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: Unlike the other category I nominated for deletion (Video games using procedural generation) this category sincerely deserves to go. Firstly, it's not much defining trait for all video games as a whole (more defining for shooters and some adventure games). Secondly, it does not include every single title that is first-person (such as Subnatica or Baldi's Basics isn't there). In conclusion, this category just doesn't work and more importantly does not list every single First-Person Game.
QuantumFoam66 (
talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose If it doesn't include every single first-person video game, that means you should Populate the category, not Delete it. It has a main article, it has subcategories, and all of these appear to be
WP:DEFINING. Go ahead and put Subnatica and Baldi's Basics in the category, that seems a good idea. Good day.
NLeeuw (
talk) 04:54, 27 May 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:People from Imperial China by religion
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.
Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom.NLeeuw (
talk) 20:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I have reopened this per
a request from
Marcocapelle (I had originally closed as merge). I will let him elaborate on his reasoning. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good work by them! Reversing my vote to keep.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Changing my vote to Keep. Compliments to Yinweiaiqing. I do Recommend a follow-up for upmerging some of the lowest-level roots of this tree. There are dozens of underpopulated categories (1 to 4 items each).
I'm change my vote to soft keep, however, I am skeptical that @
Yinweiaiqing will further populate the categories. I've made repeated requests for them to do so for other categories on their talk page. Please,
Yinweiaiqing do go back through your created categories because you have made A LOT of categories that are still underpopulated.
Mason (
talk) 20:04, 31 May 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:Companies based in Williston
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: Single-entry microcategory for a small town. Categories like this do not automatically need to exist for every place that has one company based there, and should wait until there are five or six companies to file in it. For added bonus, the article filed here was left duplicate-filed in both the
Category:Companies based in North Dakota and
Category:Williston, North Dakota parents alongside this, so no upmerging is even needed because it's already in both of the potential upmerge targets.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:51, 22 May 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:Manufacturing companies based in West Fargo, North Dakota
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category for a
non-defining characteristic. We certainly have some categories for the cause of people's deaths, but we do not have any scheme of categorizing people for tangential circumstances around their deaths, such as what otherwise unrelated thing they happened to be doing at the time. So if driving a car wasn't the cause of their death (e.g. in a car accident), then the relationship between death and driving is not a category-worthy characteristic. It's also not at all applicable to one of the two people filed here —
Grace Kellysurvived both the initial brain hemorrhage and her car going over a cliff, and died only the next day of a second cerebral hemorrhage that she suffered in the hospital after having been diagnosed with a good chance of surviving the first one. So she clearly didn't die while driving, and the category wouldn't belong on her even if it were defining for anybody else. (To be fair, I will grant that most people probably "remember" her death as being caused by the car accident itself, rather than all the nuances, but "correcting popular misconceptions" is not what categories are for.)
Bearcat (
talk) 17:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong delete per nom. Well-argued, I completely agree with the rationale here. We could create all sorts of interesting categories like Natural death while watching television, Natural death while reading the newspaper in the dentist's waiting room or Natural death while walking the dog around the block, but this is all
WP:NONDEFINING.
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Agree with Nwleeuw that Bearcat makes a really good case.
Mason (
talk) 23:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above.
Gjs238 (
talk) 00:33, 27 May 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:South Park episodes featuring video game consoles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category for a
non-defining characteristic. We do not have any scheme of "[Series] episodes featuring [minor plot point]" categories for this to be a part of, and the episodes are not defined by having video game consoles in them as plot points.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom
Mason (
talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is a non-defining characteristic.
Let'srun (
talk) 03:05, 26 May 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:Chicago and North Western Railroad municipalities
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: Single-entry category for a
non-defining characteristic. Wikipedia does not have any established scheme of categorizing populated places for the railway lines that happen to pass through them, and one small village of just 1,500 people does not need special treatment over and above all the other towns and cities in the world that are located on railway lines but not categorized for that.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:41, 22 May 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:Macedonian 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.
Oppose The 2018
Prespa Agreement stipulated
in Article 1. Section 3.b: The nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as it will be registered in all travel documents. This is one of the compromises with binding legal effect: the country is called North Macedonia, but its nationals are called Macedonians. Therefore, we should not divergence from the Fooian people naming scheme for categories in the
Category:People by nationality tree.
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:32, 22 May 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:UK MPs 2019–present
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: A general election has just been announced and Parliament will be dissolved by the end of the week. --
Ferien (
talk) 16:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, it's a bit misleading to call the category "MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election" when 23 of the MPs were elected in by-elections instead. 2019–2024 describes the Parliament the MPs are sitting in and for this reason, I'm not entirely sure the title of that article is ideal for covering by-elections, although that is a discussion for another forum. Part of me wants to say sort by Parliament and call this one UK MPs of 58th Parliament or something similar, but would that be familiar enough for readers?.. I'm not sure. --
Ferien (
talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Stick with the original proposal (2019-2024). It's not perfect but it's the best option (and would be consistent with other similar categories).
OGBC1992 (
talk) 14:56, 28 May 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.
Canadian families by ancestry
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.
Russian families by ancestry
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:Turkmenistan-women-footy-bio-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: Unnecessary stub template. Wikipedia does not have any standard practice of segregating male and female footballers with separate stub templates or categories -- stub is a temporary maintenance state of the article, not a core characteristic of the subject, so the stub category system does not always need to be as precisely trait-sorted as main permanent content categories are. (See e.g. actors and actresses, who are gender-sorted in main content categories but share one common stub category rather than being gender-sorted in that tree.) So we just tag women and men with the same "Country-footy-bio-stub" tag, and I can't find any other country where male and female footballers have separate stub tags or categories from each other. Yet this was newly created within the past week, for just one person whose article wasn't even a stub in the first place and thus wouldn't even have needed the already-existing {{Turkmenistan-footy-bio-stub}} anyway, and tried to file her in a redlinked stub category that doesn't exist to have people filed in it but could not have been created for less than 60 people either — so the only alternative would have been to replace it with the same category that the other template is already using, thus vitiating any reason why two separate templates would have been needed even if the article had been a stub.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:28, 22 May 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:European families of Irish ancestry
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Matching actual content, subcategories contain only families of Asian ancestry, but not exclusively from Asian countries.
Aldij (
talk) 09:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename, per actual content, as reflected in the names of the subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:15, 22 May 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:European families by ancestry
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: Matching actual content, subcategories contain only families of European ancestry, but not exclusively from European countries.
Aldij (
talk) 09:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename, per actual content, as reflected in the names of the subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:16, 22 May 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:Canne de combat competitions
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 two pages in the full Canne de combat tree, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds good to me, thanks!
Mason (
talk) 11:52, 22 May 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.
Lenape
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:French mixed martial artists of Black African descent
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: Dual upmerge. There's no other althetic category like this in Black French sportspeople. I don't think that this category passes EGRS. If kept, this category needs to be renamed to either Black French mixed martial artists or French mixed martial artists of African descent, to be consistent with other descent categories.
Mason (
talk) 02:51, 22 May 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.
Involving former countries or by former country involved
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.
Option A rationale: This has my strong preference, as it is shorter and unambiguous. E.g. "Sieges by former country involved" might suggest it means a country that was formerly involved in a siege. Imagine how Fooian and Barian soldiers were besieging city X, but then the Barian army decided to give up and go home, while the Fooians maintained the siege. An editor might think: "Ah, that's a siege formerly involving Bar!", even if Bar is a country that still exists today rather than a former country. That's the kind of confusion we should prevent. A disadvantage is that we'll get a slightly odd tree where "involving former countries" will become children of "by country involved", as is already the case with
Category:Wars involving former countries). And it might be silly to rename the parents to something like
Category:Wars involving countries, as the vast majority of wars involves countries rather than non-state actors (rebel groups, mercenaries etc.). But that slight inconsistency doesn't weigh up to the clarity and brevity of "former countries". We can decide that this is an important naming convention to be followed (thus falling under
WP:C2B in future cases).
Option B rationale: This is the alternative, sticking to the "by country involved" formula that is currently being adopted for cats involving countries that still exist today. (I actually initiated that process myself some days ago before realising it might pose problems for former countries). The main advantage is consistency through the entire tree, something that can fall under
WP:C2C in future cases. However, the disadvantages outlined above about it being longer and especially being ambiguous about "countries formerly involved" lead me to conclude this option should not be our preference. I can pretty much guarantee that with ongoing wars, editors are going to miscategorise countries that still exist today as having pulled out of the ongoing war as a "former country involved" (a good reason why that category in particular is already named "wars involving former countries" instead, preventing exactly this kind of confusion from happening, even if the creator might not have had that conscious intention when picking a catname). But I'm putting it up for consideration by the community, because it is a serious alternative.
PS: I haven't tagged any categories yet. I prefer to have this preliminary discussion first before tagging the relevant categories with a proposed new name, otherwise I would have to be tagging all of them both ways, and that's not very helpful for everyone's understanding. When this discussion has a clear result for A or B, I'll tag the relevant categories accordingly and ping all participants for a follow-up to confirm.
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I will happily support a proposal that improves consistency in the tree but I do not have a preference between A and B.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment To rename
Category:Wars by country involved to
Category:Wars involving countries might not be such a 'silly' idea on closer inspection. Parent
Category:Wars by belligerent party and especially grandparent
Category:Military operations by belligerent party suggest plenty of non-state actors or supranational actors such as the UN, African Union, EU or interstate military alliances (Warsaw Pact, NATO) as belligerent parties. To assume that countries or "nation-states" are the default type of belligerent party is perhaps a modern bias. There have been plenty of wars without "countries" as belligerent parties. Adopting "involving countries" instead of "by country involved" throughout the entire tree, including for countries that still exist today, would solve both the inconsistencies and the ambiguities. What do you think, @
Marcocapelle?
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In principle that is a very fair point (I also remember
Sikh warriors collectively existing long before there was a
Sikh nation state) but I am not sure how that relates to the choice between A and B.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I recently had a good discussion with Mellk about how to categorise battles in the Russian Civil War by belligerent, especially the so-called
White movement or
White Army, which is a catch-all term for a wide variety of disparate groups formations and units. We agreed that they often weren't de jure or de facto connected to any "state" (just a few unrecognised proto-states such as
South Russia (1919–1920) and the
Russian State (1918-1920)). Categories like
Category:Battles involving the Volunteer Army and
Category:Battles involving the Armed Forces of South Russia probably do not belong in the battles by (former) country / battles involving (former) countries tree, like
Category:Battles involving Russia. They were belligerent parties, but not as "countries". By letting the "by country involved" formula go as the default standard, we can also better organise such categories in trees for non-state belligerent parties.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright, I've
WP:BOLDly created
Category:Battles involving peoples as an example. We could do the same with countries, and with wars, throughout the entire tree. It's basically Option A, but both downwards and upwards instead of only downwards (namely, only for countries that no longer exist).
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Do you understand what I'm saying? And do you agree with it?
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Alright, then I know how to formulate the follow-up discussion, and am ready to close this one.
NLeeuw (
talk) 08:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Withdraw as nom. The preliminary discussion was helpful for figuring out the most reasonable and workable solution to the identified issues. I can now formulate a follow-up discussion that will tag the relevant categories accordingly.
NLeeuw (
talk) 08:16, 25 May 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:Sexual-related controversies in film
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.
Seems fine, as long as it is clear that sex as activity rather than biological sex is meant? Alternately, "sexuality-related" might also cut it.
NLeeuw (
talk) 05:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NLeeuw has a good point, sex is ambiguous so sexuality will do a better job.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:34, 26 May 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:Sex scandals in French cinema
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. I initially read this as "Sex scandals in French cinemas." But that's a very different scope. I'm kind of disappointed now...
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:36, 22 May 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: Unlike the other category I nominated for deletion (Video games using procedural generation) this category sincerely deserves to go. Firstly, it's not much defining trait for all video games as a whole (more defining for shooters and some adventure games). Secondly, it does not include every single title that is first-person (such as Subnatica or Baldi's Basics isn't there). In conclusion, this category just doesn't work and more importantly does not list every single First-Person Game.
QuantumFoam66 (
talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose If it doesn't include every single first-person video game, that means you should Populate the category, not Delete it. It has a main article, it has subcategories, and all of these appear to be
WP:DEFINING. Go ahead and put Subnatica and Baldi's Basics in the category, that seems a good idea. Good day.
NLeeuw (
talk) 04:54, 27 May 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:People from Imperial China by religion
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.
Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom.NLeeuw (
talk) 20:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I have reopened this per
a request from
Marcocapelle (I had originally closed as merge). I will let him elaborate on his reasoning. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good work by them! Reversing my vote to keep.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Changing my vote to Keep. Compliments to Yinweiaiqing. I do Recommend a follow-up for upmerging some of the lowest-level roots of this tree. There are dozens of underpopulated categories (1 to 4 items each).
I'm change my vote to soft keep, however, I am skeptical that @
Yinweiaiqing will further populate the categories. I've made repeated requests for them to do so for other categories on their talk page. Please,
Yinweiaiqing do go back through your created categories because you have made A LOT of categories that are still underpopulated.
Mason (
talk) 20:04, 31 May 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:Companies based in Williston
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: Single-entry microcategory for a small town. Categories like this do not automatically need to exist for every place that has one company based there, and should wait until there are five or six companies to file in it. For added bonus, the article filed here was left duplicate-filed in both the
Category:Companies based in North Dakota and
Category:Williston, North Dakota parents alongside this, so no upmerging is even needed because it's already in both of the potential upmerge targets.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:51, 22 May 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:Manufacturing companies based in West Fargo, North Dakota
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category for a
non-defining characteristic. We certainly have some categories for the cause of people's deaths, but we do not have any scheme of categorizing people for tangential circumstances around their deaths, such as what otherwise unrelated thing they happened to be doing at the time. So if driving a car wasn't the cause of their death (e.g. in a car accident), then the relationship between death and driving is not a category-worthy characteristic. It's also not at all applicable to one of the two people filed here —
Grace Kellysurvived both the initial brain hemorrhage and her car going over a cliff, and died only the next day of a second cerebral hemorrhage that she suffered in the hospital after having been diagnosed with a good chance of surviving the first one. So she clearly didn't die while driving, and the category wouldn't belong on her even if it were defining for anybody else. (To be fair, I will grant that most people probably "remember" her death as being caused by the car accident itself, rather than all the nuances, but "correcting popular misconceptions" is not what categories are for.)
Bearcat (
talk) 17:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong delete per nom. Well-argued, I completely agree with the rationale here. We could create all sorts of interesting categories like Natural death while watching television, Natural death while reading the newspaper in the dentist's waiting room or Natural death while walking the dog around the block, but this is all
WP:NONDEFINING.
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Agree with Nwleeuw that Bearcat makes a really good case.
Mason (
talk) 23:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above.
Gjs238 (
talk) 00:33, 27 May 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:South Park episodes featuring video game consoles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category for a
non-defining characteristic. We do not have any scheme of "[Series] episodes featuring [minor plot point]" categories for this to be a part of, and the episodes are not defined by having video game consoles in them as plot points.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom
Mason (
talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is a non-defining characteristic.
Let'srun (
talk) 03:05, 26 May 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:Chicago and North Western Railroad municipalities
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: Single-entry category for a
non-defining characteristic. Wikipedia does not have any established scheme of categorizing populated places for the railway lines that happen to pass through them, and one small village of just 1,500 people does not need special treatment over and above all the other towns and cities in the world that are located on railway lines but not categorized for that.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:41, 22 May 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:Macedonian 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.
Oppose The 2018
Prespa Agreement stipulated
in Article 1. Section 3.b: The nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as it will be registered in all travel documents. This is one of the compromises with binding legal effect: the country is called North Macedonia, but its nationals are called Macedonians. Therefore, we should not divergence from the Fooian people naming scheme for categories in the
Category:People by nationality tree.
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:32, 22 May 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:UK MPs 2019–present
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: A general election has just been announced and Parliament will be dissolved by the end of the week. --
Ferien (
talk) 16:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, it's a bit misleading to call the category "MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election" when 23 of the MPs were elected in by-elections instead. 2019–2024 describes the Parliament the MPs are sitting in and for this reason, I'm not entirely sure the title of that article is ideal for covering by-elections, although that is a discussion for another forum. Part of me wants to say sort by Parliament and call this one UK MPs of 58th Parliament or something similar, but would that be familiar enough for readers?.. I'm not sure. --
Ferien (
talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Stick with the original proposal (2019-2024). It's not perfect but it's the best option (and would be consistent with other similar categories).
OGBC1992 (
talk) 14:56, 28 May 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.
Canadian families by ancestry
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.
Russian families by ancestry
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:Turkmenistan-women-footy-bio-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: Unnecessary stub template. Wikipedia does not have any standard practice of segregating male and female footballers with separate stub templates or categories -- stub is a temporary maintenance state of the article, not a core characteristic of the subject, so the stub category system does not always need to be as precisely trait-sorted as main permanent content categories are. (See e.g. actors and actresses, who are gender-sorted in main content categories but share one common stub category rather than being gender-sorted in that tree.) So we just tag women and men with the same "Country-footy-bio-stub" tag, and I can't find any other country where male and female footballers have separate stub tags or categories from each other. Yet this was newly created within the past week, for just one person whose article wasn't even a stub in the first place and thus wouldn't even have needed the already-existing {{Turkmenistan-footy-bio-stub}} anyway, and tried to file her in a redlinked stub category that doesn't exist to have people filed in it but could not have been created for less than 60 people either — so the only alternative would have been to replace it with the same category that the other template is already using, thus vitiating any reason why two separate templates would have been needed even if the article had been a stub.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:28, 22 May 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:European families of Irish ancestry
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Matching actual content, subcategories contain only families of Asian ancestry, but not exclusively from Asian countries.
Aldij (
talk) 09:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename, per actual content, as reflected in the names of the subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:15, 22 May 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:European families by ancestry
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: Matching actual content, subcategories contain only families of European ancestry, but not exclusively from European countries.
Aldij (
talk) 09:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename, per actual content, as reflected in the names of the subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:16, 22 May 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:Canne de combat competitions
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 two pages in the full Canne de combat tree, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds good to me, thanks!
Mason (
talk) 11:52, 22 May 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.
Lenape
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:French mixed martial artists of Black African descent
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: Dual upmerge. There's no other althetic category like this in Black French sportspeople. I don't think that this category passes EGRS. If kept, this category needs to be renamed to either Black French mixed martial artists or French mixed martial artists of African descent, to be consistent with other descent categories.
Mason (
talk) 02:51, 22 May 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.
Involving former countries or by former country involved
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.
Option A rationale: This has my strong preference, as it is shorter and unambiguous. E.g. "Sieges by former country involved" might suggest it means a country that was formerly involved in a siege. Imagine how Fooian and Barian soldiers were besieging city X, but then the Barian army decided to give up and go home, while the Fooians maintained the siege. An editor might think: "Ah, that's a siege formerly involving Bar!", even if Bar is a country that still exists today rather than a former country. That's the kind of confusion we should prevent. A disadvantage is that we'll get a slightly odd tree where "involving former countries" will become children of "by country involved", as is already the case with
Category:Wars involving former countries). And it might be silly to rename the parents to something like
Category:Wars involving countries, as the vast majority of wars involves countries rather than non-state actors (rebel groups, mercenaries etc.). But that slight inconsistency doesn't weigh up to the clarity and brevity of "former countries". We can decide that this is an important naming convention to be followed (thus falling under
WP:C2B in future cases).
Option B rationale: This is the alternative, sticking to the "by country involved" formula that is currently being adopted for cats involving countries that still exist today. (I actually initiated that process myself some days ago before realising it might pose problems for former countries). The main advantage is consistency through the entire tree, something that can fall under
WP:C2C in future cases. However, the disadvantages outlined above about it being longer and especially being ambiguous about "countries formerly involved" lead me to conclude this option should not be our preference. I can pretty much guarantee that with ongoing wars, editors are going to miscategorise countries that still exist today as having pulled out of the ongoing war as a "former country involved" (a good reason why that category in particular is already named "wars involving former countries" instead, preventing exactly this kind of confusion from happening, even if the creator might not have had that conscious intention when picking a catname). But I'm putting it up for consideration by the community, because it is a serious alternative.
PS: I haven't tagged any categories yet. I prefer to have this preliminary discussion first before tagging the relevant categories with a proposed new name, otherwise I would have to be tagging all of them both ways, and that's not very helpful for everyone's understanding. When this discussion has a clear result for A or B, I'll tag the relevant categories accordingly and ping all participants for a follow-up to confirm.
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I will happily support a proposal that improves consistency in the tree but I do not have a preference between A and B.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment To rename
Category:Wars by country involved to
Category:Wars involving countries might not be such a 'silly' idea on closer inspection. Parent
Category:Wars by belligerent party and especially grandparent
Category:Military operations by belligerent party suggest plenty of non-state actors or supranational actors such as the UN, African Union, EU or interstate military alliances (Warsaw Pact, NATO) as belligerent parties. To assume that countries or "nation-states" are the default type of belligerent party is perhaps a modern bias. There have been plenty of wars without "countries" as belligerent parties. Adopting "involving countries" instead of "by country involved" throughout the entire tree, including for countries that still exist today, would solve both the inconsistencies and the ambiguities. What do you think, @
Marcocapelle?
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In principle that is a very fair point (I also remember
Sikh warriors collectively existing long before there was a
Sikh nation state) but I am not sure how that relates to the choice between A and B.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I recently had a good discussion with Mellk about how to categorise battles in the Russian Civil War by belligerent, especially the so-called
White movement or
White Army, which is a catch-all term for a wide variety of disparate groups formations and units. We agreed that they often weren't de jure or de facto connected to any "state" (just a few unrecognised proto-states such as
South Russia (1919–1920) and the
Russian State (1918-1920)). Categories like
Category:Battles involving the Volunteer Army and
Category:Battles involving the Armed Forces of South Russia probably do not belong in the battles by (former) country / battles involving (former) countries tree, like
Category:Battles involving Russia. They were belligerent parties, but not as "countries". By letting the "by country involved" formula go as the default standard, we can also better organise such categories in trees for non-state belligerent parties.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright, I've
WP:BOLDly created
Category:Battles involving peoples as an example. We could do the same with countries, and with wars, throughout the entire tree. It's basically Option A, but both downwards and upwards instead of only downwards (namely, only for countries that no longer exist).
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Do you understand what I'm saying? And do you agree with it?
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Alright, then I know how to formulate the follow-up discussion, and am ready to close this one.
NLeeuw (
talk) 08:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Withdraw as nom. The preliminary discussion was helpful for figuring out the most reasonable and workable solution to the identified issues. I can now formulate a follow-up discussion that will tag the relevant categories accordingly.
NLeeuw (
talk) 08:16, 25 May 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:Sexual-related controversies in film
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.
Seems fine, as long as it is clear that sex as activity rather than biological sex is meant? Alternately, "sexuality-related" might also cut it.
NLeeuw (
talk) 05:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NLeeuw has a good point, sex is ambiguous so sexuality will do a better job.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:34, 26 May 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:Sex scandals in French cinema
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. I initially read this as "Sex scandals in French cinemas." But that's a very different scope. I'm kind of disappointed now...
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:36, 22 May 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.