Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 7



Category:Brindabani Sarang

 * 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting brindabani sarang
 * Nominator's rationale: One article, which is already in the parent category. That article is Sarang (family of ragas); Brindabani Sarang is already in Category:Hindustani ragas. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 19:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and SMALLCAT. Unless rapidly some more entries are addded. --Just N. (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2021 (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:Pages where template include size is exceeded

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded to Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded
 * Nominator's rationale: Most other references to this template limit (including the entry on Wikipedia:Template limits) call it "post-expand include size", not "template include size", so the category should be renamed to match. To implement this proposal, edit MediaWiki:post-expand-template-inclusion-category * Pppery * it has begun... 17:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Zoozaz1 talk  18:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support User:GKFXtalk 18:30, 7 May 2021 (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:Members of the Scottish Parliament 2016–

 * 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: has already been speedily renamed (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament 2016– to Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament 2016–2021

Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed as the parliamentary term has ended in 2021.-Kingbird1 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can this not be done speedily? Rathfelder (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename Totally open to speedy rename. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename, open to speedy. --Just N. (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Rename - per above. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete categorizaing by specific parliament term served in is not a good idea, it leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to a broader conversation about whether categorizing politicians by term creates category clutter, although that would lead to mergers not deletions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of Friendship

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the order of friendship
 * Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Russian award, "awarded to Russian and foreign nationals for special merit in strengthening peace, friendship, cooperation and understanding between nations". It appears to be frequently awarded to foreign dignitaries, but even the Russian recipients I checked don't state what they did to merit the award, just mentioning it—most Russian recipients are not notable for work in diplomacy or international cooperation—leading me to conclude it's WP:NONDEF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete but Listify Clearly a diplomatic souvenir for foreign recipients. I focused on domestic articles like Anatoli Ilyi, Ramazan Abdulatipov, Vladimir Firsov and the award usually wasn't mentioned at all and only in passing when it was. (The Order of Friendship article should be expanded though to include all recipients and I can help.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Here we have this problem again. "It appears" and "leading me to conclude" - this is taken from a small sample of our existing articles - non RSs, and in so many cases abridged and incomplete, especially when on non-English speaking topics. For example, looking at Russian diplomatic lists we have huge numbers of redlinked ambassadors, many of which were awarded the order (though plenty weren't). We have a serious problem when it comes to our coverage of such topics in that we have very big gaps in the articles of those that are often the primary recipients of the award. Reading our articles to decide on defining is WP:OR, as well as shoddy scholarship. WP:Competence is required. If you say "Clearly a diplomatic souvenir for foreign recipients" because you have been scanned a small selection of articles, you are getting a misleading impression. Spokoyni (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a strange claim that the CFD task of reading Wikipedia articles to see if a category is defining constitutes original research. I don't think there are reliable secondary sources that specifically say whether online encyclopedias should categorize by any given topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not making the claim of "whether online encyclopedias should categorize by any given topic", you're making the claim that the Order of Friendship is "Clearly a diplomatic souvenir for foreign recipients". Where is your evidence for that? Spokoyni (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll see this as WP:OR but the intro of the award article says as much. There needs to be some affirmative case this award is defining to foreign heads of state since the secondary sources I've found just provide lists of honours without giving the reasons they were received, which is telling. (But primary sources like this Kremlin press release make it clear that this is a diplomatic souvenir as part of a state visit, in this case with Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is OR. Especially as you are taking one instance and applying it to the entire order. It is not just given to foreign heads of state, or even mostly given to foreign heads of state, as a study of the Russian category should make clear. The onus is on you to support the argument you make for deletion that when you say this is "Clearly a diplomatic souvenir for foreign recipients", that that is actually the case. Spokoyni (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're not moving the goal posts. You claimed that, not only did we disagree on a CFD editing guideline, but I was doing something wrong by violating a Wikipedia policy. I pushed back on that and you said the issue was with how I described the foreign recipients. (If this all sounds familiar, it's because those exchanges are directly above .) Now you can't come in say you want to quit focusing on the foreign recipients when you're the one that emphasized them and my original !vote discussed both. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What I would like you to do, as I have wanted all along, is for you to substantiate your claim that this order is "clearly a diplomatic souvenir for foreign recipients" by looking at the order as a whole, in reliable sources, and not cherrypicked instances from our own articles. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding over how this is written. I have taken what you wrote to mean 'this order is an award for foreign recipients, for whom this is a souvenier'. Which is factually wrong, the vast majority of recipients are Russian nationals. Perhaps you meant that 'this article is awarded to people, and for those that are foreign recipients, this is a souvenier'? In which case I would argue to look beyond them to the order as a whole, which includes many senior Russian diplomats and others who work in international relations, who do not yet have articles. I apologise if I have made this error. I still have the problem with the procedure used here, first that judgements are made by using our biography articles which are incomplete and non-RS sources, and second, that these selections are being used for OR on the part of wikipedia editors to determine their definingness. Spokoyni (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll also add, that since much of the rationale seems to be that the articles don't mention the award or explain why the recipients received it, these state awards are promulgated by an act of the Russian President and as such are officially gazetted, including the reasons for their award. To take the three examples you've used: Vladimir Firsov got his for "services to the state, a great contribution to strengthening friendship and cooperation between peoples, many years of fruitful activities in the field of culture and art" (Presidential ukase 1240). Anatoli Ilyin received his for "For services to the state, and a great contribution to the development of physical culture and sports" (Presidential ukase 988). Ramazan Abdulatipov got his for "for services to the state, successes achieved in work, and a great contribution to strengthening friendship and cooperation between peoples" (Presidential ukase 136). If in each case it was possible to add and source this detail, would this address the argument that "awards are only mentioned in passing, if at all, and thus are non-defining?" Spokoyni (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Valentina Tereshkova was the first woman in space, a national Soviet figure, and a long-term politician, all of which is defining. I assume that's why she won both the Order of the Sun of Peru and this order. (Google translate won't help me with the PDF version of the Kremlin press release which is the primary source in the article, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Of course awards are given for reasons not randomly which can be cited especially with primary sources. The primary sources are especially fraught though because just about all awards sincerely aspire to become more prominent, as evidenced by List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field or the highest honors of a field. Rather, the question for CFD is whether receiving the award is treated as defining to the recipients by reliable secondary sources in the (admittedly imperfect) Wikipedia articles so it aids navigation for readers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete categorization is built on usefulness and utility. In this case the category does not meet our very, very, very limited rules on what very limited award categories we will accept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. State honour awarded to many Russian citizens for service to their country. Clearly defining to them, as with any other state honour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2021 (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:Songs about nobility
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs about nobility
 * Nominator's rationale: The members of this category are not about ‘nobility’ but mention a word connected to nobility in the title. I have made a table below so you can see precisely how tenuous the connection between category and article are. It is a failure of the whole ‘Songs about…’ category scheme which is created because of a song title, ignoring the term ‘defining’ from WP:CAT and the use of linguistic terms such as allegory, parable, metaphor etc.


 * Delete per very thorough rationale by nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The nominator shows a lot of diligence but much less strength of judgement. Black baron Pyotr Wrangel for example is of the Baltic German noble Wrangel family. Marlbrough s'en va-t-en guerre is a satirical(!) song against a British noble as head of an enemy army -- so why should that be sneered at as a "fictious story about a Duke"? The same misaunderstanding with Heer Halewijn. Such songs are about myths and fictions and mockery not about historical accuracy. I'm not an expert in English satirical song lyrics so I couldn't contribute but two additional examples. By the way the existing category:songs about royalty is strictly seen a sub category. And isn't also Lady D'Arbanville by Cat Stevens (why capital 'D' notation?) about an American offspring of a poor noble family as the name d'Arbanville suggests? No doubt, potentially it's a growths category. --Just N. (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . Your addition of Candle in the Wind 1997 actually supports my nomination. Nobility is, according to WP, Nobility is a social class normally ranked immediately below royalty and found in some societies that have a formal aristocracy. so the addition of the song is incorrect. Now perhaps you would like to explain what defining other that links such disparate as a Russian general and a member of the British Royal family? You might like to check WP:SHAREDNAME too. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Richhoncho, you are completely wrong. The Elton song about Lady Di is about a Duchess of England, isn't it?! And in that nobility role she has experienced chases by the UK media mob. Royal family members are a subgroup of nobility and especially the English have enormous properties and Duke/Duchess titles of their own. The other topic is the Baltic general for whom I have given the link to his ancestry: pure nobility like most high military officers of that late feudal times in Russia. Well, even if you don't like it: better forget about SMALLCAT b/c it is no more <5! --Just N. (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But Di was a member of the Royal family and therefore not a member of the nobility. I only make this point because it shows how ridiculous this and similar cats are. We have works of fiction and fictions about real people, facts about real people and probably facts about fictious people. What defining principle joins, say, LD and a Russian General that they should be joined, as defining, in a category? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2021 (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:Vincent Scully Prize winners
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting vincent scully prize winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Nondefining award. No more than mentioned in the bios I checked. People like Robert A. M. Stern, Prince Charles, and Richard Moe are not at all defined by this award. Already listified in the main article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The National Building Museum is pretty cool if you're in Washington, DC but their award is not defining. The category contents are already listified within Vincent Scully Prize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet the very limited set of conditions under which we allow award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2021 (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:Films scored by Sajid-Wajid
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (target was a redirect at the time of the nomination, so it was a rename not a merge). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Films scored by Sajid-Wajid to Category:Films scored by Sajid–Wajid
 * Nominator's rationale: Match the article Sajid–Wajid <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  09:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Films scored by Sajid–Wajid per matching the correct article name. --Just N. (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2021 (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:Great Romanian Unification
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Great Union (Romania). If a user wants to propose the removal of the disambiguator to match the main article Great Union, such a nomination should be allowed so that discussion can be more focused on that issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Great Romanian Unification to Category:Expansion of Romania after World War I
 * Nominator's rationale: rename to a more neutral name. I am open to other suggestions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Category:Great Romanian Unification to Category:Great Union – C2D: consistency with Great Union Day. "Great Union" is a term used by Romanians to refer to the unification of the territories of Romania. Nobody uses "Romanian" in the name, and "Union" is a more accurate translation than "Unification". We lack an article on the term so the closest thing to a parent article is the Great Union Day, which uses the term "Great Union". See also the name of the event in Romanian (Marea Unire, "Great Union") and results in Google Scholar for both terms .  Super   Ψ   Dro  11:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, apparently there is no main article about the expansion of Romania's territory after WWI, so C2D does not apply. This requires full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How? "Great Romanian Unification" has been shown to not be used often. It only has 145 Google results compared to 188,000 when typing "Great Union" :* Oppose, (both of them). Great Union is clearly predominant.  Super   Ψ   Dro  19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose" "Great Union" may be associated with Romania by specialists, but for others it could mean anything; some mention of Romania in title is needed. Perhaps "Great Union (Romania)" Hugo999 (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no other event or notable thing on Wikipedia that is called "Great Union" and the only other things I am able to find in Google with "Great Union" on their name is an institute in Mexico and a camera. There's no need for disambiguation. We already have title names for events that are unspecific, like The Troubles (nobody would think they were a conflict in the island of Ireland by its name) or the Time of Troubles (political crisis in Russia centuries ago). It's just the way it's called and there's no other thing using that same name too. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. C2D clearly does not apply in the absence of a  head article, and  should stop this attempt to abuse the speedy process. Feel free to open a full discussion if you want, but this is not spediable.
 * Substantively, the proposed new title is to vague. It fails WP:PRECISE. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename Neutral (see below) The proposed rename is more neutral as what's "unification" from one side of the fence can be annexation from the other. Open to alt renames and speedy renaming later if/when a main article arrives. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Great Union. "Expansion of Romania after World War I" is too vague and it's inaccurate. This category is supposed to cover the events in 1918 and shortly after/before. Also, Romania lost several lands on 1940 and regained some in the following years during World War II (first Northern Bukovina, Bessarabia and Transnistria, then Northern Transylvania), so "after World War I" is wrong. I showed previously why "Great Union" is just the more adequate name.
 * Great Romanian Unification has no results in Google Scholar, two in Google Books and 195 in Google.
 * "Great Union" "Romania" has 1,770 results in Google Scholar (I can't link this for some reason), +100 in Google Books and 67,500 in Google. Mind that we already have one page and one template related to this event using the name "Great Union": Great Union Day and Template:Great Union. Oh, and when searching "Great Union" alone in Google Scholar, 6 out of 10 links of the first page of results and 10 out of 10 (!) links in the second page of results (and 9/10 in the 3rd, 4th and 5th) refer to the event in Romania.
 * Some have mentioned the problem of WP:PRECISE. I believe the second point of my comment shows clearly that "Great Union" is most commonly used for the term in Romania, but just in case, let's search it on Google. On the first two pages of results, stuff unrelated to the historical event in Romania that show up are the Great Union Institute in Mexico City (probably not notable and even if it was, it wouldn't require a disambiguation or something like that), The Great Union Camera Obscura restaurant in Isle of Man (probably not notable) on TripAdvisor, a Chinese (?) company  (probably not notable)... So there's no need for any disambiguation or a "(Romania)" in parentheses. Although results will vary to you depending on the version of Google of your country. And again, we also have categories about historical events with vague names, such as Category:Time of Troubles. I wouldn't guess from the name it refers to a crisis Russia suffered in the 16th and 17th centuries, but nothing else is called "Time of Troubles" in Wikipedia so it remains as the primary and main topic. Also, I don't see any neutrality issues with "Great Union".  Super   Ψ   Dro  14:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Great Union as it is not any more neutral than Great Romanian Unification. If more editors have an issue with "after World War I" then we can change it to Category:Expansion of Romania in the aftermath of World War I. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These proposals are unnecessarily long, and we already have a short and more commonly used term to replace them. Why is Great Union not neutral? It's was a term invented by Romanians to refer to the unification of Romanians, so of course it is nationalistic-sounding or irredentist-sounding or whatever the problem might be. If the Great Union had an article, which I will create one day, it wouldn't go like this "The Great Union was the unification of the Romanian historical regions..." but something more like this "The Great Union is a term used in Romanian historiography to refer to the series of unifications..." or something like that. Neutrality problems could appear on the article if it existed, but the name "Great Union" by itself doesn't have issues any in my opinion. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment — I support Category:Great Union (or, if need be, Category:Great Union (Romania)), on the basis that this is what historians of Romania call the event, as distinct from the Little Union of 1859. (Recent example, from a reputable publisher and with contributions from a series of prominent scholars, here.) We can’t be more neutral than that, nor should we try. — Biruitorul Talk 22:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cambridge Scholars Publishing is a predatory academic publisher... (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Nevertheless, my other point still stands: contributors like Dan Dungaciu, Calin Cotoi, ro:Stelian Neagoe, Antonio Patras and Ioan-Aurel Pop are leaders in their field.
 * I would also point out two books by the pointedly anti-nationalist historian Lucian Boia: “Surrounding the Great Union of 1918” and “From Ancient Dacia to the Great Union, from the Great Union till Today”. Published by Humanitas (publishing house).
 * There truly is no neutrality issue here — this is simply the name all historians of Romania use. Or if there is a question of neutrality and I’m missing it, can anyone explain it? No one has really said why “Great Union” might be objectionable. — Biruitorul Talk 00:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either of Marcocapelle's suggestions per WP:NPOV Neutral: If the main article would be located at Great Union per WP:Article titles (currently there is no main article) it is an ok name for a category as well. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is probably nothing wrong with a historiography article about the usage of the term "Great Union" as a POV reference to the expansion of Romania in the aftermath of World War I. But that does not make the term suitable as a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don’t understand this insistence on “Great Union” being “POV”. Is there any contemporary Romanian historian who uses another term? And if not, why should we? — Biruitorul Talk 13:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I notify participants on this discussion that there's now a page for Great Union. Now consistency with the parent article applies. Super  Ψ   Dro  10:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is more relevant what term American and British historians use, and it could be somewhat relevant what term Hungarian and Moldavian (Bessarabian) historians use. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are some Hungarian or ethnic Hungarian from Romania authors using "Great Union" (excluding those who said "Great Union Day")   . They are not too many, but I haven't seen any other alternative used by them.  Super   Ψ   Dro  08:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) According to WP:POVNAMING, “If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased”.
 * According to official policy, at most we should give more weight to sources written in English. The policy says nothing about privileging scholars of a particular nationality. Needless to say, plenty of Romanian historians write in English. Some of them are even employed by universities in the English-speaking world. And they all use “Great Union”, e.g. here, here, here, here, here.
 * 2) “Great Union” is the preferred term of Moldovan historians, e.g. here, here, here, here, here. — Biruitorul Talk 21:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

and, are your stances still the same? Super  Ψ   Dro  14:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok this looks pretty convincing. I am withdrawing my contributions to this discussion so far. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck !vote based on Great Union. I'm neutral. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Category:Expansion of Romania 1918-20. Great Union is an obscure term to me.  This may indeed be the Romanian term and correctly translated into English, but if WP was to adopt it we would need it to be Category:Romanian Great Union.  "After WWI" sounds vague, but in fact refers to the period in which the post WWI peace treaties were being negotiated.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Great Union (Romania). I am persuaded by @Biruitorul's evidence that "Great Union" is the correct term ... but to non-specialist readers it is massively ambiguous, so a disambiguator is needed. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with ambiguity and support alt rename to Category:Great Union (Romania). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this will be closed as no consensus so I will also support Category:Great Union (Romania) if there's no other option to replace the current name. Although I'd prefer Category:Great Union of Romania in order to avoid parentheses so it doesn't look like we are disambiguating the term, as there's no other page/category using "Great Union". What do you think,, and ? If my proposal is rejected, interpret my vote as supporting Category:Great Union (Romania).  Super   Ψ   Dro  13:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I too am fine with Category:Great Union (Romania). — Biruitorul Talk 13:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support rename to Category:Great Union (Romania), for clarity. Oculi (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2021 (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:Wikipedians who use Razer Comms
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who use razer comms
 * Nominator's rationale: Per https://mysupport.razer.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3756/~/razer-comms-support, Razer has decided to retire Razer Comms and the program will no longer be available for download. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 03:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if they had not, this should still be deleted as not defining.--Bduke (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2021 (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:CEOs of the Chicago Public Schools
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:CEOs of Chicago Public Schools. No opposition to this change, so it is a clear consensus to rename. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:CEOs of the Chicago Public Schools to Category:CEOs of Chicago Public Schools
 * Nominator's rationale: The "the" seems unneeded. SecretName101 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, Although I originally created this category under its current name in August, 2013, I support the proposed name change.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support oer nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ( Post closing comment: I realized that I made a mistake in attempting to close since I am not a page mover, so a page mover or admin needs to technically move the category, and I promise to stay away from closing CFDs in the future, at least until/unless I become a page moverJackattack1597 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2021 (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:Western writers about Russia
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 3%23Category:Western writers about Russia

Category:Eno Center for Transportation
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Eno Center for Transportation
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:OCASSOC
 * The Eno Center for Transportation is an American think tank focused on transportation and this categories contains people associated with that organization. 4 of the 5 article don't even mention the association and the 5th, James H. Burnley IV, makes passing reference to being the chairperson so this isn't generally defining. I assume footballer Tom Prendergast was added in error and all the other current category contents are listified in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, clearly not defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2021 (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.