< June 14

June 16 >

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) Qwerfjkl talk 15:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Academicians of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A merge is not needed because the subcategory is also in an alternative way part of the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Now This extra layer does not aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was missing interwikis for some reason, merged it with another Wikidata item, the description has to be tweaked as it is not about full members only, and it should include a subcategory about the correspondent-members, etc. --Base (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, it still contains only the one subcategory so it doesn't currently aid navigation. Updated my iVote to be clearer that I'm willing to reconsider if/when more content appears. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update & Keep There are now two subcategories. Shari Garland (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 but I'm not sure how this pairing helps navigation versus just putting them both in the parent category, Category:National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, presidents are still in the full members category, so it should be purged from here per WP:SUBCAT. Basically, nothing has changed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into Category:Members of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. @Base interwikis were not correct, I fixed them. --Laxeril (talk) 11:48, 20 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Welsh manuscripts to Category:Welsh-language manuscripts

Nominator's rationale: WP:CATSPECIFIC, following the split-off of Category:Latin manuscripts about Wales and the better distinction between written in Welsh, allegedly produced in Wales, containing information about Wales, and being preserved in a collection located in Wales. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:English manuscripts and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:Scottish manuscripts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 26 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scottish manuscripts to Category:Scots-language manuscripts

Nominator's rationale: WP:CATSPECIFIC, WP:C2C following recent renamings of siblings by language or topic. Category:Scottish Gaelic manuscripts and Category:Manuscripts about Scotland have been split off as separate categories, the "by period"-based Category:Medieval documents of Scotland and the "by collection"-based Category:Manuscripts in the National Library of Scotland and Category:University of Glasgow Library collection have been removed as children, but links to them have been added to aid navigation. Once this category is renamed, the WP:CROSSCAT issues it had when I found it will be resolved. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:English manuscripts nominated earlier today. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 26 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Academicians of Ukraine to Category:Ukrainian academicians

Nominator's rationale: please clarify at category's header what is the difference Estopedist1 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge, the two categories seem to serve the same purpose. Technically, Category:Academicians of Ukraine is more accurate because the category may contain foreign academicians, but in practice the merge direction will not matter a lot. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it was created as a subcat of Category:Ukrainian scientists (although they are not all scientists) and Category:Academicians does not have other subcats using 'of'. Oculi (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to follow the naming conventions of the Category:Academicians tree. (I also think the whole tree should be moved under Category:Members of learned societies by country but that's for another time.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:28, 17 June 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 15:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Philip Seymour Hoffman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Far too little content for an eponymous category and all well interlinked. Why was this even made in the first place? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft oppose It's not a WP:SMALLCAT, but 1 C, 3 P is indeed relatively small. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 20 June 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.

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 16:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English manuscripts to Category:English-language manuscripts

Nominator's rationale: WP:CATSPECIFIC, WP:C2C language-based children, the linked Commonscat c:Category:English-language manuscripts, and following recent renamings of siblings by language or topic. Category:Latin manuscripts about England has been split off as a separate category. We could create a subcategory called Category:English-language poetry manuscripts once the renaming is completed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:Scottish manuscripts has also been CfR'd for renaming to make it language-based. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Categories should be unambiguous and A LOT of categories using ambiguous terms like 'English' and 'French' should be moved. But while I'm here... "Latin manuscripts about England" is an awful category name. Manuscripts, as physical objects, cannot generally be said to be "about" anything. Srnec (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec I'll grant you that it's not ideal. But just like we can say something about the language of the contents of the manuscript, we can say something about the topic of the manuscript, can't we? Just like we've got Category:Chronicles by topic, and manuscripts can contain one or multiple chronicles, the texts contained in manuscripts can be about something, can't they?
I've created these Chronicles/Manuscripts about Fooland as a logical extension of existing trees such as Category:History books about England, Category:Works about England etc. I'm not making something up, but building on existing practices. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm currently preparing the diffusion of Category:Irish manuscripts. It requires a lot of reading and thinking. So far I'm thinking about the following reorganisation:
2+ Irish Gaelic manuscripts (parent)

0+ Manuscripts about Ireland (parent)
25+ Irish Gaelic manuscripts about Ireland (subtopics: miscellany, genealogy (1 dynastic propaganda), history, military history, poetry, religion, mythology, topography, law, rural life)

2+ English-language manuscripts about Ireland (history, law)

7+ Latin manuscripts about Ireland (genealogy, poetry, history)

10+ (working title) Latin manuscripts of Irish origin (mostly Vetus Latina or Latin Vulgate biblical manuscripts incl. psalters, hagiographic (mostly Saint Patrick), or liturgic; not really "about Ireland", but probably produced in Ireland, although I doubt this is a DEFINING element).
In each case, it matters what 'Irish' means. Written in Irish Gaelic? Written in Ireland? Written about Ireland? Kept in a collection located in Ireland? When it's a Vulgate Latin fragment of the New Testament kept in the British Library in London, there is little 'Irish' about it, for instance. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "produced in" is more defining of a manuscript than what it's "about". A manuscript is a physical object. Where and when it was made are among its most defining elements. What texts are in it is also defining, but it seems to me much harder to categorize manuscripts by the topics of the texts they contain. Such categorization belongs properly to the texts themselves.
Texts can be about things, but manuscripts (except in the limit) can't be, I'd say. For example, a manuscript that contains one work may be described as about whatever the work is about, but a manuscript that contains several different works? And if "England" is a thing a manuscript can be about, how is a manuscript containing works about the history of England, Aristotelian philosophy, the end times and hagiography to be classified? "About England" would hardly seem defining.
The difference with language is that a manuscript, basically by definition, contains writing, which encodes a language. So a manuscript can always be defined by language. Of course, a manuscript may be written in more than one language. But we could easily categorize a polyglot manuscript by multiple languages. There are only so many languages. But topics? It is one thing to categorise a text by topic, but how would that work with manuscripts containing multiple texts? And why would "England" constitute a topic at all?
Look at this MS record: text it contains, date of production, author, scribe, illustrator, original owner, place of production, language, size. Or this one: where it is now, when it was made, where it was made. Scroll past the thumbnails and you get a list of contents, then the scribe and the chain of custody. I would look at how manuscripts are actually catalogued to determine what their defining features are. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec You make some good points, and I partially agree with you. The current categorisations of manuscripts are:
Category:Manuscripts by language‎; we agree one manuscript can contain texts written in multiple languages

Category:Manuscripts by period of creation‎; this can be dated paleographically, linguistically, or by dating the materials (and the provenance can also contain clues)

Category:Manuscripts by script, i.e. writing system

Category:Manuscripts by type‎, i.e. writing material / medium, such as paper, papyrus, bamboo, illuminated, palimpsest etc.

Category:Manuscripts by religion‎, apparently this means the topic/perspective of the text; I think this could/should be a child of any future Category:Manuscripts by topic

Category:Manuscripts by collection‎, this is often mixed up with "by area/location/country/region", with subcategories and items categorised to the countries where the libraries containing these collections are located. E.g. lots of manuscripts from all around the world can be mislabelled "English manuscripts" if they are preserved in some collection of the British Museum in London, England, which is often the only "English" thing about them.

Category:Manuscripts by area‎. There are disagreements about what the purpose of the category was, is, and should be.
At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Category:Manuscripts by area, I am proposing to split it up to Category:Manuscripts by location and Category:Manuscripts by topic, or just rename to Category:Manuscripts by topic; the latter is my strong preference, supported by RevelationDirect and Marcocapelle.

One alternative is renaming/rescoping it to Category:Manuscripts by provenance, suggested by إيان.

Another alternative is renaming to Category:Manuscripts by region and splitting to new Category:Manuscripts by country, suggested by Fayenatic london (although I think this is unhelpful to make things clearer).

You seem to be suggesting Category:Manuscripts by country of production: Where and when it was made are among its most defining elements. Although I think this is WP:NONDEFINING, some categories such as Category:Illuminated manuscripts of Welsh origin do appear to have this scope: illuminated manuscripts that were either certainly produced or are thought to have been produced in Wales. But that description alone should give us some pause: it can lead to a speculative or WP:ARBITRARYCAT. How do we know where, say, the Khlebnikov Codex was produced? Mellk and I recently examined where it was found and who previously owned it (=provenance), but how it got into the possession of Kolomna merchant Pyotr Khlebnikov, and from where (=country of production), may not be obvious. I still don't know whether it was produced in modern-day Belarus or modern-day Ukraine. Omeljan Pritsak concluded it was produced in Ostroh, Ukraine, and promoted renaming it to "Ostroh Codex", which has been criticised by other scholars. In any case, are thought to have been produced in indicates just this uncertainty, and makes it difficult to be WP:CATSPECIFIC.

Category:Manuscripts by works contained‎, e.g. if a manuscript contains Category:Biblical manuscripts as well as Category:Primary Chronicle textual witnesses, you can categorise them as both. I'm currently also (temporarily) using this for "Manuscripts by topic", awaiting the future creation of Category:Manuscripts by topic by the CfS, because a lot of subcats here are already by topic rather than by specific works (such as the Bible or the Primary Chronicle) contained.
Miscellanies I somewhat agree with your observation that What texts are in it is also defining, but it seems to me much harder to categorize manuscripts by the topics of the texts they contain. (...) how is a manuscript containing works about the history of England, Aristotelian philosophy, the end times and hagiography to be classified? "About England" would hardly seem defining. A lot of Category:Irish manuscripts pages just say it's a "miscellany" if the contents can't be easily brought back to one topic or theme, but that could indeed hardly be defining.

Polyglot, poly-topic? On the other hand, you say So a manuscript can always be defined by language. Of course, a manuscript may be written in more than one language. But we could easily categorize a polyglot manuscript by multiple languages. Why couldn't we easily categorise an about-multiple-topics ("poly-topic") manuscript by multiple topics?

Chronicles by topic I essentially already do this with Category:Chronicles by topic. Many Latin or Greek-language chronicles start with a universal history (often a biblical paraphrase), before moving on to "national"/regional/local histories. Therefore, I categorise many of them in both Category:Latin chronicles containing universal histories and, say, Category:Latin chronicles about Poland (e.g. Annals of Quedlinburg and Wielkopolska Chronicle), or Category:Latin chronicles about Austria (e.g. Austrian Chronicle of the 95 Rulers). Something similar applies to the Primary Chronicle: starts out with a universal history / biblical paraphrase before turning to the history of the Rus' people and Kievan Rus', as well as some neighbouring countries (that's why I also put it in Category:Chronicles about Poland). By virtue of containing a copy of the Primary Chronicle, a manuscript like the Laurentian Codex or the Khlebnikov Codex is just poly-topic. Wouldn't you agree?

Minimum requirement/cap? I do think we may have to set some sort of minimum requirement, like 25% about Fooland. E.g. if a chronicle/manuscript is 40% about Ukraine, 40% about Belarus, but only 10% about Poland, and only 10% about Russia, then maybe it should only be categorised as Chronicles/Manuscripts about Ukraine and Chronicles/Manuscripts about Belarus? I'm basing this example on Donald Ostrowski et al. 2003, who wrote on p. VII about the topic of the Primary Chronicle (PVL):

The compilation of chronicle entries known as the Povest' vremennykh let (PVL) is a fundamental source for the historical study of the vast eastern European and Eurasian lands that now include major parts of Ukraine and Belarus, as well as extensive parts of the Russian Federation and Poland.

The relative importance of Ukraine and Belarus is much greater than that of Poland and Russia, but do the latter two still deserve to be categorised? We need to cap it off at some point, surely. And I think it would be fair to say that if none of the topics pass the threshold of 25%, we can call it a "miscellany". A manuscript/chronicle like that has no clear focus, no dominant/prominent topic/theme, it's just a miscellaneous collection of writings.

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Miscellanies is actually a category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know where... If we don't, we can't put it in a category. Just like if we don't know where someone is born we can't put them in a "people from X" category.
"Works contained" is a sensible categorization. "Authors contained" is also sensible. I think there is some talking past each other here, because I agree that "medical manuscripts" is a valid category and you could call it topical. But I would not say a medical manuscript is "about medicine" anymore than I would say a drugstore is a "store about medicine". A manuscript is medical because it contains works about medicine. And I would not agree that "Scotland" is a topic at all. The geographical remit of the works contained in a manuscript is an odd basis for categorization.
I am very sensitive to our use of the word 'manuscript' because it is clearly very poorly understood. Just yesterday, I found the Irish Astronomical Tract described as a manuscript, although the article itself showed clearly that it is found in four manuscripts. Srnec (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know where... If we don't, we can't put it in a category. Exactly my main point why I think "country of production" is WP:NONDEFINING, because we very often do not know, and are left to speculate.

I understand that you regard manuscripts as no more than a container of things. But I'm left wondering why you think we can categorise it by language: a manuscript, basically by definition, contains writing, which encodes a language. So a manuscript can always be defined by language.

To complete the analogy: can we say a Latin manuscript is "in Latin" just like you would say a book shop selling Latin books is a "shop in Latin"? I don't think so; the books in the shop are in Latin, but saying the shop itself is in Latin doesn't really make sense, does it? Just like the "store about medicine" is an odd thing to say.

So either we cannot categorise manuscripts by neither topic nor language, or the analogy doesn't really work, and both are actually fine ways of categorisation. I don't see why language is okay, but not topic. I think it would be reasonable to assert that a manuscript, basically by definition, contains writing, which conveys information about a topic. So a manuscript can always be defined by topic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because every manuscript has a language or a very limited number of languages. And the language is encoded in physical signs. We might even be able to identify it without being able to read it. But a manuscript has as many topics as we like. And we can only identify them after we've read the text. Defining the "topic" of a work is somewhat arbitrary, as the very fact of the choice of topics like "England" shows. Take the Courtenay Compendium. It is 100% Latin. And you don't even need to be able to read Latin well enough to understand the texts to see this. But what of its topics? It is about Troy, the Matter of Britain, the Anglo-Saxon settlement, Queen Emma, China, the Mongols, the Crusades, Muhammad and prophecy. Or we could say English history, the Orient and Islam. Or taking its sections, we could say that two thirds are about the Isles, two thirds are about religion and two thirds are about history. It would be better to classify manuscripts by works or types of works contained. For example, "manuscripts containing prophecies" or "manuscripts of Dares Phrygius".
I am saying that topic is WP:NONDEFINING of a manuscript because it is downstream of the works that it contains, whereas language is not. Srnec (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to admit that that argument makes some sense, and is quite reasonable. May I ask how you feel about the Category:Works by topic tree in general? Is this a larger problem, or is 'topic' just not something we can apply very well to manuscripts in particular? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it might help to ask an extra question: Is it easier to define Category:Works by genre than by topic? We might agree that a certain work is a 'chronicle', but the topics which the chronicle has anything to say about could be in the hundreds. I suggested a cap of about 25% that of the text that needs to be about a single topic, but now that I think about it, that's also somewhat arbitrary. And I guess that could land us Wikipedians into WP:OR territory sooner or later by interpreting contents in terms of percentages by topic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering, suppose "topic" would WP:NONDEFINING for manuscripts, what about Category:Manuscripts by religion such as Category:Christian manuscripts? Should they be deleted? Or can we justify that category for different reasons? Because I wanted to make it a branch of Category:Manuscripts by topic, but maybe that's a bad idea? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can apply topic to works just fine, but I'm not so confident in the category tree. I just did a random click through and found that The Kite Runner belongs in Category:Works about regions, specifically, it is "about Islamabad". I've never read it, but a glance at the article does not support this assertion. It never even mentions Islamabad.
I also think there are pretty unambiguous cases of religious manuscripts. A manuscript of the Quran is an Islamic manuscript. A manuscript of a lectionary is a Christian manuscript. And so on. But there are harder cases. Is a manuscript that contains histories of the crusades from a Christain point of view a "Christian manuscript"? Is it the purpose of the MS that determines its religion or its contents? Or its original owners? A MS of the Vulgate Pentateuch is obviously Christian in one sense, although the works it contains are just as much Jewish. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I can only agree with all of that.

As far as I'm aware, a "Christian" writing must not only have a "Christian" perspective (because then over 90% (random guess) of pre-1900 European literature is "Christian"). It must serve to advance a Christian cause, including proselytising the religion itself.

For instance, if a chronicler writes about the crusaders capturing some town in the Levant, saying they "liberated it from the evil heretic Saracens", that's a Christian perspective, but not really promoting a Christian cause. The author might still be more interested in chivalry than holy war, for example. But if the author goes on with a lengthy exegesis of how the Bible already foretold this would happen, and this vindicates Christian theological tenets A, B, and C, then I think we can reasonably classify it as a "Christian" work. Or: a "Christian manuscript". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would this style work for all the subcategories of Category:Manuscripts by language? "Latin-language manuscripts", "Scottish Gaelic–language manuscripts", "Church Slavonic–language manuscripts", "Middle High German–language manuscripts": I have a suspicion that those ones aren't idiomatic. Wouldn't "Manuscripts in English", "Manuscripts in Latin", etc., across the board be better? (With the exception, I think, of Aztec codices; I don't know what to do about about that one.) Ham II (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination builds on existing practice (WP:C2B) of Category:Works by language, whereby any name for a language that can also refer to a country, nationality or ethnicity requires the addition -language (e.g. Category:English-language books), and any name for a language that can only refer to that language does not (e.g. Category:Latin books). The equivalent word for country, nationality or ethnicity is "Roman", so "Latin" has the advantage of being unambiguous, and never needing Category:Latin-language books. Same goes for Scottish Gaelic, Church Slavonic, Middle High German.

I would actually not be opposed to renaming all categories to Manuscripts in Fooese. But this could set off a chain reaction resulting in renaming the entire Category:Works by language tree to Bars in Fooese. We better be sure about this, that this is a significant and compelling improvement that is worth renaming the whole tree if necessary. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Either as nominated or per Ham II alternate name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 23 June 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.

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: listify. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Listifying Category:Recipients of the Pingat Bakti Setia

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD, WP:ARBITRARYCAT, & WP:NONDEFINING

The Pingat Bakti Setia (English: Long Service Award) is an award from Singapore that is automatically given to teachers and other government employees that have completed 25 years of service. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background We deleted similar categories for long service medal recipients here, here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why Listify instead of Delete? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Since I already created the list they're effectively the same: this category would go away. But conceptually, I don't favor deleting award cats without first making sure that same info is in a main article (unless there are just too many recipients to possibly list, like with the Purple Heart nom on this page). - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect Ah, I missed your "right here" link. Then yes, Listify per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 15 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Knights of the Order of Merit of Savoy

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD & WP:NONDEFINING

We don't have a main article on the Order of Merit of Savoy but there is a redirect that points to the Order of the Crown of Italy, a related award. There are only 2 articles in this category and they are Cardinal Giovanni Cheli (whose article makes no mention of the award) and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Neither seem defined by an award from a former royal family. The category contents are listified right here for any reader interested in this topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background We previously deleted another award from the former royal family of Savoy right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 20 June 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Religion in Europe by region to Category:Religion in Europe by country
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Religion in Western Europe by country to Category:Religion in Europe by country
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Religion in Northern Europe by country to Category:Religion in Europe by country
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Religion in Central Europe by country to Category:Religion in Europe by country
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Religion in Southern Europe by country to Category:Religion in Europe by country
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Religion in Eastern Europe by country to Category:Religion in Europe by country
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Buddhism in Europe by region to Category:Buddhism in Europe
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Buddhism in Central Europe to Category:Buddhism in Europe
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Buddhism in Western Europe to Category:Buddhism in Europe
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Christianity in Europe by region to Category:Christianity in Europe
Propose merging (un-splitting) Category:Christianity in Western Europe‎ to sibling Category:Christianity in Europe by country
Propose merging (un-splitting) Category:Christianity in Central Europe‎ to sibling Category:Christianity in Europe by country
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Jews and Judaism in Europe by region to Category:Jews and Judaism in Europe
Propose upmerging (un-splitting) Category:Jews and Judaism in Western Europe to Category:Jews and Judaism in Europe

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to the "Category:Northwestern European countries" CfD, see also precedents "Category:Northern European people" and "Category:Western European people". WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:OR, WP:OVERLAPCAT. Long story short (already confirmed by precedents): there is no consensus on how Europe should be divided in "North, East, South, West, Central" etc. There has never been a good reason for the decision made by 1 single editor on 6 July 2021‎ to empty and further diffuse/split Category:Religion in Europe by country into a set of religion-by-arbitrarily-defined-regions-of-Europe categories, and this move should be reverted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I found out shortly after submitting this CfM that there were separate trees for Buddhism, Christianity, and Jews and Judaism, which I have now added to the nomination. Especially Category:Jews and Judaism in Western Europe is WEIRD; it has a long-arse category description which is presented as if it's an article, entirely dedicated to defining "Western Europe". As if readers are looking for, or care about, the definition of Western Europe when they want to know about Jews and Judaism in that general area. The fact that the category creator felt like it was a good idea, or even necessary, to "add info" like this, only confirms just how arbitrary it is to divide Europe into regions for categorisation purposes, and that we should do no such thing if a continental category already exists and suffices for the same job. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support nobody knows that defines "western". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 15 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Western European music to Category:European music by country
Propose merging Category:Northern European music to Category:European music by country
Propose merging Category:Central European music to Category:European music by country
Propose merging Category:Southern European music to Category:European music by country
Propose merging Category:Southeastern European music to Category:European music by country
Propose merging Category:Eastern European music to Category:European music by country

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to the "Category:Northwestern European countries" CfD, see also precedents "Category:Northern European people" and "Category:Western European people". WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:OR, WP:OVERLAPCAT. Long story short (already confirmed by precedents): there is no consensus on how Europe should be divided in "North, East, South, West, Central", let alone "Southeastern" etc. Most items are already in Category:European music by country anyway, so this set of music-by-arbitrarily-defined-regions-of-Europe categories is entirely redundant. But just in case we've missed one, I'm proposing a Merger rather than a Deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support nobody knows that defines "western". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 15 June 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.

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/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:18th-century disestablishments in Dutch Mauritius to Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Dutch Empire, Category:18th-century disestablishments in Africa and Category:18th century in Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:18th century in Dutch Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Mauritius by century
Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Mauritius
Propose merging Category:1638 establishments in Dutch Mauritius to Category:1638 establishments in the Dutch Empire, Category:1638 establishments in Africa and Category:17th century in Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:1638 in Dutch Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:1630s in Dutch Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:1630s in Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:1630s establishments in Dutch Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:17th-century establishments in Dutch Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:establishments in Dutch Mauritius by century
Propose deleting Category:establishments in Dutch Mauritius by decade
Propose deleting Category:establishments in Dutch Mauritius by year
Propose deleting Category:establishments in Dutch Mauritius
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 17th century in Mauritius

Nominator's rationale: This structure only contains the main article Dutch Mauritius. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - is this a record for the number of categories depending on a single article? Oculi (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not the record. Recently, there was an article List of Caribbean carnivals around the world that had categories for all of the Caribbean countries. That article had categories for "Carnival in..." for each country and then THAT category was placed in "Cultural events" categories, "Musical events" categories, "Festivals" categories, "Folk festivals" categories, "Arts festivals" categories, "Religious festivals" categories and "Parades" categories. Once the country-specific categories were removed from List of Caribbean carnivals around the world, all of these categories became empty and this was for almost all of the countries in the Caribbean. I think there were somewhere between 40-60 empty categories that had been created simply from one article mentioning that these countries celebrated carnival. Of course, they were all created by the same editor who is now blocked. But these dozens of categories existed for years nested in our category hierarchy simply from a mention in one article. But I also come across this frequently in time-based categories where a single article can justify the creation of a "Year", "Decade", "Century", "Country" and "Continent" categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. This was the edit that deleted 1000 categories. Oculi (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  LOL. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#Category:1793 establishments in the Dutch Empire I tried to address something similar, with 11 cats created to contain only 8 pages. But it appeared to be much more complicated than I thought, because you need to upmerge to a bazillion existing categories and tag everything to do it properly. It's really silly to have e.g. a subcat and a subsubcat just for one single building built in 1798, but actually built in 1794, so we've created 2 useless empty categories for one single misdated building. In my frustration, I said: I'm never gonna do years and decades and centuries SMALLCATS again. It's an intricately interwoven web of categories with barely significant content that however fights very hard against being reorganised more sensibly. It's just not worth the effort. I just wanna complete this one and be done with it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The nom for Years in Newfoundland can now be modified very easily using search and replace to prepare a cfd for any number of countries. Oculi (talk) 13:44, 20 June 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.

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/delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Northwestern European culture to Category:Surnames of European origin

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 0 P, 2 C. "Category:Surnames of Northwestern European origin" has already been decided to be Upmerged to Category:Surnames of European origin, making this a redundant layer. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, practically speaking this is deletion because the subcategory is already parented directly to the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:13, 15 June 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.

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: manually merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually upmerging Category:Archaeology of Northwestern Europe to Category:Archaeology of Northern Europe (when within the scope of Archaeology of Northern Europe),

or to Category:Archaeology of Europe by region (when outside the scope of Archaeology of Northern Europe)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:CROSSCAT WP:OVERLAPCAT. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Northwestern European countries (deleted) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Surnames of Northwestern European origin (upmerged). Unlike parent Category:Archaeology of Northern Europe, which at least has a main article called Archaeology of Northern Europe (stated scope: Scandinavian Peninsula/Scandinavia and the adjacent North European Plain, roughly corresponding to the territories of modern Sweden, Norway, Denmark, northern Germany, Poland and the Netherlands), "Archaeology of Northwestern Europe" is an arbitrary scope based on nothing inside Wikipedia (as the precedents have shown). It also partially overlaps with Category:Archaeology of Northern Europe and Category:Archaeology of Western Europe.

I am considering whether to Upmerge

Category:Archaeology of Central Europe,

Category:Archaeology of Eastern Europe,

Category:Archaeology of Southeastern Europe,

Category:Archaeology of Southern Europe,

Category:Archaeology of Southwestern Europe, and

Category:Archaeology of Western Europe

to Category:Archaeology of Europe by region as well, because apart from "Northern Europe", these are all arguably WP:ARBITRARYCATs. But let's start with this one first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manually merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 15 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Archaeological sites in Europe by region to Category:Archaeological sites in Europe

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 June 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Austrian transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Chinese transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Dutch transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:German transhumanists‎ (2 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Greek transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Iranian transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Irish transhumanists‎ (2 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Israeli transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Italian transhumanists‎ (3 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Japanese transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Kazakhstani transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Polish transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Swedish transhumanists‎ (2 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎
Propose merging Category:Venezuelan transhumanists‎ (1 P) to Category:Transhumanists‎

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:44, 15 June 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.

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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fraser Island to Category:K'gari

Nominator's rationale:: Both the geographical feature and locality were officially renamed K'gari on 7 June 2023. "Fraser Island" is officially dropped and there is no longer a dual name.[1][2][3][4][5] 203.8.131.32 (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the outcome of the RM discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Eurong, Queensland. (You've no idea how long I've been waiting to use that joke). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related RM Nomination The main article is being considered for renaming. Your input (pro/con/other) is welcome right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Defer the right venue for this is the RM, and I defer to the RM's outcome, whether I agreed with it or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending RM.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RM here has closed as Keep. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then the category name should be kept too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per the outcome of the well attended RM nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 26 June 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.

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: alt merge to Xth-century African people parents. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose downmerging Category:1st-century rulers in Africa to Category:1st-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:2nd-century rulers in Africa to Category:2nd-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:3rd-century rulers in Africa to Category:3rd-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:6th-century rulers in Africa to Category:6th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:7th-century rulers in Africa to Category:7th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:8th-century rulers in Africa to Category:8th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:9th-century rulers in Africa to Category:9th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:10th-century rulers in Africa to Category:10th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:11th-century rulers in Africa to Category:11th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:12th-century rulers in Africa to Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:13th-century rulers in Africa to Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:14th-century rulers in Africa to Category:14th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:15th-century rulers in Africa to Category:15th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:16th-century rulers in Africa to Category:16th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:17th-century rulers in Africa to Category:17th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:18th-century rulers in Africa to Category:18th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose downmerging Category:19th-century rulers in Africa to Category:19th-century monarchs in Africa

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 C 0 P. See also precedents Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Category:1st-century rulers in Europe, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 26#Ancient rulers by century and continent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt proposal: instead of downmerging from Xth-century rulers in Africa to Xth-century monarchs in Africa, we Upmerge all these Xth-century rulers in Africa to their Xth-century African people parents.

Alt rationale: per Fayenatic: There is never any harm in (up)merging to a category that is already a parent; that has the same effect as deleting, except that the text in the deletion log entry will say that the category was merged rather than deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge C1-C3 per nom. In fact I sympthatize with the whole nomination, but the second half of the nomination would leave a strange gap in the rulers in Africa tree between the 12th and 16th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is meanwhile outdated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps those nominations are a bit premature so long as the cats in between haven't been sorted out. I guess I shouldn't be 'lazy' and do that first haha, but it's a lot of manual work. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to help me? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already started. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Great, thanks! I just worked out 6th to 10th century. 4th and 5th century were already deleted in 2009, so there has been a "strange gap" in the tree for the past 14 years already. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I was at it, I thought there might be potential for a new governors of Ifriqiya category, did you notice that too? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Yes, certainly. Go for it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added 11th and 12th C, now we've got a complete series, and we can add more. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Okay I added all centuries up to and including the 19th century. The 20th and 21st are a bit more complicated due to their subcategories, but I expect them to be dealt with if Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Category:21st-century women presidents in Europe receives enough support for the rationale I've given it, namely, upmerging all 20th- and 21st-century "rulers" including heads of state and heads of govt. So let's keep keep those two cats separate for now. Agreed? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most of the former content in these rulers categories were monarchs, tribal chiefs and governors. Of course I moved the monarchs articles to the monarchs subcategories but I left tribal chiefs and governors alone, for the time being. Just for transparency, how did you re-categorize tribal chiefs and governors articles? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not sure whether I ran into any tribal chiefs or governors. But if I did, I would have:
used Category:Female chiefs in Africa in the case of women - created recently when diffusing Category:Women rulers in Africa;

used Category:Tribal chiefs in the case of men - but perhaps it's time to create Category:Chiefs in Africa as a layer in between?;

created Category:Governors in Africa - in Europe that has led to a CfM on whether to keep 'em separated or merge Category:Viceroys in Europe into Category:Governors in Europe. The prudent move would be to await that outcome, and then create Category:Viceroys in Africa and/or Category:Governors in Africa accordingly.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle tagging you just in case. It had been 16 days, you might not read this otherwise. I hadn't seen your question until now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification @Nederlandse Leeuw: are you withdrawing this nom for now? - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: Nl Leeuw merely clarified why they did not add the 20th and 21st century to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect what Marcocapelle says. I'm not withdrawing anything. I'm just not including the 20th and 21st century in this CfM because I expect them to be dealt with in the follow-up of another current nomination (CfR Category:21st-century women presidents in Europe). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: @Marcocapelle You can use he/his/him pronouns when referring to me if that is more convenient for you. I don't mind either that or singular "they". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question Hi @Fayenatic, you explained here that Upmerging Category:4th-century rulers in Europe to Category:4th-century European people is more convenient than Downmerging Category:4th-century rulers in Europe to Category:4th-century monarchs in Europe. However, in this case, all monarchs in Africa categories except C6-C10, C12 and C18 are already parented to Xth-century African people. Should we simply add Xth-century African people to C6-C10, C12 and C18, and Downmerge all as nominated? Or should we Upmerge C6-C10, C12 and C18th-century rulers in Africa, but Downmerge the rest as nominated? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The simplest thing may be simply to merge them all to Xth-century African people. There is never any harm in (up)merging to a category that is already a parent; that has the same effect as deleting, except that the text in the deletion log entry will say that the category was merged rather than deleted. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Fayenatic london Okay, can I just say here that I agree with that (essentially an Alt proposal), or should I change the nomination in all 19 templates to indicate these new targets? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Nevermind, I already answered my own question. I'll make it an Alt proposal. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alt merge proposal is just as fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:44, 21 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Presidential Unit Citation (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD

The award is not defining and is retroactively awarded to individuals who served in the military units rather than individually being awarded. Toadboy123 (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is definitely not defining to individual soldiers who never actually won the award. The miltiary unit articles are a closer call but, clicking through them, the award is normally mentioned after whatever engagement they won the citation for, rather than being defining for the whole history of the unit. The main article has the most detailed list of recipients I've ever seen right here for anyone interested in this topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 15 June 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.

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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD

There is already a category on Category:American military personnel killed in action and having a category on Purple Heart contributes to the unnecessary clutter of categories in articles. Toadboy123 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete We already deleted this category, under a slightly different name, right here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 17#Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients" (WP:OCAWARD). Purple hearts are the defining characteristics of the lives and deaths of the recipients. Shari Garland (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it treated that way in the articles though. Even for Bob Dole (who is known largely for being a disabled veteran) you have to go way down in the article before it's even mentioned. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be categories for recipients of other nations awards and not the American Purle Heart? For example there is "Category:Recipients of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", 4th class" and many other such categories for Russian awards. Shari Garland (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with awards generally but not in this case: none of the other articles under Category:Wound decorations have a recipient subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many living people have the Purple Heart, but I don't think it's a defining characteristic for those who have it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 20 June 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ohio townships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no need for this category, there are no subcats in it and articles can just use the county subcategories in Category:Wikipedia Requested photographs in Ohio FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 01:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 29 June 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.

June 15

Category:Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine

Category:Academicians of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Category:Welsh manuscripts

Category:Scottish manuscripts

Category:Academicians of Ukraine

Category:Executive power in Ukraine

Category:Philip Seymour Hoffman

Category:English manuscripts

Category:Recipients of the Pingat Bakti Setia

Category:Knights of the Order of Merit of Savoy

Category:Religion in Western Europe by country

Category:Western European music

Category:Hard science fiction

Disestablishment of Dutch Mauritius

Category:Northwestern European culture

Category:Archaeology of Northwestern Europe

Category:American football teams in Europe by country

Category:Archaeological sites in Europe by region

Transhumanists

Category:Fraser Island

Category:1st-century rulers in Africa

Category:Recipients of the Presidential Unit Citation (United States)

Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ohio townships