The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. (the only category is already in American artisans)
Mason (
talk) 23:50, 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:BBC Television Service original programming
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 but with Marcocapelle's merge suggestion --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:00, 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:Archery in Asia by region
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 isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 23:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm proposing merge, not deletion.
Mason (
talk) 23:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, it is the subcategory that may be deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:05, 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:Top Gear
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:Samastha
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.
Comment, it is unclear to me what the subcategories are about, perhaps the entire tree should be deleted per
WP:NONDEF.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems to be OK, category for a Sunni Musli organization in Kerala. Merge and redirect. –
FayenaticLondon 14:18, 27 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:Mythological nurses
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:rename and re-parent per actual content of the category. This is follow-up on
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 23:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. The antique use of "nurses" to mean nursemaids is now misleading, and even though it does appear in some sources it's not necessary for us to use it.
NebY (
talk) 20:24, 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.
History of provinces by period
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.
Since I created both you can speedy it (or just do it). I'm pretty sure I created these based on exiting ones but I don't remember now.
Gonnym (
talk) 20:56, 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:Cultural depictions of Louis XV's mistresses
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.
Dual merge as above.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:46, 25 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 result of the discussion was:merge with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated.
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Each category is too small (n<4) to diffuse by century and nationality
Mason (
talk) 20:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now without objection to recreate these categories when they can become much better populated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:39, 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.
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: Useless intermediate layer. The only content is
Category:Early Germanic peoples. Note that Germanic categories have been refined to apply to the Germanic peoples of the past, instead of e.g. a container of present-day nation-states speaking a Germanic language such as English.
Place Clichy (
talk) 19:50, 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:Early Recording Engineers (1930-1959)
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: Listfy and merge. This category isn't very helpful without a lot of context. If kept, it should either be renamed to "Recording engineer pioneers" or something to that effect.
Mason (
talk) 19:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, I agree it makes more sense within
Category:Audio engineers. I’m the one who started the list out of my own need for it while doing research, and there is a lot of room to expand it (especially to international).
Actaudio (
talk) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you should create a page/list about it, so the information isn't lost.
Mason (
talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles are now in American/English audio engineers, and in Women audio engineers where applicable. –
FayenaticLondon 17:18, 27 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:Regions of Eurasia
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:Social groups of Afghanistan
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: Per actual content, and
Category:Tribes by location. In
a previous discussion it was argued that
social groups e.g. kulaks in the former Soviet Union are distinct from
Ethnic groups, however it seems that the Afghan category is exclusively populated with groups sharing ethnic characteristics rather than occupational, wealth or other purely social ones. As they are in general subgroups of larger ethnic groups such as the Pashtuns, the word tribe is probably best to describe them, and is in fact used to introduce most or all articles. @
Marcocapelle,
Mzajac, and
Omnis Scientia: pinging participants
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:33, 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.
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. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 17:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. And @
AHI-3000 this is not a vote, saying you oppose is extremely unproductive and you know it.
Mason (
talk) 19:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't owe anyone an explanation. And if it's not a vote, then this whole process wouldn't be determined by arbitrary majority opinions of whoever decides to actually participate in these discussions.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. Letting your opposition be known without explaining what your oppositon is, does not help form a
consensus.
Mason (
talk) 23:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Fine then. I oppose because I disagree with the allegation that this nominated category is a
WP:NARROWCAT. I will not elaborate any further.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Then I will not consider your !vote valid. Saying you disagree eisn't enough, you have to say why.
Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Useless overlap.
Place Clichy (
talk) 19:52, 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:United Airlines Flight 93 victims
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: Largely redundant, no need to separate the hijackers into their own category. If that is done, then it would make more sense to do it the other way, with
Category:United Airlines Flight 93 hijackers, rather than having one category for "deaths" and another for "victims" excluding them.
* Pppery *it has begun... 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 17:23, 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:Shiina clan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated.
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this clan. Delete for now, as it's unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 16:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, without objection to recreate the categories when more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:52, 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:Pansexual people by occupation
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:Intersex audio 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: At present there isn't a the broader LGBT parent category, I think we should rename and reparent it.
Mason (
talk) 16:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The lone article (Anton Krzyzanowski) is primarily known for being an activist for intersex recognition, also being a sound designer is unrelated (and incidentally nothing is actually told about this career if the article).
Category:Russian audio engineers is more than sufficient to convey the notion.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:39, 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:American bisexual musicians
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: Per
Wikipedia:EGRS/I: this intersection of occupation and orientation should be deleted as joining disparate elements. Perhaps if there were a field of
American Bisexual Music, or if the musical culture made specifically by members was a topic of study, but that does not seem to be so. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 15:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So what? This still violates EGRS/I. Even were a tree warranted, it does not mean endless branches.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 16:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedurally, you'd need to nominate the entire tree, otherwise this would be just a waste of time. Furthermore, this category needs to be merged to American bisexual people and American LGBT musicians and bisexual musicians. Otherwise, this would look to be bisexual erasure.
Mason (
talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no such procedure, and of course your comment reveals how bankrupt of any guideline support or logic your !vote has, not having a Wikipedia category that does not accord with EGRS/I erases nothing, whatsoever. This is not the place to for you to take a poorly thought out stand, see (
WP:RGW). --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Excuse me! That is so extremely uncivil writing. How is deleting a category instead of merging, not erasure?
Mason (
talk) 23:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The only thing that goes is the category nothing else, no information is erased whatsoever from anywhere. There is nothing uncivil in my comment just pointing out your untethered to guideline reasoning, and your false and tendentious erasure claim.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 00:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Mild support. I don't think that the subject of any article in the category is commonly and consistently defined by reliable sources as the famous American bisexual musician. In this regard, most articles probably deserve to be purged from the category per
WP:EGRS/I. That said, the specific trade of a musician (or more widely, that of entertainer) leads in some cases an artist to considerably convey LGBT themes in their art, and be especially recognized as carrying that message towards the public. That's pretty different from just saying "yes, I am bisexual" in an interview.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This should probably be, 'people in LGBTQ entertainment', if that's defining their art or act, but as you say, none in this cat, defined in sources as "American bisexual musician" even if they may be American, they may be a musician, and they may be bisexual, the things are disparate. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, while this may well concern a trivial intersection, the category should be deleted together with its siblings or not at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So, you're saying that where there is a category that violates EGRS/I it somehow must be kept because there may be another category that violates it. That can't be right. Conversely, even if you assume that one of the "sisters" could work out fine because there is a whole literature on that other group, that would still not make this category work for this group under the guideline.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
What Marco (and I ) are saying is that you need to nominate the entire tree, not just a single nationality. We diffuse by nationality to make the category manageable.
Mason (
talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Not in the least, nothing about this category needs to be done by country to make it "manageable", certainly not in violation of EGRS/I - that means it is most definitely not being managed properly. And even from any process standpoint it's silly to insist, 'no we can't discuss a category individually.' This category makes no sense per policy, if we can get through this one substantively, and surely we should since it makes no sense, we can move on more readily.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 01:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
One discussion about all will lead to one consistent outcome of the discussion for all. When they are all nominated separately, then different discussions may well lead to different outcomes due to different editors participating in the discussions (with various country interests). The discussion should be as centralized as possible.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If someone is going to bring forth the evidence that another country's category satisfies the EGRS/I, than that's fine for that category (not every country is the same, nor assumed to be the same, and that's not inconsistent, that's different evidence). (And if in the future this American category has evidence yet created in the real world, this category can re-exist properly). But that does not and will not mean this category satisfies EGRS/I now because there is no evidence. If someone is !voting based on their "country interest" and not on EGRS/I evidence than the !vote is invalid. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 11:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The problem here is that
Category:Bisexual musicians became too large and needed diffusion — so by-country is a perfectly appropriate and acceptable way to subdivide it regardless of whether "country-bisexual" is a "defining" intersection in its own right, because of the overarching need to manage the size of the nationally-undifferentiated parent.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Your ivote is entirely nonresponsive to EGRS/I objection and thus unsupported. You offer no evidence in support of this category. It also makes no sense, Nation-Music may be defining given different cultures of music; but in the context of this category, none of it together is defining as a group and not in any combined part since EGRS/I is about unsupported combination, and this combination in its parts is unsupported by any evidence. -
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I stand by my procedural oppose, but honestly "too large" is not a good argument, because even if the distinction between L, G, B and T musicians would no longer be made and it would all become just LGBT, then the tree is still diffused by singers, songwriters and composers by nationality. The question is really whether
Category:American bisexual musicians should be selectively merged to
Category:American LGBT musicians insofar the articles aren't already in
Category:American LGBT singers and siblings.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think sexuality in combination with music is defining (see the discussion of bisexaulity throughout
LGBT music), so
Category:Bisexual musicians passes
WP:EGRS/I ("there is a specific cultural context for the grouping"). Once that bar is passed (i.e., once the combination of an occupation with an EGRS category is made), I don't see an issue with subdividing on nationality. If there is a valid cultural context, that cultural context will almost always be further divisible by nation, just by the nature of a cultural context. Given that
Category:Bisexual musicians is not proposed for deletion, why is the proposal for this category to delete rather than merge?--
Trystan (
talk) 21:23, 27 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:School buildings in U.S. 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.
Support There should be a broader discussion as to why universities are not considered schools (and thus why university buildings are not considered school buildings) but there's no reason to hold these three states mergers up over that much wider issue. The current categories do not aid navigation at all and I can't think of any potential article that would be notable for the physical building (other than NRHP or on a campus). -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 14:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
In the category description on
Category:Schools, it states: This category is about educational institutions from pre-schools through secondary schools. Whether this is the best approach is up to debate, but that discussion should occur in a different venue. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 16:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, there's only one sub-category of
Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon, etc. Are we going to move every school into the school buildings category. I don't understand any aspect of your argument for keeping. Reparenting the categories doesn't change the fact that it's a redundant layer. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 23:59, 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:Mythic Sound Records
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: Unnecessary parent for 5 albums which are in an albums category for the label. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:17, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: No need to isolate these three pages, upmerge for now.
Mason (
talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now without objection to recreate the category when there is a complete set of articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support; no further merging is needed, as the contents are already categorised by continent. –
FayenaticLondon 14:17, 23 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:Transport history by continent
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:German printmakers by century
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.
Mason (
talk) 00:44, 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:Rudolph Schwarz
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.
Yes, you are right, similar categories use "by" instead of "of".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:25, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. (the only category is already in American artisans)
Mason (
talk) 23:50, 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:BBC Television Service original programming
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 but with Marcocapelle's merge suggestion --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:00, 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:Archery in Asia by region
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 isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 23:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm proposing merge, not deletion.
Mason (
talk) 23:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, it is the subcategory that may be deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:05, 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:Top Gear
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:Samastha
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.
Comment, it is unclear to me what the subcategories are about, perhaps the entire tree should be deleted per
WP:NONDEF.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems to be OK, category for a Sunni Musli organization in Kerala. Merge and redirect. –
FayenaticLondon 14:18, 27 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:Mythological nurses
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:rename and re-parent per actual content of the category. This is follow-up on
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 23:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. The antique use of "nurses" to mean nursemaids is now misleading, and even though it does appear in some sources it's not necessary for us to use it.
NebY (
talk) 20:24, 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.
History of provinces by period
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.
Since I created both you can speedy it (or just do it). I'm pretty sure I created these based on exiting ones but I don't remember now.
Gonnym (
talk) 20:56, 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:Cultural depictions of Louis XV's mistresses
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.
Dual merge as above.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:46, 25 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 result of the discussion was:merge with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated.
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Each category is too small (n<4) to diffuse by century and nationality
Mason (
talk) 20:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now without objection to recreate these categories when they can become much better populated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:39, 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.
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: Useless intermediate layer. The only content is
Category:Early Germanic peoples. Note that Germanic categories have been refined to apply to the Germanic peoples of the past, instead of e.g. a container of present-day nation-states speaking a Germanic language such as English.
Place Clichy (
talk) 19:50, 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:Early Recording Engineers (1930-1959)
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: Listfy and merge. This category isn't very helpful without a lot of context. If kept, it should either be renamed to "Recording engineer pioneers" or something to that effect.
Mason (
talk) 19:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, I agree it makes more sense within
Category:Audio engineers. I’m the one who started the list out of my own need for it while doing research, and there is a lot of room to expand it (especially to international).
Actaudio (
talk) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you should create a page/list about it, so the information isn't lost.
Mason (
talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles are now in American/English audio engineers, and in Women audio engineers where applicable. –
FayenaticLondon 17:18, 27 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:Regions of Eurasia
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:Social groups of Afghanistan
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: Per actual content, and
Category:Tribes by location. In
a previous discussion it was argued that
social groups e.g. kulaks in the former Soviet Union are distinct from
Ethnic groups, however it seems that the Afghan category is exclusively populated with groups sharing ethnic characteristics rather than occupational, wealth or other purely social ones. As they are in general subgroups of larger ethnic groups such as the Pashtuns, the word tribe is probably best to describe them, and is in fact used to introduce most or all articles. @
Marcocapelle,
Mzajac, and
Omnis Scientia: pinging participants
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:33, 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.
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. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 17:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. And @
AHI-3000 this is not a vote, saying you oppose is extremely unproductive and you know it.
Mason (
talk) 19:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't owe anyone an explanation. And if it's not a vote, then this whole process wouldn't be determined by arbitrary majority opinions of whoever decides to actually participate in these discussions.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. Letting your opposition be known without explaining what your oppositon is, does not help form a
consensus.
Mason (
talk) 23:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Fine then. I oppose because I disagree with the allegation that this nominated category is a
WP:NARROWCAT. I will not elaborate any further.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Then I will not consider your !vote valid. Saying you disagree eisn't enough, you have to say why.
Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Useless overlap.
Place Clichy (
talk) 19:52, 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:United Airlines Flight 93 victims
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: Largely redundant, no need to separate the hijackers into their own category. If that is done, then it would make more sense to do it the other way, with
Category:United Airlines Flight 93 hijackers, rather than having one category for "deaths" and another for "victims" excluding them.
* Pppery *it has begun... 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 17:23, 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:Shiina clan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated.
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this clan. Delete for now, as it's unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 16:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, without objection to recreate the categories when more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:52, 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:Pansexual people by occupation
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:Intersex audio 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: At present there isn't a the broader LGBT parent category, I think we should rename and reparent it.
Mason (
talk) 16:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The lone article (Anton Krzyzanowski) is primarily known for being an activist for intersex recognition, also being a sound designer is unrelated (and incidentally nothing is actually told about this career if the article).
Category:Russian audio engineers is more than sufficient to convey the notion.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:39, 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:American bisexual musicians
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: Per
Wikipedia:EGRS/I: this intersection of occupation and orientation should be deleted as joining disparate elements. Perhaps if there were a field of
American Bisexual Music, or if the musical culture made specifically by members was a topic of study, but that does not seem to be so. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 15:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So what? This still violates EGRS/I. Even were a tree warranted, it does not mean endless branches.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 16:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedurally, you'd need to nominate the entire tree, otherwise this would be just a waste of time. Furthermore, this category needs to be merged to American bisexual people and American LGBT musicians and bisexual musicians. Otherwise, this would look to be bisexual erasure.
Mason (
talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no such procedure, and of course your comment reveals how bankrupt of any guideline support or logic your !vote has, not having a Wikipedia category that does not accord with EGRS/I erases nothing, whatsoever. This is not the place to for you to take a poorly thought out stand, see (
WP:RGW). --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Excuse me! That is so extremely uncivil writing. How is deleting a category instead of merging, not erasure?
Mason (
talk) 23:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The only thing that goes is the category nothing else, no information is erased whatsoever from anywhere. There is nothing uncivil in my comment just pointing out your untethered to guideline reasoning, and your false and tendentious erasure claim.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 00:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Mild support. I don't think that the subject of any article in the category is commonly and consistently defined by reliable sources as the famous American bisexual musician. In this regard, most articles probably deserve to be purged from the category per
WP:EGRS/I. That said, the specific trade of a musician (or more widely, that of entertainer) leads in some cases an artist to considerably convey LGBT themes in their art, and be especially recognized as carrying that message towards the public. That's pretty different from just saying "yes, I am bisexual" in an interview.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This should probably be, 'people in LGBTQ entertainment', if that's defining their art or act, but as you say, none in this cat, defined in sources as "American bisexual musician" even if they may be American, they may be a musician, and they may be bisexual, the things are disparate. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, while this may well concern a trivial intersection, the category should be deleted together with its siblings or not at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So, you're saying that where there is a category that violates EGRS/I it somehow must be kept because there may be another category that violates it. That can't be right. Conversely, even if you assume that one of the "sisters" could work out fine because there is a whole literature on that other group, that would still not make this category work for this group under the guideline.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
What Marco (and I ) are saying is that you need to nominate the entire tree, not just a single nationality. We diffuse by nationality to make the category manageable.
Mason (
talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Not in the least, nothing about this category needs to be done by country to make it "manageable", certainly not in violation of EGRS/I - that means it is most definitely not being managed properly. And even from any process standpoint it's silly to insist, 'no we can't discuss a category individually.' This category makes no sense per policy, if we can get through this one substantively, and surely we should since it makes no sense, we can move on more readily.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 01:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
One discussion about all will lead to one consistent outcome of the discussion for all. When they are all nominated separately, then different discussions may well lead to different outcomes due to different editors participating in the discussions (with various country interests). The discussion should be as centralized as possible.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If someone is going to bring forth the evidence that another country's category satisfies the EGRS/I, than that's fine for that category (not every country is the same, nor assumed to be the same, and that's not inconsistent, that's different evidence). (And if in the future this American category has evidence yet created in the real world, this category can re-exist properly). But that does not and will not mean this category satisfies EGRS/I now because there is no evidence. If someone is !voting based on their "country interest" and not on EGRS/I evidence than the !vote is invalid. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 11:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The problem here is that
Category:Bisexual musicians became too large and needed diffusion — so by-country is a perfectly appropriate and acceptable way to subdivide it regardless of whether "country-bisexual" is a "defining" intersection in its own right, because of the overarching need to manage the size of the nationally-undifferentiated parent.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Your ivote is entirely nonresponsive to EGRS/I objection and thus unsupported. You offer no evidence in support of this category. It also makes no sense, Nation-Music may be defining given different cultures of music; but in the context of this category, none of it together is defining as a group and not in any combined part since EGRS/I is about unsupported combination, and this combination in its parts is unsupported by any evidence. -
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I stand by my procedural oppose, but honestly "too large" is not a good argument, because even if the distinction between L, G, B and T musicians would no longer be made and it would all become just LGBT, then the tree is still diffused by singers, songwriters and composers by nationality. The question is really whether
Category:American bisexual musicians should be selectively merged to
Category:American LGBT musicians insofar the articles aren't already in
Category:American LGBT singers and siblings.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think sexuality in combination with music is defining (see the discussion of bisexaulity throughout
LGBT music), so
Category:Bisexual musicians passes
WP:EGRS/I ("there is a specific cultural context for the grouping"). Once that bar is passed (i.e., once the combination of an occupation with an EGRS category is made), I don't see an issue with subdividing on nationality. If there is a valid cultural context, that cultural context will almost always be further divisible by nation, just by the nature of a cultural context. Given that
Category:Bisexual musicians is not proposed for deletion, why is the proposal for this category to delete rather than merge?--
Trystan (
talk) 21:23, 27 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:School buildings in U.S. 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.
Support There should be a broader discussion as to why universities are not considered schools (and thus why university buildings are not considered school buildings) but there's no reason to hold these three states mergers up over that much wider issue. The current categories do not aid navigation at all and I can't think of any potential article that would be notable for the physical building (other than NRHP or on a campus). -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 14:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
In the category description on
Category:Schools, it states: This category is about educational institutions from pre-schools through secondary schools. Whether this is the best approach is up to debate, but that discussion should occur in a different venue. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 16:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, there's only one sub-category of
Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon, etc. Are we going to move every school into the school buildings category. I don't understand any aspect of your argument for keeping. Reparenting the categories doesn't change the fact that it's a redundant layer. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 23:59, 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:Mythic Sound Records
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: Unnecessary parent for 5 albums which are in an albums category for the label. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:17, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: No need to isolate these three pages, upmerge for now.
Mason (
talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now without objection to recreate the category when there is a complete set of articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support; no further merging is needed, as the contents are already categorised by continent. –
FayenaticLondon 14:17, 23 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:Transport history by continent
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:German printmakers by century
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.
Mason (
talk) 00:44, 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:Rudolph Schwarz
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.
Yes, you are right, similar categories use "by" instead of "of".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:25, 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.