Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 27

 &lt; June 26 June 28 &gt;

Psychics
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17%23Psychics

Category:Borders of Vatican City

 * 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) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Borders of Vatican City to Category:Geography of Vatican City and Category:Foreign relations of the Holy See
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer,  only two subcategories with largely overlapping content. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:06, 4 July 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:Trans men
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17%23Category:Trans men

Mass shootings in Canada by year
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17%23Mass shootings in Canada by year

Category:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene

 * 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 over redirect. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene to Category:Wikipedians interested in health
 * Nominator's rationale: Hygiene is a subtopic of health, so saying health and hygiene is redundant. Reverts an undiscussed move from 2018. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I went to go look in the history, and apparently it was as a result of this edit (not sure why they edited a closed cfd discussion nomination) - And then . (both done while apparently working on several user cats.) And someone else moved it to fix the ei/ie . All that said, I'm not sure why this was (re-)created, since the result of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_26, was Delete. - jc37 05:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. At most a Category:Wikipedians interested in hygiene might be created, but it is not clear whether current editors in this category would feel at home there. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: It is unclear which target is being suggested in the Merge !votes, as the target proposed by nom is a redirect to the nominated category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete - and please revert the edit to the CfD post-closure - . - jc37 14:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * My earlier merge vote was intended as rename/support. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Same with my "merge" comments. Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in health. - jc37 05:08, 30 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.

Mass shootings in Mexico by year
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17%23Mass shootings in Mexico by year

Active shooter incidents in the United States
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17%23Active shooter incidents in the United States

Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17%23Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe

Category:Austrian knights
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: containerise. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  11:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose containerizing austrian knights
 * Nominator's rationale: containerize, purge articles directly in this category who aren't real knights. This is merely a case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Doubts How would we define "real knights"? Which ones are we going to purge? I would suppose the Austrian nobility has been abolished in 1918 (concurrent with the fall of the monarchy) and that these titles are now only in pretense? In that case all people born after 1918 carrying the title of "Ritter" (as part of their name) seem WP:NONDEFINING and should be purged. As a sidenote, if it's merely a name thing with no legal importance post-1918, isn't this something we could group into Category:People by name or something (or does that category only exist on Commons?)? Just some suggestions, I don't know what is best. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See Knight, articles about the 17th century and beyond should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well "the 17th century" seems rather arbitrary for a poorly sourced subsection. Their military function probably did cease to have meaning around that time, but the legal meaning continued for much longer. E.g. there was a Rittersturm in the HRE in 1802-1804, and their position was formally abolished in 1806 upon abolition of the HRE. That's why I'm looking at 1918 as cutoff for Austria. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Clicking through the articles, the "Ritter" title seems undefining and is generally described in a footer. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rank of Ritter is a distinct rank of the Austrian nobility system, next to e.g. Baron/Freiherr, Count/Graf etc. There is little reason to delete this single category and not other nobility titles, or other knights categories in other countries. Note that article Austrian nobility compares the rank of Ritter to that of Baronet, as both were hereditary, and we have plenty of content in . Place Clichy (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  15:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Containerise & purge per nom. The Austrian nobility is a status group that was officially abolished in 1919 after the fall of Austria-Hungary. The nobles are still part of Austrian society today, but they no longer retain any specific privileges. At the very least, the category should be purged of all people born after 1919, because after that having the rank of Ritter has become WP:NONDEFINING for an individual person's career. They are only WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH other people (their ancestors) for whom it used to be significant for their career. So I think nom is right. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * note that for many articles in this category it merely functioned as an award, granted to famous artists, scholars etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Containerise & purge per nom per Marco. It may also need a renaming with a closing date (e.g. austrian knights (pre 1919)). Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also support renaming since it will help with maintenance. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:03, 28 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:BBC Idents
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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:BBC station identifications. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  11:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:BBC Idents to Category:BBC television presentation
 * Nominator's rationale: Not only is the current title is vague and incorrectly capitalized, but the proposed title provides covers the wider subject of television presentation and matches the parent category "Television presentation in the United Kingdom". —theMainLogan (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If the category is indeed populated solely by idents then renaming to Category:BBC station identifications would make more sense given the name of station identification. There's nothing vague about that (although "ident" is a common enough industry term). QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 15:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Category:BBC station identification would work better, but I definitely see where you're coming from. — the Main <font color="#3366cc">Logan  (t•c) 04:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Alt Rename to Category:BBC station identifications per WP:SETCAT. Despite most these articles using "Ident", there is no BBC specific main article to follow so station identification is as close as we get to WP:C2D. All of the current contents are for BBC Television but I'm assuming radio ones are possible for later. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural Note In CFD you need to tag categories or they will be closed as procedurally invalid at the end, see WP:CFD, but I just took care of this one for you. (I also added a header and parent category). - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — the Main <font color="#3366cc">Logan  (t•c) 19:09, 28 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:St. Anthony's High School (South Huntington, New York) alumni
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 as WP:SOFTDELETE  Category:Nipomo High School alumni, Category:Paul W. Bryant High School alumni, Category:Uvalde High School alumni], [[:Category:Woodcreek High School alumni, Category:Notre Dame Academy (Staten Island) alumni, Category:Michael J. Petrides School alumni, Category:Ralph R. McKee CTE High School alumni, Category:Staten Island Technical High School alumni; keep others. I have listed the deleted ones in the school articles, and added members to "People from" where this seemed appropriate. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting Centennial High School (Frisco, Texas)
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting Nipomo High School
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting Crowley High School (Texas)
 * Propose deleting Paul W. Bryant High School
 * Propose deleting Uvalde High School
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting Carroll Senior High School
 * Propose deleting Regis Jesuit High School
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting Notre Dame Academy (Staten Island)
 * Propose deleting Michael J. Petrides School
 * Propose deleting Ralph R. McKee CTE High School
 * Propose deleting Staten Island Technical High School
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two people each. As always, every high school does not automatically get one of these the moment one alumnus of that high school has an article to file in it -- there would have to be five or six alumni with articles before a category for them was warranted, not just one or two. Bearcat (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's not difficult to populate some of these. I found 8 for in 5 minutes. Oculi (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I had hoped the creator of all these would make some attempt to populate them (see User talk:Wembanyama). I would like (now 8) and Category:Berkeley Carroll School alumni (now 9) to be excluded. Oculi (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- SWE have traditionally allowed all high schools to have an alumni category. If we require 5 articles before a school can have one, we may well never populate any.  We should allow this as an exception to the general minimum of 5.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. One or two notable alumni can easily be mentioned on the article about the school. Sionk (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, per note from Oculi above. I've been looking at the articles about the schools and they have lengthy lists of alumni - the categories just need populating. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for Now Such small counts can be linked in the article. No objection to recreation if any reach 5+ though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support — and support a formal small cat limit of 10. SWE?
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  14:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm for 5 articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some years ago I have tried to formalize at 5 in the text of the guideline (carefully phrased something like "in most cases 5 will do"), but including any number in the guideline was dismissed as unnecessary. That also means we can develop a new cut-off here on CfD per precedent. Personally I do not have objections to 10 because in most smallcat cases we are simply upmerging the content to the parent categories, so we are still keeping the content together. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 5 suffices IMO. It is the usual number mentioned at cfd (eg in this very nom by Bearcat). Oculi (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having some concrete number would really help editors who don't frequent CFD who sincerely think 3 is enough, or an entire tree of 1 articles is well established. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against setting a hard value to this. We talked about setting it at 4 in times gone by, but the truth is, this is smething that really can vary on a case-by-case basis. Our goal is navigation here. And sometimes it's better to have a tree of subats and sometimes not. But a hard number would stand in the way of consensual discussion. If it's obviously a smallcat, CFD tends to take care of these things fairly well. - jc37 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all I've sorted / created many high school categories and I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of high schools have five or more notable alumni, especially those in metropolitan areas of the United States. Our efforts should be to populate categories like this, not delete them. For example, Category:Raleigh-Egypt High School alumni had one article until just now. It now has 6 after I spent approximately 3 minutes populating it.--User:Namiba 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have taken the liberty of changing 'lc' to 'clc' in the table, so current numbers now appear. There are still several with 1 or 2 which should be deleted - I looked at some of them and could find no more members. I have added the school article for the small categories, should editors wish to look for lists of alumni (per user:Sionk, above). Of course the school needs to be in the article of the supposed alumnus, preferably sourced, not just in the list. I see that one (Crowley) has gone up from 1 to 7 since I made these remarks. Oculi (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added several more to . The ease by which these are found is an indication as to why they all should be kept. Some may be below 5 articles, but they all can be easily expanded over time. Note that WP:SMALLCAT states that categories with a "realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Active high schools should fit into this exception since they will continue to add alumni year after year.--User:Namiba 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's nothing notable about going to school, otherwise we would all have articles. THe exception is intended for the likes of . Oculi (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:EPCATPERS specifically says "Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution and People by company, as well as numerous more specific categories." One's educational institution is considered inherently defining by current guidelines.--User:Namiba 23:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * WP:EPCATPERS does indeed say that (Categorization_of_people), since 2007. However that does not reflect current consensus at cfd and should be changed; we have deleted hundreds of small high school categories at cfd. (It should be changed to 'People by higher educational institution' perhaps; I don't recall university alumni categories being deleted.) It does not say that one's high school is WP:DEFINING; that would seem an extraordinary claim. Oculi (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * These are all subcategories of Category:People by educational institution, which is specifically cited in the policy. If you want to define one's high school as less defining than their university, that is an argument to make but should be made elsewhere.--User:Namiba 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A primary school (for under 11s)  is an educational institution, and I haven't noticed any proliferation of alumni categories for these.<span id="Oculi:1688422025836:WikipediaFTTCLNCategories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_27" class="FTTCmt"> — Oculi (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The primary school of most people is not known but their high school/secondary school is typical for a biography.--User:Namiba 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete categories with fewer than 5 articles (5 as a minimum). There has been plenty of time for any relevant articles to be added.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1689592479155:WikipediaFTTCLNCategories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_27" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  11:14, 17 July 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:Former polities in the Netherlands
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: No action - This has been open quite awhile, and several different ideas have been tossed around, but nothing really had consensus at this point. I'm doing this as a procedural close of "no action" rather than a "no consensus" close, simply due to the age of discussion.  No prejudice against renomination for any of these or other proposals. - jc37 06:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Former polities in the Netherlands to Category:Former states in the Low Countries; add parent Category:History of the Low Countries
 * Nominator's rationale: In practice, the category also includes areas outside the current Netherlands (Nederland) such as in modern Belgium and Luxembourg, including areas that were never part of the Habsburg Netherlands (Nederlanden) or the Dutch Republic, such as the Principality of Liège. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional rationale: WP:C2C Category:History of the Low Countries is already the common ancestor of Category:Former polities in the Netherlands (5 generations) and pretty much all subcategories in it; e.g. Category:Habsburg Netherlands‎ and Category:United Kingdom of the Netherlands‎ are its children; Category:Burgundian Netherlands and Category:Seventeen Provinces‎ are its grandchildren etc.
 * WP:C2B Low Countries is the WP:COMMONNAME in English for this region, and consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. In its parent Category:Former countries by region it sits alongside Category:Former countries in the British Isles, Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula, Category:Former countries in the Balkans etc. This grouping by region is also consistent with established conventions also used on other-language Wikipedias such as nl:Categorie:Historisch land in de Nederlanden, fr:Catégorie:Anciens Pays-Bas, de:Kategorie:Historische Niederlande etc. to which this category is Wikidata-linked. All that is wrong with the current category is the English term Netherlands instead of Low Countries, really. This should clear up some confusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Split to Category:Former polities in the Netherlands for content since about 1580 and Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire before that. The medieval and 16th-century polities were subordinate to the Holy Roman Emperor, and after 1580 nothing is wrong with the current category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, then its contents (with places from Boulogne to Moers, and including Austrian Netherlands, United Belgian States, Loon, Liège, etc.) would still not match the catname "Former polities in the Netherlands". Its interwikis in Dutch, French, German etc. have pretty much the same contents: nl:Categorie:Historisch land in de Nederlanden fr:Catégorie:Anciens Pays-Bas de:Kategorie:Historische Niederlande. I think its parents are key to understanding how this category was meant:
 * Category:Political history of the Netherlands Category:Political history of Belgium Category:Former countries in Europe Category:Former countries by region
 * I'm highlighting the last one because it indicates this isn't a "by country" category; rather, it is similar to Category:Former countries in the British Isles, Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula, Category:Former countries in the Balkans etc. "Netherlands" isn't meant to mean the modern country, but a translation of Nederlanden, a region, which in English is more properly rendered as Low Countries. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was clearly not precise enough. What I meant was: split to Category:Former polities in the Netherlands for Northern Netherlands content since about 1580 and Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire for Southern Netherlands content and for content before 1580. Holy Roman Empire is the bigger area that is relevant here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point. Pretty much all states that we would have to manually merge from this cat to States in the HRE are already in there, and the HRE was a country/state, not a "region". It would also mean we would have to remove its parent Category:Political history of Belgium (and remove Category:Former countries by region because "Netherlands" is not a "region" but a country, and there is no Category:Former countries by country to re-parent it to), and unlink all interwikis with the same geographical scope, with no interwikis to link it to. Everything about how this category is organised and interlinked with everything else indicates that Low Countries is the scope and the proper term to use in this case. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We clearly do not agree here. If we can categorize by country (like Holy Roman Empire) then that is preferable over categorizing by region. Only when categorizing by country is really impractical then by region might be an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the 18th century, the Holy Roman Empire consisted of approximately 1,800 such territories, says List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. I'd say that is really impractical. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire is being diffused by counties, duchies etc making it a bit less overwhelming. But other than that, the Holy Roman Empire been split in very many small principalities is just a fact we have to live with. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the best way to deal with the HRE for navigating the states of the HRE.
 * But that's not the subject of this category, namely, the political history of this region (that's why it's in the Category:History of the Low Countries tree, and has Category:Political history of Belgium and Category:Political history of the Netherlands as its parents). That includes states before 862 and after 1806, and includes states that were outside the HRE between 862 and 1806. Any split (or deletion) would only make it harder to navigate the Category:History of the Low Countries tree and between different language versions of this category connected through Wikidata. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Split or Delete this is just a collection of titles / states in an area that is variously described as Burgundian Netherlands, Spanish Netherlands, Habsburg Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands, Low Countries etc. Looks quite WP:OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Low Countries is consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. All the other terms with "Netherlands" in them only ever describe just (different) parts of the Low Countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Split per Marcocapelle. Countries/Empires are preferable to regions.
 * @William Allen Simpson It would be if the countries in question (Belgium and the Netherlands) existed at the time. That is not the case. And as I pointed out to Marcocapelle, the Holy Roman Empire category tree is so large as to be impractical. The contents are grouped by region in a manner that follows established conventions also used on other-language Wikipedias, it fits the Category:Former countries by region where it sits alongside Category:Former countries in the British Isles. All that is wrong with it is the name, really. Low Countries is the WP:COMMONNAME in English for this region, and consistently used as the overarching term in modern English literature. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While your chosen username indicates enthusiasm about the Netherlands, I've long deferred to on these issues. When I looked at this the first time around, here's my train of thought:
 * This is the only "polities" in the entire category tree. Therefore, highly disfavored.
 * low countries didn't exist at the time of my !vote. (It was created later that day.) Therefore, highly suspect.
 * The original (2005) parent category was benelux countries, later renamed benelux.
 * Note that the same edit added fr:catégorie:territoire dans les Pays-Bas and nl:categorie:historisch land in de Nederlanden. "Territory"? "Historic land"? So I was looking for a better term. Marcocapelle provided "states" and "Holy Roman Empire". Much better!
 * Marcocapelle also says "by country ... is preferable over categorizing by region. Strong agreement.
 * I'm not afraid of 1,800 entries. Our categorization software readily handles far more.
 * I'd almost agreed with to delete entirely. But thought a split would give a handle on what is left, at which time we could better contemplate deletion.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Marcocapelle and I are both from the Netherlands. Until I nominated the Rulers category, we had barely interacted, we got to know each other here, just like I got to know you. (And I quite like the cooperation so far).
 * Yes, 'polities' is indeed rare.
 * The relevant parent is Category:History of the Low Countries, which existed since 2014. I didn't create it, and I didn't create Category:Low Countries, so why should that be 'suspect'?
 * Irrelevant. Low Countries is the WP:COMMONNAME of the region (certainly for pre-1944 history; the Benelux was created at a time when the 3 current modern countries already existed, and there have been no state establishments or disestablishments since 1944).
 * Yes, 'states' is better. I've change the target to Category:Former states in the Low Countries
 * Normally I would agree, but in this case, the modern-day countries didn't exist yet. Category:Former countries in the British Isles is a good comparison.
 * Categories should aid navigation. They don't display more than 200 entries for that reason. Most of the Low Countries entries are already in this hardly navigable clutch of 1,800 entries in Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire. More importantly, this category just serves a different function, namely the political history of this region (that's why it's in the Category:History of the Low Countries tree, and has Category:Political history of Belgium and Category:Political history of the Netherlands as its parents). That is broader than 862 to 1806, and includes states that were outside the HRE during this period.
 * Any split (or deletion) would only make it harder to navigate the Category:History of the Low Countries tree and between different language versions of this category connected through Wikidata.
 * Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  14:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Update I've added add parent Category:History of the Low Countries to the proposal, and added an Additional rationale to better explain my nomination and clear up some confusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * History of the Low Countries is not complete bullshit, because there are in fact three periods of shared history:
 * the Seventeen Provinces for a few decades in the 16th century
 * the United Kingdom of the Netherlands from 1815 to 1830
 * the current Benelux
 * But the above three periods are relatively short and dispersed and the items in this category exactly refer to duchies and counties etc while they had no shared history yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't need to have a shared political history in order to be a region.
 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland only existed from 1801 to 1922, and yet that doesn't stop us from having a Category:Former countries in the British Isles either.
 * ,, Iberian Union ,, 1580 to 1640, ,, ,,, Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula either.
 * Etc.
 * Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These are by regions of natural geography. Based on natural borders you might suspect more interaction between the states in the region versus outside the region. While I think that is questionable too, the Low Countries do not even have natural borders. Consequently there wasn't any kind of special interaction between e.g. Gelre and Flanders based on that they both belonged to the Low Countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ..except that the first Counts of Wassenberg and Guelders were Flamenses because they were... Flemish. See nl:Gerard I Flamens. nl:Lijst van heersers van Gelre. Funny that you chose that example. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These are by regions of natural geography. Are they? British Isles is in Category:Regions of Europe, not in Category:Natural regions of Europe. In fact, just England alone apparently has multiple "natural regions": Category:Natural regions of England. So does Category:Natural regions of Belgium, by the way. Unless you mean something else by "regions of natural geography", I'm not seeing the relevance.
 * What does appear to be relevant is that both Category:Former countries in the British Isles, Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula, and Category:Former polities in the Netherlands are all grandchildren of Category:History of Europe by region. So it's not natural geography, but history that determines these regions as "regions". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree on the latter, so disagree on categorization by anything that did not exist at the time, whether Belgium or Low Countries. Honestly the whole tree of Category:Low Countries seems redundant to me, as it contains so few truly overarching articles. (What I meant to say before is that I can imagine that Category:Former countries in the British Isles and Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula can be defended based on more interaction (in history) within these otherwise rather isolated regions.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Low Countries existed as a region at the time, just like the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans (Category:History of the Balkans), the Baltic states (Category:History of the Baltic states), etc. even if the modern terms for these regions did not yet exist at the time ("Balkan(s)" in its current meaning was coined in 1808, "Baltic states" in its current meaning was coined in the interwar period etc.).
 * Fortunately, we've got the well-known Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee (possibly the oldest reference to Low Countries in a primary source) from the 1350s, during or after most of the "former polities" in the current category existed. None of the subcategories of Category:Former polities in the Netherlands ceased to exist before the 1350s. For the item we may be more selective, e.g. Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior may strictly speaking be out of place/scope.
 * Even so, the term is not required to have existed at the time for it to be used in Category:History of Europe by region, as the British, Baltic, Balkan and (I)berian examples show. (Have we got more European regions starting with a B? Black Ruthenia? Alright, enough joking). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * It is obvious we do not agree anyway but I will add a late comment to the Kronijk van den clerc uten laghen landen bi der zee: this is referring to the county of Holland, not to Gelre, Namur or whatever we now consider to be part of the Low Lands. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite. J.M.C. Verbij-Schillings, "Heraut Beyeren en de Clerc uten Laghen Landen", (1991) Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde. indicates the chronicle is dedicated to a certain William of Bavaria, the count of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, but it's unclear whether he was William V = William I, Duke of Bavaria OR William VI = William II, Duke of Bavaria. There is a question when exactly it was written, since both Williams have also been count of Hainaut, but aren't called that by the text, and Hainaut isn't really a subject in the text. On the other hand, the chronicle is apparently closely related to the post-1393 Holland-Utrecht chronicle (Croniken van den Stichte van Utrecht ende van Hollant) in contents and style. It's indeed unlikely that uten laghen landen bi der zee means all Low Countries as we understand them today, but evidently, the chronicle is not just about Holland either, but also around the surrounding provinces, especially those where this William of Bavaria reigned or had frequent or occasional interactions with (Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Hainaut, Utrecht, Flanders, Guelders etc. are all mentioned in Verbij-Schillings' quotations). But the toponym Nederland likewise didn't yet have its current form and application yet either at the time. The oldest reference to Niderlande by Berthold von Regensburg in c. 1275 equated Niderlande with Sahsen ("Saxony"), not with what we today know as the Netherlands: Die von Oberlant, dort her von Zürich, die redent vil anders danne die von Niderlande, von Sahsen. The meaning and application first shifted to the Rhineland and eventually to the Rhine/Meuse/Scheldt delta as we know it today. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, maybe it's time we tried to work out some sort of compromise, like we did with Category:Medieval Low Countries. There is actually quite a lot of overlap between the two. Perhaps we should manually merge some of the children and items to Category:Medieval Low Countries or its children? What we would be left with are pre-500 things like Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior (which may not need to be in this tree at all), and post-1500 things, which we might divide in some sort of North and South categories if we really wanted to. I'm afraid that 1580 will remain somewhat arbitrary, and the HRE category is a bit too big for our purposes here. But I'm open to a lot of options. We need some movement here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think almost everything belongs in Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire (and frankly, almost everything is already in that tree) and the few items that do not belong there are suitable for Category:Former polities in the Netherlands. The split isn't about the year 1580 per se, it is by what does and doesn't fit in the HRE tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename and add parent  per nomination. Sometimes I find that we are taking ourselves too seriously, and treating category policies as if they were civil or scientific laws. They are neither; rather, to follow them well is an art. This is a category that has stood the test of time and has also been created in multiple other-language Wikipedias. Unless there is a nomination to delete, I would even say that this category is required – and should be at the target name. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:47, 25 July 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.

Water polo people
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  11:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )


 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )
 * Rename to  (per )


 * Rationale: these are WP:C2C speedies in theory, but speedy can be a misnomer, especially where demonyms (and an Ireland category) are involved. The subcategories all use 'fooian', eg . The only article not in a subcategory is William Wilson (aquatics) who invented the sport and is British. Oculi (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. We generally use the national demonyms, even when they match ethnonyms, where they would not cause ambiguity. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Not sure some of these are needed as a layer, e.g Bosnia and Herzegovina only has a players subcat which itself only contains 2 articles, in contrast to e.g Australia which has male, female and Olympic players, coaches and an official so merits the umbrella. But anyway, logic for the rename is sound. Crowsus (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not rename the categories from "people" to "players"? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 04:05, 10 July 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:Bandstands in Brazil
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Bandstands in Brazil to Category:Music venues in Brazil
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Could not find any other articles to which the category would apply. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:11, 27 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.

Works by writer nationality
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 17%23Works by writer nationality

Category:Films directed by Eché Janga
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting films directed by eché janga
 * Propose deleting films produced by koji nelissen
 * Propose deleting films produced by derk-jan warrink
 * Nominator's rationale: Following Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 10, here are three more categories for redlinked filmmakers on the same film as in that nomination (Buladó). I'm not sure whether categorising by director is always defining – in which case I would withdraw the first one – but I don't think that would apply to producers. Fayenatic  L ondon 09:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nelissen and Warrink have other producing credits on Captain Nova (both), Juze (just Warrink), and Cuban Love (just Warrink), which brings both categories up to three entries. Whether that negates SMALLCAT, especially for redlinked subjects, I don't know, but it's at least worth noting. Found no other credits for Janga. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete but only because the individual is red-linked, and therefore notability has not been established. However WP:SMALLCAT is not a valid reason in itself for deletion, as it states that subcategories of may be created even if they include only one page. -- wooden superman  12:33, 4 July 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:Border crossings of Vatican City
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting border crossings of vatican city
 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Sole subcat also exists in Category:Italy–Vatican City border which is the only other subcat in Category:Borders of Vatican City. No need for both when they exist to complete the same job, especially when the other also does more than this could. Not sure what the appropriate redirect target would be, if any exist, but I imagine that would be preferred and I will accept that as well. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 09:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Merging to Category:Borders of Vatican City is not meaningful either, that category should be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can support that upmerge as well. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 17:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 27 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:Voodoo texts
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Voodoo texts to Category:Books about Haitian Vodou
 * Nominator's rationale: All of the pages in this category pertain to books about Haitian Vodou. Renaming this category would more accurately describe the religion in question (Haitian Vodou rather than more ambiguous "Voodoo") and would also clarify that the category is for books about the religion, rather than authoritative texts or scripture (as a comparative example, see Category:Books about Buddhism versus Category:Buddhist texts. — Matthew  / (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree on "books about", per nom. Not sure about "Haitian Vodou", does Jamaica fall under that too? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Per Haitian Vodou, it appears the name is to do with the religion being developed in Haiti, not that there are other national varieties of it. Given the proposed title would match that article's name, that is the most appropriate name for the cat. I support the nom. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 11:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification (AKA thing I didn't know until just now): Turns out there are varieties from different places (see Voodoo). However, both Voodoos and Obeahs and Psychic Phenomena of Jamaica link back to Haitian Vodou, so if they're still referring to that specific one then it would still be the most appropriate. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 27 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:Four Digit Wings of the United States Air Force
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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:Major command controlled wings of the United States Air Force. The RM being referred to is developing to a consensus to merge the article away (so the capitalization is moot), but nobody either here or there has argued in favor of capitalizing "Major Command", so the lowercase title stands. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Four Digit Wings of the United States Air Force to Category:four-digit wings of the United States Air Force
 * Nominator's rationale: Proper use of capitalization and hyphenation. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 22:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Should this category be deleted per WP:SHAREDNAME, or renamed to Category:Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * rename to Category:MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force Category: Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force as the number of digits is irrelevant; these are all MAJCOM units. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be either sentence case, "Four digit wings" or MAJCOM wings. I tend to think a soft redirect should exist at "Four digit wings." Buckshot06 (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with LG, endorse Category: Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force, avoids COM versus CON (no jokes about Fat Leonard, that's a different service) with lots of redirects; Buckshot06 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree Definitely should not be either. As  Buckshot points out, what notability these units have as a group does not stem from how many digits they have in their designations, but in how the designations were controled from 1948-c. 1992.  Also, the obscure term MAJCON is correct for these units, not MAJCOM.  But, I would reject both as .  MAJCOM was an abbreviation for Major Command, MAJCON for Major Command controlled.  I would prefer Category: Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force.  (I'm soft on whether to capitalize the "C" in Command and hide my head in the sand for the group 1000-1050).  I also favor abundant redirects for those who know the jargon, those who think they know the jargon, and hyphenated and unhyphenated versions of four digit.  Lineagegeek (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with your suggestion about the name, but again with the four-digit thing, I'm unconvinced that's significant. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove Four Digit Name Fine if that means delete, fine if a consensus emerges to rename it. But the number of numbers is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Rename to Category:Major Command controlled wings of the United States Air Force - as per my comments above Buckshot06 (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That works for me. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If the name properly belongs somewhere else, then I'm unconcerned; I was just trying to fix the capitalization error. However, if the phrase "major command" is to be included in the new name, it too should be uncapitalized (for the same reasons I'm requesting the move here: Talk:Major Command).  There shouldn't be contention about that move, but if there is, then this discussion should defer to the outcome there.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:12, 28 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:Treaties of ancient Greece
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Treaties of ancient Greece to Category:Ancient treaties
 * Propose merging Category:Treaties of al-Andalus to Category:Medieval treaties
 * Nominator's rationale (ancient Greece): Possibly WP:NONDEFINING because ancient Greece was not a state actor nor a non-state actor. See Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27 where similar factors are at play. If we choose to regard ancient Greece as a predecessor of the modern Hellenic Republic, known as Greece (per parent Category:Treaties of Greece), it might be different. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale (al-Andalus): Similarly, al-Andalus was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, see above. If we choose to regard al-Andalus as a predecessor of modern Spain and Portugal (through parent Category:Military history of al-Andalus, grandparent Category:History of al-Andalus, great-grandparent Category:Al-Andalus, great-great-grandparents Category:Medieval Portugal and Category:Medieval Spain), it might be different. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Al-Andalusi @Marcocapelle @Fayenatic london FYI because you have commented on the "Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, which led to this CfM. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Entirely removing the content of these categories from the tree of Category:Ancient Greece and Category:Al-Andalus is not a good idea. Perhaps with the proposed merge the articles and subcats stay in those trees in some other way, then it would be fine, but I have not checked that yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is ok. The three Al-Andalus treaties are also in Category:Reconquista treaties, part of Category:Military history of al-Andalus. Something similar applies to the ancient Greek treaties. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle What do you think about Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece? Is this a valid/sustainable name? I think it already explicitly claims that ancient Greece was not a single state, but many states which had (foreign) relations with each other. Upmerging the ancient Greek (city-)state treaties to Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece seems like a viable option, alongside upmerging to Category:Ancient treaties.
 * I do think we should take the ancient Greek (city-)state treaties out of the Category:Treaties of Greece tree. The words of (ancient) Greece signify ownership, and because ancient Greece as such was not a (non-)state actor, this is misleading. However, in ancient Greece in the name of its parent is probably okay, because it signifies time (ancient (times)) and region (ancient Greece) rather than a (non-)state actor.
 * I agree with the latter, Greece just by itself strongly suggests it refers to modern Greece. With respect to Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece, please note that not all treaties are between Greek states, a few are with Rome or Persia. A simpler solution is to rename the category to Category:Treaties of Greek city-states. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * not all treaties are between Greek states, a few are with Rome or Persia. Ah, well-spotted. That does make it more complex than I thought.
 * Treaties of Greek city-states I'm afraid that won't work, including for reasons that I hadn't seen until now. The reason why I kept calling them ancient Greek (city-)states is that some in the category were not "city-states" (poleis), and the others - as I see now - might not even be called "Greek".
 * Only children "Treaties of Athens" and "Treaties of Sparta", and items Isopoliteia and Sympoliteia, unambiguously qualify.
 * "Treaties of Macedon‎" was arguably "Greek", but not a "city-state".
 * The "Treaties of the Diadochi" were about the division of Alexander's empire, concluded between his successors in Babylon and Triparadisus, Lebanon, having nothing to do with "Greece" or its poleis.
 * Treaty of Apamea was between Roman Republic and Seleucid Empire; the latter was dominated by Greeks, but neither located in Greece, nor a city-state.
 * Treaty of Dardanos was between Roman Republic and Kingdom of Pontus; same situation.
 * We could resolve this in any number of ways, including:
 * A. just calling them all "Greek states", but that may invite an WP:ARBITRARYCAT CfD sooner or later about what makes them "Greek" ("official" language? demographics?).
 * B. upmerging 1 and 2 to Interstate relations in ancient Greece.
 * C. renaming 1 and 2 rest Treaties of Greek city-states (2 C, 2 P)
 * D. combining 3, 4 and 5 as a child of Category:Hellenistic states.
 * E. putting 3, 4 and 5 as four separate items in Category:Hellenistic period because we can't group them into a non-SMALLCAT.
 * It's possible to combine B-D, B-E, C-D, or C-E.
 * I currrently think B-E is the best solution, but I'm curious what others think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that this requires splitting. But then too little content is left to keep a category for either of the two parts of the split. So prefer merging B + E, in principle. But the latter (E) does not really have to be implemented as such because the content is already deeper down in the tree of Category:Hellenistic period. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle Okay, so only B: Upmerging (or rather: re-parenting) "Category:Treaties of Athens", "Category:Treaties of Sparta", "Category:Treaties of Macedon‎", and items Isopoliteia and Sympoliteia to Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece? I could add this to the nomination if you like. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you agree, then we might also apply this concept to al-Andalus, like Category:Interstate relations in al-Andalus. Cats such as Category:Dynasties in al-Andalus essentially also recognises that al-Andalus was a politically divided region, while its parent Category:People from al-Andalus essentially claims that al-Andalus is a "nationality", a "former country" and a "state", which is the opposite of a politically divided region.
 * Subcategory Category:Al-Andalus military personnel also implies that these soldiers were all employed by the same state/country, while many of them were from competing dynasties/taifa's and fought against (and killed) each other. Similar issues exist in Category:Ancient Greek military personnel, although Category:Ancient Greek generals at least tries to split them up by (city-)state. SMALLCAT can become a problem if we tried to diffuse all items in such categories, so a little pragmatism may sometimes be warranted over accuracy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the idea of creating a Category:Interstate relations in al-Andalus (following the example of Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece above, in which some of the Category:Treaties of ancient Greece may be merged)? We could populate this new category with the following: Category:Fitna of al-Andalus, Category:Military history of al-Andalus, Al-Azraq Treaty of 1245 + Treaty of Orihuela + Treaty of Xàtiva (upmerge from Category:Treaties of al-Andalus), Treaty of Granada (1491) (upmerge from Category:Treaties of the Emirate of Granada per WP:SMALLCAT), Convivencia, Farfanes, Parias, and perhaps more items. I think this could be a sustainable, long-term solution. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Semantic question: what would "interstate" mean here? I would take it as between two or more Muslim states only (which does not apply to the three treaties, they are with a Christian counterpart) but maybe I am just taking it too narrow. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you preferred to put Category:Treaties of Macedon (which includes items like Macedonian–Carthaginian Treaty, so a treaty between a state in Ancient Greece with a state outside Ancient Greece) in Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece. By analogy, Category:Interstate relations in al-Andalus could include treaties between Islamic states within al-Andalus and other states, including Christian states in Iberia (which would then, technically, be outside "al-Andalus").
 * I do see a potential problem with adding religion into the mix (religion (Islam) + state + region), which we don't do with Ancient Greece. What "counts" as "al-Andalus" or not seems to depend entirely on the sum of states controlling territory in the Iberian Peninsula which were "Islamic states" (or more arbitarily "Muslim states"). It may be easy to verify which monarch was a Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily make his or her personal religion WP:DEFINING for the state they ran. The very concept of an "Islamic state", just like a "Christian state", may even be too modern to be readily applied to medieval circumstances in Iberia. Apart from theocracies, or states with a constitution explicitly enshiring one religion or another, such a designation may be arbitrary or anachronistic. Instead of making religion perhaps overly important, we should just take the entire peninsula as our scope, just like with Ancient Greece: timeframe + region.
 * A Category:Interstate relations on the medieval Iberian Peninsula (timeframe + region) would include all treaties between all states which existed in on the Iberian Peninsula between 500 and 1500. We won't have to constantly verify and argue over the degree to which each of those states was "Islamic", "Christian", somewhat vague or mixed (e.g. the early Visigothic Kingdom was still a mix of Gothic paganism, Arianism and Chalcedonian Christianity by the time the Umayyads conquered it and introduced Sunni Islam), on which the categorisation of various treaties would then depend. This category would be a child of Category:History of the Iberian Peninsula, a sibling of Category:History of al-Andalus, Category:Ancient history of the Iberian Peninsula, Category:Former countries on the Iberian Peninsula and so on. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess we could also just name it Category:Medieval history of the Iberian Peninsula per its sibling Category:Ancient history of the Iberian Peninsula, and make Category:History of al-Andalus its child, but its purpose would essentially be the same. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Religion played a huge role in the middle ages and ignoring that would be very anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but it is also a role that should not be overstated in anachronistic ways either. The Ancient Greeks had Template:Sacred Wars as well over the Oracle of Delphi, with the Delphic Amphictyony "protecting" this sacred site against any "blasphemous" intrusion, definitely playing a role in Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece. It doesn't mean we should view the whole of ancient Greek society through the lens of religion (WP:UNDUE), nor should we do the same with medieval Iberian society. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Category:Treaties of al-Andalus would no longer need merging to Category:Medieval treaties as the three articles in it are now within other subcats of the target, namely  or . – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we might turn Category:Treaties of al-Andalus into a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to such a DP, because it would still imply al-Andalus was a 'state'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Aggressive clean up and removal based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). I don't see any of the alternatives suggested to be more helpful to wiki users than the existing categories. Al-Andalusi (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * based on entirely spurious reasoning (that a "treaty" category is restricted to a state/non-state actor only). Not true; the precedent "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM already concluded that a treaty is restricted to a state actor nor a non-state actor: "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, so this is WP:NONDEFINING for treaties, and medieval treaties categories are subdivided by country and the medieval Islamic world is not a country. This fact is why Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic was merged and no longer exists. This precedent has established a consensus that treaties can only involve state actors and non-state actors, which supports the current nomination (so it's not based on entirely spurious reasoning).
 * You have already agreed with us (Marcocapelle, Fayenatic and I) that neither "al-Andalus" nor "medieval Islamic world" was a "country" (on my talk page, you said to me: I'm curious to know how you arrived at the understanding that a category with "medieval Islamic world" implies that it is a country? That was never the intention obviously...), and at the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, you added: I also see Category:Treaties of ancient Greece, which was not really a unified state. Which is correct, and exactly why I nominated both "Treaties of al-Andalus" and "Treaties of ancient Greece" for merging next.
 * In the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, the "Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world" CfM, and again in this CfM, your Oppose vote rests on the argument that treaties and foreign relations should not be limited/restricted to states / state and non-state actors only. But that train has left the station due to the "Treaties of the medieval Islamic world" CfM precedent. You may not like the result, but it stands, and the precedent it has set has consequences for subsequent discussions, including this one. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The previous CfM (which you nominated) is hardly a precedent. Just because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. Since no specific guideline on the scope of the Treaties categories has been established, then everything remains open to debate. Especially considering the fact that Category:Medieval treaties and Category:Ancient treaties still exist in violation of the alleged state/non-state actor criteria. You're not being consistent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Al-Andalusi Just because it got merged does not necessarily mean it got merged specifically because of the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale. True, but do you have evidence that it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale" in this case? The nominator (me in that case), Marcocapelle and Fayenatic all Supported the merge rationale that "the medieval Islamic world" was neither a state actor nor a non-state actor, so this is WP:NONDEFINING for treaties. (while you Opposed this rationale with the argument that There is no requirement that a treaty category be strictly limited to a state). Nobody brought up any other argument in favour of merging, so there is no reason to assume it got merged for reasons other than "the reasons brought up in a nominator's rationale".
 * That means the precedent has been set to limit treaty categories to state actors (i.e. the Category:Treaties by country tree) and non-state actors (i.e. the Category:Treaties by organization tree), and that "the medieval Islamic world" was neither, even though it was (incorrectly) categorised as such. Similarly, Category:Treaties of ancient Greece is a child of Category:Treaties of Greece and thus in the Category:Treaties by country tree, and Category:Treaties of al-Andalus is a child of Category:Treaties by former country and thus also in the Category:Treaties by country tree.
 * Category:Treaties by period is a different tree, categorising treaties not by state or non-state actors, but time. Something like "Antiquity" or "the Middle Ages" obviously does not constitute a country/organisation and thus not a state or non-state actor, nor does the category tree claim them to be. This whole thing is a red herring. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles to Category:Lists of vascular plants of the British Isles
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary definite article. See also Talk:List of the mosses of Britain and Ireland which covers all the similarly titled lists in this category and one other list of non-vascular plants. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, a simple grammar issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:C2A. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:42, 1 July 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:Latino sitcoms
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Latino sitcoms to Category:Hispanic and Latino American sitcoms
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the naming convention of the parent category Category:Hispanic and Latino American television, which is a more clear scope then the current title as well. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 03:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per C2C. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:26, 27 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.