May 8
Out, damned hyphen
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London 20:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Vertically-oriented music videos to Category:Vertically oriented music videos
- Propose merging Category:Biologically-based therapies to Category:Biologically based therapies
- Propose renaming NO BOTS Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests to Category:Wikipedia fully protected edit requests
- Nominator's rationale: C2A stales; all are the same obvious grammatical error of
MOS:HYPHEN:
Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)
. All others in Special:Search/Category:intitle:fully protected are correctly unhyphenated. Note prior mass renaming/redirecting of category mishyphenations. 73.93.5.246 ( talk) 23:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
vertically discussion
|
|---|
|
biologically discussion
|
|---|
|
fully discussion
|
|---|
|
- Comment: I have to say that having learned to hyphenate compound adjectives, I find this exception unintuitive and unclear in its scope. Which -ly adverbs are "standard"? I accept that "fully" is otherwise consistently unhyphenated in Wikipedia category names (see
All pages with titles beginning with Category:Wikipedia fully), but dare I challenge the assumption that "vertically" and "biologically" are "standard" adverbs? –
Fayenatic
London 16:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Standard adverb = adjective + -ly. New + -ly, newly. Vertical + -ly, vertically.
- Nonstandard -ly are dual adverb/adjectives like early, only:
(early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, because they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective.
73.93.5.246 ( talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Makes linguistic sense. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support to follow the manual of style. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rurikids
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. C2D per RM.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Propose downmerging Category:Rurikids to Category:Rurik dynasty
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories (and soon only one).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we don't need two redundant categories, but imo "Rurikids" should stays as "Rurik dynasty" is improper name (btw
Rurik dynasty should be renamed).
Marcelus (
talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree! Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we don't need two redundant categories, but imo "Rurikids" should stays as "Rurik dynasty" is improper name (btw
Rurik dynasty should be renamed).
Marcelus (
talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
SupportHah, you're suggesting what I've been meticulously preparing for some days. :) I've Template:Diffused both cats as far as possible, and what we're left with is two almost identical cats. Per WP:C2D Category:Rurik dynasty should be the name of the merged cat, but I think the word "dynasty" may be a bit unhelpful here, because it suggests everyone in it was a "dynast" or "ruler". en:wikt:dynasty defines it asA series of rulers or dynasts from one family
. That means Olga of Kiev would, strictly speaking, fall outside the scope of "dynasty", because she was only a princess consort and then regent. More importantly, it would have to apply to every single person in the subcategories, which it doesn't. Therefore, a Reverse merge may be an even better idea. I think it may also be a good idea to rename the main article to "Rurikids" rather than "Rurik dynasty", but that may require an RM. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk)
- (after edit conflict) Ah, I see Marcelus agrees with me. :)
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ Marcelus Do you think we would need an WP:RM to rename Rurik dynasty to Rurikids? I'd be happy to initiate it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- That is an unexpected development. For what it is worth, I am quite sure that (nearly) all dynasty categories here on en.wp are used for the whole family, not just for the monarchs.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, this is a certain inaccuracy that everyone seems to collectively ignore. A dynasty strictly speaking is "a series of people from the same family holding the same office one after another." George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III are part of the Windsor dynasty, but Prince William is not (yet), he is part of the "House of Windsor". That's why here we should name the category "Rurikids", "House of Rurik" or "Rurikovichi".
Marcelus (
talk) 19:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- You (@
Marcocapelle) may be forgiven for the confusion, because I myself have also used "dynasty" and "(ruling/reigning/royal/imperial) house" interchangeably until recently, when such categorisations here on English Wikipedia stopped making sense to me (hahaha). The second meaning of
en:wikt:dynasty is
(East Asian history) The polity or historical era under the rule of a certain dynasty
, which is much, much broader. I must confess that I first learnt about dynasties as a concept while I was exploring Chinese history right at the same time when I made my first edits on Wikipedia; as a matter of fact, my first 3 created articles ever were about Chinese dynasties! It may also be that the word dynastie in our native Dutch language isn't as specific as dynasty in English. My Koenen Woordenboek 2006 defines dynastie asvorstenhuis, regend huis
. nl:wikt:dynastie provides an even broader definition:uitgebreide familie, inclusief aangetrouwde familie, die over twee of meer generaties invloed of macht heeft uitgeoefend, meestal in een land
. So Prince William is not part of the Windsor dynasty, but he is part of the Windsor-dynastie! I'm just as confused as you. ;) - As a cherry on the cake:
Merriam-Webster defines dynasty as
1. a succession of rulers of the same line of descent, e.g. "a dynasty that ruled China for nearly 300 years". 2. a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time, e.g. "born into a powerful political dynasty." "a baseball dynasty"
The latter definition is broader, but not necessarily one of monarchical hereditary succession, and doesn't even have to be political, but can be about baseball. This second M-W definition also aligns closely with the third definition given by en:wikt:dynasty:(sports) A team or organization which has an extended period of success or dominant performance.
The broad Dutch definition of dynastie as "ruling house" beyond just the rulers themselves simply doesn't seem to exist in English. - Final speculation: Last year, you and Fayenatic already renamed provincial "royal houses" in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany to "ruling families". My guess is that these categories were perhaps misnamed because our Dutch vocabulary (vorstenhuis, dynastie etc.) seems to mismatch false friends used in English that have more specific or otherwise different meanings. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- You (@
Marcocapelle) may be forgiven for the confusion, because I myself have also used "dynasty" and "(ruling/reigning/royal/imperial) house" interchangeably until recently, when such categorisations here on English Wikipedia stopped making sense to me (hahaha). The second meaning of
en:wikt:dynasty is
- Well, this is a certain inaccuracy that everyone seems to collectively ignore. A dynasty strictly speaking is "a series of people from the same family holding the same office one after another." George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III are part of the Windsor dynasty, but Prince William is not (yet), he is part of the "House of Windsor". That's why here we should name the category "Rurikids", "House of Rurik" or "Rurikovichi".
Marcelus (
talk) 19:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think adding
Mussorgsky and
Kropotkin to this category is such a brilliant idea. These things have been kept separate for a reason.
Ghirla
-трёп- 18:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might have been a good idea when you and No Free Nickname Left first created these categories in 2005 and 2007, but the past 18 years have shown that it hasn't worked. Before I began to fix the mess, people and subcategories were randomly placed in both categories all the time. That means the category names were not clear enough to describe their functions. It is just better to separate familial ties and dynastic positions anyway. E.g.
Category:Monomakhovichi family describes everyone who directly descended from
Vladimir II Monomakh, regardless of the position or "job" they had, and
Category:Grand Princes of Kiev describes everyone who actually had the position or "job" of
Grand Prince of Kiev, regardless of the family they belonged to. Perhaps the confusion was destined to happen. All we can do now is fix it. I've basically already done that, and this is the last step to complete the fixing. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS: If we actually want to visualise dynasties in the strict sense of "A series of rulers or dynasts from one family", lists do the job much better than categories anyway. Lists are series of items put in a certain order (in this case chronologically), categories are unsorted groups of items that have something in common (and the default sorting of items in Wikipedia categories is alphabetically). Lists of (mostly) "Rurikid" rulers already exist, like grouped in Category:Noble titles of Kievan Rus, the difference being that the principality rather than the family defines the list, and ruling families can switch. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might have been a good idea when you and No Free Nickname Left first created these categories in 2005 and 2007, but the past 18 years have shown that it hasn't worked. Before I began to fix the mess, people and subcategories were randomly placed in both categories all the time. That means the category names were not clear enough to describe their functions. It is just better to separate familial ties and dynastic positions anyway. E.g.
Category:Monomakhovichi family describes everyone who directly descended from
Vladimir II Monomakh, regardless of the position or "job" they had, and
Category:Grand Princes of Kiev describes everyone who actually had the position or "job" of
Grand Prince of Kiev, regardless of the family they belonged to. Perhaps the confusion was destined to happen. All we can do now is fix it. I've basically already done that, and this is the last step to complete the fixing. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- (as nominator) I do not have an objection to reverse merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge as NominatedRurik dynasty is the main article while " Rurikids" is just a redirect. (If the name is disputed, that's for an WP:RM not WP:CFD.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- Merge as nom -- Rurik dynasty is the main article. If it should not have that name, the correct procedure is to change its name first. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Requested move of Rurik dynasty to Rurikids has been initiated: Talk:Rurik dynasty#Requested move 14 May 2023. I've copyedited the arguments Marcelus and I have given here as a rationale over there. You're all invited to participate. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
-
Comment: To whom it may interest: I've nominated the
Template:Rurik for deletion for reasons closely related with this CfM. It
has been relisted, they are asking for "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 
Accepted
"Rurik dynasty" has been moved to "
Rurikids" by unanimous agreement. Per
WP:C2D, this CfM should now result in a Reverse merge. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)- Reverse Merge to match the outcome of the WP:RM discussion. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Result of Requested Move The main article was formally renamed to "
Rurikids" at
Talk:Rurikids#Requested move 14 May 2023. Tagging all participants, regardless of iVote, who weighed in prior to that change but not after for reconsideration: @
Peterkingiron,
Ghirlandajo, and
Marcelus: -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @
RevelationDirect Should I file a
WP:CR?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would say so; from my perspective, the consensus above clearly seems to be the follow the main article. (How those iVotes are worded vary though since an RM changed the main article's name mid-nomination.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I had the same impression. Alright, filing a closure request. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would say so; from my perspective, the consensus above clearly seems to be the follow the main article. (How those iVotes are worded vary though since an RM changed the main article's name mid-nomination.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
RevelationDirect Should I file a
WP:CR?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:SVG Bleiburg players
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 16#Category:SVG Bleiburg players
Category:Belgrano de Parana footballers
- 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) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No evidence that the club is notable, plays in the fourth tier of Argentinian football, no article in English wiki. Geregen2 ( talk) 19:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 20:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Daughters of the Grand Prince of Kiev
- 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 as proposed. Caps can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:C2E WP:C2B I just created this category myself, but then realised that the convention in Category:Daughters of monarchs is that the latter should be in plural. Btw I'm not sure whether 'Grand Princes' should be capital or lowercase G and P in this case. I wouldn't mind either way. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support plural per WP:C2B. I guess it should be "grand princes" without capital but I am not entirely sure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Recurring events
- 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 12:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1130s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1200s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1210s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1230s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1250s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1280s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1290s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1340s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1350s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1430s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1450s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1510s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1520s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1570s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1580s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in 1584 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in 1586 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in 1588 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete and merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Most do not need any merging because they are already in YYYY establishments tree and Festivals established in century tree. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support in principle but it is not clear why some 16th-century year categories should be merged and others deleted. Shouldn't they all be merged?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: nearly all of them are festivals, so they are already in
Category:Festivals established in the 16th century, so merging to
Category:Recurring events established in the 16th century is redundant. The years that have an event that is not a festival are merged accordingly. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 21:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for this clarification. Then I fully support the proposal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: nearly all of them are festivals, so they are already in
Category:Festivals established in the 16th century, so merging to
Category:Recurring events established in the 16th century is redundant. The years that have an event that is not a festival are merged accordingly. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 21:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- In principle Merge all to "Recurring events established in XXth century". Several of these are fairs or carnivals, which may be tied to a (religious) festival, but are rather more than that. Most of the annual categories contain nothing but one event; and the decade categories only one sub-cat. A fair was a sort of wholesale marketing event, much more than a mere festival. Whether the recurring events tree is redundant to the festivals needs to be considered separately. If anything, the festivals tree should be merged into the recurring events tree, as proposed for 12th century item (below). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. What a ghastly edifice. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Festivals established in the 12th century
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Also, it is not entirely obvious that a fair falls under festivals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- The article Bartholomew Fair makes it clear this was a marketing event, held in Smithfield, just outside the city walls of London, an area otherwise used for the sale of animals to London's butchers. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Latin-language poets
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:New Latin-language poets to Category:Neo-Latin poets
- Nominator's rationale: The main article Neo-Latin has been renamed to be consistent with current research into the topic, which uses the term Neo-Latin rather than New Latin. Renaming the category would match general practice. Additionally Neo-Latin poetry is a commonly researched topic, so this would be a natural and conventional term. (Apologies for starting the process as I wasn't aware of it; I should have realised.) Jim Killock (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per WP:C2D, this nomination could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Rename Per article name. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Industrial buildings
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings to Category:Industrial buildings and structures
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by continent to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by continent
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by country to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by country
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by heritage register to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by heritage register
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by year of completion to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by year of completion
- Nominator's rationale: To match Category:Buildings and structures and to reflect the contents of the category. For example, neither an oil platform nor a windmill are buildings but both are located in this category. User:Namiba 15:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Companies based in Winchester, Massachusetts
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Companies based in Winchester, Massachusetts to Category:Winchester, Massachusetts and Category:Companies based in Middlesex County, Massachusetts
- Category:Companies based in Ayer, Massachusetts to Category:Ayer, Massachusetts and Category:Companies based in Middlesex County, Massachusetts
- Category:Companies based in Hopkinton, Massachusetts to Category:Hopkinton, Massachusetts and Category:Companies based in Middlesex County, Massachusetts
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 15:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Buildings and structures in West Tisbury, Massachusetts
- 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) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Small cat (1 article) which is already in the appropriate subcategories. User:Namiba 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Eric talk 16:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Music festivals by date of establishment
- 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 and delete.
(non-admin closure)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1810s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1840s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1845 to Category:1845 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1845 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1846 to Category:1846 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1846 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1850s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1855 to Category:1855 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1855 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1858 to Category:1858 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1858 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1860s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1861 to Category:1861 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1861 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1869 to Category:1869 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1869 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1870s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1873 to Category:1873 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1873 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1874 to Category:1874 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1874 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1875 to Category:1875 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1875 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1876 to Category:1876 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1876 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1880s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1890s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1891 to Category:1891 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1891 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1892 to Category:1892 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1892 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1895 to Category:1895 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1895 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1898 to Category:1898 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1898 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Nominator's rationale: delete and merge per WP:SMALLCAT. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:West Sumatra sportspeople
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:West Sumatra sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from West Sumatra
- Nominator's rationale: Both categories have the same intention Stvbastian ( talk) 13:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Many siblings should be nominated similarly. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: On Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Article alerts, I see five similar categories listed, here is only West Sumatra and Bali further down. Kaffet i halsen ( talk) 08:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kievan Rus' nuns
- 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 as nominated.
✗
plicit 02:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kievan Rus' nuns to Category:Nuns from Kievan Rus'
- Propose renaming Category:Kievan Rus' princesses to Category:Princesses from Kievan Rus'
- Nominator's rationale: Follow-up "Kievan Rus' people" > "People from Kievan Rus'" etc. and other People from Fooland precedents. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Futher comment, renaming is especially useful here because Kievan Rus' was not a country in modern sense (as the current name suggests) but rather a geographical concept referring to all principalities that once belonged to Kiev and were mostly ruled by various branches of the
Rurik dynasty.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 02:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well yeah, I mostly agree, except that I would call it a political rather than geographical concept. It was just as real, but just as divided, decentralised and disintegrative as the Holy Roman Empire. Like the HRE, Kievan Rus' was dysfunctional whenever there was no strong central monarchy, or otherwise a significantly institutionalised federal state/government whose unity and capacity to function wouldn't depend on the presence of a capable monarch and a smooth, peaceful transfer of power. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Second comment, for princesses as spouses of ruling princes, the preposition "in" might be a bit more appropriate than "from", but I do not think that the category is limited to spouses of rulers, so never mind about that.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 02:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle Exactly. I also thought "in" was a good solution for a while, but these princesses (and princes) weren't necessarily tied to Kievan Rus' in a physical or legal sense. "Princess" can also just refer to a daughter of the Grand Prince of Kiev who is married off to a stranger to strengthen his alliance with Poland. The only "Kievan Rus'" thing about her at that point is that she was originally from Kievan Rus'. The rename proposal thus describes her better. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support but as
Category:Princesses in Kievan Rus'. Not sure of preposition for the nuns, as 2 of the 3 do not appear to have left the country.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- They don't need to have ever moved out of Kievan Rus' to be "from Kievan Rus'". If you walked up to a nun and asked: "Where are you from?", she would probably have answered: "From (around) here." "From" is a great preposition for this. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Update sibling
Category:Princes in Rus' has
been Renamed to
Category:Princes from Kievan Rus'. This closely-related precedent lends support to this nomination.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 11:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle @ Peterkingiron @ Laurel Lodged @ William Allen Simpson @ RevelationDirect FYI as you all commented on that CfR, earlier on this CfR, or both. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per second comment above. 11:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Let's be consistent and use "from" throughout. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per that precendant. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Balinese sportspeople
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Balinese sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Bali
- Nominator's rationale: Both categories have the same intention Stvbastian ( talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Many siblings should be nominated similarly. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note we do have Category:Balinese people and Category:People from Bali and so there might be some intended distinction. Oculi ( talk) 00:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's a good point, but none of the articles here mention the people being Balinese. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Balinese ethnicity would only become relevant for someone who never lived in Bali. Generally speaking the overlap is huge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Unpopulated villages in Turkey
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 28#Category:Unpopulated villages in Turkey
Category:Rostislavichi family
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Rostislavichi family to Category:Rostislavichi family (Tmutarakan)
- Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with Category:Rostislavichi family (Smolensk). The progenitor was Rostislav of Tmutarakan. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename clearer distinction. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NUManimation
- 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.
No quorum.
(non-admin closure)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:NUManimation to Category:NUMAnimation
- Nominator's rationale: Capitalization TheDarkX ( talk) 04:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Time loop
- 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: keep.
(non-admin closure)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Time loop to Category:Fiction about time loop
- Nominator's rationale: Retain naming scheme of parent category, Category:Fiction about time travel. Ystapnivri ( talk) 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, Time loop only refers to fiction, so it seems redundant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:C2D.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 08:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC) - Oppose Time loop is a fictional concept to begin with. The new name has no value for disambiguation. Dimadick ( talk) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support That a topic exists only in fiction does not justify not using a "Fiction about X" name, like Category:Generation ships in fiction. Furthermore, the category contents are not that of a topic category, as they consist only of the main article and various works of fiction featuring this plot device. However, it would be Category:Fiction about time loops — the proposal as given is ungrammatical. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Looking at the parent cats, I think this should probably be renamed to Category:Time loops in fiction. (I was surprised that this isn't part of the "Works about X" tree.) - jc37 07:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please
mention me on reply) 03:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:C2D and
WP:COMMONNAME. The parent category needs the different naming structure since
Category:Time travel exists. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The parent is a subcat of that cat. And also noting that there is a difference between Time_travel#Time_travel_in_physics, and Time travel in fiction. So we shouldn't blend the two. - jc37 16:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per the main article, Time loop which makes clear it's fictional in the first sentence. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Category:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films
Category:Soviet emigrants
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Soviet emigrants to Category:Emigrants from the Soviet Union
- Nominator's rationale: Per form of the parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - the others follow the format of the 'people' category, which in this case is Category:Soviet people; by all means nominate Category:Soviet people first. Oculi ( talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Correction at most 20 out of 72 members of Category:Emigrants from former countries use the demonym; the remainder use the form "Emigrants from Foo to Bar". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 07:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 00:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename While not all the sibling cats under Category:Emigrants from former countries follow the proposed format, the large majority do. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
May 8
Out, damned hyphen
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London 20:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Vertically-oriented music videos to Category:Vertically oriented music videos
- Propose merging Category:Biologically-based therapies to Category:Biologically based therapies
- Propose renaming NO BOTS Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests to Category:Wikipedia fully protected edit requests
- Nominator's rationale: C2A stales; all are the same obvious grammatical error of
MOS:HYPHEN:
Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)
. All others in Special:Search/Category:intitle:fully protected are correctly unhyphenated. Note prior mass renaming/redirecting of category mishyphenations. 73.93.5.246 ( talk) 23:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
vertically discussion
|
|---|
|
biologically discussion
|
|---|
|
fully discussion
|
|---|
|
- Comment: I have to say that having learned to hyphenate compound adjectives, I find this exception unintuitive and unclear in its scope. Which -ly adverbs are "standard"? I accept that "fully" is otherwise consistently unhyphenated in Wikipedia category names (see
All pages with titles beginning with Category:Wikipedia fully), but dare I challenge the assumption that "vertically" and "biologically" are "standard" adverbs? –
Fayenatic
London 16:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Standard adverb = adjective + -ly. New + -ly, newly. Vertical + -ly, vertically.
- Nonstandard -ly are dual adverb/adjectives like early, only:
(early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, because they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective.
73.93.5.246 ( talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Makes linguistic sense. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support to follow the manual of style. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rurikids
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. C2D per RM.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Propose downmerging Category:Rurikids to Category:Rurik dynasty
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories (and soon only one).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we don't need two redundant categories, but imo "Rurikids" should stays as "Rurik dynasty" is improper name (btw
Rurik dynasty should be renamed).
Marcelus (
talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree! Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we don't need two redundant categories, but imo "Rurikids" should stays as "Rurik dynasty" is improper name (btw
Rurik dynasty should be renamed).
Marcelus (
talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
SupportHah, you're suggesting what I've been meticulously preparing for some days. :) I've Template:Diffused both cats as far as possible, and what we're left with is two almost identical cats. Per WP:C2D Category:Rurik dynasty should be the name of the merged cat, but I think the word "dynasty" may be a bit unhelpful here, because it suggests everyone in it was a "dynast" or "ruler". en:wikt:dynasty defines it asA series of rulers or dynasts from one family
. That means Olga of Kiev would, strictly speaking, fall outside the scope of "dynasty", because she was only a princess consort and then regent. More importantly, it would have to apply to every single person in the subcategories, which it doesn't. Therefore, a Reverse merge may be an even better idea. I think it may also be a good idea to rename the main article to "Rurikids" rather than "Rurik dynasty", but that may require an RM. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk)
- (after edit conflict) Ah, I see Marcelus agrees with me. :)
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ Marcelus Do you think we would need an WP:RM to rename Rurik dynasty to Rurikids? I'd be happy to initiate it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- That is an unexpected development. For what it is worth, I am quite sure that (nearly) all dynasty categories here on en.wp are used for the whole family, not just for the monarchs.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, this is a certain inaccuracy that everyone seems to collectively ignore. A dynasty strictly speaking is "a series of people from the same family holding the same office one after another." George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III are part of the Windsor dynasty, but Prince William is not (yet), he is part of the "House of Windsor". That's why here we should name the category "Rurikids", "House of Rurik" or "Rurikovichi".
Marcelus (
talk) 19:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- You (@
Marcocapelle) may be forgiven for the confusion, because I myself have also used "dynasty" and "(ruling/reigning/royal/imperial) house" interchangeably until recently, when such categorisations here on English Wikipedia stopped making sense to me (hahaha). The second meaning of
en:wikt:dynasty is
(East Asian history) The polity or historical era under the rule of a certain dynasty
, which is much, much broader. I must confess that I first learnt about dynasties as a concept while I was exploring Chinese history right at the same time when I made my first edits on Wikipedia; as a matter of fact, my first 3 created articles ever were about Chinese dynasties! It may also be that the word dynastie in our native Dutch language isn't as specific as dynasty in English. My Koenen Woordenboek 2006 defines dynastie asvorstenhuis, regend huis
. nl:wikt:dynastie provides an even broader definition:uitgebreide familie, inclusief aangetrouwde familie, die over twee of meer generaties invloed of macht heeft uitgeoefend, meestal in een land
. So Prince William is not part of the Windsor dynasty, but he is part of the Windsor-dynastie! I'm just as confused as you. ;) - As a cherry on the cake:
Merriam-Webster defines dynasty as
1. a succession of rulers of the same line of descent, e.g. "a dynasty that ruled China for nearly 300 years". 2. a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time, e.g. "born into a powerful political dynasty." "a baseball dynasty"
The latter definition is broader, but not necessarily one of monarchical hereditary succession, and doesn't even have to be political, but can be about baseball. This second M-W definition also aligns closely with the third definition given by en:wikt:dynasty:(sports) A team or organization which has an extended period of success or dominant performance.
The broad Dutch definition of dynastie as "ruling house" beyond just the rulers themselves simply doesn't seem to exist in English. - Final speculation: Last year, you and Fayenatic already renamed provincial "royal houses" in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany to "ruling families". My guess is that these categories were perhaps misnamed because our Dutch vocabulary (vorstenhuis, dynastie etc.) seems to mismatch false friends used in English that have more specific or otherwise different meanings. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- You (@
Marcocapelle) may be forgiven for the confusion, because I myself have also used "dynasty" and "(ruling/reigning/royal/imperial) house" interchangeably until recently, when such categorisations here on English Wikipedia stopped making sense to me (hahaha). The second meaning of
en:wikt:dynasty is
- Well, this is a certain inaccuracy that everyone seems to collectively ignore. A dynasty strictly speaking is "a series of people from the same family holding the same office one after another." George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III are part of the Windsor dynasty, but Prince William is not (yet), he is part of the "House of Windsor". That's why here we should name the category "Rurikids", "House of Rurik" or "Rurikovichi".
Marcelus (
talk) 19:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think adding
Mussorgsky and
Kropotkin to this category is such a brilliant idea. These things have been kept separate for a reason.
Ghirla
-трёп- 18:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might have been a good idea when you and No Free Nickname Left first created these categories in 2005 and 2007, but the past 18 years have shown that it hasn't worked. Before I began to fix the mess, people and subcategories were randomly placed in both categories all the time. That means the category names were not clear enough to describe their functions. It is just better to separate familial ties and dynastic positions anyway. E.g.
Category:Monomakhovichi family describes everyone who directly descended from
Vladimir II Monomakh, regardless of the position or "job" they had, and
Category:Grand Princes of Kiev describes everyone who actually had the position or "job" of
Grand Prince of Kiev, regardless of the family they belonged to. Perhaps the confusion was destined to happen. All we can do now is fix it. I've basically already done that, and this is the last step to complete the fixing. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS: If we actually want to visualise dynasties in the strict sense of "A series of rulers or dynasts from one family", lists do the job much better than categories anyway. Lists are series of items put in a certain order (in this case chronologically), categories are unsorted groups of items that have something in common (and the default sorting of items in Wikipedia categories is alphabetically). Lists of (mostly) "Rurikid" rulers already exist, like grouped in Category:Noble titles of Kievan Rus, the difference being that the principality rather than the family defines the list, and ruling families can switch. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might have been a good idea when you and No Free Nickname Left first created these categories in 2005 and 2007, but the past 18 years have shown that it hasn't worked. Before I began to fix the mess, people and subcategories were randomly placed in both categories all the time. That means the category names were not clear enough to describe their functions. It is just better to separate familial ties and dynastic positions anyway. E.g.
Category:Monomakhovichi family describes everyone who directly descended from
Vladimir II Monomakh, regardless of the position or "job" they had, and
Category:Grand Princes of Kiev describes everyone who actually had the position or "job" of
Grand Prince of Kiev, regardless of the family they belonged to. Perhaps the confusion was destined to happen. All we can do now is fix it. I've basically already done that, and this is the last step to complete the fixing. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- (as nominator) I do not have an objection to reverse merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge as NominatedRurik dynasty is the main article while " Rurikids" is just a redirect. (If the name is disputed, that's for an WP:RM not WP:CFD.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- Merge as nom -- Rurik dynasty is the main article. If it should not have that name, the correct procedure is to change its name first. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Requested move of Rurik dynasty to Rurikids has been initiated: Talk:Rurik dynasty#Requested move 14 May 2023. I've copyedited the arguments Marcelus and I have given here as a rationale over there. You're all invited to participate. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
-
Comment: To whom it may interest: I've nominated the
Template:Rurik for deletion for reasons closely related with this CfM. It
has been relisted, they are asking for "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Accepted
"Rurik dynasty" has been moved to "
Rurikids" by unanimous agreement. Per
WP:C2D, this CfM should now result in a Reverse merge. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge to match the outcome of the WP:RM discussion. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Result of Requested Move The main article was formally renamed to "
Rurikids" at
Talk:Rurikids#Requested move 14 May 2023. Tagging all participants, regardless of iVote, who weighed in prior to that change but not after for reconsideration: @
Peterkingiron,
Ghirlandajo, and
Marcelus: -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @
RevelationDirect Should I file a
WP:CR?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would say so; from my perspective, the consensus above clearly seems to be the follow the main article. (How those iVotes are worded vary though since an RM changed the main article's name mid-nomination.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I had the same impression. Alright, filing a closure request. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would say so; from my perspective, the consensus above clearly seems to be the follow the main article. (How those iVotes are worded vary though since an RM changed the main article's name mid-nomination.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
RevelationDirect Should I file a
WP:CR?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:SVG Bleiburg players
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 16#Category:SVG Bleiburg players
Category:Belgrano de Parana footballers
- 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) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No evidence that the club is notable, plays in the fourth tier of Argentinian football, no article in English wiki. Geregen2 ( talk) 19:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 20:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Daughters of the Grand Prince of Kiev
- 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 as proposed. Caps can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:C2E WP:C2B I just created this category myself, but then realised that the convention in Category:Daughters of monarchs is that the latter should be in plural. Btw I'm not sure whether 'Grand Princes' should be capital or lowercase G and P in this case. I wouldn't mind either way. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support plural per WP:C2B. I guess it should be "grand princes" without capital but I am not entirely sure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Recurring events
- 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 12:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1130s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1200s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1210s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1230s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1250s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1280s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1290s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1340s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1350s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1430s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1450s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1510s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1520s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1570s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in the 1580s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in 1584 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in 1586 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Recurring events established in 1588 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete and merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Most do not need any merging because they are already in YYYY establishments tree and Festivals established in century tree. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support in principle but it is not clear why some 16th-century year categories should be merged and others deleted. Shouldn't they all be merged?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: nearly all of them are festivals, so they are already in
Category:Festivals established in the 16th century, so merging to
Category:Recurring events established in the 16th century is redundant. The years that have an event that is not a festival are merged accordingly. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 21:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for this clarification. Then I fully support the proposal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: nearly all of them are festivals, so they are already in
Category:Festivals established in the 16th century, so merging to
Category:Recurring events established in the 16th century is redundant. The years that have an event that is not a festival are merged accordingly. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 21:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- In principle Merge all to "Recurring events established in XXth century". Several of these are fairs or carnivals, which may be tied to a (religious) festival, but are rather more than that. Most of the annual categories contain nothing but one event; and the decade categories only one sub-cat. A fair was a sort of wholesale marketing event, much more than a mere festival. Whether the recurring events tree is redundant to the festivals needs to be considered separately. If anything, the festivals tree should be merged into the recurring events tree, as proposed for 12th century item (below). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. What a ghastly edifice. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Festivals established in the 12th century
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Also, it is not entirely obvious that a fair falls under festivals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- The article Bartholomew Fair makes it clear this was a marketing event, held in Smithfield, just outside the city walls of London, an area otherwise used for the sale of animals to London's butchers. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Latin-language poets
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:New Latin-language poets to Category:Neo-Latin poets
- Nominator's rationale: The main article Neo-Latin has been renamed to be consistent with current research into the topic, which uses the term Neo-Latin rather than New Latin. Renaming the category would match general practice. Additionally Neo-Latin poetry is a commonly researched topic, so this would be a natural and conventional term. (Apologies for starting the process as I wasn't aware of it; I should have realised.) Jim Killock (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per WP:C2D, this nomination could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Rename Per article name. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Industrial buildings
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings to Category:Industrial buildings and structures
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by continent to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by continent
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by country to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by country
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by heritage register to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by heritage register
- Propose renaming Category:Industrial buildings by year of completion to Category:Industrial buildings and structures by year of completion
- Nominator's rationale: To match Category:Buildings and structures and to reflect the contents of the category. For example, neither an oil platform nor a windmill are buildings but both are located in this category. User:Namiba 15:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Companies based in Winchester, Massachusetts
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Companies based in Winchester, Massachusetts to Category:Winchester, Massachusetts and Category:Companies based in Middlesex County, Massachusetts
- Category:Companies based in Ayer, Massachusetts to Category:Ayer, Massachusetts and Category:Companies based in Middlesex County, Massachusetts
- Category:Companies based in Hopkinton, Massachusetts to Category:Hopkinton, Massachusetts and Category:Companies based in Middlesex County, Massachusetts
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 15:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Buildings and structures in West Tisbury, Massachusetts
- 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) ClydeFranklin ( talk) 00:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Small cat (1 article) which is already in the appropriate subcategories. User:Namiba 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Eric talk 16:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Music festivals by date of establishment
- 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 and delete.
(non-admin closure)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1810s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1840s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1845 to Category:1845 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1845 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1846 to Category:1846 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1846 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1850s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1855 to Category:1855 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1855 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1858 to Category:1858 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1858 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1860s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1861 to Category:1861 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1861 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1869 to Category:1869 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1869 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1870s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1873 to Category:1873 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1873 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1874 to Category:1874 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1874 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1875 to Category:1875 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1875 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1876 to Category:1876 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1876 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1880s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Music festivals established in the 1890s ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1891 to Category:1891 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1891 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1892 to Category:1892 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1892 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1895 to Category:1895 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1895 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Propose merging Category:Music festivals established in 1898 to Category:1898 in music, Category:Festivals established in 1898 and Category:Music festivals established in the 19th century
- Nominator's rationale: delete and merge per WP:SMALLCAT. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:West Sumatra sportspeople
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:West Sumatra sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from West Sumatra
- Nominator's rationale: Both categories have the same intention Stvbastian ( talk) 13:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Many siblings should be nominated similarly. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: On Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Article alerts, I see five similar categories listed, here is only West Sumatra and Bali further down. Kaffet i halsen ( talk) 08:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kievan Rus' nuns
- 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 as nominated.
✗
plicit 02:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Kievan Rus' nuns to Category:Nuns from Kievan Rus'
- Propose renaming Category:Kievan Rus' princesses to Category:Princesses from Kievan Rus'
- Nominator's rationale: Follow-up "Kievan Rus' people" > "People from Kievan Rus'" etc. and other People from Fooland precedents. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Futher comment, renaming is especially useful here because Kievan Rus' was not a country in modern sense (as the current name suggests) but rather a geographical concept referring to all principalities that once belonged to Kiev and were mostly ruled by various branches of the
Rurik dynasty.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 02:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well yeah, I mostly agree, except that I would call it a political rather than geographical concept. It was just as real, but just as divided, decentralised and disintegrative as the Holy Roman Empire. Like the HRE, Kievan Rus' was dysfunctional whenever there was no strong central monarchy, or otherwise a significantly institutionalised federal state/government whose unity and capacity to function wouldn't depend on the presence of a capable monarch and a smooth, peaceful transfer of power. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Second comment, for princesses as spouses of ruling princes, the preposition "in" might be a bit more appropriate than "from", but I do not think that the category is limited to spouses of rulers, so never mind about that.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 02:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle Exactly. I also thought "in" was a good solution for a while, but these princesses (and princes) weren't necessarily tied to Kievan Rus' in a physical or legal sense. "Princess" can also just refer to a daughter of the Grand Prince of Kiev who is married off to a stranger to strengthen his alliance with Poland. The only "Kievan Rus'" thing about her at that point is that she was originally from Kievan Rus'. The rename proposal thus describes her better. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support but as
Category:Princesses in Kievan Rus'. Not sure of preposition for the nuns, as 2 of the 3 do not appear to have left the country.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- They don't need to have ever moved out of Kievan Rus' to be "from Kievan Rus'". If you walked up to a nun and asked: "Where are you from?", she would probably have answered: "From (around) here." "From" is a great preposition for this. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Update sibling
Category:Princes in Rus' has
been Renamed to
Category:Princes from Kievan Rus'. This closely-related precedent lends support to this nomination.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 11:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle @ Peterkingiron @ Laurel Lodged @ William Allen Simpson @ RevelationDirect FYI as you all commented on that CfR, earlier on this CfR, or both. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per second comment above. 11:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Let's be consistent and use "from" throughout. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per that precendant. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Balinese sportspeople
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Balinese sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Bali
- Nominator's rationale: Both categories have the same intention Stvbastian ( talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Many siblings should be nominated similarly. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note we do have Category:Balinese people and Category:People from Bali and so there might be some intended distinction. Oculi ( talk) 00:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's a good point, but none of the articles here mention the people being Balinese. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Balinese ethnicity would only become relevant for someone who never lived in Bali. Generally speaking the overlap is huge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Unpopulated villages in Turkey
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 28#Category:Unpopulated villages in Turkey
Category:Rostislavichi family
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Rostislavichi family to Category:Rostislavichi family (Tmutarakan)
- Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with Category:Rostislavichi family (Smolensk). The progenitor was Rostislav of Tmutarakan. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename clearer distinction. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NUManimation
- 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.
No quorum.
(non-admin closure)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:NUManimation to Category:NUMAnimation
- Nominator's rationale: Capitalization TheDarkX ( talk) 04:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Time loop
- 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: keep.
(non-admin closure)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Time loop to Category:Fiction about time loop
- Nominator's rationale: Retain naming scheme of parent category, Category:Fiction about time travel. Ystapnivri ( talk) 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, Time loop only refers to fiction, so it seems redundant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:C2D.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 08:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC) - Oppose Time loop is a fictional concept to begin with. The new name has no value for disambiguation. Dimadick ( talk) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support That a topic exists only in fiction does not justify not using a "Fiction about X" name, like Category:Generation ships in fiction. Furthermore, the category contents are not that of a topic category, as they consist only of the main article and various works of fiction featuring this plot device. However, it would be Category:Fiction about time loops — the proposal as given is ungrammatical. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Looking at the parent cats, I think this should probably be renamed to Category:Time loops in fiction. (I was surprised that this isn't part of the "Works about X" tree.) - jc37 07:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please
mention me on reply) 03:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:C2D and
WP:COMMONNAME. The parent category needs the different naming structure since
Category:Time travel exists. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The parent is a subcat of that cat. And also noting that there is a difference between Time_travel#Time_travel_in_physics, and Time travel in fiction. So we shouldn't blend the two. - jc37 16:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per the main article, Time loop which makes clear it's fictional in the first sentence. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Category:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films
Category:Soviet emigrants
- 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)
ClydeFranklin (
talk) 00:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Soviet emigrants to Category:Emigrants from the Soviet Union
- Nominator's rationale: Per form of the parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - the others follow the format of the 'people' category, which in this case is Category:Soviet people; by all means nominate Category:Soviet people first. Oculi ( talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Correction at most 20 out of 72 members of Category:Emigrants from former countries use the demonym; the remainder use the form "Emigrants from Foo to Bar". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 07:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 00:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Rename While not all the sibling cats under Category:Emigrants from former countries follow the proposed format, the large majority do. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.