Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 8
July 10 >

July 9[edit]

Category:Archaeological cultures of Southwestern Europe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Archaeological cultures of Southwestern Europe

Category:Urban Projects of RAJUK[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1-2 entries. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Viceroys in Ukraine[edit]

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) (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "vice-roy" is not a common term for governors in Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt Delete the cat seems like presentism to me - a retrospective colonisation of the past. It is ahistorical to speak of viceroy or governors in Ukraine; no such people existed; they only existed in the Russian or Austrian empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion makes sense too. Ukraine clearly did not exist at the time and these were governors of the Russian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt Delete per Laurel Lodged. This is anachronistic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MUD texts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Internet-based works and Category:Multi-user dungeon. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I have listed the second target for speedy renaming to Category:Multi-user dungeon. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As most MUDs are a text-based environment, using "texts" could also mean the intent is game text-captures - which I don't think is the intent here. - jc37 10:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MU* servers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:MUD servers. and Category:MU* games. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 entries. This is an area in which Wikipedia's coverage is gradually contracting as non-notable subjects get deleted, so I see no clear potential for growth. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Educational MUDs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to both targets. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Witnesses in the Nuremberg Trials[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Witnesses in the Nuremberg Trials

Category:Rulers of Thuringia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Monarchs of Thuringia. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of monarchs of Thuringia per BOLD rename per precedents Bavaria, Württemberg etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom, or else to Category:Nobility of Thuringia. I am not entirely certain if counts and dukes should be under monarchs too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that you're not the only one. It looks like my BOLD rename was reverted by @Surtsicna who stated Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): again, inappropriate; these people were not monarchs. Even though the list is in Category:Lists of monarchs, Category:European monarchs and Category:Saxon monarchs, and the category was already in Category:Saxon monarchs. This raises a valid point about who counts (no pun intended) as a "monarch" or not. For Surtscina's information: Marcocapelle, I and others are currently in a long process of renaming categories away from "Rulers", because it is way too vague and unambiguous, and leads to all sorts of categorisation problems. In many cases, a rename to "Monarchs" solves the issue, but in some cases it may not be the best solution. Recently Marcocapelle and I agreed that nobility lower than emperors/kings and empresses/queens regnant and their families should not be in "royalty", but for "monarchs" this may not be clear. Let's look at some relevant category trees and recent precedents (in my perceived order of hierarchy, but I stand to be corrected; "rulers" and "monarchs" aren't titles that hold a "rank", but in our categorisation system can contain "emperors", "kings" etc., and "rulers" can contain "monarchs"):
    I think the conclusion is clear: although "monarch" is often regarded as a synonym of "king" and "queen", and is often the default term when a "kings" and "queens" category need to be merged and we need a gender-neutral name, anyone from Emperor to Margrave is a monarch. Each of them is a person who reigns with sovereignty, and in theory recognises no higher authority than themselves (or God), and is usually a hereditary position (with a few exceptions of elective monarchy such as HRE). Even though some ranks such as counts and margraves were originally not sovereign and hereditary, but subjected to the Frankish kings or Holy Roman Emperors (who originally appointed them sort of as governors-for-life, after which a pagus or fief would revert to the crown), plenty of them managed to establish dynasties and become functionally or formally independent, and new counties that were sovereign from the start could be founded as well (e.g. County of Edessa).
    There is also a strong WP:C2C argument to regard all of these as "monarchs". Unless we have made many major mistakes that we will have to correct everywhere, I think there's nothing wrong with renaming Rulers of Thuringia (which includes Kings, Dukes, and Landgraves) to Monarchs of Thuringia etc. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with marking anyone from margrave (or even count) to emperor as monarch. It is factually incorrect. It is not true that they all had sovereign power. I agree that "rulers" is suboptimal. In many cases the person on the throne did not rule, especially those who died as minors. Articles can easily be categorized in, say, Category:Margraves of Austria, Category:Archdukes of Austria, Category:Emperors of Austria, but I have no idea how to elegantly deal with the titles of lists. List of margraves, dukes, archdukes and emperors of Austria is cumbersome enough, not to mention the cases when we have to account for women too. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that they all had sovereign power. Why not? Because they often had kings above them? Well, kings often had emperors above them, as well, such as Frederick Augustus III of Saxony being under Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Clearly, he was not sovereign (unlike his precedessor John of Saxony had been until 1871). But that doesn't stop us from putting Frederick Augustus III of Saxony in Category:Kings of Saxony, which is in Category:Saxon monarchs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess what I'm saying is that some dynasties below the royal level were originally not sovereign, but acquired their sovereignty, and are then framed in historiography (and categorised on Wikipedia) as "monarchies". Likewise, some dynasties at the royal level could be sovereign, but lose their sovereignty when they join empires and "surrender" their sovereignty to that emperor, and yet this doesn't stop anyone from continuing to frame and categorise those royal-but-not-sovereign-anymore dynasties as "monarchies". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The List of German monarchs in 1918 includes the Emperor, Kings, Grand Dukes, Dukes, and Princes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna It has been 1 month. Would you please like to respond to what I have said and asked you? Particularly that per WP:SOVEREIGN #6 "rulers" below the rank of king are still "monarchs"? Thanks in advance. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Monarchs. All the princes of the German Empire were ostensibly sovereign and before that all imperially immediate states of the HRE had a limited form of sovereignty (IR scholars regularly cite the Peace of Westphalia as the origin of the modern system of state sovereignty). The comparison with the count of Valois (below) is flawed, because Valois was not a state. Furius (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Given some recent related CfRs (Hesse, Frisia, Provence, Milan) in which "rulers" (usually) refers to titles below the level of king, and where "Nobility" was proposed as al Alt rename, I (as nom) would find Category:Nobility of Thuringia an acceptable alternative. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WP:SOVEREIGN "rulers" below the rank of king are still "monarchs": #5 European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. In several past and ongoing Rulers CfRs (including this one), the argument is made that e.g. "dukes" should not be categorised as "monarchs" because they are not "kings", but this guideline shows that they are "monarchs" nonetheless. I've also frequently invoked the fact that the List of German monarchs in 1918 identifies Emperors, Kings, Grand Dukes and Dukes as "monarchs", even though Grand Dukes and Dukes are below the royal level. This is not a valid argument to keep "rulers" in catnames. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia guideline does not say that rulers below the rank of king are all monarchs, nor do Wikipedia guidelines set definitions of English language words. Please reread it. To put the counts of Valois in Category:Monarchs of Valois would be absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Monarch" does not mean "king". Kings and queens are just the most commonly cited examples of "monarchs", they don't have a monopoly on the term.
Handbook of Imperial Germany (2009) p. 70:
  • Duchy of Anhalt: hereditary constitutional monarchy
  • Duchy of Brunswick: hereditary limited constitutional monarchy
  • Etc. In fact, all of the states identified as "monarchies" on this page were below the level of kingdom.
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, "monarch" does not mean "king", and no, not every ruler is a monarch. Specifically, the dukes and landgraves of Thuringia were not monarchs of Thuringia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the dukes and landgraves of Thuringia were not monarchs of Thuringia.[citation needed] Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query is there a suggestion that "Duke of Thuringia" is just a courtesy title such as would be given to a second son? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. The discussion is about whether (ruling) dukes and counts in the Holy Roman Empire count as monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - they were sovereign. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I'd like to resolve this issue by comparing it with 5 potential solutions in other recent examples. Two related CfRs recently reached different conclusions, and there are three other ways in which to resolve potential ambiguity when it comes to "Rulers" in lists and cats:
All five options could potentially resolve this CfR (and related "rulers" CfRs) as well. I'm open to all five, but it's more important what you think about it than I as nom do. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Surtsicna, Furius, and Laurel Lodged: notifying all participants so far of these recent developments. Have you got a preference for A, B, C, D, or E, in order to resolve this CfR? Of course, you could also leave your !votes unchanged (but still express a preference for other similar current or future CfRs). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge to Category:Thuringian nobility. (A selective merge to one or more of the other parent cats may also be appropriate.) Let's just avoid the complications entirely. - jc37 10:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a slight preference of B over A, as B (nobility) is the more conservative option. C and D are last resorts before changing nothing at all. Option E is just about the list, not about the category, so presumably irrelevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input, both of you! @Marcocapelle Well, we could apply the same logic to lists and categories, especially because of the WP:C2D principle. E.g. @Jc37 has just proposed to rename Category:Rulers of Bamburgh to Category:Kings and earls of Bamburgh (which seems good to me). That is an option E solution, applied to categories.
    If we applied that here, the main article List of rulers of Thuringia would be renamed List of kings, dukes and landgraves of Thuringia, and the Category:Rulers of Thuringia would be renamed Category:Kings, dukes and landgraves of Thuringia.
    But that would be a bit wordy (especially for categories), and in this case we can probably afford to name category and main article differently. The option B example is named Category:Nobility of Hesse, but the main article is named List of monarchs of Hesse.
    So how about Upmerging to Category:Thuringian nobility (B, as suggested by jc37 and supported by Marcocapelle), and Renaming the main article to List of kings, dukes and landgraves of Thuringia (E, as suggested by jc37 at the Bamburgh CfR and supported by me)? Of course, Renaming the list is not something we can decide here in this CfR (I think we should WP:RM it), but I mention it here as part of a possible comprehensive solution. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted, it'll need it's own RM, but just to toss it out there, how about renaming the list to List of ruling families of Thuringia, to match: Category:Ruling families of Thuringia? - jc37 18:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the simple reason that the list is about individuals, not families. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So is the category lol. I guess I was more referring to your comment above that they are all part of the O'Neill dynasty - sounds like families to me : ) - jc37 19:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, yes and no. All these "rulers" belonged to "ruling" families, but they did not encompass their entire families, of course.
      Moreover, there may be some confusion here between "family", "house", and "dynasty". As Marcelus taught me and Marcocapelle in May 2023 at the Rurikids CfM, these words don't mean the same in English, and they did not mean the same in English as their cognates familie, huis and dynastie did in Dutch (our native language), even though Marco and I believed they did (oops...).
      Example given by Marcelus: 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".
      Example given by me (after being surprised, confused and checking all dictionaries): ... 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 (Marcocapelle). ;) Turns out that English dynasty has a very narrow definition (not the same as "ruling family", but only a series of "rulers"), and Dutch dynastie has a very broad definition (a synonym of "ruling family"). Hope this clarifies things. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maccabiah Games footballers[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Maccabiah Games competitors by year, participants at the Maccabiah Games are almost never split by year and sport. General categories for footballers, cyclists, etc. at games (e.g. Category:Olympic footballers) are typically only created when the competitors are in fact split, which does not apply here. For example, see Category:Football at the Central American and Caribbean Games, Category:Football at the South American Games and Category:Football at the Summer Universiade, where no general footballer category exists, only one for medalists. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nondefining or not even mentioned in the bios I checked. (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikidata redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Wikidata redirects

National Basketball Association venues by team[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Nominator's rationale: Merge or delete (see alt) per WP:OCVENUE. Category:National Basketball Association venues is allowed to remain per exception in the guideline. See related: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_5#Category:National_Hockey_League_venues_by_team. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, they are mostly multi-purpose arenas, not specifically for basketball. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge, adding the general topic cat for each team to the venue article, i.e Category:Toronto Raptors to Amalie Arena etc. It would be far easier if this were done before the team venue cats were deleted (I had to go through it manually for the NHL teams) - I am happy to do it. Crowsus (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to merge, then a dual merge to the team cat makes sense. (If the consensus is to delete though, it's likely because the team is non-defining and such a merge would not make sense.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the NBA team based there is a defining characteristic of the venue. For almost every one of these venues it would be in the top 3 uses. Even somewhere as multi-use as MSG would be described by the man in the street as being used for: concerts, maybe boxing, Rangers/NHL (so include both), Knicks/NBA (so include both). And taking it the other way, it would be utterly bizarre for the topic category for a team to not have its current and former venues on the list of related articles. Crowsus (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I looked at CFG Bank Arena which has hosted all sorts of teams, and should certainly not be categorised by any of them. (Except the 3 noted above by RevelationDirect.) Oculi (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a different venue, e.g Madison Square Garden which is obviously, famously a multi-purpose venue but where the Knicks have been a permanent, headline tenant for 55 years, you don't think there should be a category linking the venue to the team? (hint, of course there should) Crowsus (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Terrible overreach reading of WP:OCVENUE. That's meant to discourage adding categories for irregularly hosted events like Final Fours, Super Bowls and Wrestlemanias, not categories containing teams' regular and principal home venues. That is a defining feature of these arenas, and in most cases are why the venues are built in the first place. Putting them all in the container category doesn't give readers the clear category tree that aids in navigation, the purpose of categories. Barclays Center isn't just an NBA venue, it's specifically the Neioklyn Nets home venue, and was built for that purpose. It should be categorized as such. oknazevad (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can see at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories that many of these categories have already been emptied. And you'll see even more venue categories that were tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion for being empty at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion (but most of them are for sports other than NBA teams). I've complained about editors emptying categories that are currently being discussed at a CFD discussion but so far my words and attempt at peer pressure has had little to no effect. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The generic notices don't seem to be moving the needle so I asked the editor to undo the emptying directly on their talk page. I assume this is just a misunderstanding of the process. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RevelationDirect. I forget that often editors come and comment in a deletion discussion and never return to read other comments like mine, chiding them. But sometimes the emptiers don't even participate in the CFD. AGF, I assume they think they are helping but it's kind of a waste of CFD participants' time to evaluate categories that are emptied. What if the decision is to Keep them? They rarely get repopulated. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The decision will not be to Keep these categories. The only reason it wasn't concluded last week is because I voted for Merge rather than Delete. Their now being empty as I amended Fooville Fooers venues to Fooville Fooers has no bearing on the deletion itself as they are already at National Basketball Association venues so this By team group can be deleted with no complication. Crowsus (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crowsus: It does have a bearing on the nomination which is still open, as are all the ones on this page. "Delete" is a different outcome than "Merge" and both iVotes are valid. While Wikipedia often encourages bold edits, the WP:CfDClosings and WP:CLOSE both describe the consensus building process which aren't being honored here by implementing your preferred outcome. Would you be willing to revert your edits as we await this nominations closure? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah OK Crowsus (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you very much. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's them repopulated, I think. If any are still empty, let me know and I'll have a look Crowsus (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Crowsus. I think you got all of the ones mentioned in this CFD except Category:Philadelphia Warriors venues. There are other empty venue categories that are in the CSD C1 category (Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion) but they are not part of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's them back (they were also 76ers venues so I missed the double amendment required). Crowsus (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Georgian family trees[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Family trees of Georgian monarchs. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual category contents. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied this wording from the article titles, but a less awkward wording is perfectly fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Assassinated monarchs by type[edit]

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. Unopposed nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete apparently abandoned category scheme. Note that murdered monarchs are already diffused by nationality and by century, so this is not a matter of a too large parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish Christianity editorial disputes[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, not enough content to keep this as a separate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weird category. Also Category:Sep 2007 Jewish Christianity editorial disputes too, I presume? Support merger. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kievan Rus' royalty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Nobility from Kievan Rus'. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Nobles of Kievan Rus' by title is a redundant layer, and its child Category:Kievan Rus' royalty isn't really about 'royalty', but nobility. We could rename Category:Kievan Rus' royalty to Category:Nobility from Kievan Rus' (step 1), and downmerge the other into it (step 2). The resultant category would serve as a parent to Category:Princes from Kievan Rus' and Category:Princesses from Kievan Rus' (currently in CfR, to be renamed from Category:Kievan Rus' princesses).
Also, 'royalty' is pretty useless for categorisation purposes, see User:Nederlandse Leeuw/People from Kievan Rus' category tree#Rationale. Therefore, re-parent to Category:Medieval nobility and Category:Nobility in Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. (I am lukewarm about the proposed rename to nobility.) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is agreement to merge Category:Nobles of Kievan Rus' by title to Category:Kievan Rus' royalty, but no consensus to rename the merged category to Category:Nobility from Kievan Rus'.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support it's a neat solution to a problematic area and time period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maritime incidents related to the European migrant crisis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Maritime incidents related to the European migrant crisis

Category:Asset stripping[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Asset stripping

Category:Political prisoners by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Political prisoners by country

Category:Video games scored by Ian Taylor[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To my knowledge, Runescape is the only game that would fit this category. He worked for Jagex (Runescape) from 1999 to 2021. This category was created around the day he was (Redacted) (which does not make this a notable category). {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not match any person named Ian Taylor for whom we have an article, and he is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia except in passing. I have also redacted BLP-violating content in the nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry about the BLP oversight. I didn't think to include a reference for that on a non-mainspace page. I'll just leave that out rather than link to one of the news articles. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Carmona, Cavite[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Gaudeamus International Interpreters Award[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING
The Dutch Gaudeamus Foundation hosts an international music festival that includes the Gaudeamus International Interpreters Award which is a competition for interpretation of contemporary music. The recipients of this award generally mention it in passing with other honours so it doesn't seem defining. The recipient are already listed right here in main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gifford Lectures[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD, and WP:NONDEFINING
The Gifford Lectures is an annual lectures series that rotates between four Scottish universities and this category groups people who gave the talk. It's considered an honour to be invited but this performance isn't treated as defining in the biography articles, generally getting mentioned in passing. If you look at the speakers who also won the Nobel Prize, it becomes crystal clear which award is defining and which is not: Albert Schweitzer, Henri Bergson, Roger Penrose, Werner Heisenberg. The category contents are already listed right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_9&oldid=1172219884"