Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6
March 8 >

March 7

Category:Latvian pharmacologists

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pesma za Evroviziju

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. As always, every television series is not automatically entitled to one of these -- this is warranted only if there's an unusually large amount of related content that needs to be kept together in a category, and is not a thing that every TV show automatically gets as a matter of course. But the only content here is a contestants subcategory and two redirects to from "Pesma za Evroviziju 'YY" to "Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest YYYY", which is not sufficient. Bearcat ( talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:SMALLCAT states the following: "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". This category is for an annual event, so the category (and its subcategories) will grow over time. ImStevan ( talk) 22:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, it is uncertain whether every yearly edition of this event will have its own stand alone article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian ten-pin bowling players

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Estonian stained glass artists and manufacturers

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian female squash players

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian sexologists

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: withdrawn ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

 Comment: we already had Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_27#Category:Icelandic_sexologists, but somehow after user:Qwerfjkl closing, we still have these 1-member categories-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Estopedist1, I only just closed these discussion and listed them at WT:CFDW. They may take a few days to be processed by admins. PLease withdraw this and any similar nominations; they are unnecessary. —  Qwerfjkl talk 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Red X I withdraw my nomination per discussion Estopedist1 ( talk) 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian pottery

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian obstetricians

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian new wave musical groups

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television news program articles using incorrect naming style

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Category:Television news program articles using incorrect naming style

Category:Extra genres

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Category:Extra genres

Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday/Fixed

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories intended to be populated by User:Xinbenlv bot but its bot request wasn't approved ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xinbenlv bot) Gonnym ( talk) 14:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The links for some reason are broken. Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday/Fixed and Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday/Validated. Gonnym ( talk) 14:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The other link is a redirect to Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday. Before deleting the categories, is it not appropriate to delete the ~90 bot subpages within that one? The bot owner seems no longer to be active, so I think they should be taken to MfD. – Fayenatic London 08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    They could very well be deleted at MfD. I personally am not going to tag that many pages. But regardless, we don't categorize user or even bot pages, even more when they are from bot that wasn't even approved to work. Gonnym ( talk) 09:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all 3 — the 3rd is merely a category redirect, and its target would be a later discussion.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Thriller drama films and sub

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: manual upmerge to parent "thriller" categories. Note that this result ultimately results in deletion of the categories, which represents the strong deletion position as well. The usefulness of the "thriller" tree should be the subject of another discussion. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this and all of its subcategories for deletion as it's unnecessary. Thrillers are by default dramas. Yes, comedy thrillers do exist, but they're a distinct subgenre. thriller dramas are just what you would expect when you say thriller. It's not a distinct genre on its own. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 17:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note there are at least 80 subs that fall under this umbrella. It would have taken well over an hour to nominate them all, but they were all created by the same editor who has already been notified about this discussion. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Only delete if together with all subcategories. If only these seven categories are deleted, the remaining ones will merely be orphaned but still exist. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This procedural objection is meanwhile no longer applicable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged and added the subcats.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose. This isn't helpful, because if "thriller drama" categories don't exist then every film in them has to be simultaneously categorized as both a thriller and a drama — with the result that the drama film categories get overpopulated and have to get rediffused for dramatic subgenre. And since thriller comedies do exist, simply making "thriller films" direct subcategories of "drama films" categories wouldn't solve that problem at all, and would instead create the new (and equally serious) problem of comedy films being miscategorized as a subcategory of drama films — so whether it seems redundant to you or not, having "thriller drama" categories is the only way to resolve those two competing imperatives. Bearcat ( talk) 17:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bearcat: agree with a merge into the thriller films tree rather than deletion. Nominator apparently thinks that merging into the drama films tree is not desirable and I do not have an opinion about that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merging into thriller films is not what I suggested — I explicitly opposed that, on the grounds that doing so would cause a massive fustercluck. Bearcat ( talk) 21:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I've recently updated the "Thriller film" wiki page. One thing I have to say is the genre of the Thriller is not one that has a lot of critical study, namely because despite how common of a term it is, it's not one that easily identifiable traits and iconography. The author of the book Thrillers usually suggests the thriller attaches itself to other genres, but ones with usually a bit more recognizable iconography (i.e: horror films, mystery, science fiction, etc.) but not really with genres like adventure, Westerns, etc. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/split to Category:Thriller films as an "umbrella" genre per Thriller film (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article quotes multiple sources that the term "thriller" is largely marketing ("popular press"), so scholars and film directors assign them to more specific labels. But that doesn't mean we need all these 3-way and 4-way and 5-way and 6-way intersections. Assuming drama, Split others into comedies, etc. We don't need/want American comedy drama western thriller films by decade: existing Category:Thriller films by decade and Category:Thriller films by country will do.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 08:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
We don't want comedy films to become misfiled as a subcategory of drama films, so upmerging this to a parent category that would then have to become a subcategory of Category:Drama films is a total non-starter. Bearcat ( talk) 16:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, second choice merge somewhere. Genre is a bit of a dark art but "thriller" is unusually poorly defined making it a bad fit for a category which requires clear inclusion criteria. Nobody other than marketers agrees on what counts as a thriller, so we shouldn't even attempt to try. SnowFire ( talk) 14:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per my comments above, per the vagueness of the term. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 20:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

And if we do that, then we have to make "thriller films" categories direct subcategories of "drama films" categories, which then causes "thriller comedy films" to become inappropriately filed as subs of "drama films", but that can't happen because thriller comedies are not dramas. Bearcat ( talk) 21:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No, we would not have to place all Category:Thriller films categories into a drama subcategory. Categories do not "inherit" the parents of the categories merged into them. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply
We would have to place Category:Thriller films itself as a subcategory of drama films if there isn't a separate subcategory for thriller drama films. Bearcat ( talk) 12:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It's no sort of non sequitur at all. You might want to actually look at Category:Comedy thriller films, because you will notice that it is not only a subcategory of Comedy films, it is also a subcategory of thriller films. But if all thriller drama films get uploaded to the thriller films parent, with the consequence that the thriller films categories all have to become direct subcategories of drama films categories, then the thriller comedy films subcategories also become subcategories of drama films by virtue of being a subcategory of thriller films. Bearcat ( talk) 09:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: I don't follow your objection – there would be no such consequence. If all the members of Category:American thriller drama films were added to Category:American thriller films and Category:American drama films, there would be no change to the categorisation of Category:American comedy thriller films. On some merges (e.g. downmerge or sibling merge) we adjust the parent categories, but not in an upmerge case like this.
Although the nominator claimed that most thrillers are dramas, there is no proposal to formalise this by making all thriller cats become sub-cats of dramas.
Note: merging to both parents would be unnecessary for most pages, because most members of Category:American thriller drama films are already in other sub-cats of Category:American thriller films, so a manual merge using WP:PetScan first would be advisable. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
With over 4,000 articles in it right now, Category:American drama films is already far, far too large as it is, and needs a couple of thousand articles diffused out of it rather than another 500 articles becoming undiffused into it. So no, the alternative to "thriller drama films" categories is not "add 'thriller films' and 'drama films' as two discrete categories to every film" — that's an absolute non-starter on category size grounds — it's "'thriller films' wuuld have to be filed as a direct subcategory of 'drama films' itself". Bearcat ( talk) 15:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see. The films may be in other thriller categories, but they are generally not in other drama categories. You oppose merger because of category size, and you oppose deletion because of losing these films from the Drama hierarchy. How about merging only to thrillers, only where not in another thriller genre, and adding "see also thrillers" to every drama parent? – Fayenatic London 07:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note (in support of FL) that a large number of articles in this tree are also in the psychological thrillers tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because it appears that merging these would create a bigger mess than the current situation of having an arguably-redundantly-named category tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Pppery: Do you have a preference on deletion vs. keeping if you dislike merging? I'd propose that deletion would help clean up the mess... SnowFire ( talk) 15:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Bearcat is declining to reply further. Does anyone else find any merit in my compromise suggestion above? i.e. manual upmerge to thrillers parents, but only for pages not in another thriller genre; do not upmerge to dramas, but add "see also" links for the corresponding thrillers category to every drama parent? – Fayenatic London 17:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I think that is probably the best bet for now. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It was probably clear from my earlier reaction that I agree this is the best solution. "Drama" adds very little to "thriller" and merging (nearly) all thrillers to the drama category is a no-brainer. On the other hand keeping them in the thrillers tree is absolutely necessary. But as so many articles jn these categories are already in Category:Psychological thrillers as well this will not lead to oversized thrillers categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Yes and no. Yes, manual upmerge using WP:PetScan first to Dramas, for those that are not in another genre subcategory. No, do not add any see also. Bearcat assumes that Thrillers is a subcategory of Dramas. No, it should be side-by-side under Category:Films by genre, exactly where it is now. There's no need for a see also to every other parallel genre.
      William Allen Simpson ( talk) 09:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I prefer whatever option comes closest to deletion. The problem is that "thriller" does not have clear inclusion criteria and nobody seems to have proposed any. I suppose a merge is mildly preferred to no action, but a merge still won't fix the fundamental problem of "what movies are thrillers." If a merge is done, no need for "See also" links IMO, if someone wants to add a link on an individual basis in prose that's fine though (e.g. "Reviewers called Film XYZ a thriller film"). SnowFire ( talk) 15:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all genre category intersections with the word "drama". Drama (film and television), in particular - (from the article) "The Screenwriters Taxonomy contends that film genres are fundamentally based upon a film's atmosphere, character and story, and therefore the labels "drama" and "comedy" are too broad to be considered a genre" So, in the case of films and shows, drama isn't even a genre! also from the article - "According to the Screenwriters' Taxonomy, all film descriptions should contain their type (comedy or drama) combined with one (or more) of the eleven super-genres.[2] This combination does not create a separate genre, but rather, provides a better understanding of the film. According to the taxonomy, combining the type with the genre does not create a separate genre.[2] For instance, the "Horror Drama" is simply a dramatic horror film (as opposed to a comedic horror film). "Horror Drama" is not a genre separate from the horror genre or the drama type." So all these drama-thriller combinations are not even genres!! These all need to go. Strong Delete. - jc37 01:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European monarchs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Category:European monarchs

Category:Latvian mimes

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ontologists and Category:Metaphysics writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: duplicative of Category:Metaphysicians, many of the entries are not philosophers who contributed to metaphysics so a merge would not be productive - car chasm ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greece in the Roman era

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 to Category:Greece under Roman rule. Consensus seems to be that it is useful to keep the contents of the category together, that it is focused on modern-day boundaries, and that there is some kind of ambiguity with the current title based on chronological fuzziness. In this case, a rename seems to best take the consensus into account. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Series to eliminate use of "Roman era" in categories. Editors rarely read category header dates, as category tools do not show the headers. This category currently has entries pertaining to the Roman period in Greece, not the Roman era (everywhere).
  • 146 BCE Greece conquered by Rome, Roman period in Greece begins.
  • 31-30 BCE Hellenistic era ends, Roman era begins.
  • 27-2 BCE Roman Empire begins. 27 BCE is the year of first Roman Emperor, but the constitution was not finished until 2 BCE. Note that the Roman Empire is slightly later than the Roman era. This distinction is often lost in categorization.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Carchasm, Jc37, Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron: participants in recent discussion.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure if "era" or "period" makes a lot of difference but English is not my native language. (I do not oppose.) Note that the natural end of Hellenism in 31 BC is because Egypt was conquered by Rome in that year, while the similar natural end of Hellenism in Greece is 146 BC. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Marcocapelle, the latter is not my understanding. This is not cut and dried. Specifically, Hellenistic philosophy in Greece continues long after 146 BCE. Cicero (106-43 BCE) belonged to the hellenistic school of Academic skepticism, and translated from Greek to Latin. De Natura Deorum in 45 BCE is classified as hellenistic, as it discusses schools of hellenistic philosophy. Asclepius was written sometime between 100 CE and 300 CE, still considered hellenistic because the original was in Greek. That is why we should not be categorizing places by eras. Better to classify by governments that have distinct beginnings and endings.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The latter makes sense for sure. The article Hellenism mentions no less than five (very different) possible endings of Hellenism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Also, the article for the Roman era is called Ancient Rome. Perhaps that should be what we use throughout? - jc37 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then "Roman era" should be replaced with "X during the Roman Empire". I agree with Marcocapelle, period is just about as bad (as indefinite) as era. - jc37 03:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jc37 and Marcocapelle: nomination modified as suggested.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose splitting to "Empire", Greece during the Roman Republic was not any different from Greece during the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then, where should it be merged? Greece in the Roman era is almost identical to Greece in the Roman Empire (see dates above), and does not include the Roman Republic, so these articles should not have any relation to the Republic. The "Roman era" does not start any earlier in Greece. It always starts exactly in 30 BCE. This is a 19th century concept, taught in history and Classics departments worldwide.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 07:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jc37 and Marcocapelle: Considering overnight, I've thought of two more possibilties similar to existing category names: "in the Roman era (146 BCE)" or "under Roman rule".
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't have an objection to "under Roman rule" (but I also have no objection to "in the Roman period" or "in the Roman era" without year). Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is. There is no meaningful distinction between "era" and "period", but between the two, "era" seems like the more typical expression in this context. As for what that era (or period) is, at least some editors think that this topic should at least theoretically include the period from 146 to 30 BC, while others do not. I would have assumed that the entire period of Roman dominion over various parts of Greece would have justified inclusion of some topics in this category. The word "Empire" is itself problematic in this context, since in the general sense of the word, Rome ruled an empire for nearly two centuries before it had an emperor, and that included the entire period of Roman dominion in Greece. Whether the phrase "Roman era" redirects to "Roman Empire" is beside the point. It doesn't render the phrase meaningless, or determine whether it ought to be used in article or category titles when it conveys the intended meaning as well or better than alternative formulations. "Greece in the Roman era" is perfectly clear—or at least as clear as "Greece in the Roman Empire", which could imply an artificial—and in my opinion unnecessary—distinction at 30 BC—one that itself is unclear, since it could still include material dating back more than a century earlier, but whether it should would be confusing to both readers and editors. The current formulation at least does not make such a definite distinction. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ P Aculeius: Categories need "artificial" perfectly clear boundaries. Unlike articles, where markings or explanations can bolster the text, category annotations are not visible to editors using common tools. Therefore, Wikipedia:Category names must be very specific and consistent. WP:CAT#V Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It's "artificial" because it wouldn't be there naturally—a natural interpretation of "Greece in the Roman era" is that it includes Greece under Roman dominion, irrespective of who was ruling Rome. You're making a distinction that makes little sense, and which will continue to confound both readers and editors who aren't aware of the gloss you're putting on ordinary English. P Aculeius ( talk) 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. Sort of C2C but applied higher up in the hierarchy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Query So "Greece under Roman rule" included those parts of Greece that were not under Roman rule or only came under Roman rule late in the day? But the title could be taken to mean that all Greece was always under Roman rule. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Presumably, any time that any part of Greece came under Roman rule, beyond Roman era and Roman Empire. Are there parts that never came under Roman rule?
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 02:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No part of the modern state of Greece escaped Roman rule. Just to be clear, the scope of this tree structure is "Modern state Foo under Roman rule". Yes? Even if only a remote corner of the state was ruled, as is the case with Ukraine? Yes? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Trying to discuss the knotty problem at hand. As you can see, several choices have been rejected. We haven't even mentioned whether this is the modern state of Greece, or just the Roman protectorate, or Achaia (Roman province).
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then let's start at the beginning. We cannot come to a view on this until it's scope is defined. Perhaps withdraw the nomination until that is agreed? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 23:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Nope, sorry, tired of sweeping nominations that go nowhere.
  1. The scope is Ancient Greece, the search is for clear concise wording that describes the correct content without having a head note. Tools don't show them.
  2. As already documented, "Roman era" doesn't work because editors don't have a Classics education.
  3. "Roman period" would follow current "Hellenistic period" naming elsewhere, but our resident foreign language experts say "period is just about as bad (as indefinite) as era."
  4. "Roman Empire" would be clearer, but Ancient Greece was conquered under the Roman Republic.
  5. "Roman rule" matches other parts of the tree: under Habsburg rule, under Qing rule, under Japanese rule, under Republic of China rule, under Italian rule, under Muslim rule, etc.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Trying to be consistent, but not foolish.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 02:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yes - I thought that that was the case. But William seems to be equivocal about that point. We need certainty on this point. If it really is "by modern state", then why does the Greek Category contain Asia (Roman province) since no part of Asia was in the modern state of Greece? Is selective pruning needed? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. All Rhodes lead to Greece. Would including it in the category do more damage than good for the non-expert reader? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ William Allen Simpson and Marcocapelle: If you're going by Greek Antiquity instead of modern state, then why does the first line of the lead of the eponymous article state "Greece in the Roman era describes the Roman conquest of Greece"? Since Greece did not exist in Greek Antiquity, then how could the Romans conquer it? Neither the modern state of Greece nor any other state of that name existed in Greek Antiquity. Furthermore, I disagree that this is a nomenclature issue; it's a scope issue. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Finally we get to the nub of the problem. If, as you contend, that this article covers the Greek civilization as a whole, then the category would have to include conquests in Magna Graecia, Alexandria, Crimea, Marseilles and swathes of Anatolia. What an appaling vista. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Laurel Lodged and Marcocapelle: It is currently both. Are you arguing this needs to be split into 2 categories with separate parallel parentage? I've been treating it as a joinder of its parent categories (as we do most category parentage), according to the usual class inheritance in computer science. (As you may remember, I was a developer at the time of adding categories to the software, so that's my technical way of thinking about them.)
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I do not think the concept of a Greek civilization within a very small region of the Roman Republic/Roman Empire makes a lot of sense. It was a Greco-Roman civilization throughout the entire Roman Republic/Roman Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree that it is currently both. The intent is "by modern country" alone. If there are hatnotes or other things in the category scope definition that say otherwise, then they should be removed and replaced with wording that makes the intention clearer. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is (or "period" is fine too, the two words are synonyms). TLDR: It would be neat and tidy if the Hellenistic era/period ended and the Roman period/era began at the same time; but history is not neat and tidy. They overlap; 146 BC is generally treated as the start of the "Roman period/era" in Greece, but quite often not as the end of the "Hellenistic period/era" especially in areas like philosophy, where the political shift is less relevant. Yet, it is useful and valid to have a category that brings the "Roman stuff" together in one period. It is useful and valid to limit the category to the geographic region of "mainland Greece."
  • Scholars generally use "Greece in the Roman period/era" or "Roman Greece" to mean Mainland Greece in the period from 146 BC onwards (e.g. Alcock, Susan E. Graecia Capta. The Landscapes of Roman Greece, 1993, which is probably still the most important book on the topic) but even in Greece that doesn't make sense everywhere (e.g., Geagan, Daniel J. ‘Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culture I. 86 B.C. – A.D. 267’,. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.7.1 (1979): 371–437 - and those are definitely the usual dates for "Roman Athens").
  • When someone is talking about Greece and wants to specify the period after 30 BC, they sometimes say "Imperial" or "under the Roman Empire" (e.g. Rizakēs, A. D. ‘Town and Country in Early Imperial Greece’. In Recent Developments in the Long-Term Archaeology of Greece, edited by J. Bintliff, 241–67, 2014.). From the perspective of mainland Greece, 30 BC is a massive watershed (as established most recently in Spawforth, Antony. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. 2012.) and it would be perfectly valid for us to categorise the two periods separately, or have subcats for each, but Greece is in some sense "Roman" both before and after, so it wouldn't be valid to purge the earlier period from a "Roman Greece" category tree altogether.
As for the geographic side of the issue: It's rare for scholars to talk about "Greece" when they mean "Greeks everywhere in the Roman empire". Then it is usual to say "Greeks", "Greeks under Rome" or some other periphrasis (e.g. S. Goldhill, Being Greek Under Rome Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire 2001; Tim Whitmarsh, Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World 2010). Furius ( talk) 20:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Re #2, in terms of geography everything in this category is about the territory that constitutes modern Greece. So I am not sure what kind of split you are after. At best we may have a category for Greek speaking Roman people, but as the Greek language was widespread in the east this is barely a defining characteristic and largely coincides with region. And it would not be a split, it would just be the creation of a new category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Re #1 Marco and I have already removed some articles from this category that were incorrectly categorised (see above). I'm not aware of any other miscategorisations is sister country categories. I personally populated many of those categories. But if you see that stuff not from "Roman era" and not from "modern Greece" of present, please feel free to fix the problem. So that's a problem with categorisation errors, not with the nature of the scope of the category itself. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Either Keep (era or period), or Rename to Category:Roman Greece. The article name is currently at Greece in the Roman era, because User:Laurel Lodged moved it from Roman Greece in April 2018. This category (and others of similar name listed in Category:Romanization of Southeastern Europe) were renamed to the current names when Laurel Lodged nominated them here in September of 2018. I really don't care a whole lot either way. But we should have clarity in naming. So whatever is determined to be clearest - and whatever term we may find that scholars use - should be the result. - jc37 00:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Jc37: does this mean that you oppose Category:Greece under Roman rule? – Fayenatic London 21:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Honestly, I was just trying to help consensus to get a closure at this point. I'm striking the "keep" option now, though, because do I still agree that "era" and "period" are not good categorisation in this case (and the article renaming should be reverted). Also noting that Roman era redirects to Ancient Rome.
    After doing various google searches, I am mostly seeing Roman Greece, or Greece in the Roman World. With the latter being a bad idea for category naming in my opinion. And honestly if we think about it, the former is too vague/broad.
    And when I look at Ancient Greece, it says: The Hellenistic period ended with the conquest of the eastern Mediterranean world by the Roman Republic, and the annexation of the Roman province of Macedonia in Roman Greece, and later the province of Achaea during the Roman Empire. - So does that mean that Greece ceased to exist as a whole under Rome? and if so, then maybe this category should be Deleted? But then again, I look at the article and even the subheading there is Roman Greece - Ancient_Greece#Roman_Greece, comparable to Hellenistic Greece, and Byzantine Greece.
    So if this category is retained, it should at least be Renamed to Category:Roman Greece (its previous name),
    All that said, I think if I were starting from scratch on these categories, I'd start with something like Roman provinces and territories or some such, as the parent, and have whatever appropriate Greek subcats of that. As it turns out, we do have that - Category:Ancient Roman provinces. Which splits between "Empire", and "Republic". So this cat should probably be subcatted along the same lines.
    But then, at that point, are we just duplicating Category:Ancient Roman provinces, with the only distinction that we're also including "events" as well as "territories"?
    So maybe the best answer would be to make this a Category Redirect, pointing to Category:Achaia (Roman province) and whatever other Roman provinces made up the former Ancient Greece, and merge all of this to the subcats of Category:Ancient Roman provinces, as appropriate.
    So, I dunno. I think the easy answer is probably to just rename back to Roman Greece, and then have the broader discussion - starting fresh. Because, from what I can tell, these "Roman era" renames are affecting more than just merely Greece. - jc37 01:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Private schools in Leeds

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category covers more than just the settlement, it also has entries for the wider area see Category:Private schools in the City of Bradford for comparison for this naming. Keith D ( talk) 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Amended nomination:
Yes that should be done, in any case support merger. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Climbing events

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 19#Category:Climbing events

Transvaal Colony emigrants, etc

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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I doubt that much usefulness can be found for these movements between nearby colonies/interim republics. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:18th-century monarchs in North America

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this category mostly to discuss two broader questions (which came up in the Turkic rulers CfD below) that apply to similar categories:
1. Should viceroys be categorised as "monarchs" or not? It is an appointed office, not a hereditary one, but viceroys do "reign" as monarch's representatives with much of the same authority. Category:Viceroys is not categorised as Category:Monarchs or something, but it is in Category:Noble titles, for example. (Because I currently don't think viceroys are monarchs, that would mean this category would be left with just 1 item and thus be deleted as a WP:SMALLCAT, hence the nomination, but that's not my focus; primarily, I'd like to address the two broader questions).
2. Should we consider monarchs who resided in Europe (e.g. Madrid/Valladolid, Lisbon, Paris, London, etc.) but had colonies or even viceroyalties in the Americas as Category:North American monarchs or Category:North American monarchs, or just as Category:European monarchs? Case in point: King George's War, entirely fought in North America, is named after George II of Britain, who according to current categorisations is ultimately only a "European monarch", but it was to his American subjects (and later U.S. citizens) that he was "King George", for/by whom it was fought. (The European theatre of this war is simply known as the War of the Austrian Succession; it is the Habsburg Austrian throne in Vienna that mattered there). For comparison, Category:18th-century Ottoman sultans is both in Category:18th-century monarchs in Europe and Category:18th-century monarchs in the Middle East, so the fact that their residence was in Kostantiniyye in European Turkey does not disqualify them from being "monarchs in the Middle East" as well. I can imagine three answers to this question:
  • A. Based on the Ottoman sultan example, historiographical arguments such as "King George" etc., George II residing in London shouldn't disqualify him from being a "North American monarch", would it? (Especially if viceroys are just governors, deputies, representatives of the actual monarchs residing in Europe, then the latter should be populating this and similar categories instead of the former).
  • B. Conversely, if we determine a monarch's "continent" by their place of residence instead of the various territories they reigned over (which may be in multiple continents), then Ottoman sultans should be excluded from "Middle East/Asian monarchs" from 1453 onwards.
  • C. Finally, if we determine that a monarch's "continent" is actually WP:NONDEFINING (which may very well be the case), well, prepare for a whole slew of CfDs coming up. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting questions. I would consider a vice-roy to be equivalent to a governor rather than to a monarch. The Ottoman Empire and Russia are special cases in that they consist of one coherent area stretching in two continents, which is very different from countries having colonies far away. Combining these arguments leads to delete except Edward I (Moskito) should be moved to the parent categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks! (took me a while to think about and write down). I agree that a viceroy seems more like governor or governor-general than a monarch.
    I don't think the Ottoman Empire and Russia are that special, actually. List of transcontinental countries shows there are quite a lot of countries like that in the world today, let alone in history. The distinction between so-called "contiguous" and "non-contiguous" transcontinental countries is just as arbitrary as the definition of the boundaries between Asia and Europe (Cyprus, Caucasus, Kazakhstan etc.), Asia and Africa (Sinai Peninsula), Europe and Asia (especially the idea that ALL islands in the Mediterrean are somehow "European" even if the African coast is closer), Asia and Oceania (between which islands should we draw a line?), Europe and North America (Greenland, Iceland and Faroe Islands?), and North and South America (Central America?, Carribean?). The idea that Turkey is "contiguous" is also pretty arbitrary: there is a body of water between Rumelia and Anatolia.
    Similarly, the Almohad Caliphate stretched out across north Africa and Iberia (which is why it is also in Category:Medieval Spain, Category:Medieval Portugal etc.), but Category:Almohad caliphs is only in Category:Berber rulers, which is only in Category:African rulers. Now, I'm already trying to improve this last problem slightly with my new Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Category:European monarchs CfR. But the basic problem remains: is an Almohad caliph who resides in Marrakesh only a "monarch in Africa"? Also a "monarch in Europe"? Or does he simply defy categorisation by continent because the fact that there is a bit of 13km-wide sea in the midst of his vast realm isn't that relevant to running his empire? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 20:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Should be in both Africa and Europe. (I can only imagine exceptions on this when the rule over the country's part in the other continent is rather nominal, or when the country's percentage in the other continent is very low. E.g. there is not so much value in categorizing Egyptian presidents in Asia just because the Sinai desert counts as Asian.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Right, so I guess we should expell Margrethe II of Denmark from Category:European monarchs and welcome her in Category:North American monarchs, because Greenland accounts for 98% of the Danish Realm's territory? I'm obviously joking, but this demonstrates that territorial percentages are a rather poor indicator to measure the "Europeanness", "North Americanness" etc. of a monarch. If we went for population instead, then Denmark easily beats Greenland with 98.17%. If we go for the capital or royal residence (usually the same city), then Europe wins because of Copenhagen. But what about the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves in 1821? Its capital and royal residence was Lisbon, but Brazil had 4 million people and a much larger territory than Portugal (3 million inhabitants) at the time. Was John IV more a European monarch or a South American monarch? (They were pondering this question at the time as well, as Brazil declared its independence in 1822). All this serves to illustrate just how much continents are pretty WP:NONDEFINING for monarchs, and thus these may simply be WP:ARBITRARYCATs if the criteria aren't obvious. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Per my earlier comment, colonies (or legacies thereof) should be ruled out in the first place, as totally non-contiguous. The Queen of Denmark is European, her representative in Greenland is North American. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
      • OK, but the problem is that within the UK of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarve, each of the three kingdoms was equal to each other. The Kingdom of Brazil had the same status as the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of the Algarve. Rio de Janeiro was even the capital (royal residence and seat of three Cortes) of the UK of PBA from 1815 to 1821, the Kingdom of Brazil wasn't a mere colony or post-colony with lots of autonomy (like Greenland today, which is not a "kingdom") anymore. John IV was a king of 3 federated countries, not 1 country plus a European vassal state and an overseas colony (e.g. Denmark around 1860 with Schleswig, Holstein, Lauenburg as vassals, the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland as colonies). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
        • And Margrethe may be "European" as the Queen of Denmark, but as Queen of the Danish Realm, she reigns mostly over North American territory. The position of High Commissioner of Denmark in Greenland an appointed, non-hereditary governorship, who governs on behalf of Margrete II, who still reigns over Greenland even if she is in Copenhagen most of the time. Similarly, the Governor of Curaçao, Governor of Aruba and Governor of Sint Maarten are appointed, non-hereditary governorships, govern the overseas landen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on behalf of the King, who reigns over them even if he is in Amsterdam or The Hague most of the time. The exact status of the landen within the Kingdom is a bit unclear; although the preamble of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands states that the landen are op voet van gelijkwaardigheid ("on the basis of equality"), in practice the Netherlands do dominate this federal monarchy. Yet, saying that therefore Willem-Alexander is only a "European monarch" doesn't seem justified. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — English monarchs were not "every continent of the world", despite the saying the sun never sets on the empire. Abolish these useless continent categories. Agree that vice-roy is more akin to a governor.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 09:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1915 Austro-Hungarian films

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Other than these three, we do not otherwise have any established scheme of "YYYY Individual-Country films" categories for these to be part of -- such categories are permitted by decade, but not by individual year.
But creating a new Category:1910s Austro-Hungarian films would be of dubious value here, as the 1910s were the only decade in which the existence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire coexisted with any sort of natively Austro-Hungarian film industry -- meaning that would become the only "Austro-Hungarian films by decade" category that existed at all, and it would contain all of the films that are currently in the parent. (And, for added bonus, all of the films are also cross-categorized as being specifically Austrian or specifically Hungarian or specifically Czech anyway, which is entirely appropriate given the multinational and multilingual nature of what the Austro-Hungarian Empire actually was, so they'll be categorizable as 1910s Those-Other-Things films once somebody gets around to them.)
So there's not much point in creating a new by-decade category here, but they certainly don't warrant a unique by-individual-year tree that no other historical or current country on earth has. Bearcat ( talk) 14:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Personally I don't see why we shouldn't have "by year and country" categories for films, the by decade categories are often gigantic. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Whether we should or not is a discussion for another time; as things currently stand, we don't, and this category is not large enough to require special treatment that the overwhelmingly larger categories (e.g. American, British, German, French, etc.) aren't already getting. And no, the categories for 1915, 1916 and 1917 aren't inordinately large; the categories at the recent end of the calendar (2020s, 2010s, etc.) are large, but the categories at the "early days of film" end (1900s, 1910s) are very, very not large at all. Bearcat ( talk) 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian mezzo-sopranos

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Estopedist1: please respond to the above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle: which country category do you suggest instead of Foo country opera singers? Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Estopedist1: just women singers seems to make more sense. But the Lithuanian category should not be merged to women singers because the article is already in a 20th-century subcat thereof. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: my bad. Corrected-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian Lutheran theologians

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian immunologists

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian films by studio

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 to Category:Latvian films. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I guess that only one notable film studio in Latvia. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cape Colony 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: Option B. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Rename one way or the other for consistency with others. Other occupational and migration-related sub-cats can follow speedily.– Fayenatic London 14:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Photographers from Cape Colony

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 biography which is already in other Cape Colony categories, so not useful for navigation. If not deleted, the name should end "of the Cape Colony". – Fayenatic London 14:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Traders from Cape Colony

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no parent hierarchy of Category:Traders. We have Arms traders, Fur traders and Slave traders, but this man was a cattle-trader. If not merged/deleted, the name should end "of the Cape Colony". However, there is a South African category, so this page might as well be put back there, whence it was moved by Johnpacklambert when creating these micro categories. [1] – Fayenatic London 14:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Fayenatic london: it appears the target is currently empty, so we may instead delete. The articles are about people who are primarily known as explorers rather than as traders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I wonder who emptied that out-of-process. Well, delete then. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Marco. Another JPL special.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male boxers from Cape Colony

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Newly created by user:Johnpacklambert – with only one parent, along with others in Cape Colony. Only contains Andrew Jeptha, so not useful for navigation. Jeptha had moved from the Cape to Britain where he lost his sight in 1910, so by the time he returned it was the Union of South Africa. If not merged, these would need to be renamed to people "…from the Cape Colony". – Fayenatic London 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 19#Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Category:Rulers of Prussia

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 2 subcats, 0 items. Both are also already in parent Category:Prussian nobility ("Dukes of Prussia" through Category:Ducal Prussian people‎). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Moscow

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 to Category:Royalty from Moscow. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 subcat, 0 items. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Seems good. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Jibal

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 to Category:Jibal. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. 1 item, 1 subcat. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian rulers

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Synonymous. Compare "Korean rulers" and "Korean monarchs" below. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the tip. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Mosul

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Better fits subcats. Mosul has had emirs and atabegs, both of which are monarchical titles. I've already split off Category:Governors of Mosul. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Cilicia

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Better fits subcats. I've already split off Category:Governors of Cilicia for all non-monarch sub-national office-holders. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean rulers

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: downmerge/rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Downmerge main cat, rename subcats. "Ruler" and "monarch" mean exactly the same in this context. Category:Korean rulers already identifies List of monarchs of Korea as its main article. Funnily enough, on Commons it's the other way around: C:Category:Rulers of Korea is a child of C:Category:Monarchs of Korea rather than the other way around. "Goryeo rulers" are called "Monarchs of the Goryeo Dynasty", "Joseon rulers‎" are called "Monarchs of the Joseon Dynasty‎" etc.
For the subcats it's pretty much the same story, except renaming instead of merging. E.g. Category:Joseon rulers has List of Joseon monarchs as its main article, and 5 of its 6 subcats have "monarch" in the name already. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 03:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malla rulers

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per List of Malla kings of Nepal and the fact that Malla dynasty (Nepal) uses "king(...)" 66 times versus "rule(...)" 25 times versus "monarch(...)" 0 times. In the period after the unification in the 18th century, the term "monarch" is apparently preferred per List of monarchs of Nepal, although there is also King of Nepal and Kingdom of Nepal. In List of heads of state of Nepal it is 19 times "monarch(...)" versus 12 times "king(...)"). Category:Nepalese monarchs states Monarchs and kings of Nepal, apparently thinking these are different things. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 03:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1st millennium in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: redundant category tree with very little potential to grow Estopedist1 ( talk) 09:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IPhone video game engines

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 to Category:IOS video game engines. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category should be named after an operating system, not a device. I also invite editors to discuss whether they prefer the short form ("for iOS") or long form ("for iOS and iPadOS"). Those two forms are fully interchangeable, since both OSes run the same game engines; it's just a question of precision vs concision. DFlhb ( talk) 15:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 03:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkic rulers

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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS: people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. There is no evidence of that in the case of "Turkic rulers". The very concept of Turkic languages as a family, and the field of Turkology, are fundamentally modern. We can safely assume no single khagan riding his horse across the Eurasian steppes will have thought of himself as a member of the Turkic language family as scholars discovered it in modern times. Moreover, as pointed out at Category talk:Turkic rulers already in 2008: I am going to remove the subcategories for the Turkic state rulers since a ruler of a Turkic state is not necesserily a Turkic ruler. A Turkic ruler is a person. Apparently this advice was ignored, because the subcategories are still there, e.g. Category:Khans of the Golden Horde, which were originally Mongols before they Turkicised. Incidentally, the parent Category:Asian rulers (itself a child of Category:Rulers by continent) is also misleading, because the Khazar Khaganate and the Golden Horde (almost) were entirely located on European soil, the Ottoman Empire had its capital Kostantiniyye and much of its territory in Europe etc. So, unless we want to suggest people speaking Turkic languages only "belong" in Asia, I think this categorisation is entirely inappropriate.
WP:NONDEFINING. Although the category has sought to be strict about the criteria (This category includes rulers of Turkic ethnicity or descent. The claim must be WP:SOURCED in the article or the category will be removed.), there are many problems with this (including WP:OCEGRS mentioned above). The fact that this warning is even necessary suggests that "Turkic ethnicity or descent" is not a defining characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to as demanded by WP:NONDEFINING. Category:Turkic countries and territories was previously deleted as WP:NONDEFINING; a current CfD proposes to also delete "Turkic states" and "Historical Turkic states" as WP:NONDEFINING, and I have just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic monarchs as WP:NONDEFINING (as well as WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED; apparently whoever maintains the category and demands every member to be WP:SOURCED or the category will be removed hasn't been paying attention for 12 years). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 02:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
PS: Added Germanic rulers and Celtic rulers for the same reason of language family being WP:OCEGRS and WP:NONDEFINING. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I object to connecting language families to continents for the reasons I have given. It suggests that speakers of Germanic and Celtic languages don't "belong" outside of Europe, and Turkic languages speakers not outside Asia. That completely disregards migration, conquest and colonisation such as Turco-Mongol states in Eastern Europe and "Germanic" colonies in the Americas, for example, and has all sorts of territorial and xenophobic implications. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If there is any non-Asian content or non-European content respectively in these categories it should of course be excluded from the merger. But I do not think this is the case. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I mentioned 3 "Turkic" non-European examples already: Khazar khagans, Golden Horde khans (the earliest of which from Batu Khan until probably Özbeg Khan were in fact Mongols, not "Turkic"), and Ottoman sultans. As for "Germanic" colonies in the Americas: think of something like King George's War, a war fought exclusively in North America. "King George" was the monarch of British America, and it is after him that his American subjects and later U.S. citizens would name this war. "King George", however, is Category:George II of Great Britain, who is never categorised as an Category:North American monarchs, let alone Category:18th-century monarchs in North America (a cat which incidentally appears to mislabel viceroys as "monarchs", but I'll make that a separate nomination). George II is not classified as an "(North) American monarch" (as he perhaps should), but a "European monarch": Category:George II of Great Britain > Category:Monarchs of Great Britain > Category:British monarchs > Category:European monarchs. This category makes clear that it is not a linguistic or "ethnic" but purely geographical grouping because of 2 parents: Category:Monarchs by continent and Category:Heads of state in Europe. But where and to whom was George II "King George"? In North America to his American subjects. You could also argue from a "national" or state perspective that both King George and his subjects in America were "British". But in what sense were they "Germanic"? Just because George II's native language or primary language of official communication was English? Does that make him a "Germanic monarch"? Surely not. Even if we do accept this, then this is incompatible with tying a language family with a single continent (Europe in this case). Even today, the British monarchs are heads of state of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, none of which are "in Europe", even though English is currently the official and primary language of these countries. Besides, the inhabitants of British America were, and of CA, AU and NZ are, a very diverse mixture of indigenous peoples and colonists from various European countries and ethnolinguistic backgrounds; lumping them all together under a "Germanic monarch" just because the monarch spoke/speaks English is just waaay too WP:NONDEFINING. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • OK thanks. To the closer of the discussion: please keep the above exceptions in mind if closing as merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_7&oldid=1157912070"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6
March 8 >

March 7

Category:Latvian pharmacologists

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pesma za Evroviziju

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. As always, every television series is not automatically entitled to one of these -- this is warranted only if there's an unusually large amount of related content that needs to be kept together in a category, and is not a thing that every TV show automatically gets as a matter of course. But the only content here is a contestants subcategory and two redirects to from "Pesma za Evroviziju 'YY" to "Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest YYYY", which is not sufficient. Bearcat ( talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:SMALLCAT states the following: "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". This category is for an annual event, so the category (and its subcategories) will grow over time. ImStevan ( talk) 22:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, it is uncertain whether every yearly edition of this event will have its own stand alone article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian ten-pin bowling players

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Estonian stained glass artists and manufacturers

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian female squash players

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian sexologists

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: withdrawn ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

 Comment: we already had Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_27#Category:Icelandic_sexologists, but somehow after user:Qwerfjkl closing, we still have these 1-member categories-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Estopedist1, I only just closed these discussion and listed them at WT:CFDW. They may take a few days to be processed by admins. PLease withdraw this and any similar nominations; they are unnecessary. —  Qwerfjkl talk 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Red X I withdraw my nomination per discussion Estopedist1 ( talk) 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian pottery

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian obstetricians

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian new wave musical groups

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television news program articles using incorrect naming style

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Category:Television news program articles using incorrect naming style

Category:Extra genres

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Category:Extra genres

Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday/Fixed

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories intended to be populated by User:Xinbenlv bot but its bot request wasn't approved ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xinbenlv bot) Gonnym ( talk) 14:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The links for some reason are broken. Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday/Fixed and Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday/Validated. Gonnym ( talk) 14:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The other link is a redirect to Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLoop/Inconsistent Birthday. Before deleting the categories, is it not appropriate to delete the ~90 bot subpages within that one? The bot owner seems no longer to be active, so I think they should be taken to MfD. – Fayenatic London 08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    They could very well be deleted at MfD. I personally am not going to tag that many pages. But regardless, we don't categorize user or even bot pages, even more when they are from bot that wasn't even approved to work. Gonnym ( talk) 09:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all 3 — the 3rd is merely a category redirect, and its target would be a later discussion.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Thriller drama films and sub

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: manual upmerge to parent "thriller" categories. Note that this result ultimately results in deletion of the categories, which represents the strong deletion position as well. The usefulness of the "thriller" tree should be the subject of another discussion. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this and all of its subcategories for deletion as it's unnecessary. Thrillers are by default dramas. Yes, comedy thrillers do exist, but they're a distinct subgenre. thriller dramas are just what you would expect when you say thriller. It's not a distinct genre on its own. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 17:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Note there are at least 80 subs that fall under this umbrella. It would have taken well over an hour to nominate them all, but they were all created by the same editor who has already been notified about this discussion. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Only delete if together with all subcategories. If only these seven categories are deleted, the remaining ones will merely be orphaned but still exist. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This procedural objection is meanwhile no longer applicable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged and added the subcats.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose. This isn't helpful, because if "thriller drama" categories don't exist then every film in them has to be simultaneously categorized as both a thriller and a drama — with the result that the drama film categories get overpopulated and have to get rediffused for dramatic subgenre. And since thriller comedies do exist, simply making "thriller films" direct subcategories of "drama films" categories wouldn't solve that problem at all, and would instead create the new (and equally serious) problem of comedy films being miscategorized as a subcategory of drama films — so whether it seems redundant to you or not, having "thriller drama" categories is the only way to resolve those two competing imperatives. Bearcat ( talk) 17:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bearcat: agree with a merge into the thriller films tree rather than deletion. Nominator apparently thinks that merging into the drama films tree is not desirable and I do not have an opinion about that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merging into thriller films is not what I suggested — I explicitly opposed that, on the grounds that doing so would cause a massive fustercluck. Bearcat ( talk) 21:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I've recently updated the "Thriller film" wiki page. One thing I have to say is the genre of the Thriller is not one that has a lot of critical study, namely because despite how common of a term it is, it's not one that easily identifiable traits and iconography. The author of the book Thrillers usually suggests the thriller attaches itself to other genres, but ones with usually a bit more recognizable iconography (i.e: horror films, mystery, science fiction, etc.) but not really with genres like adventure, Westerns, etc. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/split to Category:Thriller films as an "umbrella" genre per Thriller film (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article quotes multiple sources that the term "thriller" is largely marketing ("popular press"), so scholars and film directors assign them to more specific labels. But that doesn't mean we need all these 3-way and 4-way and 5-way and 6-way intersections. Assuming drama, Split others into comedies, etc. We don't need/want American comedy drama western thriller films by decade: existing Category:Thriller films by decade and Category:Thriller films by country will do.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 08:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
We don't want comedy films to become misfiled as a subcategory of drama films, so upmerging this to a parent category that would then have to become a subcategory of Category:Drama films is a total non-starter. Bearcat ( talk) 16:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, second choice merge somewhere. Genre is a bit of a dark art but "thriller" is unusually poorly defined making it a bad fit for a category which requires clear inclusion criteria. Nobody other than marketers agrees on what counts as a thriller, so we shouldn't even attempt to try. SnowFire ( talk) 14:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per my comments above, per the vagueness of the term. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 20:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

And if we do that, then we have to make "thriller films" categories direct subcategories of "drama films" categories, which then causes "thriller comedy films" to become inappropriately filed as subs of "drama films", but that can't happen because thriller comedies are not dramas. Bearcat ( talk) 21:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No, we would not have to place all Category:Thriller films categories into a drama subcategory. Categories do not "inherit" the parents of the categories merged into them. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply
We would have to place Category:Thriller films itself as a subcategory of drama films if there isn't a separate subcategory for thriller drama films. Bearcat ( talk) 12:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It's no sort of non sequitur at all. You might want to actually look at Category:Comedy thriller films, because you will notice that it is not only a subcategory of Comedy films, it is also a subcategory of thriller films. But if all thriller drama films get uploaded to the thriller films parent, with the consequence that the thriller films categories all have to become direct subcategories of drama films categories, then the thriller comedy films subcategories also become subcategories of drama films by virtue of being a subcategory of thriller films. Bearcat ( talk) 09:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: I don't follow your objection – there would be no such consequence. If all the members of Category:American thriller drama films were added to Category:American thriller films and Category:American drama films, there would be no change to the categorisation of Category:American comedy thriller films. On some merges (e.g. downmerge or sibling merge) we adjust the parent categories, but not in an upmerge case like this.
Although the nominator claimed that most thrillers are dramas, there is no proposal to formalise this by making all thriller cats become sub-cats of dramas.
Note: merging to both parents would be unnecessary for most pages, because most members of Category:American thriller drama films are already in other sub-cats of Category:American thriller films, so a manual merge using WP:PetScan first would be advisable. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
With over 4,000 articles in it right now, Category:American drama films is already far, far too large as it is, and needs a couple of thousand articles diffused out of it rather than another 500 articles becoming undiffused into it. So no, the alternative to "thriller drama films" categories is not "add 'thriller films' and 'drama films' as two discrete categories to every film" — that's an absolute non-starter on category size grounds — it's "'thriller films' wuuld have to be filed as a direct subcategory of 'drama films' itself". Bearcat ( talk) 15:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see. The films may be in other thriller categories, but they are generally not in other drama categories. You oppose merger because of category size, and you oppose deletion because of losing these films from the Drama hierarchy. How about merging only to thrillers, only where not in another thriller genre, and adding "see also thrillers" to every drama parent? – Fayenatic London 07:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note (in support of FL) that a large number of articles in this tree are also in the psychological thrillers tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because it appears that merging these would create a bigger mess than the current situation of having an arguably-redundantly-named category tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Pppery: Do you have a preference on deletion vs. keeping if you dislike merging? I'd propose that deletion would help clean up the mess... SnowFire ( talk) 15:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Bearcat is declining to reply further. Does anyone else find any merit in my compromise suggestion above? i.e. manual upmerge to thrillers parents, but only for pages not in another thriller genre; do not upmerge to dramas, but add "see also" links for the corresponding thrillers category to every drama parent? – Fayenatic London 17:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I think that is probably the best bet for now. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It was probably clear from my earlier reaction that I agree this is the best solution. "Drama" adds very little to "thriller" and merging (nearly) all thrillers to the drama category is a no-brainer. On the other hand keeping them in the thrillers tree is absolutely necessary. But as so many articles jn these categories are already in Category:Psychological thrillers as well this will not lead to oversized thrillers categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Yes and no. Yes, manual upmerge using WP:PetScan first to Dramas, for those that are not in another genre subcategory. No, do not add any see also. Bearcat assumes that Thrillers is a subcategory of Dramas. No, it should be side-by-side under Category:Films by genre, exactly where it is now. There's no need for a see also to every other parallel genre.
      William Allen Simpson ( talk) 09:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I prefer whatever option comes closest to deletion. The problem is that "thriller" does not have clear inclusion criteria and nobody seems to have proposed any. I suppose a merge is mildly preferred to no action, but a merge still won't fix the fundamental problem of "what movies are thrillers." If a merge is done, no need for "See also" links IMO, if someone wants to add a link on an individual basis in prose that's fine though (e.g. "Reviewers called Film XYZ a thriller film"). SnowFire ( talk) 15:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all genre category intersections with the word "drama". Drama (film and television), in particular - (from the article) "The Screenwriters Taxonomy contends that film genres are fundamentally based upon a film's atmosphere, character and story, and therefore the labels "drama" and "comedy" are too broad to be considered a genre" So, in the case of films and shows, drama isn't even a genre! also from the article - "According to the Screenwriters' Taxonomy, all film descriptions should contain their type (comedy or drama) combined with one (or more) of the eleven super-genres.[2] This combination does not create a separate genre, but rather, provides a better understanding of the film. According to the taxonomy, combining the type with the genre does not create a separate genre.[2] For instance, the "Horror Drama" is simply a dramatic horror film (as opposed to a comedic horror film). "Horror Drama" is not a genre separate from the horror genre or the drama type." So all these drama-thriller combinations are not even genres!! These all need to go. Strong Delete. - jc37 01:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European monarchs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Category:European monarchs

Category:Latvian mimes

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ontologists and Category:Metaphysics writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: duplicative of Category:Metaphysicians, many of the entries are not philosophers who contributed to metaphysics so a merge would not be productive - car chasm ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greece in the Roman era

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 to Category:Greece under Roman rule. Consensus seems to be that it is useful to keep the contents of the category together, that it is focused on modern-day boundaries, and that there is some kind of ambiguity with the current title based on chronological fuzziness. In this case, a rename seems to best take the consensus into account. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Series to eliminate use of "Roman era" in categories. Editors rarely read category header dates, as category tools do not show the headers. This category currently has entries pertaining to the Roman period in Greece, not the Roman era (everywhere).
  • 146 BCE Greece conquered by Rome, Roman period in Greece begins.
  • 31-30 BCE Hellenistic era ends, Roman era begins.
  • 27-2 BCE Roman Empire begins. 27 BCE is the year of first Roman Emperor, but the constitution was not finished until 2 BCE. Note that the Roman Empire is slightly later than the Roman era. This distinction is often lost in categorization.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Carchasm, Jc37, Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron: participants in recent discussion.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure if "era" or "period" makes a lot of difference but English is not my native language. (I do not oppose.) Note that the natural end of Hellenism in 31 BC is because Egypt was conquered by Rome in that year, while the similar natural end of Hellenism in Greece is 146 BC. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Marcocapelle, the latter is not my understanding. This is not cut and dried. Specifically, Hellenistic philosophy in Greece continues long after 146 BCE. Cicero (106-43 BCE) belonged to the hellenistic school of Academic skepticism, and translated from Greek to Latin. De Natura Deorum in 45 BCE is classified as hellenistic, as it discusses schools of hellenistic philosophy. Asclepius was written sometime between 100 CE and 300 CE, still considered hellenistic because the original was in Greek. That is why we should not be categorizing places by eras. Better to classify by governments that have distinct beginnings and endings.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The latter makes sense for sure. The article Hellenism mentions no less than five (very different) possible endings of Hellenism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Also, the article for the Roman era is called Ancient Rome. Perhaps that should be what we use throughout? - jc37 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then "Roman era" should be replaced with "X during the Roman Empire". I agree with Marcocapelle, period is just about as bad (as indefinite) as era. - jc37 03:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jc37 and Marcocapelle: nomination modified as suggested.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose splitting to "Empire", Greece during the Roman Republic was not any different from Greece during the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then, where should it be merged? Greece in the Roman era is almost identical to Greece in the Roman Empire (see dates above), and does not include the Roman Republic, so these articles should not have any relation to the Republic. The "Roman era" does not start any earlier in Greece. It always starts exactly in 30 BCE. This is a 19th century concept, taught in history and Classics departments worldwide.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 07:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jc37 and Marcocapelle: Considering overnight, I've thought of two more possibilties similar to existing category names: "in the Roman era (146 BCE)" or "under Roman rule".
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't have an objection to "under Roman rule" (but I also have no objection to "in the Roman period" or "in the Roman era" without year). Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is. There is no meaningful distinction between "era" and "period", but between the two, "era" seems like the more typical expression in this context. As for what that era (or period) is, at least some editors think that this topic should at least theoretically include the period from 146 to 30 BC, while others do not. I would have assumed that the entire period of Roman dominion over various parts of Greece would have justified inclusion of some topics in this category. The word "Empire" is itself problematic in this context, since in the general sense of the word, Rome ruled an empire for nearly two centuries before it had an emperor, and that included the entire period of Roman dominion in Greece. Whether the phrase "Roman era" redirects to "Roman Empire" is beside the point. It doesn't render the phrase meaningless, or determine whether it ought to be used in article or category titles when it conveys the intended meaning as well or better than alternative formulations. "Greece in the Roman era" is perfectly clear—or at least as clear as "Greece in the Roman Empire", which could imply an artificial—and in my opinion unnecessary—distinction at 30 BC—one that itself is unclear, since it could still include material dating back more than a century earlier, but whether it should would be confusing to both readers and editors. The current formulation at least does not make such a definite distinction. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ P Aculeius: Categories need "artificial" perfectly clear boundaries. Unlike articles, where markings or explanations can bolster the text, category annotations are not visible to editors using common tools. Therefore, Wikipedia:Category names must be very specific and consistent. WP:CAT#V Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It's "artificial" because it wouldn't be there naturally—a natural interpretation of "Greece in the Roman era" is that it includes Greece under Roman dominion, irrespective of who was ruling Rome. You're making a distinction that makes little sense, and which will continue to confound both readers and editors who aren't aware of the gloss you're putting on ordinary English. P Aculeius ( talk) 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. Sort of C2C but applied higher up in the hierarchy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Query So "Greece under Roman rule" included those parts of Greece that were not under Roman rule or only came under Roman rule late in the day? But the title could be taken to mean that all Greece was always under Roman rule. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Presumably, any time that any part of Greece came under Roman rule, beyond Roman era and Roman Empire. Are there parts that never came under Roman rule?
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 02:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No part of the modern state of Greece escaped Roman rule. Just to be clear, the scope of this tree structure is "Modern state Foo under Roman rule". Yes? Even if only a remote corner of the state was ruled, as is the case with Ukraine? Yes? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Trying to discuss the knotty problem at hand. As you can see, several choices have been rejected. We haven't even mentioned whether this is the modern state of Greece, or just the Roman protectorate, or Achaia (Roman province).
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then let's start at the beginning. We cannot come to a view on this until it's scope is defined. Perhaps withdraw the nomination until that is agreed? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 23:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Nope, sorry, tired of sweeping nominations that go nowhere.
  1. The scope is Ancient Greece, the search is for clear concise wording that describes the correct content without having a head note. Tools don't show them.
  2. As already documented, "Roman era" doesn't work because editors don't have a Classics education.
  3. "Roman period" would follow current "Hellenistic period" naming elsewhere, but our resident foreign language experts say "period is just about as bad (as indefinite) as era."
  4. "Roman Empire" would be clearer, but Ancient Greece was conquered under the Roman Republic.
  5. "Roman rule" matches other parts of the tree: under Habsburg rule, under Qing rule, under Japanese rule, under Republic of China rule, under Italian rule, under Muslim rule, etc.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Trying to be consistent, but not foolish.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 02:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yes - I thought that that was the case. But William seems to be equivocal about that point. We need certainty on this point. If it really is "by modern state", then why does the Greek Category contain Asia (Roman province) since no part of Asia was in the modern state of Greece? Is selective pruning needed? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. All Rhodes lead to Greece. Would including it in the category do more damage than good for the non-expert reader? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ William Allen Simpson and Marcocapelle: If you're going by Greek Antiquity instead of modern state, then why does the first line of the lead of the eponymous article state "Greece in the Roman era describes the Roman conquest of Greece"? Since Greece did not exist in Greek Antiquity, then how could the Romans conquer it? Neither the modern state of Greece nor any other state of that name existed in Greek Antiquity. Furthermore, I disagree that this is a nomenclature issue; it's a scope issue. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Finally we get to the nub of the problem. If, as you contend, that this article covers the Greek civilization as a whole, then the category would have to include conquests in Magna Graecia, Alexandria, Crimea, Marseilles and swathes of Anatolia. What an appaling vista. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Laurel Lodged and Marcocapelle: It is currently both. Are you arguing this needs to be split into 2 categories with separate parallel parentage? I've been treating it as a joinder of its parent categories (as we do most category parentage), according to the usual class inheritance in computer science. (As you may remember, I was a developer at the time of adding categories to the software, so that's my technical way of thinking about them.)
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I do not think the concept of a Greek civilization within a very small region of the Roman Republic/Roman Empire makes a lot of sense. It was a Greco-Roman civilization throughout the entire Roman Republic/Roman Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree that it is currently both. The intent is "by modern country" alone. If there are hatnotes or other things in the category scope definition that say otherwise, then they should be removed and replaced with wording that makes the intention clearer. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is (or "period" is fine too, the two words are synonyms). TLDR: It would be neat and tidy if the Hellenistic era/period ended and the Roman period/era began at the same time; but history is not neat and tidy. They overlap; 146 BC is generally treated as the start of the "Roman period/era" in Greece, but quite often not as the end of the "Hellenistic period/era" especially in areas like philosophy, where the political shift is less relevant. Yet, it is useful and valid to have a category that brings the "Roman stuff" together in one period. It is useful and valid to limit the category to the geographic region of "mainland Greece."
  • Scholars generally use "Greece in the Roman period/era" or "Roman Greece" to mean Mainland Greece in the period from 146 BC onwards (e.g. Alcock, Susan E. Graecia Capta. The Landscapes of Roman Greece, 1993, which is probably still the most important book on the topic) but even in Greece that doesn't make sense everywhere (e.g., Geagan, Daniel J. ‘Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culture I. 86 B.C. – A.D. 267’,. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.7.1 (1979): 371–437 - and those are definitely the usual dates for "Roman Athens").
  • When someone is talking about Greece and wants to specify the period after 30 BC, they sometimes say "Imperial" or "under the Roman Empire" (e.g. Rizakēs, A. D. ‘Town and Country in Early Imperial Greece’. In Recent Developments in the Long-Term Archaeology of Greece, edited by J. Bintliff, 241–67, 2014.). From the perspective of mainland Greece, 30 BC is a massive watershed (as established most recently in Spawforth, Antony. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. 2012.) and it would be perfectly valid for us to categorise the two periods separately, or have subcats for each, but Greece is in some sense "Roman" both before and after, so it wouldn't be valid to purge the earlier period from a "Roman Greece" category tree altogether.
As for the geographic side of the issue: It's rare for scholars to talk about "Greece" when they mean "Greeks everywhere in the Roman empire". Then it is usual to say "Greeks", "Greeks under Rome" or some other periphrasis (e.g. S. Goldhill, Being Greek Under Rome Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire 2001; Tim Whitmarsh, Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World 2010). Furius ( talk) 20:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Re #2, in terms of geography everything in this category is about the territory that constitutes modern Greece. So I am not sure what kind of split you are after. At best we may have a category for Greek speaking Roman people, but as the Greek language was widespread in the east this is barely a defining characteristic and largely coincides with region. And it would not be a split, it would just be the creation of a new category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Re #1 Marco and I have already removed some articles from this category that were incorrectly categorised (see above). I'm not aware of any other miscategorisations is sister country categories. I personally populated many of those categories. But if you see that stuff not from "Roman era" and not from "modern Greece" of present, please feel free to fix the problem. So that's a problem with categorisation errors, not with the nature of the scope of the category itself. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Either Keep (era or period), or Rename to Category:Roman Greece. The article name is currently at Greece in the Roman era, because User:Laurel Lodged moved it from Roman Greece in April 2018. This category (and others of similar name listed in Category:Romanization of Southeastern Europe) were renamed to the current names when Laurel Lodged nominated them here in September of 2018. I really don't care a whole lot either way. But we should have clarity in naming. So whatever is determined to be clearest - and whatever term we may find that scholars use - should be the result. - jc37 00:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Jc37: does this mean that you oppose Category:Greece under Roman rule? – Fayenatic London 21:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Honestly, I was just trying to help consensus to get a closure at this point. I'm striking the "keep" option now, though, because do I still agree that "era" and "period" are not good categorisation in this case (and the article renaming should be reverted). Also noting that Roman era redirects to Ancient Rome.
    After doing various google searches, I am mostly seeing Roman Greece, or Greece in the Roman World. With the latter being a bad idea for category naming in my opinion. And honestly if we think about it, the former is too vague/broad.
    And when I look at Ancient Greece, it says: The Hellenistic period ended with the conquest of the eastern Mediterranean world by the Roman Republic, and the annexation of the Roman province of Macedonia in Roman Greece, and later the province of Achaea during the Roman Empire. - So does that mean that Greece ceased to exist as a whole under Rome? and if so, then maybe this category should be Deleted? But then again, I look at the article and even the subheading there is Roman Greece - Ancient_Greece#Roman_Greece, comparable to Hellenistic Greece, and Byzantine Greece.
    So if this category is retained, it should at least be Renamed to Category:Roman Greece (its previous name),
    All that said, I think if I were starting from scratch on these categories, I'd start with something like Roman provinces and territories or some such, as the parent, and have whatever appropriate Greek subcats of that. As it turns out, we do have that - Category:Ancient Roman provinces. Which splits between "Empire", and "Republic". So this cat should probably be subcatted along the same lines.
    But then, at that point, are we just duplicating Category:Ancient Roman provinces, with the only distinction that we're also including "events" as well as "territories"?
    So maybe the best answer would be to make this a Category Redirect, pointing to Category:Achaia (Roman province) and whatever other Roman provinces made up the former Ancient Greece, and merge all of this to the subcats of Category:Ancient Roman provinces, as appropriate.
    So, I dunno. I think the easy answer is probably to just rename back to Roman Greece, and then have the broader discussion - starting fresh. Because, from what I can tell, these "Roman era" renames are affecting more than just merely Greece. - jc37 01:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Private schools in Leeds

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category covers more than just the settlement, it also has entries for the wider area see Category:Private schools in the City of Bradford for comparison for this naming. Keith D ( talk) 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Amended nomination:
Yes that should be done, in any case support merger. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Climbing events

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 19#Category:Climbing events

Transvaal Colony emigrants, etc

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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I doubt that much usefulness can be found for these movements between nearby colonies/interim republics. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:18th-century monarchs in North America

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this category mostly to discuss two broader questions (which came up in the Turkic rulers CfD below) that apply to similar categories:
1. Should viceroys be categorised as "monarchs" or not? It is an appointed office, not a hereditary one, but viceroys do "reign" as monarch's representatives with much of the same authority. Category:Viceroys is not categorised as Category:Monarchs or something, but it is in Category:Noble titles, for example. (Because I currently don't think viceroys are monarchs, that would mean this category would be left with just 1 item and thus be deleted as a WP:SMALLCAT, hence the nomination, but that's not my focus; primarily, I'd like to address the two broader questions).
2. Should we consider monarchs who resided in Europe (e.g. Madrid/Valladolid, Lisbon, Paris, London, etc.) but had colonies or even viceroyalties in the Americas as Category:North American monarchs or Category:North American monarchs, or just as Category:European monarchs? Case in point: King George's War, entirely fought in North America, is named after George II of Britain, who according to current categorisations is ultimately only a "European monarch", but it was to his American subjects (and later U.S. citizens) that he was "King George", for/by whom it was fought. (The European theatre of this war is simply known as the War of the Austrian Succession; it is the Habsburg Austrian throne in Vienna that mattered there). For comparison, Category:18th-century Ottoman sultans is both in Category:18th-century monarchs in Europe and Category:18th-century monarchs in the Middle East, so the fact that their residence was in Kostantiniyye in European Turkey does not disqualify them from being "monarchs in the Middle East" as well. I can imagine three answers to this question:
  • A. Based on the Ottoman sultan example, historiographical arguments such as "King George" etc., George II residing in London shouldn't disqualify him from being a "North American monarch", would it? (Especially if viceroys are just governors, deputies, representatives of the actual monarchs residing in Europe, then the latter should be populating this and similar categories instead of the former).
  • B. Conversely, if we determine a monarch's "continent" by their place of residence instead of the various territories they reigned over (which may be in multiple continents), then Ottoman sultans should be excluded from "Middle East/Asian monarchs" from 1453 onwards.
  • C. Finally, if we determine that a monarch's "continent" is actually WP:NONDEFINING (which may very well be the case), well, prepare for a whole slew of CfDs coming up. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting questions. I would consider a vice-roy to be equivalent to a governor rather than to a monarch. The Ottoman Empire and Russia are special cases in that they consist of one coherent area stretching in two continents, which is very different from countries having colonies far away. Combining these arguments leads to delete except Edward I (Moskito) should be moved to the parent categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks! (took me a while to think about and write down). I agree that a viceroy seems more like governor or governor-general than a monarch.
    I don't think the Ottoman Empire and Russia are that special, actually. List of transcontinental countries shows there are quite a lot of countries like that in the world today, let alone in history. The distinction between so-called "contiguous" and "non-contiguous" transcontinental countries is just as arbitrary as the definition of the boundaries between Asia and Europe (Cyprus, Caucasus, Kazakhstan etc.), Asia and Africa (Sinai Peninsula), Europe and Asia (especially the idea that ALL islands in the Mediterrean are somehow "European" even if the African coast is closer), Asia and Oceania (between which islands should we draw a line?), Europe and North America (Greenland, Iceland and Faroe Islands?), and North and South America (Central America?, Carribean?). The idea that Turkey is "contiguous" is also pretty arbitrary: there is a body of water between Rumelia and Anatolia.
    Similarly, the Almohad Caliphate stretched out across north Africa and Iberia (which is why it is also in Category:Medieval Spain, Category:Medieval Portugal etc.), but Category:Almohad caliphs is only in Category:Berber rulers, which is only in Category:African rulers. Now, I'm already trying to improve this last problem slightly with my new Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Category:European monarchs CfR. But the basic problem remains: is an Almohad caliph who resides in Marrakesh only a "monarch in Africa"? Also a "monarch in Europe"? Or does he simply defy categorisation by continent because the fact that there is a bit of 13km-wide sea in the midst of his vast realm isn't that relevant to running his empire? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 20:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Should be in both Africa and Europe. (I can only imagine exceptions on this when the rule over the country's part in the other continent is rather nominal, or when the country's percentage in the other continent is very low. E.g. there is not so much value in categorizing Egyptian presidents in Asia just because the Sinai desert counts as Asian.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Right, so I guess we should expell Margrethe II of Denmark from Category:European monarchs and welcome her in Category:North American monarchs, because Greenland accounts for 98% of the Danish Realm's territory? I'm obviously joking, but this demonstrates that territorial percentages are a rather poor indicator to measure the "Europeanness", "North Americanness" etc. of a monarch. If we went for population instead, then Denmark easily beats Greenland with 98.17%. If we go for the capital or royal residence (usually the same city), then Europe wins because of Copenhagen. But what about the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves in 1821? Its capital and royal residence was Lisbon, but Brazil had 4 million people and a much larger territory than Portugal (3 million inhabitants) at the time. Was John IV more a European monarch or a South American monarch? (They were pondering this question at the time as well, as Brazil declared its independence in 1822). All this serves to illustrate just how much continents are pretty WP:NONDEFINING for monarchs, and thus these may simply be WP:ARBITRARYCATs if the criteria aren't obvious. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Per my earlier comment, colonies (or legacies thereof) should be ruled out in the first place, as totally non-contiguous. The Queen of Denmark is European, her representative in Greenland is North American. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
      • OK, but the problem is that within the UK of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarve, each of the three kingdoms was equal to each other. The Kingdom of Brazil had the same status as the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of the Algarve. Rio de Janeiro was even the capital (royal residence and seat of three Cortes) of the UK of PBA from 1815 to 1821, the Kingdom of Brazil wasn't a mere colony or post-colony with lots of autonomy (like Greenland today, which is not a "kingdom") anymore. John IV was a king of 3 federated countries, not 1 country plus a European vassal state and an overseas colony (e.g. Denmark around 1860 with Schleswig, Holstein, Lauenburg as vassals, the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland as colonies). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
        • And Margrethe may be "European" as the Queen of Denmark, but as Queen of the Danish Realm, she reigns mostly over North American territory. The position of High Commissioner of Denmark in Greenland an appointed, non-hereditary governorship, who governs on behalf of Margrete II, who still reigns over Greenland even if she is in Copenhagen most of the time. Similarly, the Governor of Curaçao, Governor of Aruba and Governor of Sint Maarten are appointed, non-hereditary governorships, govern the overseas landen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on behalf of the King, who reigns over them even if he is in Amsterdam or The Hague most of the time. The exact status of the landen within the Kingdom is a bit unclear; although the preamble of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands states that the landen are op voet van gelijkwaardigheid ("on the basis of equality"), in practice the Netherlands do dominate this federal monarchy. Yet, saying that therefore Willem-Alexander is only a "European monarch" doesn't seem justified. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — English monarchs were not "every continent of the world", despite the saying the sun never sets on the empire. Abolish these useless continent categories. Agree that vice-roy is more akin to a governor.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 09:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1915 Austro-Hungarian films

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Other than these three, we do not otherwise have any established scheme of "YYYY Individual-Country films" categories for these to be part of -- such categories are permitted by decade, but not by individual year.
But creating a new Category:1910s Austro-Hungarian films would be of dubious value here, as the 1910s were the only decade in which the existence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire coexisted with any sort of natively Austro-Hungarian film industry -- meaning that would become the only "Austro-Hungarian films by decade" category that existed at all, and it would contain all of the films that are currently in the parent. (And, for added bonus, all of the films are also cross-categorized as being specifically Austrian or specifically Hungarian or specifically Czech anyway, which is entirely appropriate given the multinational and multilingual nature of what the Austro-Hungarian Empire actually was, so they'll be categorizable as 1910s Those-Other-Things films once somebody gets around to them.)
So there's not much point in creating a new by-decade category here, but they certainly don't warrant a unique by-individual-year tree that no other historical or current country on earth has. Bearcat ( talk) 14:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Personally I don't see why we shouldn't have "by year and country" categories for films, the by decade categories are often gigantic. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Whether we should or not is a discussion for another time; as things currently stand, we don't, and this category is not large enough to require special treatment that the overwhelmingly larger categories (e.g. American, British, German, French, etc.) aren't already getting. And no, the categories for 1915, 1916 and 1917 aren't inordinately large; the categories at the recent end of the calendar (2020s, 2010s, etc.) are large, but the categories at the "early days of film" end (1900s, 1910s) are very, very not large at all. Bearcat ( talk) 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian mezzo-sopranos

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Estopedist1: please respond to the above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle: which country category do you suggest instead of Foo country opera singers? Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Estopedist1: just women singers seems to make more sense. But the Lithuanian category should not be merged to women singers because the article is already in a 20th-century subcat thereof. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: my bad. Corrected-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian Lutheran theologians

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian immunologists

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latvian films by studio

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 to Category:Latvian films. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I guess that only one notable film studio in Latvia. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cape Colony 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: Option B. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Rename one way or the other for consistency with others. Other occupational and migration-related sub-cats can follow speedily.– Fayenatic London 14:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Photographers from Cape Colony

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 biography which is already in other Cape Colony categories, so not useful for navigation. If not deleted, the name should end "of the Cape Colony". – Fayenatic London 14:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Traders from Cape Colony

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no parent hierarchy of Category:Traders. We have Arms traders, Fur traders and Slave traders, but this man was a cattle-trader. If not merged/deleted, the name should end "of the Cape Colony". However, there is a South African category, so this page might as well be put back there, whence it was moved by Johnpacklambert when creating these micro categories. [1] – Fayenatic London 14:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Fayenatic london: it appears the target is currently empty, so we may instead delete. The articles are about people who are primarily known as explorers rather than as traders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I wonder who emptied that out-of-process. Well, delete then. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Marco. Another JPL special.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male boxers from Cape Colony

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) Qwerfjkl talk 11:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Newly created by user:Johnpacklambert – with only one parent, along with others in Cape Colony. Only contains Andrew Jeptha, so not useful for navigation. Jeptha had moved from the Cape to Britain where he lost his sight in 1910, so by the time he returned it was the Union of South Africa. If not merged, these would need to be renamed to people "…from the Cape Colony". – Fayenatic London 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 19#Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Category:Rulers of Prussia

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 2 subcats, 0 items. Both are also already in parent Category:Prussian nobility ("Dukes of Prussia" through Category:Ducal Prussian people‎). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Moscow

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 to Category:Royalty from Moscow. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 subcat, 0 items. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Seems good. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Jibal

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 to Category:Jibal. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. 1 item, 1 subcat. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian rulers

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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Synonymous. Compare "Korean rulers" and "Korean monarchs" below. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the tip. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Mosul

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Better fits subcats. Mosul has had emirs and atabegs, both of which are monarchical titles. I've already split off Category:Governors of Mosul. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Cilicia

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Better fits subcats. I've already split off Category:Governors of Cilicia for all non-monarch sub-national office-holders. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 05:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean rulers

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: downmerge/rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Downmerge main cat, rename subcats. "Ruler" and "monarch" mean exactly the same in this context. Category:Korean rulers already identifies List of monarchs of Korea as its main article. Funnily enough, on Commons it's the other way around: C:Category:Rulers of Korea is a child of C:Category:Monarchs of Korea rather than the other way around. "Goryeo rulers" are called "Monarchs of the Goryeo Dynasty", "Joseon rulers‎" are called "Monarchs of the Joseon Dynasty‎" etc.
For the subcats it's pretty much the same story, except renaming instead of merging. E.g. Category:Joseon rulers has List of Joseon monarchs as its main article, and 5 of its 6 subcats have "monarch" in the name already. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 03:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malla rulers

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per List of Malla kings of Nepal and the fact that Malla dynasty (Nepal) uses "king(...)" 66 times versus "rule(...)" 25 times versus "monarch(...)" 0 times. In the period after the unification in the 18th century, the term "monarch" is apparently preferred per List of monarchs of Nepal, although there is also King of Nepal and Kingdom of Nepal. In List of heads of state of Nepal it is 19 times "monarch(...)" versus 12 times "king(...)"). Category:Nepalese monarchs states Monarchs and kings of Nepal, apparently thinking these are different things. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 03:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1st millennium in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: redundant category tree with very little potential to grow Estopedist1 ( talk) 09:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IPhone video game engines

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 to Category:IOS video game engines. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category should be named after an operating system, not a device. I also invite editors to discuss whether they prefer the short form ("for iOS") or long form ("for iOS and iPadOS"). Those two forms are fully interchangeable, since both OSes run the same game engines; it's just a question of precision vs concision. DFlhb ( talk) 15:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 03:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkic rulers

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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS: people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. There is no evidence of that in the case of "Turkic rulers". The very concept of Turkic languages as a family, and the field of Turkology, are fundamentally modern. We can safely assume no single khagan riding his horse across the Eurasian steppes will have thought of himself as a member of the Turkic language family as scholars discovered it in modern times. Moreover, as pointed out at Category talk:Turkic rulers already in 2008: I am going to remove the subcategories for the Turkic state rulers since a ruler of a Turkic state is not necesserily a Turkic ruler. A Turkic ruler is a person. Apparently this advice was ignored, because the subcategories are still there, e.g. Category:Khans of the Golden Horde, which were originally Mongols before they Turkicised. Incidentally, the parent Category:Asian rulers (itself a child of Category:Rulers by continent) is also misleading, because the Khazar Khaganate and the Golden Horde (almost) were entirely located on European soil, the Ottoman Empire had its capital Kostantiniyye and much of its territory in Europe etc. So, unless we want to suggest people speaking Turkic languages only "belong" in Asia, I think this categorisation is entirely inappropriate.
WP:NONDEFINING. Although the category has sought to be strict about the criteria (This category includes rulers of Turkic ethnicity or descent. The claim must be WP:SOURCED in the article or the category will be removed.), there are many problems with this (including WP:OCEGRS mentioned above). The fact that this warning is even necessary suggests that "Turkic ethnicity or descent" is not a defining characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to as demanded by WP:NONDEFINING. Category:Turkic countries and territories was previously deleted as WP:NONDEFINING; a current CfD proposes to also delete "Turkic states" and "Historical Turkic states" as WP:NONDEFINING, and I have just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic monarchs as WP:NONDEFINING (as well as WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED; apparently whoever maintains the category and demands every member to be WP:SOURCED or the category will be removed hasn't been paying attention for 12 years). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 02:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
PS: Added Germanic rulers and Celtic rulers for the same reason of language family being WP:OCEGRS and WP:NONDEFINING. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I object to connecting language families to continents for the reasons I have given. It suggests that speakers of Germanic and Celtic languages don't "belong" outside of Europe, and Turkic languages speakers not outside Asia. That completely disregards migration, conquest and colonisation such as Turco-Mongol states in Eastern Europe and "Germanic" colonies in the Americas, for example, and has all sorts of territorial and xenophobic implications. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If there is any non-Asian content or non-European content respectively in these categories it should of course be excluded from the merger. But I do not think this is the case. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I mentioned 3 "Turkic" non-European examples already: Khazar khagans, Golden Horde khans (the earliest of which from Batu Khan until probably Özbeg Khan were in fact Mongols, not "Turkic"), and Ottoman sultans. As for "Germanic" colonies in the Americas: think of something like King George's War, a war fought exclusively in North America. "King George" was the monarch of British America, and it is after him that his American subjects and later U.S. citizens would name this war. "King George", however, is Category:George II of Great Britain, who is never categorised as an Category:North American monarchs, let alone Category:18th-century monarchs in North America (a cat which incidentally appears to mislabel viceroys as "monarchs", but I'll make that a separate nomination). George II is not classified as an "(North) American monarch" (as he perhaps should), but a "European monarch": Category:George II of Great Britain > Category:Monarchs of Great Britain > Category:British monarchs > Category:European monarchs. This category makes clear that it is not a linguistic or "ethnic" but purely geographical grouping because of 2 parents: Category:Monarchs by continent and Category:Heads of state in Europe. But where and to whom was George II "King George"? In North America to his American subjects. You could also argue from a "national" or state perspective that both King George and his subjects in America were "British". But in what sense were they "Germanic"? Just because George II's native language or primary language of official communication was English? Does that make him a "Germanic monarch"? Surely not. Even if we do accept this, then this is incompatible with tying a language family with a single continent (Europe in this case). Even today, the British monarchs are heads of state of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, none of which are "in Europe", even though English is currently the official and primary language of these countries. Besides, the inhabitants of British America were, and of CA, AU and NZ are, a very diverse mixture of indigenous peoples and colonists from various European countries and ethnolinguistic backgrounds; lumping them all together under a "Germanic monarch" just because the monarch spoke/speaks English is just waaay too WP:NONDEFINING. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • OK thanks. To the closer of the discussion: please keep the above exceptions in mind if closing as merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_7&oldid=1157912070"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE