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:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is unclear which target is being suggested in the Merge !votes, as the target proposed by nom is a redirect to the nominated category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Doubts How would we define "real knights"? Which ones are we going to purge? I would suppose the Austrian nobility has been abolished in 1918 (concurrent with the fall of the monarchy) and that these titles are now only in pretense? In that case all people born after 1918 carrying the title of "Ritter" (as part of their name) seem
WP:NONDEFINING and should be purged. As a sidenote, if it's merely a name thing with no legal importance post-1918, isn't this something we could group into
Category:People by name or something (or does that category only exist on Commons?)? Just some suggestions, I don't know what is best. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Well "the 17th century" seems rather arbitrary for a poorly sourced subsection. Their military function probably did cease to have meaning around that time, but the legal meaning continued for much longer. E.g. there was a
Rittersturm in the HRE in 1802-1804, and their position was formally abolished in 1806 upon abolition of the HRE. That's why I'm looking at 1918 as cutoff for Austria.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
19:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Containerise & purge per nom. The Austrian nobility is a status group that was officially abolished in 1919 after the fall of Austria-Hungary. The nobles are still part of Austrian society today, but they no longer retain any specific privileges. At the very least, the category should be purged of all people born after 1919, because after that having the rank of Ritter has become
WP:NONDEFINING for an individual person's career. They are only
WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH other people (their ancestors) for whom it used to be significant for their career. So I think nom is right. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:26, 25 April 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:BBC Idents
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:St. Anthony's High School (South Huntington, New York) alumni
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:WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two people each. As always, every high school does not automatically get one of these the moment one alumnus of that high school has an article to file in it -- there would have to be five or six alumni with articles before a category for them was warranted, not just one or two.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep -- SWE have traditionally allowed all high schools to have an alumni category. If we require 5 articles before a school can have one, we may well never populate any. We should allow this as an exception to the general minimum of 5.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, per note from Oculi above. I've been looking at the articles about the schools and they have lengthy lists of alumni - the categories just need populating.
Sionk (
talk)
11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Some years ago I have tried to formalize at 5 in the text of the guideline (carefully phrased something like "in most cases 5 will do"), but including any number in the guideline was dismissed as unnecessary. That also means we can develop a new cut-off here on CfD per precedent. Personally I do not have objections to 10 because in most smallcat cases we are simply upmerging the content to the parent categories, so we are still keeping the content together.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Having some concrete number would really help editors who don't frequent CFD who sincerely think 3 is enough, or an entire tree of 1 articles is well established. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I am strongly against setting a hard value to this. We talked about setting it at 4 in times gone by, but the truth is, this is smething that really can vary on a case-by-case basis. Our goal is navigation here. And sometimes it's better to have a tree of subats and sometimes not. But a hard number would stand in the way of consensual discussion. If it's obviously a smallcat, CFD tends to take care of these things fairly well. - jc3716:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep all I've sorted / created many high school categories and I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of high schools have five or more notable alumni, especially those in metropolitan areas of the United States. Our efforts should be to populate categories like this, not delete them. For example,
Category:Raleigh-Egypt High School alumni had one article until just now. It now has 6 after I spent approximately 3 minutes populating it.--
User:Namiba11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have taken the liberty of changing 'lc' to 'clc' in the table, so current numbers now appear. There are still several with 1 or 2 which should be deleted - I looked at some of them and could find no more members. I have added the school article for the small categories, should editors wish to look for lists of alumni (per
user:Sionk, above). Of course the school needs to be in the article of the supposed alumnus, preferably sourced, not just in the list. I see that one (Crowley) has gone up from 1 to 7 since I made these remarks.
Oculi (
talk)
01:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I just added several more to ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Bishop Verot High School alumni. The ease by which these are found is an indication as to why they all should be kept. Some may be below 5 articles, but they all can be easily expanded over time. Note that
WP:SMALLCAT states that categories with a "realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Active high schools should fit into this exception since they will continue to add alumni year after year.--
User:Namiba01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:EPCATPERS specifically says "Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution and People by company, as well as numerous more specific categories." One's educational institution is considered inherently defining by current guidelines.--
User:Namiba23:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:EPCATPERS does indeed say that (
Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_association), since
2007. However that does not reflect current consensus at cfd and should be changed; we have deleted hundreds of small high school categories at cfd. (It should be changed to 'People by higher educational institution' perhaps; I don't recall university alumni categories being deleted.) It does not say that one's high school is
WP:DEFINING; that would seem an extraordinary claim.
Oculi (
talk)
15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete categories with fewer than 5 articles (5 as a minimum). There has been plenty of time for any relevant articles to be added. —
Qwerfjkltalk11:14, 17 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:Former polities in the Netherlands
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 action - This has been open quite awhile, and several different ideas have been tossed around, but nothing really had consensus at this point. I'm doing this as a procedural close of "no action" rather than a "no consensus" close, simply due to the age of discussion. No prejudice against renomination for any of these or other proposals. - jc3706:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, then its contents (with places from Boulogne to Moers, and including Austrian Netherlands, United Belgian States, Loon, Liège, etc.) would still not match the catname "Former polities in the Netherlands". Its interwikis in Dutch, French, German etc. have pretty much the same contents:
nl:Categorie:Historisch land in de Nederlandenfr:Catégorie:Anciens Pays-Basde:Kategorie:Historische Niederlande. I think its parents are key to understanding how this category was meant:
I don't see the point. Pretty much all states that we would have to manually merge from this cat to States in the HRE are already in there, and the HRE was a country/state, not a "region". It would also mean we would have to remove its parent
Category:Political history of Belgium (and remove
Category:Former countries by region because "Netherlands" is not a "region" but a country, and there is no
Category:Former countries by country to re-parent it to), and unlink all interwikis with the same geographical scope, with no interwikis to link it to. Everything about how this category is organised and interlinked with everything else indicates that Low Countries is the scope and the proper term to use in this case. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
We clearly do not agree here. If we can categorize by country (like Holy Roman Empire) then that is preferable over categorizing by region. Only when categorizing by country is really impractical then by region might be an alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Split or Delete this is just a collection of titles / states in an area that is variously described as Burgundian Netherlands, Spanish Netherlands, Habsburg Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands, Low Countries etc. Looks quite WP:OR.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
10:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Low Countries is consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. All the other terms with "Netherlands" in them only ever describe just (different) parts of the Low Countries.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
02:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
William Allen Simpson It would be if the countries in question (Belgium and the Netherlands) existed at the time. That is not the case. And as I pointed out to Marcocapelle, the Holy Roman Empire category tree is so large as to be impractical. The contents are grouped by region in a manner that follows established conventions also used on other-language Wikipedias, it fits the
Category:Former countries by region where it sits alongside
Category:Former countries in the British Isles. All that is wrong with it is the name, really. Low Countries is the
WP:COMMONNAME in English for this region, and consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
While your chosen username indicates enthusiasm about the Netherlands, I've long deferred to
Marcocapelle on these issues. When I looked at this the first time around, here's my train of thought:
This is the only "polities" in the entire category tree. Therefore, highly disfavored.
Marcocapelle also says "by country ... is preferable over categorizing by region. Strong agreement.
I'm not afraid of 1,800 entries. Our categorization software readily handles far more.
I'd almost agreed with
Laurel Lodged to delete entirely. But thought a split would give a handle on what is left, at which time we could better contemplate deletion.
Marcocapelle and I are both from the Netherlands. Until I nominated the Rulers category, we had barely interacted, we got to know each other here, just like I got to know you. (And I quite like the cooperation so far).
Irrelevant. Low Countries is the
WP:COMMONNAME of the region (certainly for pre-1944 history; the
Benelux was created at a time when the 3 current modern countries already existed, and there have been no state establishments or disestablishments since 1944).
But the above three periods are relatively short and dispersed and the items in this category exactly refer to duchies and counties etc while they had no shared history yet.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
They don't need to have a shared political history in order to be a region.
These are by regions of natural geography. Based on natural borders you might suspect more interaction between the states in the region versus outside the region. While I think that is questionable too, the Low Countries do not even have natural borders. Consequently there wasn't any kind of special interaction between e.g. Gelre and Flanders based on that they both belonged to the Low Countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The Low Countries existed as a region at the time, just like the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans (
Category:History of the Balkans), the Baltic states (
Category:History of the Baltic states), etc. even if the modern terms for these regions did not yet exist at the time ("Balkan(s)" in its current meaning was coined in 1808, "Baltic states" in its current meaning was coined in the interwar period etc.).
Fortunately, we've got the well-known Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee (possibly the oldest reference to Low Countries in a primary source) from the 1350s, during or after most of the "former polities" in the current category existed. None of the subcategories of
Category:Former polities in the Netherlands ceased to exist before the 1350s. For the item we may be more selective, e.g.
Gallia Belgica and
Germania Inferior may strictly speaking be out of place/scope.
It is obvious we do not agree anyway but I will add a late comment to the Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee: this is referring to the county of Holland, not to Gelre, Namur or whatever we now consider to be part of the Low Lands.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, not quite. J.M.C. Verbij-Schillings,
"Heraut Beyeren en de Clerc uten Laghen Landen", (1991) Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. indicates the chronicle is dedicated to a certain William of Bavaria, the count of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, but it's unclear whether he was William V =
William I, Duke of Bavaria OR William VI =
William II, Duke of Bavaria. There is a question when exactly it was written, since both Williams have also been count of Hainaut, but aren't called that by the text, and Hainaut isn't really a subject in the text. On the other hand, the chronicle is apparently closely related to the post-1393 Holland-Utrecht chronicle (Croniken van den Stichte van Utrecht ende van Hollant) in contents and style. It's indeed unlikely that uten laghen landen bi der zee means all
Low Countries as we understand them today, but evidently, the chronicle is not just about Holland either, but also around the surrounding provinces, especially those where this William of Bavaria reigned or had frequent or occasional interactions with (Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Hainaut, Utrecht, Flanders, Guelders etc. are all mentioned in Verbij-Schillings' quotations). But the toponym Nederland likewise didn't yet have its current form and application yet either at the time. The oldest reference to Niderlande by Berthold von Regensburg in
c. 1275 equated Niderlande with Sahsen ("
Saxony"), not with what we today know as the
Netherlands: Die von Oberlant, dort her von Zürich, die redent vil anders danne die von Niderlande, von Sahsen. The meaning and application first shifted to the
Rhineland and eventually to the Rhine/Meuse/Scheldt delta as we know it today.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Anyway, maybe it's time we tried to work out some sort of compromise, like we did with
Category:Medieval Low Countries. There is actually quite a lot of overlap between the two. Perhaps we should manually merge some of the children and items to
Category:Medieval Low Countries or its children? What we would be left with are pre-500 things like
Gallia Belgica and
Germania Inferior (which may not need to be in this tree at all), and post-1500 things, which we might divide in some sort of North and South categories if we really wanted to. I'm afraid that 1580 will remain somewhat arbitrary, and the HRE category is a bit too big for our purposes here. But I'm open to a lot of options. We need some movement here.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename and add parent per nomination. Sometimes I find that we are taking ourselves too seriously, and treating category policies as if they were civil or scientific laws. They are neither; rather, to follow them well is an art. This is a category that has stood the test of time and has also been created in multiple other-language Wikipedias. Unless there is a nomination to delete
History of the Low Countries, I would even say that this category is required – and should be at the target name. –
FayenaticLondon09:47, 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.
Water polo 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.
Rename per nom. Not sure some of these are needed as a layer, e.g Bosnia and Herzegovina only has a players subcat which itself only contains 2 articles, in contrast to e.g Australia which has male, female and Olympic players, coaches and an official so merits the umbrella. But anyway, logic for the rename is sound.
Crowsus (
talk)
23:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bandstands in Brazil
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.
Nelissen and Warrink have other producing credits on Captain Nova (both), Juze(just Warrink), and Cuban Love (just Warrink), which brings both categories up to three entries. Whether that negates SMALLCAT, especially for redlinked subjects, I don't know, but it's at least worth noting. Found no other credits for Janga.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
12:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Border crossings of Vatican City
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: Redundant layer. Sole subcat also exists in
Category:Italy–Vatican City border which is the only other subcat in
Category:Borders of Vatican City. No need for both when they exist to complete the same job, especially when the other also does more than this could. Not sure what the appropriate redirect target would be, if any exist, but I imagine that would be preferred and I will accept that as well.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
09:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Voodoo texts
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: All of the pages in this category pertain to books about Haitian Vodou. Renaming this category would more accurately describe the religion in question (Haitian Vodou rather than more ambiguous "Voodoo") and would also clarify that the category is for books about the religion, rather than authoritative texts or scripture (as a comparative example, see
Category:Books about Buddhism versus
Category:Buddhist texts. —Matthew / (
talk)21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Per
Haitian Vodou, it appears the name is to do with the religion being developed in Haiti, not that there are other national varieties of it. Given the proposed title would match that article's name, that is the most appropriate name for the cat. I support the nom.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
11:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Four Digit Wings of the United States Air Force
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.
Disagree Definitely should not be either. As Buckshot points out, what notability these units have as a group does not stem from how many digits they have in their designations, but in how the designations were controled from 1948-c. 1992. Also, the obscure term MAJCON is correct for these units, not MAJCOM. But, I would reject both as jargon. MAJCOM was an abbreviation for Major Command, MAJCON for Major Command controlled. I would prefer
Category: Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force. (I'm soft on whether to capitalize the "C" in Command and hide my head in the sand for the group 1000-1050). I also favor abundant redirects for those who know the jargon, those who think they know the jargon, and hyphenated and unhyphenated versions of four digit.
Lineagegeek (
talk)
22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fine with your suggestion about the name, but again with the four-digit thing, I'm unconvinced that's significant.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If the name properly belongs somewhere else, then I'm unconcerned; I was just trying to fix the capitalization error. However, if the phrase "major command" is to be included in the new name, it too should be uncapitalized (for the same reasons I'm requesting the move here:
Talk:Major Command#Requested move 28 June 2023). There shouldn't be contention about that move, but if there is, then this discussion should defer to the outcome there. — Fourthords |
=Λ= |15:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Treaties of ancient Greece
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 do think we should take the ancient Greek (city-)state treaties out of the
Category:Treaties of Greece tree. The words of (ancient) Greece signify ownership, and because ancient Greece as such was not a (non-)state actor, this is misleading. However, in ancient Greece in the name of its parent is probably okay, because it signifies time (ancient (times)) and region (ancient Greece) rather than a (non-)state actor.
not all treaties are between Greek states, a few are with Rome or Persia. Ah, well-spotted. That does make it more complex than I thought.
Treaties of Greek city-states I'm afraid that won't work, including for reasons that I hadn't seen until now. The reason why I kept calling them ancient Greek (city-)states is that some in the category were not "city-states" (poleis), and the others - as I see now - might not even be called "Greek".
Only children "Treaties of Athens" and "Treaties of Sparta", and items
Isopoliteia and
Sympoliteia, unambiguously qualify.
"Treaties of Macedon" was arguably "Greek", but not a "city-state".
The "Treaties of the Diadochi" were about the division of Alexander's empire, concluded between his successors in Babylon and Triparadisus, Lebanon, having nothing to do with "Greece" or its poleis.
Treaty of Apamea was between Roman Republic and Seleucid Empire; the latter was dominated by Greeks, but neither located in Greece, nor a city-state.
We could resolve this in any number of ways, including:
A. just calling them all "Greek states", but that may invite an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT CfD sooner or later about what makes them "Greek" ("official" language? demographics?).
B. upmerging 1 and 2 to Interstate relations in ancient Greece.
C. renaming 1 and 2 rest Treaties of Greek city-states (2 C, 2 P)
Agree that this requires splitting. But then too little content is left to keep a category for either of the two parts of the split. So prefer merging B + E, in principle. But the latter (E) does not really have to be implemented as such because the content is already deeper down in the tree of
Category:Hellenistic period.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you agree, then we might also apply this concept to al-Andalus, like
Category:Interstate relations in al-Andalus. Cats such as
Category:Dynasties in al-Andalus essentially also recognises that al-Andalus was a politically divided region, while its parent
Category:People from al-Andalus essentially claims that al-Andalus is a "nationality", a "former country" and a "state", which is the opposite of a politically divided region.
Semantic question: what would "interstate" mean here? I would take it as between two or more Muslim states only (which does not apply to the three treaties, they are with a Christian counterpart) but maybe I am just taking it too narrow.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I do see a potential problem with adding religion into the mix (religion (Islam) + state + region), which we don't do with Ancient Greece. What "counts" as "al-Andalus" or not seems to depend entirely on the sum of states controlling territory in the Iberian Peninsula which were "Islamic states" (or more arbitarily "Muslim states"). It may be easy to verify which monarch was a Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily make his or her personal religion
WP:DEFINING for the state they ran. The very concept of an "
Islamic state", just like a "
Christian state", may even be too modern to be readily applied to medieval circumstances in Iberia. Apart from theocracies, or states with a constitution explicitly enshiring one religion or another, such a designation may be arbitrary or anachronistic. Instead of making religion perhaps overly important, we should just take the entire peninsula as our scope, just like with Ancient Greece: timeframe + region.
Oppose: Aggressive clean up and removal based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). I don't see any of the alternatives suggested to be more helpful to wiki users than the existing categories.
Al-Andalusi (
talk)
10:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). Not true; the precedent
"Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM already concluded that a
treaty is restricted to a
state actor nor a
non-state actor: "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a
state actor nor a
non-state actor, so this is
WP:NONDEFINING for treaties, and medieval treaties categories are subdivided by country and the medieval Islamic world is not a country. This fact is why
Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic was merged and no longer exists. This precedent has established a consensus that treaties can only involve state actors and non-state actors, which supports the current nomination (so it's not based on entirely spurious reasoning).
You have already agreed with us (Marcocapelle, Fayenatic and I) that neither "al-Andalus" nor "medieval Islamic world" was a "country" (
on my talk page, you said to me: I'm curious to know how you arrived at the understanding that a category with "medieval Islamic world" implies that it is a country? That was never the intention obviously...), and at the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, you added: I also see
Category:Treaties of ancient Greece, which was not really a unified state. Which is correct, and exactly why I nominated both "Treaties of al-Andalus" and "Treaties of ancient Greece" for merging next.
In the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, the
"Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, and again in this CfM, your Oppose vote rests on the argument that treaties and foreign relations should not be limited/restricted to states / state and non-state actors only. But
that train has left the station due to the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM precedent. You may not like the result, but it stands, and the precedent it has set has consequences for subsequent discussions, including this one. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The previous CfM (which you nominated) is hardly a precedent. Just because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. Since no specific guideline on the scope of the Treaties categories has been established, then everything remains open to debate. Especially considering the fact that
Category:Medieval treaties and
Category:Ancient treaties still exist in violation of the alleged state/non-state actor criteria. You're not being consistent.
Al-Andalusi (
talk)
15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Al-AndalusiJust because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. True, but do you have evidence that it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale" in this case? The nominator (me in that case), Marcocapelle and Fayenatic all Supported the merge rationale that "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, so this is
WP:NONDEFINING for treaties. (while you Opposed this rationale with the argument that There is no requirement that a treaty category be strictly limited to a state). Nobody brought up any other argument in favour of merging, so there is no reason to assume it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale".
Category:Treaties by period is a different tree, categorising treaties not by state or non-state actors, but time. Something like "Antiquity" or "the Middle Ages" obviously does not constitute a country/organisation and thus not a state or non-state actor, nor does the category tree claim them to be. This whole thing is a
red herring.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
08:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles
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:Latino sitcoms
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.
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:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is unclear which target is being suggested in the Merge !votes, as the target proposed by nom is a redirect to the nominated category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Doubts How would we define "real knights"? Which ones are we going to purge? I would suppose the Austrian nobility has been abolished in 1918 (concurrent with the fall of the monarchy) and that these titles are now only in pretense? In that case all people born after 1918 carrying the title of "Ritter" (as part of their name) seem
WP:NONDEFINING and should be purged. As a sidenote, if it's merely a name thing with no legal importance post-1918, isn't this something we could group into
Category:People by name or something (or does that category only exist on Commons?)? Just some suggestions, I don't know what is best. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Well "the 17th century" seems rather arbitrary for a poorly sourced subsection. Their military function probably did cease to have meaning around that time, but the legal meaning continued for much longer. E.g. there was a
Rittersturm in the HRE in 1802-1804, and their position was formally abolished in 1806 upon abolition of the HRE. That's why I'm looking at 1918 as cutoff for Austria.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
19:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Containerise & purge per nom. The Austrian nobility is a status group that was officially abolished in 1919 after the fall of Austria-Hungary. The nobles are still part of Austrian society today, but they no longer retain any specific privileges. At the very least, the category should be purged of all people born after 1919, because after that having the rank of Ritter has become
WP:NONDEFINING for an individual person's career. They are only
WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH other people (their ancestors) for whom it used to be significant for their career. So I think nom is right. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:26, 25 April 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:BBC Idents
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:St. Anthony's High School (South Huntington, New York) alumni
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:WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two people each. As always, every high school does not automatically get one of these the moment one alumnus of that high school has an article to file in it -- there would have to be five or six alumni with articles before a category for them was warranted, not just one or two.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep -- SWE have traditionally allowed all high schools to have an alumni category. If we require 5 articles before a school can have one, we may well never populate any. We should allow this as an exception to the general minimum of 5.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, per note from Oculi above. I've been looking at the articles about the schools and they have lengthy lists of alumni - the categories just need populating.
Sionk (
talk)
11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Some years ago I have tried to formalize at 5 in the text of the guideline (carefully phrased something like "in most cases 5 will do"), but including any number in the guideline was dismissed as unnecessary. That also means we can develop a new cut-off here on CfD per precedent. Personally I do not have objections to 10 because in most smallcat cases we are simply upmerging the content to the parent categories, so we are still keeping the content together.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Having some concrete number would really help editors who don't frequent CFD who sincerely think 3 is enough, or an entire tree of 1 articles is well established. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I am strongly against setting a hard value to this. We talked about setting it at 4 in times gone by, but the truth is, this is smething that really can vary on a case-by-case basis. Our goal is navigation here. And sometimes it's better to have a tree of subats and sometimes not. But a hard number would stand in the way of consensual discussion. If it's obviously a smallcat, CFD tends to take care of these things fairly well. - jc3716:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep all I've sorted / created many high school categories and I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of high schools have five or more notable alumni, especially those in metropolitan areas of the United States. Our efforts should be to populate categories like this, not delete them. For example,
Category:Raleigh-Egypt High School alumni had one article until just now. It now has 6 after I spent approximately 3 minutes populating it.--
User:Namiba11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have taken the liberty of changing 'lc' to 'clc' in the table, so current numbers now appear. There are still several with 1 or 2 which should be deleted - I looked at some of them and could find no more members. I have added the school article for the small categories, should editors wish to look for lists of alumni (per
user:Sionk, above). Of course the school needs to be in the article of the supposed alumnus, preferably sourced, not just in the list. I see that one (Crowley) has gone up from 1 to 7 since I made these remarks.
Oculi (
talk)
01:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I just added several more to ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Bishop Verot High School alumni. The ease by which these are found is an indication as to why they all should be kept. Some may be below 5 articles, but they all can be easily expanded over time. Note that
WP:SMALLCAT states that categories with a "realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Active high schools should fit into this exception since they will continue to add alumni year after year.--
User:Namiba01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:EPCATPERS specifically says "Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution and People by company, as well as numerous more specific categories." One's educational institution is considered inherently defining by current guidelines.--
User:Namiba23:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:EPCATPERS does indeed say that (
Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_association), since
2007. However that does not reflect current consensus at cfd and should be changed; we have deleted hundreds of small high school categories at cfd. (It should be changed to 'People by higher educational institution' perhaps; I don't recall university alumni categories being deleted.) It does not say that one's high school is
WP:DEFINING; that would seem an extraordinary claim.
Oculi (
talk)
15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete categories with fewer than 5 articles (5 as a minimum). There has been plenty of time for any relevant articles to be added. —
Qwerfjkltalk11:14, 17 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:Former polities in the Netherlands
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 action - This has been open quite awhile, and several different ideas have been tossed around, but nothing really had consensus at this point. I'm doing this as a procedural close of "no action" rather than a "no consensus" close, simply due to the age of discussion. No prejudice against renomination for any of these or other proposals. - jc3706:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, then its contents (with places from Boulogne to Moers, and including Austrian Netherlands, United Belgian States, Loon, Liège, etc.) would still not match the catname "Former polities in the Netherlands". Its interwikis in Dutch, French, German etc. have pretty much the same contents:
nl:Categorie:Historisch land in de Nederlandenfr:Catégorie:Anciens Pays-Basde:Kategorie:Historische Niederlande. I think its parents are key to understanding how this category was meant:
I don't see the point. Pretty much all states that we would have to manually merge from this cat to States in the HRE are already in there, and the HRE was a country/state, not a "region". It would also mean we would have to remove its parent
Category:Political history of Belgium (and remove
Category:Former countries by region because "Netherlands" is not a "region" but a country, and there is no
Category:Former countries by country to re-parent it to), and unlink all interwikis with the same geographical scope, with no interwikis to link it to. Everything about how this category is organised and interlinked with everything else indicates that Low Countries is the scope and the proper term to use in this case. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
We clearly do not agree here. If we can categorize by country (like Holy Roman Empire) then that is preferable over categorizing by region. Only when categorizing by country is really impractical then by region might be an alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Split or Delete this is just a collection of titles / states in an area that is variously described as Burgundian Netherlands, Spanish Netherlands, Habsburg Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands, Low Countries etc. Looks quite WP:OR.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
10:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Low Countries is consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. All the other terms with "Netherlands" in them only ever describe just (different) parts of the Low Countries.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
02:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
William Allen Simpson It would be if the countries in question (Belgium and the Netherlands) existed at the time. That is not the case. And as I pointed out to Marcocapelle, the Holy Roman Empire category tree is so large as to be impractical. The contents are grouped by region in a manner that follows established conventions also used on other-language Wikipedias, it fits the
Category:Former countries by region where it sits alongside
Category:Former countries in the British Isles. All that is wrong with it is the name, really. Low Countries is the
WP:COMMONNAME in English for this region, and consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
While your chosen username indicates enthusiasm about the Netherlands, I've long deferred to
Marcocapelle on these issues. When I looked at this the first time around, here's my train of thought:
This is the only "polities" in the entire category tree. Therefore, highly disfavored.
Marcocapelle also says "by country ... is preferable over categorizing by region. Strong agreement.
I'm not afraid of 1,800 entries. Our categorization software readily handles far more.
I'd almost agreed with
Laurel Lodged to delete entirely. But thought a split would give a handle on what is left, at which time we could better contemplate deletion.
Marcocapelle and I are both from the Netherlands. Until I nominated the Rulers category, we had barely interacted, we got to know each other here, just like I got to know you. (And I quite like the cooperation so far).
Irrelevant. Low Countries is the
WP:COMMONNAME of the region (certainly for pre-1944 history; the
Benelux was created at a time when the 3 current modern countries already existed, and there have been no state establishments or disestablishments since 1944).
But the above three periods are relatively short and dispersed and the items in this category exactly refer to duchies and counties etc while they had no shared history yet.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
They don't need to have a shared political history in order to be a region.
These are by regions of natural geography. Based on natural borders you might suspect more interaction between the states in the region versus outside the region. While I think that is questionable too, the Low Countries do not even have natural borders. Consequently there wasn't any kind of special interaction between e.g. Gelre and Flanders based on that they both belonged to the Low Countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The Low Countries existed as a region at the time, just like the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans (
Category:History of the Balkans), the Baltic states (
Category:History of the Baltic states), etc. even if the modern terms for these regions did not yet exist at the time ("Balkan(s)" in its current meaning was coined in 1808, "Baltic states" in its current meaning was coined in the interwar period etc.).
Fortunately, we've got the well-known Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee (possibly the oldest reference to Low Countries in a primary source) from the 1350s, during or after most of the "former polities" in the current category existed. None of the subcategories of
Category:Former polities in the Netherlands ceased to exist before the 1350s. For the item we may be more selective, e.g.
Gallia Belgica and
Germania Inferior may strictly speaking be out of place/scope.
It is obvious we do not agree anyway but I will add a late comment to the Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee: this is referring to the county of Holland, not to Gelre, Namur or whatever we now consider to be part of the Low Lands.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, not quite. J.M.C. Verbij-Schillings,
"Heraut Beyeren en de Clerc uten Laghen Landen", (1991) Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. indicates the chronicle is dedicated to a certain William of Bavaria, the count of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, but it's unclear whether he was William V =
William I, Duke of Bavaria OR William VI =
William II, Duke of Bavaria. There is a question when exactly it was written, since both Williams have also been count of Hainaut, but aren't called that by the text, and Hainaut isn't really a subject in the text. On the other hand, the chronicle is apparently closely related to the post-1393 Holland-Utrecht chronicle (Croniken van den Stichte van Utrecht ende van Hollant) in contents and style. It's indeed unlikely that uten laghen landen bi der zee means all
Low Countries as we understand them today, but evidently, the chronicle is not just about Holland either, but also around the surrounding provinces, especially those where this William of Bavaria reigned or had frequent or occasional interactions with (Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Hainaut, Utrecht, Flanders, Guelders etc. are all mentioned in Verbij-Schillings' quotations). But the toponym Nederland likewise didn't yet have its current form and application yet either at the time. The oldest reference to Niderlande by Berthold von Regensburg in
c. 1275 equated Niderlande with Sahsen ("
Saxony"), not with what we today know as the
Netherlands: Die von Oberlant, dort her von Zürich, die redent vil anders danne die von Niderlande, von Sahsen. The meaning and application first shifted to the
Rhineland and eventually to the Rhine/Meuse/Scheldt delta as we know it today.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Anyway, maybe it's time we tried to work out some sort of compromise, like we did with
Category:Medieval Low Countries. There is actually quite a lot of overlap between the two. Perhaps we should manually merge some of the children and items to
Category:Medieval Low Countries or its children? What we would be left with are pre-500 things like
Gallia Belgica and
Germania Inferior (which may not need to be in this tree at all), and post-1500 things, which we might divide in some sort of North and South categories if we really wanted to. I'm afraid that 1580 will remain somewhat arbitrary, and the HRE category is a bit too big for our purposes here. But I'm open to a lot of options. We need some movement here.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename and add parent per nomination. Sometimes I find that we are taking ourselves too seriously, and treating category policies as if they were civil or scientific laws. They are neither; rather, to follow them well is an art. This is a category that has stood the test of time and has also been created in multiple other-language Wikipedias. Unless there is a nomination to delete
History of the Low Countries, I would even say that this category is required – and should be at the target name. –
FayenaticLondon09:47, 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.
Water polo 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.
Rename per nom. Not sure some of these are needed as a layer, e.g Bosnia and Herzegovina only has a players subcat which itself only contains 2 articles, in contrast to e.g Australia which has male, female and Olympic players, coaches and an official so merits the umbrella. But anyway, logic for the rename is sound.
Crowsus (
talk)
23:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bandstands in Brazil
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.
Nelissen and Warrink have other producing credits on Captain Nova (both), Juze(just Warrink), and Cuban Love (just Warrink), which brings both categories up to three entries. Whether that negates SMALLCAT, especially for redlinked subjects, I don't know, but it's at least worth noting. Found no other credits for Janga.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
12:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Border crossings of Vatican City
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: Redundant layer. Sole subcat also exists in
Category:Italy–Vatican City border which is the only other subcat in
Category:Borders of Vatican City. No need for both when they exist to complete the same job, especially when the other also does more than this could. Not sure what the appropriate redirect target would be, if any exist, but I imagine that would be preferred and I will accept that as well.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
09:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Voodoo texts
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: All of the pages in this category pertain to books about Haitian Vodou. Renaming this category would more accurately describe the religion in question (Haitian Vodou rather than more ambiguous "Voodoo") and would also clarify that the category is for books about the religion, rather than authoritative texts or scripture (as a comparative example, see
Category:Books about Buddhism versus
Category:Buddhist texts. —Matthew / (
talk)21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Per
Haitian Vodou, it appears the name is to do with the religion being developed in Haiti, not that there are other national varieties of it. Given the proposed title would match that article's name, that is the most appropriate name for the cat. I support the nom.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
11:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Four Digit Wings of the United States Air Force
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.
Disagree Definitely should not be either. As Buckshot points out, what notability these units have as a group does not stem from how many digits they have in their designations, but in how the designations were controled from 1948-c. 1992. Also, the obscure term MAJCON is correct for these units, not MAJCOM. But, I would reject both as jargon. MAJCOM was an abbreviation for Major Command, MAJCON for Major Command controlled. I would prefer
Category: Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force. (I'm soft on whether to capitalize the "C" in Command and hide my head in the sand for the group 1000-1050). I also favor abundant redirects for those who know the jargon, those who think they know the jargon, and hyphenated and unhyphenated versions of four digit.
Lineagegeek (
talk)
22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fine with your suggestion about the name, but again with the four-digit thing, I'm unconvinced that's significant.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If the name properly belongs somewhere else, then I'm unconcerned; I was just trying to fix the capitalization error. However, if the phrase "major command" is to be included in the new name, it too should be uncapitalized (for the same reasons I'm requesting the move here:
Talk:Major Command#Requested move 28 June 2023). There shouldn't be contention about that move, but if there is, then this discussion should defer to the outcome there. — Fourthords |
=Λ= |15:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Treaties of ancient Greece
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 do think we should take the ancient Greek (city-)state treaties out of the
Category:Treaties of Greece tree. The words of (ancient) Greece signify ownership, and because ancient Greece as such was not a (non-)state actor, this is misleading. However, in ancient Greece in the name of its parent is probably okay, because it signifies time (ancient (times)) and region (ancient Greece) rather than a (non-)state actor.
not all treaties are between Greek states, a few are with Rome or Persia. Ah, well-spotted. That does make it more complex than I thought.
Treaties of Greek city-states I'm afraid that won't work, including for reasons that I hadn't seen until now. The reason why I kept calling them ancient Greek (city-)states is that some in the category were not "city-states" (poleis), and the others - as I see now - might not even be called "Greek".
Only children "Treaties of Athens" and "Treaties of Sparta", and items
Isopoliteia and
Sympoliteia, unambiguously qualify.
"Treaties of Macedon" was arguably "Greek", but not a "city-state".
The "Treaties of the Diadochi" were about the division of Alexander's empire, concluded between his successors in Babylon and Triparadisus, Lebanon, having nothing to do with "Greece" or its poleis.
Treaty of Apamea was between Roman Republic and Seleucid Empire; the latter was dominated by Greeks, but neither located in Greece, nor a city-state.
We could resolve this in any number of ways, including:
A. just calling them all "Greek states", but that may invite an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT CfD sooner or later about what makes them "Greek" ("official" language? demographics?).
B. upmerging 1 and 2 to Interstate relations in ancient Greece.
C. renaming 1 and 2 rest Treaties of Greek city-states (2 C, 2 P)
Agree that this requires splitting. But then too little content is left to keep a category for either of the two parts of the split. So prefer merging B + E, in principle. But the latter (E) does not really have to be implemented as such because the content is already deeper down in the tree of
Category:Hellenistic period.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you agree, then we might also apply this concept to al-Andalus, like
Category:Interstate relations in al-Andalus. Cats such as
Category:Dynasties in al-Andalus essentially also recognises that al-Andalus was a politically divided region, while its parent
Category:People from al-Andalus essentially claims that al-Andalus is a "nationality", a "former country" and a "state", which is the opposite of a politically divided region.
Semantic question: what would "interstate" mean here? I would take it as between two or more Muslim states only (which does not apply to the three treaties, they are with a Christian counterpart) but maybe I am just taking it too narrow.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I do see a potential problem with adding religion into the mix (religion (Islam) + state + region), which we don't do with Ancient Greece. What "counts" as "al-Andalus" or not seems to depend entirely on the sum of states controlling territory in the Iberian Peninsula which were "Islamic states" (or more arbitarily "Muslim states"). It may be easy to verify which monarch was a Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily make his or her personal religion
WP:DEFINING for the state they ran. The very concept of an "
Islamic state", just like a "
Christian state", may even be too modern to be readily applied to medieval circumstances in Iberia. Apart from theocracies, or states with a constitution explicitly enshiring one religion or another, such a designation may be arbitrary or anachronistic. Instead of making religion perhaps overly important, we should just take the entire peninsula as our scope, just like with Ancient Greece: timeframe + region.
Oppose: Aggressive clean up and removal based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). I don't see any of the alternatives suggested to be more helpful to wiki users than the existing categories.
Al-Andalusi (
talk)
10:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). Not true; the precedent
"Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM already concluded that a
treaty is restricted to a
state actor nor a
non-state actor: "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a
state actor nor a
non-state actor, so this is
WP:NONDEFINING for treaties, and medieval treaties categories are subdivided by country and the medieval Islamic world is not a country. This fact is why
Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic was merged and no longer exists. This precedent has established a consensus that treaties can only involve state actors and non-state actors, which supports the current nomination (so it's not based on entirely spurious reasoning).
You have already agreed with us (Marcocapelle, Fayenatic and I) that neither "al-Andalus" nor "medieval Islamic world" was a "country" (
on my talk page, you said to me: I'm curious to know how you arrived at the understanding that a category with "medieval Islamic world" implies that it is a country? That was never the intention obviously...), and at the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, you added: I also see
Category:Treaties of ancient Greece, which was not really a unified state. Which is correct, and exactly why I nominated both "Treaties of al-Andalus" and "Treaties of ancient Greece" for merging next.
In the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, the
"Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, and again in this CfM, your Oppose vote rests on the argument that treaties and foreign relations should not be limited/restricted to states / state and non-state actors only. But
that train has left the station due to the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM precedent. You may not like the result, but it stands, and the precedent it has set has consequences for subsequent discussions, including this one. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The previous CfM (which you nominated) is hardly a precedent. Just because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. Since no specific guideline on the scope of the Treaties categories has been established, then everything remains open to debate. Especially considering the fact that
Category:Medieval treaties and
Category:Ancient treaties still exist in violation of the alleged state/non-state actor criteria. You're not being consistent.
Al-Andalusi (
talk)
15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Al-AndalusiJust because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. True, but do you have evidence that it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale" in this case? The nominator (me in that case), Marcocapelle and Fayenatic all Supported the merge rationale that "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, so this is
WP:NONDEFINING for treaties. (while you Opposed this rationale with the argument that There is no requirement that a treaty category be strictly limited to a state). Nobody brought up any other argument in favour of merging, so there is no reason to assume it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale".
Category:Treaties by period is a different tree, categorising treaties not by state or non-state actors, but time. Something like "Antiquity" or "the Middle Ages" obviously does not constitute a country/organisation and thus not a state or non-state actor, nor does the category tree claim them to be. This whole thing is a
red herring.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
08:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles
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:Latino sitcoms
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.