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: To match other categories grouping battles by year. By mistake I created this category under a wrong name.
Swam pl (
talk)
21:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Designated Hate and Extremist Groups by The Southern Poverty Law Center
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.
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted categories. But this category is actually worse as it lumps together possibly disparate organizations. In any case, it privileges one particular viewpoint and is thus inappropriate categorization (see prior discussions for additional arguments).
StAnselm (
talk)
20:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as G4 per the above, as well as G10. I'll also note that I've rolled back the efforts of our new SPA who has been adding entries to this category, per
WP:ROLLBACKUSE clause 5. While empty categories are another reason for speedy deletion, I think we have plenty already.
Jclemens (
talk)
21:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rulers of Bamburgh
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.
I would oppose this. They are not 'earls' until relatively late, in the tenth century they go by the titles 'king' 'prince' and 'high reeve' depending on the source, the use of the title 'earl' emerges late when they more or less accept their status as part of a larger English kingdom (the title 'earl' itself isn't used in that conventional sense in England until about c.1000 anyway). There is something about this in their various articles, but that's why the main article title is not 'Earls of Bamburgh' either.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
10:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Those parents aren't incorrect, since some of them are given the title 'earl', at least by modern historians. To be honest the ambiguity of the word 'ruler' seems to be perfect for the article's topic, I don't see any advantage in 'monarch', esp. as there is a suggestion that rulership of the polity may have been shared c.920 when 'the sons of Eadwulf' are among the rulers who meet Edward the Elder at Bakewell and since the later rulers, say post-Uhtred d. c.1018, definitely don't seem to be sovereign 'monarchs' in the late medieval sense, they are likely subject to the king of England (an Edward the Confessor) and possibly also the ealdorman of Northumbria (e.g. a Siward or Tostig).
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
12:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmmmm ok, that's good to know. Then perhaps rather than looking for an overarching parent category, we should put this category (and the main article) into several categories which may only partially apply? E.g.
Category:Monarchs in the British Isles for the early "rulers" of Bamburgh, and
Category:Anglo-Saxon earls and
Category:Earls of Northumbria for the later "rulers" of Bamburgh? (We do not have to take the "mon-" in "monarch" too literally in cases of power-sharing between, say, two kings, or a king and a queen regnant; that would make categorisation overcomplicated.) This seems to be a good compromise to me. How about you @
Deacon of Pndapetzim and @
Marcocapelle?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm don't think I'm all that fussed what categories get put at the bottom of this article, but I should point out that we don't really know when they stopped being 'kings' and started being 'earls', as you'll know the evidence doesn't always allow the kind of clear and decisive EITHER/OR interpretation well suited for, say, Wikipedia categories. Also, maybe it's just me, 'monarch' sounds a bit high for these types of early medieval rulers, would any modern writer ever use such a grand term for kings of Brega or kings of the Rhinns? I'm a bit puzzled why the word 'ruler' is allegedly problematic by comparison.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
13:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As a historian, I agree with what you say about the uncertainty of what to call something or someone when the sources are ambiguous, and not trying to put historical persons into boxes in which they do not fit.
As a Wikipedian, I must insist on
WP:CATSPECIFIC, and that clarifying which kinds of persons this category is grouping should be unambiguous enough, as part of the
Category:Rulers process.
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 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:Protagonists of Chinese descent in Japanese anime
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 (changed to rename per below); I agree that this category's scope is way too specific and none of the articles that were formerly in it actually met its criteria. However, something more general like "anime and manga set in China" might be alright.
Link20XX (
talk)
01:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
(as nom) I do not object to renaming this way. That requires re-parenting too because the category no longer belongs in the characters tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I've changed my vote to renaming this category. Frankly I'm surprised there aren't any categories for anime and manga based on setting other than Hokkaido; I can think of a bunch that are set in a real country other than Japan.
Link20XX (
talk)
20:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indian film industry terminology
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:Hoards in 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.
Merge per
WP:C2C parent
Category:Treasure troves by country. I do have a preference for "in" rather than "of"; the siblings are currently inconsistent. I think we are interested in the location where these treasure troves were found, not "ownership". These treasures were usually buried in the ground long before the present-day countries were established as states. But that's for a future follow-up nom.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment "These treasures were usually buried in the ground long before the present-day countries were established" Not necessarily. The term
treasure trove also applies to valuable items located in the cellars or attics of extant buildings.
Hoards are archaeological items, but the term treasure trove applies to hidden collections of valuables.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Frank Reyes
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:Antony Santos
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.
Redirect or Keep. I have added a new subcategory Also, I might create a page involving a documentary he was a part of in 1996. Antony Santos is considered one of Dominican Republic's biggest artists if not, the biggest to ever from from that country, which makes the category more important to keep.
DominicanWikiEdit1996 (
talk)
11:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I actually do. I have seen eponymous categories from Michael Jackson and other artist. But, I do understand that two of the eponymous categories created don't have more articles or subcategories about these artists. There for, I do understand why you considered it unnecessary. You know I have created eponymous categories for Romeo Santos and Aventura before. Those have never been under consideration for deletion because of the multiple subcategories and numerous articles involving them.
DominicanWikiEdit1996 (
talk)
15:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:1970s elections in England
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:delete, it only contains an article about the UK rather than England, and it does not have any sibling categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Musical manuscripts of the Fitzwilliam Museum
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.
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: To match other categories grouping battles by year. By mistake I created this category under a wrong name.
Swam pl (
talk)
21:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Designated Hate and Extremist Groups by The Southern Poverty Law Center
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.
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted categories. But this category is actually worse as it lumps together possibly disparate organizations. In any case, it privileges one particular viewpoint and is thus inappropriate categorization (see prior discussions for additional arguments).
StAnselm (
talk)
20:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as G4 per the above, as well as G10. I'll also note that I've rolled back the efforts of our new SPA who has been adding entries to this category, per
WP:ROLLBACKUSE clause 5. While empty categories are another reason for speedy deletion, I think we have plenty already.
Jclemens (
talk)
21:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rulers of Bamburgh
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.
I would oppose this. They are not 'earls' until relatively late, in the tenth century they go by the titles 'king' 'prince' and 'high reeve' depending on the source, the use of the title 'earl' emerges late when they more or less accept their status as part of a larger English kingdom (the title 'earl' itself isn't used in that conventional sense in England until about c.1000 anyway). There is something about this in their various articles, but that's why the main article title is not 'Earls of Bamburgh' either.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
10:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Those parents aren't incorrect, since some of them are given the title 'earl', at least by modern historians. To be honest the ambiguity of the word 'ruler' seems to be perfect for the article's topic, I don't see any advantage in 'monarch', esp. as there is a suggestion that rulership of the polity may have been shared c.920 when 'the sons of Eadwulf' are among the rulers who meet Edward the Elder at Bakewell and since the later rulers, say post-Uhtred d. c.1018, definitely don't seem to be sovereign 'monarchs' in the late medieval sense, they are likely subject to the king of England (an Edward the Confessor) and possibly also the ealdorman of Northumbria (e.g. a Siward or Tostig).
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
12:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmmmm ok, that's good to know. Then perhaps rather than looking for an overarching parent category, we should put this category (and the main article) into several categories which may only partially apply? E.g.
Category:Monarchs in the British Isles for the early "rulers" of Bamburgh, and
Category:Anglo-Saxon earls and
Category:Earls of Northumbria for the later "rulers" of Bamburgh? (We do not have to take the "mon-" in "monarch" too literally in cases of power-sharing between, say, two kings, or a king and a queen regnant; that would make categorisation overcomplicated.) This seems to be a good compromise to me. How about you @
Deacon of Pndapetzim and @
Marcocapelle?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm don't think I'm all that fussed what categories get put at the bottom of this article, but I should point out that we don't really know when they stopped being 'kings' and started being 'earls', as you'll know the evidence doesn't always allow the kind of clear and decisive EITHER/OR interpretation well suited for, say, Wikipedia categories. Also, maybe it's just me, 'monarch' sounds a bit high for these types of early medieval rulers, would any modern writer ever use such a grand term for kings of Brega or kings of the Rhinns? I'm a bit puzzled why the word 'ruler' is allegedly problematic by comparison.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
13:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As a historian, I agree with what you say about the uncertainty of what to call something or someone when the sources are ambiguous, and not trying to put historical persons into boxes in which they do not fit.
As a Wikipedian, I must insist on
WP:CATSPECIFIC, and that clarifying which kinds of persons this category is grouping should be unambiguous enough, as part of the
Category:Rulers process.
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 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:Protagonists of Chinese descent in Japanese anime
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 (changed to rename per below); I agree that this category's scope is way too specific and none of the articles that were formerly in it actually met its criteria. However, something more general like "anime and manga set in China" might be alright.
Link20XX (
talk)
01:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
(as nom) I do not object to renaming this way. That requires re-parenting too because the category no longer belongs in the characters tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I've changed my vote to renaming this category. Frankly I'm surprised there aren't any categories for anime and manga based on setting other than Hokkaido; I can think of a bunch that are set in a real country other than Japan.
Link20XX (
talk)
20:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indian film industry terminology
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:Hoards in 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.
Merge per
WP:C2C parent
Category:Treasure troves by country. I do have a preference for "in" rather than "of"; the siblings are currently inconsistent. I think we are interested in the location where these treasure troves were found, not "ownership". These treasures were usually buried in the ground long before the present-day countries were established as states. But that's for a future follow-up nom.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment "These treasures were usually buried in the ground long before the present-day countries were established" Not necessarily. The term
treasure trove also applies to valuable items located in the cellars or attics of extant buildings.
Hoards are archaeological items, but the term treasure trove applies to hidden collections of valuables.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Frank Reyes
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:Antony Santos
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.
Redirect or Keep. I have added a new subcategory Also, I might create a page involving a documentary he was a part of in 1996. Antony Santos is considered one of Dominican Republic's biggest artists if not, the biggest to ever from from that country, which makes the category more important to keep.
DominicanWikiEdit1996 (
talk)
11:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I actually do. I have seen eponymous categories from Michael Jackson and other artist. But, I do understand that two of the eponymous categories created don't have more articles or subcategories about these artists. There for, I do understand why you considered it unnecessary. You know I have created eponymous categories for Romeo Santos and Aventura before. Those have never been under consideration for deletion because of the multiple subcategories and numerous articles involving them.
DominicanWikiEdit1996 (
talk)
15:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:1970s elections in England
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:delete, it only contains an article about the UK rather than England, and it does not have any sibling categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Musical manuscripts of the Fitzwilliam Museum
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.