< September 4
September 6 >

September 5

Category:12th-century women rulers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Split It's quite clear from both this discussion and others on other days that despite one person (who !voted twice) vociferously disagreeing, they have failed to convince any of the other participants and hence there is a consensus to split this tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 9 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the "7th-century women rulers" CfS, the "8th-century women rulers" CfS, the "9th-century women rulers" CfS, the "10th-century women rulers" CfS, and the "11th-century women rulers" CfS are still ongoing.
Proposed split into 9 new categories
Women regents
Empresses consort
Queens regnant
Queens consort
Princess consort
Duchesses consort
Countesses regnant
Countesses consort
Ladies regnant
Currently non-viable categories and doubtful cases
Princess regnant (2)
  • Constance of Antioch. Recommend: Princess regnant, but princess consort also acceptable
  • Melike Mama Hatun. Anatolian beylik. Recommend: Princess regnant, but queen regnant also acceptable
Duchesses regnant (2)
Doubtful cases
For categorisation purposes, I count (pun intended) margravines, landgravines and viscountesses as "countesses". Two women were princess regnant and two were duchess regnant, but that's not enough for a new separate category for the time being. I recommend classifying them as "consort" for now, and also putting the duchesses regnant in Category:Duchesses regnant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Presidents of New York University

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Chancellors and presidents of New York University. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Presidents of New York University to Category:Presidents and Chancellors of New York University
Nominator's rationale: Category includes people who held both the position of chancellor (until 1952) and president (since 1952). Ergo Sum 22:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Germanic history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 03:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Essentially same scope, and many of the same subcategories already. Notably, the "main article" Germanic history already redirects to Germanic peoples, so this is almost a WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion above referred to in the comments is now the one directly below it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Celtic history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to merge or rename this category in isolation, however there is a consensus for the broader restructure. Take note however, that none of the other categories were tagged. It appears from a quick glance that the restructure consists mostly of actions that could be done boldly, but if that's not the case things may need to be brought to a new CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Essentially the same scope. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reasoning; you can skip this if you prefer
This last comment by @Jc37 is making me rethink the parentage of the whole tree. One of the key problems is that the Celts as a people or group of peoples ceased to exist in antiquity, and Category:Celts are therefore categorised as Category:Ancient peoples of Europe. But as @Marcocapelle correctly pointed out, Celtic languages and Celtic nationalism do still exist. Therefore, these topics are (perhaps somewhat paradoxically) independent of Celts/Category:Celts, because they can exist without them. On the other hand, the Celts couldn't have existed without the Celtic languages; they were/are defined by those languages. (Similarly, Celtic nationalism is, if not defined by, dependent on those languages.) So I think we got the parentage wrong. We shouldn't have:
Category:Celts > Category:Celtic culture > Category:Celtic languages.
Just like we shouldn't have:
Category:Germanic peoples > Category:Germanic culture > Category:Germanic languages.
Maybe we should reverse the parentage? I'll come back to this point.
Another question is where to put a category like Category:Celtic nationalism. The Category:Pan-nationalism tree suggests we shouldn't cross-breed it with a language (family) tree, even though as a theoretical concept and movement, language-based nationalisms like this depend on the (purported) existence of a language family. So Category:Celtic languages cannot be its parent/ancestor. (Compare how Category:Pan-Germanism is not a child/descendant of either Category:Germanic languages or Category:Germanic peoples).
In both cases, Category:Celtic culture presents a dubious link. The fact that main "article" Celtic culture is a disambiguation page makes it all the more dubious, and seems to confirm my suspicion, namely that it is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT or WP:OCMISC catch-all. (Incidentally, I'm afraid Category:Celtic topics will also be an WP:OCMISC catch-all).
Category:Ancient Rome seems to offer a solution, if a somewhat convoluted one, which may or may not work for Celts and Germanic peoples:
The good thing about this tree is that the ancient people is in a separate branch of the tree than its culture and its main language. But, although we've got a Germania and a Category:Germania, I'm not sure we can say the latter should be the parent of Category:Historical Germanic peoples (because "Germania" didn't necessarily encompass their entire habitat, for lack of a better term, as Category:Ancient Rome did as a state for the Category:Ancient Romans), let alone Category:Germanic peoples (which currently actually is its grandparent rather than its child). The worse problem is that we've got no "Ancient Celtica" or something which encompassed the habitat of all ancient Celts (Gallia Celtica is only a small part of it, and the so-called "Celtic nations" are a modern concept which also encompass only a small part of the entire ancient Celtic habitat).
Proposed restructuring
The best thing I can come up for now is to make Category:Ancient Celtic culture the parent of Category:Celts and Category:Celtic history (similar to how it was created 10 years ago). Everything ancient in Category:Celtic culture should be moved to Category:Ancient Celtic culture. Meanwhile, everything to do with Celts (modern) and Celtic Revival, including Celtic nationalism, should be moved to Category:Celtic Revival. And we should Template:Category see also these two trees to each other, but otherwise I would keep them wholly separate. Lastly, I think Category:Celtic culture should be little more than a disambiguation category between Category:Ancient Celtic culture, Category:Celtic Revival, and Category:Celtic languages‎, the only thing we could put in both trees, but also in neither. The fact that the main page Celtic culture is a disambiguation page also seems to warrant a "disambiguation category".
I think this resolves pretty much all underlying parentage issues. NLeeuw (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Modern Celtic instead of Celtic revival? If it is the old type being revived then why have such a distinction? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because Celts (modern) is in Category:Celtic Revival. NLeeuw (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:High schools in New Brunswick

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: Diffuse There seem to be a lot of different terms being used here to describe the same thing, which makes finding a consensus harder, but in the end everyone agrees that some content but not all content should be moved from this category to new categories, and this one should be kept as a parent. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'd still like to keep the current category, but the list of pages are, in my opinion, a mess right now. Because New Brunswick is officially English and French, it has a multitude of both English (Anglophone) and French (Francophone) high schools, so I'd like to create categories dividing the schools based on their language to better sort them out. B3251 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Conspiracy theorist politicians

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: Already deleted * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of politicians who are "conspiracy theorist" is inherently a violation of BLPCAT. "Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist" Springee (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Songs written for film

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 23#Category:Songs written for film

Category: Television and Production Exponents Inc.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D - duplicate categories, both created today. TAPE Inc. is the main article, and it appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Wikishovel (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:German queens consort

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 13#Category:German queens consort

Category:Massey Lectures

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 to Category:Massey College, Toronto. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Massey Lectures
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous page
The Massey Lectures are given at Massey College which are typically published into books, so there is a well populated Category:Massey Lectures books subcategory. The only thing directly in this category are the main article and a movie, based on a book, based on a lecture. If that association doesn't sound defining the editors who wrote Payback (2012 film) didn't think so either because the article doesn't even mention the Massey Lectures. (The only real growth potential is to add the speakers, but we've consistently found that categorizing people by individual lecture is WP:PERFCAT.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Holloway brooch recipients

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Holloway brooch recipients
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD, & WP:OVERLAPCAT
Suffragettes who were arrested in London were often detained at HM Prison Holloway. The WSPU gave out the Holloway brooch to recognize core members who had sentences there as part of suffrage jewellery. While these women are not defined by an automatic award, they are defined for being suffragette activists and are all already somewhere under the Category:Suffragettes tree. I previously added any category contents that were not already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. (Alternatively, if we think the underlying prison stay is defining, we could rename and broaden the category to Category:Inmates of HM Prison Holloway.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More