1 category (Category:Presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) and 1 main article (Presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner), even though she served two terms. It's a single presidency. For consistency in the entire Category:Presidencies tree, we should apply the same naming convention for Macron, and merge these two categories into 1.

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this further, it appears that the nominator was responsible for deleting the pages |First Macron presidency and |Second Macron presidency in order to have WP:C2D on their side when they began this category deletion request. That said, it is understandable that folks have historically been sloppy about referring to a two-term presidency as a single conceptual unit. I thought maybe we could improve and base things on the legal definition of a term/presidency etc. but it appears that the "cult of personality" way of seeing things is more ingrained than the "legal time period" way of seeing things. I guess we can either wait for AI to fix this, live with imprecision, or try to get people to shed their natural bias towards personality rather than logic now. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to confuse the nominator (WikiCleanerMan, who initially sought to delete these categories) with me (Nederlandse Leeuw, who has been saying they should be merged per WP:C2D, not deleted). WikiCleanerMan now agrees with me, but they never invoked WP:C2D. I did. So your analysis of WikiCleanerMan's motivations or even "natural bias towards personality" appears to be mistaken.

The fact is that we've now got a single article for Presidency of Emmanuel Macron. This was agreed to per consensus at Talk:Presidency of Emmanuel Macron#Merger discussion. And per WP:C2D it may be expected that there will be a category with that same name. If you don't like it, you should first try to overturn that consensus to merge the two articles. Category names follow article names, not the other way around. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never fear, I'm not confusing you with anyone. I imagine we *all* probably have a natural bias towards personality, because we are not raised as machines. :) Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I am aware that I missed the preparatory stage for this deletion because I wasn't watching the talk page closely enough. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry that I drew the wrong conclusion then, it appeared that way to me.

At any rate, nom and Marcocapelle now agree with me, while Trimton agrees with you. That's 3-2. Not a strong but a slight advantage for Merge instead of Keep. I hope more participants could help establish a clearer result. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nederlandse Leeuw, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some further data suggesting that (as Heraclitus might have said) you can't be elected to the same presidency twice. (evidence from fr.wp and wikidata)

Mitterand I (wd + fr.wp)
Mitterand 2 (wd + fr.wp)
Chirac 1 ( fr.wp)
Chirac 2 (fr.wp)
Macron 1 (wd+ fr.wp)
Macron 2 (wd + fr.wp)

All of the above existed when I went looking for them today. I have since fleshed out Chirac 1 & Chirac 2 at wikidata. An interesting fact: there is an instance of:presidential term which is used for terms and instance of:historical period which seems to be used for French presidencies but not American ones (see the cases of FDR and Cleveland, both of which are predictably a mess). :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support a merge as Nederlandse Leeuw has suggested and pinging from the presidency discussion who supported merging the former mainspace articles for when there were two articles for presidencies for Macron. The standard has to be applied to the categories. @Killuminator, Estar8806, Keivan.f, and 162 etc.: --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Killuminator, Estar8806, Keivan.f, and 162 etc.: (Fix pinging) --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. There is not enough distinction between the two to warrant two separate categories. Qwerfjkl talk 15:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodoxy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 25#Greek Orthodoxy

Category:Illyrian movement

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 25#Category:Illyrian movement

Category:The Zeitgeist Movement

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This topic only includes 3 articles which are already interlinked, providing sufficient navigation with no need for a category. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Kingdom of Ireland

The result of the discussion was: procedural close because of the Arb case. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from the Kingdom of Ireland to Category:People from Ireland (pre-1801)

Nominator's rationale: The present title is allegedly a 'piece of nonsense'. The suggested title fits in with Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801) which I am surprised to find was my suggestion at cfd, endorsed by an impeccable authority. It also fits in nicely with Category:People from Ireland (1801–1923). There are 2 subcats which can be speedied if this passes. Oculi (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, would this not need a starting year? Or is meant to contain Irish people ever since prehistory? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- See the linked cfd: 2011 January 2#Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland. Rationale is given 'per BHG' (not sure why BHG got the credit). There is discussion about a start date. Another (sub)subcat is Category:Lord chancellors of Ireland which goes back to 1186. Why are there no kings in this category? I find Category:High Kings of Ireland, elsewhere. Oculi (talk)
Agreed. I think that it needs a start date like Category:Polish people by period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A wholly un-needed grouping, regardless of how it is named. There is no navigational benefit in splitting Category:Irish people (adn its hundreds of subcats) in this way.
The nominator's to use WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 2#Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland as precedent is absurd. That debate was about the use of a disambiguator for a set which did end in 1801, but "Irish people" had the same scope before and after 1801, so no split is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might have said the same if there wouldn't have been Kingdom of Ireland and pre-1801 subcategories. Presumably that should all be dissolved together. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or keep all. Per the Polish example. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a daft comparison.

"Irish people" has had the same scope for centuries, and it is ridiculous to chop it up.

The comparison with Poland is absurd: Poland did not exist as a nation from 1795 to 1918, or 1939-45, and post-1945 Poland had radically different boundaries to the the 1918-39 incarnation; post-1945 Poland was about 100 miles further west, and had been subject to two huge bouts of ethnic cleansing.

None of that applies to "Irish people", because none of that happened in Ireland: the boundaries of the island of Ireland have been unchanged since the melting of the ice bridge to Britain in 12,000 BC. The big ethnic cleaning from ireland happened in the mid-19th century, during and after An Gorta Mor.

The 1922 creation of Northern Ireland is handled by the simple, stable solution of having Category:People from Northern Ireland as a subcat of both Category:Irish people and Category:British people. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1, to address @Marcocapelle's concerns about the subcats. Note that no merges are needed.

Propose deleting:

Category:People from the Kingdom of Ireland
- Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Ireland
- Category:Painters from the Kingdom of Ireland

I have tagged the extra two categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three, these are simply Irish people who can be categorized by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query And do you intend to also tag Category:People from the Kingdom of Great Britain? After all, these could, with more justice, be said to be within a "by century" category already. Why stop there? Why not tag all members of Category:People by former country? @BrownHairedGirl, Marcocapelle, and Oculi: Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: No. As I have explained several times in these discussions, Ireland is an unusual case.

LL seems to be fixated on the label of "former state", as if all cases were the same.

In reality, the cases vary wildly. For example, in the cases of the Soviet Union and Ottoman Empire, the territory was fragmented on dissolution: the terms "Soviet people" and "Ottoman people" lost their meaning. That did not happen in 1801.

Some comments here seem to assume that "Kingdom of Ireland" is synonymous with "Ireland 1542–1800". But that is not so: the Kingdom started out as a rebranding of the Lordship of Ireland, in control of only a small (and shrinking) part of the island of Ireland; but that was followed by half-a-century of on-off major wars, by 1603 it controlled all of the island. Then from December 1653 to 25 May 1659, the Kingdom did Ireland did not exist: it was part of The Protectorate.

In 1800 (the Kingdom's last year) it was a puppet state ruling all of the island with a largely toothless parliament, and actually ruled on behalf of King George III by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Charles Cornwallis) and his Chief Secretary of Ireland (Charles Abbot). In January 1801, after the Union, the same territory was ruled on behalf of the same Georgie by the same pair of Charlies, but the toothless parliament was gone. There is a good case to be made that both the Kingdom's 1542 establishment and its abolition in the 1801 Union were less significant changes than the upheavals in the 16th and 17th centuries.

And nobody has even tried to make the case that chopping up Category:Irish people by regime will improve navigation, which per WP:CAT is the main purpose of categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The history lesson above amounts to one thing: the de jure claims did not always reflect the de facto territorial claims. But officially, "Kingdom of Ireland" is synonymous with "Ireland 1542–1800"; it's wishful thinking to say otherwise. By the way BHG, a lot of what you write is not so much "explaining" as you setting forth your interpretation. A contrary opinion does not mean that got it wrong. It just means that we differ. If I wrote in the way way that you wrote above (and elsewhere), I would rightly be condemned as engaging in "mansplaining". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LL writes officially, "Kingdom of Ireland" is synonymous with "Ireland 1542–1800"; it's wishful thinking to say otherwise.

But whose official?

Not Oliver Cromwell's. Nor Hugh O'Neill's. Nor The Confederates. Nor James's. Nor Donal's.

You seem to be saying that a certain Anglo-Norman Whiggish monarchist view of Irish history and Irish constitutional legitimacy is the official one. That's a highly-partisan view of history, under which for example the First Dáil did not exist and the 14th-century collapse of the Lordship of Ireland never happened.

You are of course quite entitled to take whatever view you like, but not to present a partisan view as if it was WP:NPOV. The reality is much more complex than the simplistic Whiggish version of history, and legitimacy is highly contested. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's happened to Category:People from Ireland (1801–1923)? How / where did it disappear? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18#Category:People from Ireland (1801–1923). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from the Kingdom of Great Britain should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, the issues there are very different. That would be a separate and v different discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely separate, not very different though. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  On the contrary, @Marcocapelle, it would be radically different. "British people" had no legal basis before 1707, and after 1800 its meaning broadened to include Ireland (all of it util 1922, thereafter a part of Ireland). Hence the use of the phrase "People from the Kingdom of Great Britain" to describe that particular period and scope,
  
  By contrast the meaning of "Irish people" has remained unchanged.
  
  It is a great pity that some editors seem to be fixated on the term "Kingdom of", rather than looking at the actual scope of the categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt delete per BrownHairedGirl, since the only argument against that deletion seems to be treating fundamentally unlike cases as like. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no rationale was offered for the alt deletion proposal. I'd like to see one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. Also oppose Alt per BHG. I note that Category:People from the Republic of Ireland exists but is not part of the alt plan. An Irish man born in 1900 is the same as an Irish man born in 1950. No? Has changing states changed their nationality? If not, then why the omission? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This wasn't properly relisted by XFDcloser.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdraw due to subsequent conflict between participants. No prejudice against renomination at some point in the future. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, best to end this now as a procedural close, as we are all involved in an arbcom case. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close While this is not a SMALLCAT issue, it makes sense to close this for now since so many participants are named parties at ArbComm. No objection to resubmission once that is all sorted out. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's wrapping up, I'm unsure of the right path here. Since SMALLCAT isn't at issue here, would potentially banned editors' comments be stricken or remain? - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter much, because the two banned users took opposite positions, but IMO the banned users comments should not be stricken here - striking is reserved for block evasion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo rugby league players

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo rugby league players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT. Also rugby league is not played in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The one entry is really an English rugby league player of Congolese descent. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SMALLCAT and arbitrary intersection of two unlikely connected things. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]