April 2
Category:Celtic people
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#Category:Celtic people. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Category:Celts which has appropriate scope.
This category is problematic as it comes from a nationalist standpoint: there is no category on "Germanic people" or "Latin people" for the reasons I shall elaborate. For example, this category has as a sub-category "English people". Whatever genetic research says, the sheer fact is that nobody in England calls themselves a Celt, so to have every single English person of any heritage who ever existed within the category of "Celtic people" is absurd. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are historically places where Celts dominated, but that does not equal that every single person in the whole of their history is "Celtic". This is like saying all Mexicans are Aztecs. There may well be people in those countries who were born there, identify with those countries, but don't call themselves "Celts" because they've never considered it. By the same metric, Category:Brythonic Celts and Category:Gaels shouldn't contain any people or categories of people apart from in a historic sense. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment after purging (done) the two subcategories Category:Gaels and Category:Fictional Celtic people may be retained in this category or upmerged to Category:Celts; on the other hand a few other subcategories should perhaps be nominated for deletion as well, for the same reason as the main category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Kievan Rus' royalty
- 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: reverse merge i.e. Category:Kievan Rus' monarchy to Category:Kievan Rus' royalty. – Fayenatic London 09:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the category contains only one subcategory and nothing else, this just hinders easy navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the second target is being renamed to Category:Kievan Rus' people. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: is there a reason to keep the monarchy category rather than the royalty one? They are part of different hierarchies,
Category:Monarchies of Europe and
Category:European royalty respectively. However, other Monarchies categories have more than one sub-cat, so it's the monarchy category here that appears unjustified. How about upmerging that one instead (only to KR people)? –
Fayenatic
London 21:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable indeed. I'll nominate the other one when this discussion is closed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reverse merge per last comments. We do not need both. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- (nominator) Agree with reverse merge (not to Kievan Rus people) per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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 Northumberland, New Hampshire
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, this is part of the established categorization scheme
Category:People by town in New Hampshire. It needs to be tackled as part of that hierarchy, not on its own.--
Jahaza (
talk) 23:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @
Jahaza: It is not part of a establshed characterization. Small one-county communities don't get their own People from categories. Consensus is that any with 3 or less entries always get merged into County catgories. Here are two examples[on/Log/2013_October_7#Category:People_from_Kerrick.2C_Minnesota]. This page
[1] has four such CFDS. I can point out 100 plus more. That's not an exaggeration. Go to this User talk page
[2] and see how many CFD notices there are and how many of those categories are still around. The first one is at talk page entry 117, the latest at 270+ and those entries with just a few exceptions are Closed CFDs where the result was merge. There are over 100 precedents for a merge here.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an established categorization scheme at
Category:People by town in New Hampshire. Why pick this random example alone for merging? If we're going to merge this one, it should be done simultaneously with the others in the parent category at the very least. That means
Category:People from Grantham, New Hampshire and
Category:People from Kensington, New Hampshire at the least, and probably all the others with only two or three members as well.--
Jahaza (
talk) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- People by town is a scheme where a town can get a category if there are enough people from it to justify one — it is not an "accepted overall comprehensive scheme" in the sense intended by that criterion. It refers to things like Category:Albums by artist, which is expected to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all, and therefore permits an "Artist album" category even if the artist only has one album to file in it — but there is not an "accepted overall scheme" in which every town automatically gets a "people from town" category the moment just one person exists to file there; people are categorized by county, not by town, until the town has enough potential entries to escape WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an established categorization scheme at
Category:People by town in New Hampshire. Why pick this random example alone for merging? If we're going to merge this one, it should be done simultaneously with the others in the parent category at the very least. That means
Category:People from Grantham, New Hampshire and
Category:People from Kensington, New Hampshire at the least, and probably all the others with only two or three members as well.--
Jahaza (
talk) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @
Jahaza: It is not part of a establshed characterization. Small one-county communities don't get their own People from categories. Consensus is that any with 3 or less entries always get merged into County catgories. Here are two examples[on/Log/2013_October_7#Category:People_from_Kerrick.2C_Minnesota]. This page
[1] has four such CFDS. I can point out 100 plus more. That's not an exaggeration. Go to this User talk page
[2] and see how many CFD notices there are and how many of those categories are still around. The first one is at talk page entry 117, the latest at 270+ and those entries with just a few exceptions are Closed CFDs where the result was merge. There are over 100 precedents for a merge here.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are enough entries to justify it. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
Business organizations by country
- 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: Rename all. With literally no oposition, with no comments for 4 weeks, and with the immense backlog at CfD, I'm closing it - despite being the nominator - since any admin who closes it would come to the same result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Propose renaming:
Rationalle: Per most of the Category:Organizations by subject and country category trees. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Some of the category names use "organizations", and others use "organisations"; this nomination should not change this part of the category name, although other nominations may. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom per contents of Category:Organizations by country. Oculi ( talk) 14:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Question:
Ferrari is incorporated in the Netherlands but is based in Italy. Is it Dutch or Italian? --
167.58.6.70 (
talk) 20:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Answer: Based on the current categories on the page, it's Italian. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Valve Community Service
- 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: Speedy deleted by Materialscientist under CSD G12. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This seems like a violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST, there's no such notable subject about this. MASEM ( t) 03:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: LGBT-related films are already subcategorized by individual country of origin, so a duplicate layer for continent of origin is not needed — and that's doubly true because this isn't even parenting the by-country categories (which, even if not strictly needed, would at least make sense), but has been directly added to individual films that are already in the "[Country] LGBT-related films" categories. This simply is not necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)----
- 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.
April 2
Category:Celtic people
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#Category:Celtic people. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Category:Celts which has appropriate scope.
This category is problematic as it comes from a nationalist standpoint: there is no category on "Germanic people" or "Latin people" for the reasons I shall elaborate. For example, this category has as a sub-category "English people". Whatever genetic research says, the sheer fact is that nobody in England calls themselves a Celt, so to have every single English person of any heritage who ever existed within the category of "Celtic people" is absurd. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are historically places where Celts dominated, but that does not equal that every single person in the whole of their history is "Celtic". This is like saying all Mexicans are Aztecs. There may well be people in those countries who were born there, identify with those countries, but don't call themselves "Celts" because they've never considered it. By the same metric, Category:Brythonic Celts and Category:Gaels shouldn't contain any people or categories of people apart from in a historic sense. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment after purging (done) the two subcategories Category:Gaels and Category:Fictional Celtic people may be retained in this category or upmerged to Category:Celts; on the other hand a few other subcategories should perhaps be nominated for deletion as well, for the same reason as the main category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Kievan Rus' royalty
- 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: reverse merge i.e. Category:Kievan Rus' monarchy to Category:Kievan Rus' royalty. – Fayenatic London 09:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the category contains only one subcategory and nothing else, this just hinders easy navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the second target is being renamed to Category:Kievan Rus' people. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: is there a reason to keep the monarchy category rather than the royalty one? They are part of different hierarchies,
Category:Monarchies of Europe and
Category:European royalty respectively. However, other Monarchies categories have more than one sub-cat, so it's the monarchy category here that appears unjustified. How about upmerging that one instead (only to KR people)? –
Fayenatic
London 21:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable indeed. I'll nominate the other one when this discussion is closed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reverse merge per last comments. We do not need both. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- (nominator) Agree with reverse merge (not to Kievan Rus people) per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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 Northumberland, New Hampshire
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, this is part of the established categorization scheme
Category:People by town in New Hampshire. It needs to be tackled as part of that hierarchy, not on its own.--
Jahaza (
talk) 23:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @
Jahaza: It is not part of a establshed characterization. Small one-county communities don't get their own People from categories. Consensus is that any with 3 or less entries always get merged into County catgories. Here are two examples[on/Log/2013_October_7#Category:People_from_Kerrick.2C_Minnesota]. This page
[1] has four such CFDS. I can point out 100 plus more. That's not an exaggeration. Go to this User talk page
[2] and see how many CFD notices there are and how many of those categories are still around. The first one is at talk page entry 117, the latest at 270+ and those entries with just a few exceptions are Closed CFDs where the result was merge. There are over 100 precedents for a merge here.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an established categorization scheme at
Category:People by town in New Hampshire. Why pick this random example alone for merging? If we're going to merge this one, it should be done simultaneously with the others in the parent category at the very least. That means
Category:People from Grantham, New Hampshire and
Category:People from Kensington, New Hampshire at the least, and probably all the others with only two or three members as well.--
Jahaza (
talk) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- People by town is a scheme where a town can get a category if there are enough people from it to justify one — it is not an "accepted overall comprehensive scheme" in the sense intended by that criterion. It refers to things like Category:Albums by artist, which is expected to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all, and therefore permits an "Artist album" category even if the artist only has one album to file in it — but there is not an "accepted overall scheme" in which every town automatically gets a "people from town" category the moment just one person exists to file there; people are categorized by county, not by town, until the town has enough potential entries to escape WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an established categorization scheme at
Category:People by town in New Hampshire. Why pick this random example alone for merging? If we're going to merge this one, it should be done simultaneously with the others in the parent category at the very least. That means
Category:People from Grantham, New Hampshire and
Category:People from Kensington, New Hampshire at the least, and probably all the others with only two or three members as well.--
Jahaza (
talk) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @
Jahaza: It is not part of a establshed characterization. Small one-county communities don't get their own People from categories. Consensus is that any with 3 or less entries always get merged into County catgories. Here are two examples[on/Log/2013_October_7#Category:People_from_Kerrick.2C_Minnesota]. This page
[1] has four such CFDS. I can point out 100 plus more. That's not an exaggeration. Go to this User talk page
[2] and see how many CFD notices there are and how many of those categories are still around. The first one is at talk page entry 117, the latest at 270+ and those entries with just a few exceptions are Closed CFDs where the result was merge. There are over 100 precedents for a merge here.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are enough entries to justify it. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
Business organizations by country
- 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: Rename all. With literally no oposition, with no comments for 4 weeks, and with the immense backlog at CfD, I'm closing it - despite being the nominator - since any admin who closes it would come to the same result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Propose renaming:
Rationalle: Per most of the Category:Organizations by subject and country category trees. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Some of the category names use "organizations", and others use "organisations"; this nomination should not change this part of the category name, although other nominations may. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom per contents of Category:Organizations by country. Oculi ( talk) 14:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Question:
Ferrari is incorporated in the Netherlands but is based in Italy. Is it Dutch or Italian? --
167.58.6.70 (
talk) 20:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Answer: Based on the current categories on the page, it's Italian. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Valve Community Service
- 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: Speedy deleted by Materialscientist under CSD G12. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This seems like a violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST, there's no such notable subject about this. MASEM ( t) 03:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: LGBT-related films are already subcategorized by individual country of origin, so a duplicate layer for continent of origin is not needed — and that's doubly true because this isn't even parenting the by-country categories (which, even if not strictly needed, would at least make sense), but has been directly added to individual films that are already in the "[Country] LGBT-related films" categories. This simply is not necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)----
- 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.