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.
Hence it is pertinent to have a Dutch Caribbean level (in which Curaçao content undeniably belongs) rather than placing Curaçao directly in the Netherlands category. In the absence of such a level, Curaçao content would still belong in a Netherlands category, as for any dependent territory.
Place Clichy (
talk)
19:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Place Clichy: I do not agree that we should have a category tree for Dutch Caribbean as if it were a country. It is in fact a set of three plus three islands with a completely incompatible political status.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Place Clichy: I'm going to agree with Marcocapelle here. The Dutch Caribbean tree is not very useful (in this context) and is technically misclassified as it would belong in a "Kingdom of the Netherlands" category but not in the current Netherlands category.
This image is helpful for seeing this structure. –
Aidan721 (
talk)
18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
(after relisting) The Dutch Caribbean tree is useful in regards to the
Category:Dependent territories tree at least. Gathering the several overseas territories of a country, regardless of status, seems like a good practice to keep. There are often several statuses, and they evolve in time, as for Overseas France or British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Also, these places, despite their difference in status, all have a defining relationship with their parent country the Netherlands. I don't believe there is a suggestion to split the entire tree for the Netherlands in a tree for Netherlands proper (including the BES islands) and Netherlands plus ABC.
Place Clichy (
talk)
15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The video uses the word "impractical" multiple times, and also in the description: "In this video, I explored the realm of impractical sorting algorithms. Say goodbye to the usual and practical methods..."
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:Sportswriters
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:EGRS. The first one is the only sportswriter category sorted by male. For the sport and country specific, these are the only ones like it (only chess in split by country, not the rest). The Gaelic games category has a commentator/broadcaster category already (
Category:Gaelic games commentators) so the name is redundant. And for the last one: the golf category is large with a mix of writers and commentators that makes navigation hard. The combination is only done when there are not enough of either to warrant seperate categories.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle. However, I think that all of the intersection categories need to be merged as well.
How about Merge for now and then manually resorting them to states? The ones that don't can remain in the parent cat. I'll do it myself (after/if this Cfd closes as merge and so on).
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
11:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, I don't see how mashing broadcasters and writers into one category makes navigation easier since they do completely different jobs. Broadcastsers should be in the "sports annoucners" category. And renames are to make categories consistant with names of others as well. For example "Cricket historians and writers" in the category are just writers like "Baseball writers" and "Tennis writers" are. And Gailic games broadcasters have a seperate category so there's no need to have one for "broadcasters and writers" combination.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
12:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural close/Keep all. These are not obviously related categories and they should have never been bundled together in this manner. They are so far down the sportswriter category tree talking about them together is confusing and nonsensical. This is not an appropriate way to go about building a
WP:CONSENSUS on these cats. No prejudice against speedy renomination on a cat by cat basis. On a side note I oppose many of these re-names but for different reasons. (ie. not every person in these lists are writers, some are tv journalists/broadcasters who talk for a living; sorting out writers by nationality is useful in a sports context for navigation as commentators often cover sports at the national level only) It would not be good to tackle all of these different issues in this one conversation.
4meter4 (
talk)
Also the two nationality/sports categories are
WP:NARROWCAT. Besides chess, no other sports' writers are divided by country except for "American martial arts writers" and "Australian cricket writers".
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, this conversation needs to happen in new nominations for procedural reasons. That said... "Commentator" is a specific term in broadcast media that doesn't necessarily encompass every individual working in sport media on television or other media platforms such as radio or the internet. Commentators give personal opinions without necessarily doing any research versus broadcast journalists who actually do research and conduct interviews or investigative journalism based on that research. Some of the people here are "commentators" but others might be better described as "broadcast journalists" in the field of sports. Some do both. On the second issue, I would imagine most people navigating sportswriter cats would be looking to find writers on a particular sport in a particular country. This is exactly the type of cat that would be most useful as a navigational aid within this topic area. Rather than point to the limited intersections elsewhere as a sign of irrelevance or a violation of NARROWCAT, I would suggest this points to an area of weakness that needs targeted category expansion. Sportswriters/journalists often do focus on a limited number of sports within a national scope; so I don't think this is a trivial cross-categorization.
4meter4 (
talk)
21:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
4meter4, in these cases, they are just people who commentate the game regardless of whether they are play-by-play or color commentators or on-the-field broadcasters. But the point is that broadcasters and writers have different jobs. They aren't the same.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
21:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Template:Draft-stub
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: This page appears to have been created in error, or as an experiment. I see no evidence of its creation being approved through the process described at
WP:NEWSTUB. I may have missed a discussion. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. It is in the nature of a draft that it is likely to be very unfinished, and there does not seem to be any good reason for having a template to label them as such. Also, as far as I am aware, all the existing information about stubs refers only to articles, and extending the concept to other namespaces requires more than just a single editor deciding to do so without consultation: a discussion to determine consensus would be more appropriate.
JBW (
talk)
23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Bermudian civil engineers
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: Broaden the scope as right now there isn't a main engineer category, and it will be some time before Bermuda can support diffusing engineers by specialization
Mason (
talk)
21:52, 20 January 2024 (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:Businesspeople in retailing by company
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:Turkish taxi drivers
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, I've never understood why some categories which contain one or two entries are broken up into states or cities or whatever. This just hides the entries in outlying cubbyholes to the main search term.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:32, 21 January 2024 (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:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall
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: If the category is not going to be deleted, the naming should at least be standardized with everything else in
Category:Metafiction. This is my best guess as to what the name should be, but if anyone else has a better suggestion, let me know.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't rename, "btfw" variations seems to be used way more commonly per news search results (up to ~39k results, around 31k on average, depending on the chosen term variation) then any variations on metafiction (~6 thousand) and even in those it rarely refers to the characters.
Respublik (
talk)
15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not all fictional characters who break the fourth wall are metafictional, and not all metafictional characters break the fourth wall.
4meter4 (
talk)
04:45, 26 January 2024 (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:Taekwondo practitioners of insular areas of 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. For each of these categories, there's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Please add more than one category when you make occupation categories for insular areas of the United States. I only think that we should have categories like this if there are more than two territories in them (aka 3 or more).
Mason (
talk)
20:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect.
Mercy11 (
talk)
15:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Excuse me? Please assume good faith. I responded as I did because I do not know if each category is decided upon independent, so I made no assumption. The accusation of "spamming" is jumping to conclusion without having the facts and demonstrates an assumption of intentional spamming was made which is categorically wrong from any angle.
Mercy11 (
talk)
17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
My apologies, I should have considered my words more carefully. I bundled the nominations because I had expected the debate to be centered around the size of the categories, which shouldn't differ by the content.
Mason (
talk)
19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Insular territories belong to the United States, in the same fashion than the
Michigan Territory or the
Alaska Territory did before they reached statehood. There is a
DEFINING link between these categories and their American parent, in which they should be whatever the outcome, either directly or indirectly.
Place Clichy (
talk)
20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It is incorrect to say that "insular territories belong to the United States 'in the same fashion that' the Michigan Territory or the Alaska Territory did..." There is no support anywhere in the literature for that claim. That's because the early Territories were already incorporated into the US prior to their becoming states. Not so with the Insular Areas which are UNincorporated territories, and without a defined path to statehood. By definition an incorporated territory is one that is part of the US whereas an unincorporated territory is one that isn't a part of the US. Because the acquisition of Insular Areas set a precedent in American political history, the
SCOTUS decided the polemic that arouse in the
Insular Cases, clarifying that the Insular Areas are unincorporated territories that belong to the US but are not part of of the US. That said, their peoples are not Americans, but their political relationship with the US would still warrant them categorized under US but not directly, as the Americans from the 50 states and DC are, but indirectly via the existing category root
Category:People by insular area of the United States.
Mercy11 (
talk)
00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposed. Categorizing should be (1) “FOO in the US by state or DC” and (2) “FOO in Insular Areas of the United States”, which is a category that exists and works to collect all things in Insular Areas of the US.
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
12:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The answer to your question is already provided at the supporting explanation at my "Opposed" above, isn't it?, that the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. As members of an insular area, Puerto Ricans are, well, Puerto Ricans, not Americans, thus they do not belong under Americans anything. I am not a sports fan but, the way I understand it, "American taekwondo" is not an American variety of taekwondo the way "American football" is the American variety of football (to differentiate it from the meaning of "football" to the rest of the world, namely, soccer). If, for example, the Puerto Rican sportsman
Ángel Román was a practitioner of an American sport called "American taekwondo" or a practitioner of the American sport called "American football" then, certainly, he should be under
Category:American taekwondo practitioners or, similarly, under
Category:American football practitioners (e.g.,
Category:American football wide receivers, because in those two contexts "American" refers to the variety of a sport and not to whether they are Americans or Puerto Ricans.
Mercy11 (
talk)
23:17, 22 January 2024 (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:Plays about the military
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: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here. I tried to find a few more, but I clearly am not looking in the right places.
Mason (
talk)
20:00, 20 January 2024 (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:Centers for the study of antisemitism
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:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland by decade
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:Abkhaz 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.
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:1st century in Southeast Asia
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: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation (there isn't even a 3rd century BC in Asia category)
Mason (
talk)
16:37, 20 January 2024 (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:16th-century Chinese novelists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Times of Malta
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:Purported ancient yoga 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.
Keep: It's not subjective, as the Yoga Korunta is reliably documented as fraudulent.[1] Indeed, it wasn't even a forgery, as Krishnamacharya never produced any document, just talked about its (constantly-changing) contents and made up excuses ("eaten by ants") for its non-appearance. All the members of
Category:Works about yoga, in contrast, certainly existed, and are relied upon by scholars and historians.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Because we have a reliably-cited article about a major and very public fraudulent claim by one of the founders, arguably the founder, of
yoga as exercise; and as it happens, nobody has to date written a Wikipedia article about any other fraudulent "ancient yoga text". I'm sure lovers of tidiness would prefer richly-populated categories; but it does happen that significant things in the world sometimes come in small numbers. If Wikipedia had been around in 1776, there would only have been one member of Presidents of the United States, for instance, but the category would have been unmistakably valid for all that. All the best,
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, it seems like you don't understand the purpose of categories. They are there to help navigation. Are there other cases of Purported ancient yoga texts. Although it is not relevant to this argument, just like your example, there would not have been a category in 1776 for presidents of the united states. The first president wasn't elected until 1789.
Mason (
talk)
16:22, 20 January 2024 (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:Plays about gambling
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.
Oppose. Musicals are a type of play. This is an appropriate category to maintain for the category tree. Further, there are many plays about gambling. The answer is to populate the cat which I have started.
4meter4 (
talk)
16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Update. There are now nine articles in the cat. There are probably more out there with articles already, but I think this demonstrates this is a category with potential for expansion and the concerns raised by
Smasongarrison have been addressed.
Marcocapelle please consider changing your vote in light of these changes. Best.
4meter4 (
talk)
17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle At the time I was trying to expand subcats for
Category:Musicals by topic category tree. Musicals are a specific type of play, and any musical sorted by topic is a sub-cat of a play by that same topic. It was essentially a necessity to maintain the category tree. I assumed that others would eventually get around to sorting plays into the topic cats. I generally edit in areas related to musical theatre and opera. Best.
4meter4 (
talk)
19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Americas
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.
Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. As arbitrary as is the conventional division of the world in 7 continents, multiple conflicting overlapping schemes are worse. These categories are not helpful. Note that, for a select few topics, it is pertinent to look at the Americas as a whole, especially sports federations and international organizations that are organized along this scope. For all other topics, this is a conflicting overlap.
Place Clichy (
talk)
22:04, 21 January 2024 (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:Discrimination in Trinidad and Tobago
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:Marriage in early Germanic culture
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:Children by culture
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:Economies by culture
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: Based on the content of the articles/categories. This isn't about culture, but are ancient countries
Mason (
talk)
04:26, 20 January 2024 (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:Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands to 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.
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:Adolescence in the Americas
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.
Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:29, 20 January 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as I'm not sure that we should be distinguishing at the intersection of gender, nationality and type of crime. This does not seem in the keeping of
WP:EGRS. If kept, this category should be non-diffusing
Mason (
talk)
22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as creatorNeutral. My rationale for making the categories in the first place (as with all of the other "Foo women executed for witchcraft") is that European witch trials historically have had important gendered implications (see
Witch trials in the early modern period & how it discusses gender), and that, from my perspective, the creation of a few new subcategories by gender could be helpful for readers.
WP:EGRS/G does state that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." In my opinion, these categories fall in line with EGRS/G due to the historical context of the early modern witch trials and are useful for navigation. However, if consensus emerges in favor of deletion, I'll adjust my understanding of the guideline. Addendum: After thinking about it for a little bit, & re-reading the guidelines, I can certainly understand the nom's rationale. I think, personally, they are useful categories (with perhaps the exception of "Women executed in the SWT", I'm now not convinced that's really necessary), especially as subcategories of Cat:Foo executed women. However, I'm not very experienced in this area of categorization discourse; I'll defer to the regulars here, & I'm taking this as a learning experience regardless of outcome. Thanks for bearing with my EGRS newbie mistakes & late-night WP:BOLD editing sprees. sawyer * he/they *
talk23:00, 12 January 2024 (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.
Hence it is pertinent to have a Dutch Caribbean level (in which Curaçao content undeniably belongs) rather than placing Curaçao directly in the Netherlands category. In the absence of such a level, Curaçao content would still belong in a Netherlands category, as for any dependent territory.
Place Clichy (
talk)
19:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Place Clichy: I do not agree that we should have a category tree for Dutch Caribbean as if it were a country. It is in fact a set of three plus three islands with a completely incompatible political status.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Place Clichy: I'm going to agree with Marcocapelle here. The Dutch Caribbean tree is not very useful (in this context) and is technically misclassified as it would belong in a "Kingdom of the Netherlands" category but not in the current Netherlands category.
This image is helpful for seeing this structure. –
Aidan721 (
talk)
18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
(after relisting) The Dutch Caribbean tree is useful in regards to the
Category:Dependent territories tree at least. Gathering the several overseas territories of a country, regardless of status, seems like a good practice to keep. There are often several statuses, and they evolve in time, as for Overseas France or British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Also, these places, despite their difference in status, all have a defining relationship with their parent country the Netherlands. I don't believe there is a suggestion to split the entire tree for the Netherlands in a tree for Netherlands proper (including the BES islands) and Netherlands plus ABC.
Place Clichy (
talk)
15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The video uses the word "impractical" multiple times, and also in the description: "In this video, I explored the realm of impractical sorting algorithms. Say goodbye to the usual and practical methods..."
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:Sportswriters
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:EGRS. The first one is the only sportswriter category sorted by male. For the sport and country specific, these are the only ones like it (only chess in split by country, not the rest). The Gaelic games category has a commentator/broadcaster category already (
Category:Gaelic games commentators) so the name is redundant. And for the last one: the golf category is large with a mix of writers and commentators that makes navigation hard. The combination is only done when there are not enough of either to warrant seperate categories.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle. However, I think that all of the intersection categories need to be merged as well.
How about Merge for now and then manually resorting them to states? The ones that don't can remain in the parent cat. I'll do it myself (after/if this Cfd closes as merge and so on).
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
11:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, I don't see how mashing broadcasters and writers into one category makes navigation easier since they do completely different jobs. Broadcastsers should be in the "sports annoucners" category. And renames are to make categories consistant with names of others as well. For example "Cricket historians and writers" in the category are just writers like "Baseball writers" and "Tennis writers" are. And Gailic games broadcasters have a seperate category so there's no need to have one for "broadcasters and writers" combination.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
12:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural close/Keep all. These are not obviously related categories and they should have never been bundled together in this manner. They are so far down the sportswriter category tree talking about them together is confusing and nonsensical. This is not an appropriate way to go about building a
WP:CONSENSUS on these cats. No prejudice against speedy renomination on a cat by cat basis. On a side note I oppose many of these re-names but for different reasons. (ie. not every person in these lists are writers, some are tv journalists/broadcasters who talk for a living; sorting out writers by nationality is useful in a sports context for navigation as commentators often cover sports at the national level only) It would not be good to tackle all of these different issues in this one conversation.
4meter4 (
talk)
Also the two nationality/sports categories are
WP:NARROWCAT. Besides chess, no other sports' writers are divided by country except for "American martial arts writers" and "Australian cricket writers".
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
20:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, this conversation needs to happen in new nominations for procedural reasons. That said... "Commentator" is a specific term in broadcast media that doesn't necessarily encompass every individual working in sport media on television or other media platforms such as radio or the internet. Commentators give personal opinions without necessarily doing any research versus broadcast journalists who actually do research and conduct interviews or investigative journalism based on that research. Some of the people here are "commentators" but others might be better described as "broadcast journalists" in the field of sports. Some do both. On the second issue, I would imagine most people navigating sportswriter cats would be looking to find writers on a particular sport in a particular country. This is exactly the type of cat that would be most useful as a navigational aid within this topic area. Rather than point to the limited intersections elsewhere as a sign of irrelevance or a violation of NARROWCAT, I would suggest this points to an area of weakness that needs targeted category expansion. Sportswriters/journalists often do focus on a limited number of sports within a national scope; so I don't think this is a trivial cross-categorization.
4meter4 (
talk)
21:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
4meter4, in these cases, they are just people who commentate the game regardless of whether they are play-by-play or color commentators or on-the-field broadcasters. But the point is that broadcasters and writers have different jobs. They aren't the same.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
21:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Template:Draft-stub
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: This page appears to have been created in error, or as an experiment. I see no evidence of its creation being approved through the process described at
WP:NEWSTUB. I may have missed a discussion. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. It is in the nature of a draft that it is likely to be very unfinished, and there does not seem to be any good reason for having a template to label them as such. Also, as far as I am aware, all the existing information about stubs refers only to articles, and extending the concept to other namespaces requires more than just a single editor deciding to do so without consultation: a discussion to determine consensus would be more appropriate.
JBW (
talk)
23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Bermudian civil engineers
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: Broaden the scope as right now there isn't a main engineer category, and it will be some time before Bermuda can support diffusing engineers by specialization
Mason (
talk)
21:52, 20 January 2024 (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:Businesspeople in retailing by company
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:Turkish taxi drivers
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, I've never understood why some categories which contain one or two entries are broken up into states or cities or whatever. This just hides the entries in outlying cubbyholes to the main search term.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:32, 21 January 2024 (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:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall
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: If the category is not going to be deleted, the naming should at least be standardized with everything else in
Category:Metafiction. This is my best guess as to what the name should be, but if anyone else has a better suggestion, let me know.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't rename, "btfw" variations seems to be used way more commonly per news search results (up to ~39k results, around 31k on average, depending on the chosen term variation) then any variations on metafiction (~6 thousand) and even in those it rarely refers to the characters.
Respublik (
talk)
15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not all fictional characters who break the fourth wall are metafictional, and not all metafictional characters break the fourth wall.
4meter4 (
talk)
04:45, 26 January 2024 (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:Taekwondo practitioners of insular areas of 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. For each of these categories, there's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Please add more than one category when you make occupation categories for insular areas of the United States. I only think that we should have categories like this if there are more than two territories in them (aka 3 or more).
Mason (
talk)
20:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect.
Mercy11 (
talk)
15:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Excuse me? Please assume good faith. I responded as I did because I do not know if each category is decided upon independent, so I made no assumption. The accusation of "spamming" is jumping to conclusion without having the facts and demonstrates an assumption of intentional spamming was made which is categorically wrong from any angle.
Mercy11 (
talk)
17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
My apologies, I should have considered my words more carefully. I bundled the nominations because I had expected the debate to be centered around the size of the categories, which shouldn't differ by the content.
Mason (
talk)
19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Insular territories belong to the United States, in the same fashion than the
Michigan Territory or the
Alaska Territory did before they reached statehood. There is a
DEFINING link between these categories and their American parent, in which they should be whatever the outcome, either directly or indirectly.
Place Clichy (
talk)
20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It is incorrect to say that "insular territories belong to the United States 'in the same fashion that' the Michigan Territory or the Alaska Territory did..." There is no support anywhere in the literature for that claim. That's because the early Territories were already incorporated into the US prior to their becoming states. Not so with the Insular Areas which are UNincorporated territories, and without a defined path to statehood. By definition an incorporated territory is one that is part of the US whereas an unincorporated territory is one that isn't a part of the US. Because the acquisition of Insular Areas set a precedent in American political history, the
SCOTUS decided the polemic that arouse in the
Insular Cases, clarifying that the Insular Areas are unincorporated territories that belong to the US but are not part of of the US. That said, their peoples are not Americans, but their political relationship with the US would still warrant them categorized under US but not directly, as the Americans from the 50 states and DC are, but indirectly via the existing category root
Category:People by insular area of the United States.
Mercy11 (
talk)
00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposed. Categorizing should be (1) “FOO in the US by state or DC” and (2) “FOO in Insular Areas of the United States”, which is a category that exists and works to collect all things in Insular Areas of the US.
The Eloquent Peasant (
talk)
12:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The answer to your question is already provided at the supporting explanation at my "Opposed" above, isn't it?, that the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. As members of an insular area, Puerto Ricans are, well, Puerto Ricans, not Americans, thus they do not belong under Americans anything. I am not a sports fan but, the way I understand it, "American taekwondo" is not an American variety of taekwondo the way "American football" is the American variety of football (to differentiate it from the meaning of "football" to the rest of the world, namely, soccer). If, for example, the Puerto Rican sportsman
Ángel Román was a practitioner of an American sport called "American taekwondo" or a practitioner of the American sport called "American football" then, certainly, he should be under
Category:American taekwondo practitioners or, similarly, under
Category:American football practitioners (e.g.,
Category:American football wide receivers, because in those two contexts "American" refers to the variety of a sport and not to whether they are Americans or Puerto Ricans.
Mercy11 (
talk)
23:17, 22 January 2024 (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:Plays about the military
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: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here. I tried to find a few more, but I clearly am not looking in the right places.
Mason (
talk)
20:00, 20 January 2024 (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:Centers for the study of antisemitism
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:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland by decade
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:Abkhaz 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.
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:1st century in Southeast Asia
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: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation (there isn't even a 3rd century BC in Asia category)
Mason (
talk)
16:37, 20 January 2024 (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:16th-century Chinese novelists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Times of Malta
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:Purported ancient yoga 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.
Keep: It's not subjective, as the Yoga Korunta is reliably documented as fraudulent.[1] Indeed, it wasn't even a forgery, as Krishnamacharya never produced any document, just talked about its (constantly-changing) contents and made up excuses ("eaten by ants") for its non-appearance. All the members of
Category:Works about yoga, in contrast, certainly existed, and are relied upon by scholars and historians.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Because we have a reliably-cited article about a major and very public fraudulent claim by one of the founders, arguably the founder, of
yoga as exercise; and as it happens, nobody has to date written a Wikipedia article about any other fraudulent "ancient yoga text". I'm sure lovers of tidiness would prefer richly-populated categories; but it does happen that significant things in the world sometimes come in small numbers. If Wikipedia had been around in 1776, there would only have been one member of Presidents of the United States, for instance, but the category would have been unmistakably valid for all that. All the best,
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, it seems like you don't understand the purpose of categories. They are there to help navigation. Are there other cases of Purported ancient yoga texts. Although it is not relevant to this argument, just like your example, there would not have been a category in 1776 for presidents of the united states. The first president wasn't elected until 1789.
Mason (
talk)
16:22, 20 January 2024 (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:Plays about gambling
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.
Oppose. Musicals are a type of play. This is an appropriate category to maintain for the category tree. Further, there are many plays about gambling. The answer is to populate the cat which I have started.
4meter4 (
talk)
16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Update. There are now nine articles in the cat. There are probably more out there with articles already, but I think this demonstrates this is a category with potential for expansion and the concerns raised by
Smasongarrison have been addressed.
Marcocapelle please consider changing your vote in light of these changes. Best.
4meter4 (
talk)
17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle At the time I was trying to expand subcats for
Category:Musicals by topic category tree. Musicals are a specific type of play, and any musical sorted by topic is a sub-cat of a play by that same topic. It was essentially a necessity to maintain the category tree. I assumed that others would eventually get around to sorting plays into the topic cats. I generally edit in areas related to musical theatre and opera. Best.
4meter4 (
talk)
19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Americas
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.
Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. As arbitrary as is the conventional division of the world in 7 continents, multiple conflicting overlapping schemes are worse. These categories are not helpful. Note that, for a select few topics, it is pertinent to look at the Americas as a whole, especially sports federations and international organizations that are organized along this scope. For all other topics, this is a conflicting overlap.
Place Clichy (
talk)
22:04, 21 January 2024 (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:Discrimination in Trinidad and Tobago
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:Marriage in early Germanic culture
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:Children by culture
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:Economies by culture
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: Based on the content of the articles/categories. This isn't about culture, but are ancient countries
Mason (
talk)
04:26, 20 January 2024 (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:Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands to 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.
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:Adolescence in the Americas
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.
Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:29, 20 January 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as I'm not sure that we should be distinguishing at the intersection of gender, nationality and type of crime. This does not seem in the keeping of
WP:EGRS. If kept, this category should be non-diffusing
Mason (
talk)
22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose as creatorNeutral. My rationale for making the categories in the first place (as with all of the other "Foo women executed for witchcraft") is that European witch trials historically have had important gendered implications (see
Witch trials in the early modern period & how it discusses gender), and that, from my perspective, the creation of a few new subcategories by gender could be helpful for readers.
WP:EGRS/G does state that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." In my opinion, these categories fall in line with EGRS/G due to the historical context of the early modern witch trials and are useful for navigation. However, if consensus emerges in favor of deletion, I'll adjust my understanding of the guideline. Addendum: After thinking about it for a little bit, & re-reading the guidelines, I can certainly understand the nom's rationale. I think, personally, they are useful categories (with perhaps the exception of "Women executed in the SWT", I'm now not convinced that's really necessary), especially as subcategories of Cat:Foo executed women. However, I'm not very experienced in this area of categorization discourse; I'll defer to the regulars here, & I'm taking this as a learning experience regardless of outcome. Thanks for bearing with my EGRS newbie mistakes & late-night WP:BOLD editing sprees. sawyer * he/they *
talk23:00, 12 January 2024 (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.