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.
Nominator's rationale: Category created for POV-pushing, compare
this edit. I removed the category from some battle articles that didn't say anything about "colonial history"
[1][2][3] and undid the edits to
Prithvi Narayan Shah; the sole remaining article currently so categorized is nominated for deletion and also has POV-pushing issues.
Huon (
talk)
21:31, 13 July 2019 (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:Colonial 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.
Delete: per nom. Plus, it is a part of the POV pushing rampage by the creator. The POV being that Nepal has an unacknowledged colonial history. Usedtobecool✉️✨21:57, 13 July 2019 (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:LGBT heroes
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 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:Seasons in African football
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.
Nominator's rationale: Basically there is no need to have this category (and its subcategories) since we already have
Category:Years in African football, which is the main category about African football's seasons. Moving the articles from this category to the other shouldn't be hard since there aren't many articles linked to it; so I believe merging it is the right thing to do (or just deleting it).
Ben5218 (
talk)
17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The reason we have seasons for European football is that it is a winter sport, with a season running from August to May. The right solution for Africa will depend on when the game is played. Where this is the southern winter, the season will fit with the year, so that we could have either. In principle we should not have multiple parallel trees.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:17, 15 July 2019 (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:Identity based provinces of Nepal
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.
Merge per Marcocapelle; that said, that category also seems to be incorrectly named and needs renaming as well, since Nepal's first-order subdivisions are actually called provinces and not states — but they should still be grouped together pending the fix. The fact that a proposed but unrealized province or state might happen to correspond to the traditional territory of an ethnic group does not make that proposal an "identity-based province" — if
reliable sources haven't already grouped them that way and discussed them in that context for us, then it's not our place to label them that way in our editorial voice. "Identity politics" is a loaded term with political baggage, not a neutral or objective descriptor.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:33, 17 July 2019 (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:Nepa valley
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 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:PKF
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 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:Moore Stephens
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 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.
United States locations
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.
Note There are perhaps hundreds of categories that would fit here. I suspect I ought to put a CFR2 note on all of them for the sake of notice and discussion, right? —
GoldRingChip18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Non-state" locations, such as Washington, DC and Guam, and obsolete territories don't currently fit in these categories so they sometimes get left out or other times get put in a territorial or "insular area" pot. While technically accurate, it's
WP:OCLOCATION (over-categorization) and "location" is sufficient to include them all. —
GoldRingChip18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I would suggest "by state or territory" as "by location" is quite vague and you might end up with categories for small towns in the same one as states.
Number5711:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Sure, but I don't think over-describing it solves much. Locations can be subsumed inside others, for example Boston would end up in Massachusetts. —
GoldRingChip13:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nom, but there is merit in having non-state territories as siblings to states, including Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, Guantanamo Bay, etc. This would be done by renaming by state cats to "state or territory". This would also resolve the difficulty of how to handle categories for states at periods before they became states.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - 'by state' is the obvious way to subcat US categories, much as 'by country' is the obvious way to subcat global categories. There will always be historical and geographical anomalies.
Oculi (
talk)
15:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
GoldRingChip: In many cases I have seen non-state locations sorted with a + sortkey within a by-state category, and this seems pretty convenient. See for instance how this works out in
Category:Protestantism in the United States by state. Unfortunately, such subcategories are sometimes moved back to the unsorted mother category. If we make a guideline that this should be the way to treat this issue, this removes the need for a "by location" category.
Place Clichy (
talk)
21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename to "...state or territory... per above discussion. "State/Territory" is very nicely and neatly defined, dividing the US into 50+ discrete areas. "Location" is not. Note also that "Category:Categories by location of the United States" is a very peculiar proposed name, and suggests that the US moves from place to place.
Grutness...wha?04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Preferred option: keep "by state" categories" and place a guideline that such categories should include non-state areas such as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and insular areas of the United Stated with a + sortkey. Second preferred option: rename to use "...by state or territory".
Place Clichy (
talk)
21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose "state" is a well-defined, well-established descriptor, and "location" is confusingly vague. I'm accepting of "state or territory", but I still prefer just "state", as there are so few exceptions that it's hardly worth the rename.
Googol30 (
talk)
08:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, I prefer the current by state convention to the proposed by state or territory option. The proposal doesn't help with the most common situation, which is where to place Washington, D.C. categories. Still no objection to using by location categories as parent categories where there's a need. -
Eureka Lott18:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)reply
In case I wasn't clear, I was trying to say that Washington D.C. categories wouldn't fit in by state or territory categories, because it's a
federal district and not a state or territory. I'm glad we agree about the rest. -
Eureka Lott22:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)reply
DC categories quite often subcats of "by state" categories (incorrectly but effectively). As for territories, as well as the likes of Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the USVI, it's possible that events in historic territories (e.g., Indian Territory, Dakota Territory) could be included under their contemporary locations. I'm still opposed to the idea of "...by location" categories, as it leaves the door open to a lot of non-standard subcategories (random possibilities - "...west of the Mississippi", "...on the northwestern frontier", "...in the Bible Belt").
Grutness...wha?01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)reply
oppose this would not be helpful to readers. The US legally, culturally, politically, socially, etc. consists of 50 states plus other entities. Changing this here would make WP look silly. If and when needed, create 'by location' parent categories for states, insular territories, cities, counties and so on.
Hmains (
talk)
04:52, 18 August 2019 (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:Films about individual people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: And the difference is what exactly? Absolutely no need for two separate categories. If this is just for films that feature an individual as a character as opposed to films that actually tell their story, I'd question the need for such categories anyway. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. "About" is not the same thing as "featuring cameos by", so the comment above isn't a compelling rationale for this — nominator is entirely correct that there's no actual distinction between this and the category that we already have.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think the reason for all the confusion here is because the category is poorly named. Judging by the contents, it looks like the purpose of the category is to serve as the umbrella for subcats about individual people. I'll elaborate further later - sorry, gotta run. Can somebody please notify the creator?
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no obligation to notify the creator. If they're that interested they'll see it on their watchlist. Please keep your snide remarks to yourself. Thank you. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Wow, such arrogance. Can't believe you lost it over such a mild (and entirely justified) comment. So I will say it again: It's very sad and quite appalling that an admin such as yourself would willfully thumb his nose at the very idea of notifying an editor whose category they have nominated for deletion. I really do expect better from admins.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
08:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It's common courtesy to contact a creator. You don't have to do it, but it's appreciated. It's also not somehow an "OWN thing" as you claim, a person who made something is likely going to have an opinion and be able to explain why the page was made in the first place.
★Trekker (
talk)
19:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep A film can easily be about a human being while not actually showing events of that persons life. Just look at someone like Jesus, there are films about Jesus that don't feature any of the actual events of his life.
★Trekker (
talk)
19:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
While that occasionally happens, for most films it will be very difficult if not impossible to make a clear cut distinction because there is always some amount of interpretation involved in biographical films.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge The difference between the two is not defined. The Lincoln film made in about 2013 was not "biographical", it was a government procedural. It only covered the last month of his life, but it fits as biographical. The about v based on issue also comes up when you get into loosely based life film or what about Green Book, where the more notable character is less covered in the film (although the main character of the film would later have a notable role on the Sopranos, don't get us into the fact that the historically most important figure in that film may have made up his Russian studies out of fear of not being accepted with just American training).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge per the nom. These two categories are redundant and the biographical cat is the more encompassing one, so it's the much better choice to use going forward.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
23:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Trialpears I should have mentioned that I believe many entries should be stripped out of the combined category. This isn't IMDB and we don't need categories listing every production on these people, which seems like fancruft to me.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
00:34, 23 September 2019 (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:Twin people from the United States
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.
Agree with Fayenatic London that a reverse merge would be more consistent within this tree. Probably the whole tree needs to be nominated at some point to be renamed to fooian twins, but that will be for another time.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:05, 15 July 2019 (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.
Europe-wide organizations
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.
There is a difference between the organisations concerned with policy in Europe and those based in Europe (some just the EU, some wider) with a wider perspective. Maybe Pan-European is the best word for the former, if we can establish it across all the relevent categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I would personally stick with 'international' - "involving more than one country" - rather than trying to categorise organisations by more specific criteria.
Oculi (
talk)
11:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Support "cross-European" or "pan-European", oppose "based in Europe" because this is about the purpose of the organizations, not about where they are based.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I couldnt find a more appropriate place to put them. I'd be perfectly happy with "cross-European" rather than Pan-European. There are some categories for Pan-American organisations. But I think "International organizations" is a bit vague, and misses a defining characteristic of the organizations I am thinking about.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nom -- These appear all to be Europe-wide organisations; and in Europe the British English spelling should be used
I dont think the European Union has much influence over spelling. I don't see why Wikipedia should follow its style guide, especially as it may shortly change.
Rathfelder (
talk)
12:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "European X organisations" is accepted as a term for an organisation with a focus on X in the scope of Europe. "based in" refers to headquarters location not scope; some organisations based in Europe have a global scope (e.g. IAEA), some have a non-European scope (e.g. OPEC), some have a specifically European scope (e.g. EU, Council of Europe). Only organisations with a European scope are specifically European; IAEA and OPEC are not specifically European organisations despite being headquartered in Europe. "Pan-European" or "Cross-European" suggestions, I don't agree with those, since while those terms exist they are rarely used, the "Pan-" and "Cross-" prefix is not necessary to make the meaning clear. Given opposition to "based in Europe", I oppose "International medical associations based in Europe" too; I would support renaming "International medical associations" to "European medical associations", but I don't think it is essential. I think the status quo here is adequate.
SJK (
talk)
21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Addendum: I do however agree with changing "organization" to "organisation". The EU officially prefers British spelling to American, as do all countries in Europe which have English as an official language. Maybe in some European countries where English is not the official language, American English is more popular, but there is nothing official about that, so what is officially enshrined must take precedence over what is merely an informal practice. @
Rathfelder: why should we expect the EU style guide for English to "shortly change"? Even with Brexit, Ireland remains a member, and Ireland spells most words the same as the British do. Maybe if Ireland were leaving too, it would be a different story, but there are no signs Ireland plans to do that. Plus, Engish is an official language in Malta too, and Malta uses British spelling as well. So long as all EU members states which have English as an official language prefer British spelling, the EU will prefer British spelling, and the withdrawal of one of those states makes no difference to that when the other two remain.
SJK (
talk)
21:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
In British English, while both "organization" and "organisation" are acceptable, "organisation" is preferred. I'm pretty sure the same is true for Irish English and Maltese English as well. The EU's English style is based on the language preferences of its officially-English-speaking member states (Ireland, Malta, and for the time being UK), and so it also prefers "organisation" to "organization".
SJK (
talk)
22:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the more important part here is consistency and as currently all subcats of
Category:International organizations based in Europe use organization a move wouldn't be beneficial. My experience living in Sweden is that none of the spellings really are preffered with American media being more prevallent than British and an education system that doesn't prescribe either. I think the same is the case for the rest of mainland europe as well. Since the z version is acceptable in all engvars while the s version is not the z version should be used. I don't however think this question should be discussed in this prolonged CfD and let the focus be on the based in/cross/pan dispute. No problem with another CfD on the matter though. --
Trialpears (
talk)
21:08, 15 October 2019 (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:American genderqueer novelists
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only 4 articles in the category. It's too specific of a category. We currently don't even don't subcategorize non-binary people by nationality, let alone by nationality, occupation and specific gender identification. JDDJS (
talk to me •
see what I've done)16:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category: American non-binary novelists. This category was created back when “genderqueer” was the umbrella term used for all non-binary people on Wikipedia, and I strongly support renaming to match the updated norms. (The renamed category could also include
Carole LaFavor and possibly others.) However, I’m opposed to outright deletion given that “American male novelists” and “American female novelists” are valid existing categories—small size alone is not grounds for deletion of a category with potential to grow, see
WP:SMALLCAT.
Absternr (
talk)
23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Upmerge the novelist category is too specific. We might be able to justify having
Category:American non-binary writers, but subdividing down below that level is really going against ERGS issues. This is especially so since we would have to justify there being a unique intersection of being a novelist and being non-binary. Plus with the whole
Category:Non-binary writers only having 55 entries, sub-dividing by nationality is hard to justify, subdividing additionally by genre at the nationality level is impossible to justify.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:07, 30 August 2019 (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:American photographers by subject
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.
Nominator's rationale: No need for this intermediate category as there is only a single subcat, which should be upmerged to Category:American photographers.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
12:33, 18 June 2019 (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:Children of Charlemagne
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, we usually categorize nobility by family or dynasty, and it is not clear why we do not do that in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:25, 13 July 2019 (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:Funeral homes in fiction
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.
Keep but prune. I'd say that it is defining for some, (e.g., Six Feet Under, Fun at the Funeral Parlour). Pruning out the more egregious examples of tangential reference to funeral homes (e.g., Four Weddings and a Funeral) would make for a useful category.
Grutness...wha?04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep but prune, and rename to avoid the US-only "funeral home". Probably to "deathcare industry". It is typical of this Yankee Doodle category that it does not include
Loot (play) and
Loot (1970 film), which probably give bigger parts to the corpse than anything else here.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:29, 15 July 2019 (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:Recipients of the International Women of Courage Award
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category created for POV-pushing, compare
this edit. I removed the category from some battle articles that didn't say anything about "colonial history"
[1][2][3] and undid the edits to
Prithvi Narayan Shah; the sole remaining article currently so categorized is nominated for deletion and also has POV-pushing issues.
Huon (
talk)
21:31, 13 July 2019 (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:Colonial 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.
Delete: per nom. Plus, it is a part of the POV pushing rampage by the creator. The POV being that Nepal has an unacknowledged colonial history. Usedtobecool✉️✨21:57, 13 July 2019 (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:LGBT heroes
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 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:Seasons in African football
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.
Nominator's rationale: Basically there is no need to have this category (and its subcategories) since we already have
Category:Years in African football, which is the main category about African football's seasons. Moving the articles from this category to the other shouldn't be hard since there aren't many articles linked to it; so I believe merging it is the right thing to do (or just deleting it).
Ben5218 (
talk)
17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The reason we have seasons for European football is that it is a winter sport, with a season running from August to May. The right solution for Africa will depend on when the game is played. Where this is the southern winter, the season will fit with the year, so that we could have either. In principle we should not have multiple parallel trees.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:17, 15 July 2019 (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:Identity based provinces of Nepal
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.
Merge per Marcocapelle; that said, that category also seems to be incorrectly named and needs renaming as well, since Nepal's first-order subdivisions are actually called provinces and not states — but they should still be grouped together pending the fix. The fact that a proposed but unrealized province or state might happen to correspond to the traditional territory of an ethnic group does not make that proposal an "identity-based province" — if
reliable sources haven't already grouped them that way and discussed them in that context for us, then it's not our place to label them that way in our editorial voice. "Identity politics" is a loaded term with political baggage, not a neutral or objective descriptor.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:33, 17 July 2019 (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:Nepa valley
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 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:PKF
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 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:Moore Stephens
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 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.
United States locations
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.
Note There are perhaps hundreds of categories that would fit here. I suspect I ought to put a CFR2 note on all of them for the sake of notice and discussion, right? —
GoldRingChip18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Non-state" locations, such as Washington, DC and Guam, and obsolete territories don't currently fit in these categories so they sometimes get left out or other times get put in a territorial or "insular area" pot. While technically accurate, it's
WP:OCLOCATION (over-categorization) and "location" is sufficient to include them all. —
GoldRingChip18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I would suggest "by state or territory" as "by location" is quite vague and you might end up with categories for small towns in the same one as states.
Number5711:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Sure, but I don't think over-describing it solves much. Locations can be subsumed inside others, for example Boston would end up in Massachusetts. —
GoldRingChip13:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nom, but there is merit in having non-state territories as siblings to states, including Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, Guantanamo Bay, etc. This would be done by renaming by state cats to "state or territory". This would also resolve the difficulty of how to handle categories for states at periods before they became states.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - 'by state' is the obvious way to subcat US categories, much as 'by country' is the obvious way to subcat global categories. There will always be historical and geographical anomalies.
Oculi (
talk)
15:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
GoldRingChip: In many cases I have seen non-state locations sorted with a + sortkey within a by-state category, and this seems pretty convenient. See for instance how this works out in
Category:Protestantism in the United States by state. Unfortunately, such subcategories are sometimes moved back to the unsorted mother category. If we make a guideline that this should be the way to treat this issue, this removes the need for a "by location" category.
Place Clichy (
talk)
21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename to "...state or territory... per above discussion. "State/Territory" is very nicely and neatly defined, dividing the US into 50+ discrete areas. "Location" is not. Note also that "Category:Categories by location of the United States" is a very peculiar proposed name, and suggests that the US moves from place to place.
Grutness...wha?04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Preferred option: keep "by state" categories" and place a guideline that such categories should include non-state areas such as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and insular areas of the United Stated with a + sortkey. Second preferred option: rename to use "...by state or territory".
Place Clichy (
talk)
21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose "state" is a well-defined, well-established descriptor, and "location" is confusingly vague. I'm accepting of "state or territory", but I still prefer just "state", as there are so few exceptions that it's hardly worth the rename.
Googol30 (
talk)
08:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, I prefer the current by state convention to the proposed by state or territory option. The proposal doesn't help with the most common situation, which is where to place Washington, D.C. categories. Still no objection to using by location categories as parent categories where there's a need. -
Eureka Lott18:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)reply
In case I wasn't clear, I was trying to say that Washington D.C. categories wouldn't fit in by state or territory categories, because it's a
federal district and not a state or territory. I'm glad we agree about the rest. -
Eureka Lott22:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)reply
DC categories quite often subcats of "by state" categories (incorrectly but effectively). As for territories, as well as the likes of Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the USVI, it's possible that events in historic territories (e.g., Indian Territory, Dakota Territory) could be included under their contemporary locations. I'm still opposed to the idea of "...by location" categories, as it leaves the door open to a lot of non-standard subcategories (random possibilities - "...west of the Mississippi", "...on the northwestern frontier", "...in the Bible Belt").
Grutness...wha?01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)reply
oppose this would not be helpful to readers. The US legally, culturally, politically, socially, etc. consists of 50 states plus other entities. Changing this here would make WP look silly. If and when needed, create 'by location' parent categories for states, insular territories, cities, counties and so on.
Hmains (
talk)
04:52, 18 August 2019 (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:Films about individual people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: And the difference is what exactly? Absolutely no need for two separate categories. If this is just for films that feature an individual as a character as opposed to films that actually tell their story, I'd question the need for such categories anyway. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. "About" is not the same thing as "featuring cameos by", so the comment above isn't a compelling rationale for this — nominator is entirely correct that there's no actual distinction between this and the category that we already have.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think the reason for all the confusion here is because the category is poorly named. Judging by the contents, it looks like the purpose of the category is to serve as the umbrella for subcats about individual people. I'll elaborate further later - sorry, gotta run. Can somebody please notify the creator?
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no obligation to notify the creator. If they're that interested they'll see it on their watchlist. Please keep your snide remarks to yourself. Thank you. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Wow, such arrogance. Can't believe you lost it over such a mild (and entirely justified) comment. So I will say it again: It's very sad and quite appalling that an admin such as yourself would willfully thumb his nose at the very idea of notifying an editor whose category they have nominated for deletion. I really do expect better from admins.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
08:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It's common courtesy to contact a creator. You don't have to do it, but it's appreciated. It's also not somehow an "OWN thing" as you claim, a person who made something is likely going to have an opinion and be able to explain why the page was made in the first place.
★Trekker (
talk)
19:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep A film can easily be about a human being while not actually showing events of that persons life. Just look at someone like Jesus, there are films about Jesus that don't feature any of the actual events of his life.
★Trekker (
talk)
19:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
While that occasionally happens, for most films it will be very difficult if not impossible to make a clear cut distinction because there is always some amount of interpretation involved in biographical films.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge The difference between the two is not defined. The Lincoln film made in about 2013 was not "biographical", it was a government procedural. It only covered the last month of his life, but it fits as biographical. The about v based on issue also comes up when you get into loosely based life film or what about Green Book, where the more notable character is less covered in the film (although the main character of the film would later have a notable role on the Sopranos, don't get us into the fact that the historically most important figure in that film may have made up his Russian studies out of fear of not being accepted with just American training).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge per the nom. These two categories are redundant and the biographical cat is the more encompassing one, so it's the much better choice to use going forward.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
23:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Trialpears I should have mentioned that I believe many entries should be stripped out of the combined category. This isn't IMDB and we don't need categories listing every production on these people, which seems like fancruft to me.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
00:34, 23 September 2019 (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:Twin people from the United States
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.
Agree with Fayenatic London that a reverse merge would be more consistent within this tree. Probably the whole tree needs to be nominated at some point to be renamed to fooian twins, but that will be for another time.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:05, 15 July 2019 (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.
Europe-wide organizations
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.
There is a difference between the organisations concerned with policy in Europe and those based in Europe (some just the EU, some wider) with a wider perspective. Maybe Pan-European is the best word for the former, if we can establish it across all the relevent categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I would personally stick with 'international' - "involving more than one country" - rather than trying to categorise organisations by more specific criteria.
Oculi (
talk)
11:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Support "cross-European" or "pan-European", oppose "based in Europe" because this is about the purpose of the organizations, not about where they are based.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I couldnt find a more appropriate place to put them. I'd be perfectly happy with "cross-European" rather than Pan-European. There are some categories for Pan-American organisations. But I think "International organizations" is a bit vague, and misses a defining characteristic of the organizations I am thinking about.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nom -- These appear all to be Europe-wide organisations; and in Europe the British English spelling should be used
I dont think the European Union has much influence over spelling. I don't see why Wikipedia should follow its style guide, especially as it may shortly change.
Rathfelder (
talk)
12:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "European X organisations" is accepted as a term for an organisation with a focus on X in the scope of Europe. "based in" refers to headquarters location not scope; some organisations based in Europe have a global scope (e.g. IAEA), some have a non-European scope (e.g. OPEC), some have a specifically European scope (e.g. EU, Council of Europe). Only organisations with a European scope are specifically European; IAEA and OPEC are not specifically European organisations despite being headquartered in Europe. "Pan-European" or "Cross-European" suggestions, I don't agree with those, since while those terms exist they are rarely used, the "Pan-" and "Cross-" prefix is not necessary to make the meaning clear. Given opposition to "based in Europe", I oppose "International medical associations based in Europe" too; I would support renaming "International medical associations" to "European medical associations", but I don't think it is essential. I think the status quo here is adequate.
SJK (
talk)
21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Addendum: I do however agree with changing "organization" to "organisation". The EU officially prefers British spelling to American, as do all countries in Europe which have English as an official language. Maybe in some European countries where English is not the official language, American English is more popular, but there is nothing official about that, so what is officially enshrined must take precedence over what is merely an informal practice. @
Rathfelder: why should we expect the EU style guide for English to "shortly change"? Even with Brexit, Ireland remains a member, and Ireland spells most words the same as the British do. Maybe if Ireland were leaving too, it would be a different story, but there are no signs Ireland plans to do that. Plus, Engish is an official language in Malta too, and Malta uses British spelling as well. So long as all EU members states which have English as an official language prefer British spelling, the EU will prefer British spelling, and the withdrawal of one of those states makes no difference to that when the other two remain.
SJK (
talk)
21:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
In British English, while both "organization" and "organisation" are acceptable, "organisation" is preferred. I'm pretty sure the same is true for Irish English and Maltese English as well. The EU's English style is based on the language preferences of its officially-English-speaking member states (Ireland, Malta, and for the time being UK), and so it also prefers "organisation" to "organization".
SJK (
talk)
22:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the more important part here is consistency and as currently all subcats of
Category:International organizations based in Europe use organization a move wouldn't be beneficial. My experience living in Sweden is that none of the spellings really are preffered with American media being more prevallent than British and an education system that doesn't prescribe either. I think the same is the case for the rest of mainland europe as well. Since the z version is acceptable in all engvars while the s version is not the z version should be used. I don't however think this question should be discussed in this prolonged CfD and let the focus be on the based in/cross/pan dispute. No problem with another CfD on the matter though. --
Trialpears (
talk)
21:08, 15 October 2019 (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:American genderqueer novelists
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only 4 articles in the category. It's too specific of a category. We currently don't even don't subcategorize non-binary people by nationality, let alone by nationality, occupation and specific gender identification. JDDJS (
talk to me •
see what I've done)16:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category: American non-binary novelists. This category was created back when “genderqueer” was the umbrella term used for all non-binary people on Wikipedia, and I strongly support renaming to match the updated norms. (The renamed category could also include
Carole LaFavor and possibly others.) However, I’m opposed to outright deletion given that “American male novelists” and “American female novelists” are valid existing categories—small size alone is not grounds for deletion of a category with potential to grow, see
WP:SMALLCAT.
Absternr (
talk)
23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Upmerge the novelist category is too specific. We might be able to justify having
Category:American non-binary writers, but subdividing down below that level is really going against ERGS issues. This is especially so since we would have to justify there being a unique intersection of being a novelist and being non-binary. Plus with the whole
Category:Non-binary writers only having 55 entries, sub-dividing by nationality is hard to justify, subdividing additionally by genre at the nationality level is impossible to justify.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:07, 30 August 2019 (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:American photographers by subject
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.
Nominator's rationale: No need for this intermediate category as there is only a single subcat, which should be upmerged to Category:American photographers.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
12:33, 18 June 2019 (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:Children of Charlemagne
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, we usually categorize nobility by family or dynasty, and it is not clear why we do not do that in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:25, 13 July 2019 (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:Funeral homes in fiction
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.
Keep but prune. I'd say that it is defining for some, (e.g., Six Feet Under, Fun at the Funeral Parlour). Pruning out the more egregious examples of tangential reference to funeral homes (e.g., Four Weddings and a Funeral) would make for a useful category.
Grutness...wha?04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep but prune, and rename to avoid the US-only "funeral home". Probably to "deathcare industry". It is typical of this Yankee Doodle category that it does not include
Loot (play) and
Loot (1970 film), which probably give bigger parts to the corpse than anything else here.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:29, 15 July 2019 (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:Recipients of the International Women of Courage Award