Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 10

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Books by William Alston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Author has several other books, but I just don't think they'll ever be made into their own pages Mason (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally dislike small categories such as this, but the editing guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth specifically exempts "Works by creator" as a class. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. My apologies! I missed that part of the guidelines. Mason (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Books by David W. Anthony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small cat, no potential for growth Mason (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally dislike small categories such as this, but the editing guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth specifically exempts "Works by creator" as a class. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. My apologies! I missed that part of the guidelines. Mason (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Temple founded by Santadas Kathiababa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Temples not organized this way. Gjs238 (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also because the article about one of the two temples and the article about the founder are going to be deleted as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no evidence from reliable independent sources that Santadas Kathiababa was a notable person. Therefore there is no reason to have a category for temples that were allegedly founded by him.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category was emptied by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Zero-G shooters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Zero-G shooter" is not an established genre. The nearest equivalent, space combat simulator, already has a category. IceWelder [✉] 13:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the category be merged to Category:Space combat simulators then? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Into Category:Space combat simulators Mason (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Guatemala–Taiwan relations. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 21:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ambassadors of Guatemala to Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT noting the 1 entry is currently at AfD. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (unless the category becomes empty due to the AfD). The nominator is forgetting this important phrase in WP:SMALLCAT: unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Categorizing ambassadors this way is standard. Note also that there's potential for growth: two people in the list have articles on de.wiki that could be translated. Pichpich (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I came here to support, but Pichpich's oppose rationale has swayed me. SMALLCAT FTW! - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there were an actual article in here, I could follow the logic of the above keep !votes, but there's really no point in keeping a "X of Y" category containing only "List of X of Y". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here is that the article that was in the category was recently redirected (at AfD) to the list article. I no longer oppose the deletion of the category. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pppery. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pppery. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  MergeDelete to Category:Guatemala–Taiwan relations per @Pichpich. (If there was at least one bio in here, I would oppose) Mason (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 and split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rabbis by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:OVERLAPCAT, this combines the content of two unrelated other categories: Category:Chief rabbis and Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon_Schechter is in neither. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sir Joseph: this article is also not in Category:Rabbis by country so I am not sure what you are trying to say. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rabbis by country follows the same structure as other religious leaders by country. Right now there's overlap for sure, but many rabbis work in their non-native countries. Mason (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a Christian sibling for an obvious reason: there are Christian missionaries working in traditionally non-Christian countries. There is no such phenomenon in Judaism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mason do you have evidence for your opposing rationale? – Fayenatic London 08:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a fair question. So the bulk of my opposition is from the parallel structure, as well as a curosry glance into the Category:Chief rabbis of Ireland. In the chief rabbis of Ireland:

    • Gavin Broder seems to be of irish heritage, but was a rabbi in London after that. "Broder left Dublin in October 2000 to become London chaplain of Hillel,
    • Isaac Cohen was born in Wales, had a "His first post was at Harrow and Kenton Synagogue in Middlesex in 1935".
    • Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog was born in poland. From 1936 until his death in 1959, he was Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the British Mandate of Palestine and of Israel after its independence in 1948.
    • Ephraim Mirvis was born in South Africa, "In 1982, Mirvis was appointed Rabbi of Dublin's Adelaide Road Synagogue and Chief Rabbi of Ireland in 1985, serving at this post until 1992.[2] From 1992 to 1996, he was the rabbi of the Western Marble Arch Synagogue in London, after the previous holder of the position, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, became Chief Rabbi in 1991.[2][3]"

    I'll stop there. But you get the idea. I think that the closer comparison is Bishops, who can be appointed to serve congregations that aren't the same as their nationality Mason (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. So let's rename it to Category:Rabbis by country of work, matching the parent Category:Religious leaders by country of work. If we also split Category:Chief rabbis to a new Category:Chief rabbis by country of work, and restructured the nominated category so that it only contained Category:Chief rabbis by country of work and Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, that would resolve the complaint about WP:OVERLAPCAT. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  support rename + split Mason (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:French encyclopedias to Category:French-language encyclopedias

Nominator's rationale: To distinguish between the encyclopedias about France and those published in the French language. See: Category:French-language mass media. User:Namiba 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems reasonable. Mason (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Assassinated heads of government to Category:Assassinated prime ministers and Category:Assassinated government officials

Nominator's rationale: split and re-parent (to Category:Prime ministers and Category:Government officials respectively), as more precise, because the category contains modern prime ministers, and medieval/early modern government officials (viziers) while the monarch was still head of government. This way it will also become more clear that the category is not intended for e.g. the presidents of the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think instead of Category:Assassinated heads of government being deprecated it should merge with Category:Assassinated heads of state and both then renamed Category:Assassinated heads of state and government, per List of current heads of state and government. There was a short discussion about this, but given this new proposal by Marcocapelle I think it should be revisited.

Also, the current parent categories are Category:Assassinated politicians by type and Category:Heads of government. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The new Category:Assassinated prime ministers will remain part of the trees of Category:Assassinated politicians by type and Category:Heads of government. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle Can you give us an estimate of the percentage of assassinated prime ministers vs all other heads of government in the Category:Assassinated Heads of Government? And what to do with other assassinated heads of government? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thinker78: I am not sure what you mean by "other" heads of government. I have already mentioned that viziers weren't heads of government. The split between head of state and head of government is a modern institution, in the past the roles were combined in the monarch. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be more appropriate seeking consensus with other editors or at least check if there is a consensus in reliable sources as to whether viziers are or are not heads of government first. Viziers have been in the Category:Heads of government since 2005 and it is not the only government official that is in there. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Historically many times monarchs were nominally heads of state but someone else was the actual head of government. It is not just an institution but a concept regarding who actually wields the power, in my opinion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not meant to become a matter of opinion. Prime ministers are prime ministers for a fact, not for an opinion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. This should be taken alongside the related discussion in the opposite direction below, which I have also closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation to Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation
• Propose merging Category:18th-century Lithuanian mathematicians to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian mathematicians
• Propose merging Category:18th-century Lithuanian rabbis to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian rabbis
• Propose merging Category:18th-century Lithuanian Roman Catholic priests to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian Roman Catholic priests
• Propose merging Category:18th-century Lithuanian writers to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian writers
• Propose merging Category:18th-century Lithuanian poets to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian poets

Nominator's rationale: Following consensus to merge/rename the C18 Polish categories at CFD 2022 Feb 19, presumably the same should aply to the Lithuanian categories for that century. (The naming format of the target was changed here, but still keeping "Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth".) – Fayenatic London 14:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Fayenatic london don't you think it would be a good idea to at least inform Wikiprojects Lithuanian and Poland are two most interested in the proposed merge? Marcelus (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; that is why I did so, [1] [2] several hours before you left that message! And those were handwritten notifications, in addition to ensuring that the CFDs would also be included in WP Lithuania's Article Alerts. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information, I didn't notice that Marcelus (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Following the latter CFD, the targets should presumably all be renamed to "from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", but that is no bar to merging these sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Presumably the 17th-century categories should be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed; the existence of a C17 category has just been used as a rationale to oppose renaming of a C18 category at Speedy. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and precedent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The first CFD above was challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 March, unsuccessfully. I have just found a follow-up CFD where the same nominator sought to reverse the merge/rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_28#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation, but this was opposed by some editors and was closed as "No consensus". – Fayenatic London 08:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_28#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation: not some, but the original nominator, who actually understood the mistake he made. Marcelus (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, I oppose entirely. Although I have no doubt that my objection will be completely ignored. Users like Nederlandse Leeuw and Marcocapelle have monopolized the discussion of categories and are imposing their view on everyone. While ignoring the fact that the concept of "nationality" does not have the narrow meaning they wish, which is "belonging to a particular country." They also ignore the fact that the Lithuanian state, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was established in the late Middle Ages and ceased to exist in 1795, having been a member of a federation/union (modern terms are poorly suited to describe the relations of the two states) together with the Kingdom of Poland since 1569. So, even in this narrow understanding of them, talking about Lithuanians in the 19th century is justified.Marcelus (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the distinction between Lithuanians and Poles in the context of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is necessary and helpful (which is why these categories were created in the first place), especially considering that both the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland continued to exist as separate entities after the Union of Lublin. These categories for Lithuanians help to find other similar people too, which is why these categories must stay. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Please also see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_21#Category:18th-century_people_from_the_Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth_by_occupation which goes in the opposite direction. Clearly they must not both be approved. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. This should be taken alongside the related discussion in the opposite direction above, which I have also closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation to Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation ^{edit: corrected the actualy target category}

Nominator's rationale: The category and all subcategories name was changed on Feb 19, 2022 based on two erroneous premises:

1. "the Polish state did not exist," which is untrue because the Polish state did not collapse until 1795; it existed in the form of the Kingdom of Poland since the early Middle Ages, in union/federation with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since 1569.

2. "nationality is the same as being subject to a single state", this is untrue as this concept has a much broader meaning: nationality is the status of belonging to a particular nation, defined as a group of people organized in one country, under one legal jurisdiction, or as a group of people who are united by a common culture, history, traditions, and awareness of a common origin. Polish nationality existed in both the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the existence of a sovereign Polish state is irrelevant.

Besides:

3. we base Wikipedia on reliable secondary sources, if they describe, for example, Hugo Kołłątaj as a Polish reformer, etc. then that is how Wikipedia should describe him, and he should be able to be included in his defining category.

4. the author of the original proposal was banned permanently for sockpuppetry. There is a risk of manipulation of the original vote.

5. category names are inconsistent ("people from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" vs. "Polish-Lithuanian actors"); Polish-Lithuanian identity is something much different, referring to people with dual Polish and Lithuanian identities.

6. the previous move was done messily and created a hole in the tree ordering Poles according to centuries, and leaving dozens of other nations and ethnicities (Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Germans, Latvians, Karaites, Roma, Jews, Hungarians, Vlachs, Armenians, Greeks, Russians and others) out of the PLC people categories

Previous discussions on this topic: 2023 March 22, Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_March#2022_March - previous move review, 2022 June 28 - previous nominator request to move back. Related current discussion about 18th century Lithuanian categories.

Proposed solution: create a separate category tree for Category:People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, leaving Polish people category tree untouched. Marcelus (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose, this is forumshopping after it has already been on move review. By all means populate the category further with people of other ethnicities if you know they are lacking. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Misinformation on your part: the previous move review was closed because of technical reasons (Consensus here found that the main question underlying this move review is whether Commonwealth citizens can be considered Poles or Lithuanians. Debates like these are outside the scope of move reviews, which mainly deal with whether move discussions were closed appropriately), the suggestion of the closer of the original move discussion @bibliomaniac15 was to open regular CfD, what I'm doing right now.

  Please strikethrough your misleading statement. Marcelus (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right. I did not read the entire MR discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Marcelus (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes attempting to clarify this nomination: The stated target category Category:18th-century Polish people does exist, and has several sub-cats including women/nobility/LGBT, but had no occupational sub-categories until Marcelus' recent work. If I understand correctly, the current nomination is intended to split Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation and its occupational sub-categories back to Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation (formerly a redirect after the original CFD), Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation and occupational sub-categories as appropriate.
• I think it is common ground that (i) "People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" is the category for official nationality in the C17 and C18, and (ii) that many if not all the citizens also maintained an identity as Polish or Lithuanian. The question comes down to whether to sub-divide the occupational sub-categories by this Polish/Lithuanian identity, which would result in many even smaller categories, or whether occupations should only be categorised at the level of the official nationality.
• I commend the nominator for linking to previous discussions. As he says, after the unsuccessful move review, the original nominator changed his mind and brought a follow-up CFD to reverse it; this was notified to WikiProject Poland and relisted a few times, but gained no more participation than the original discussion and was closed with no consensus.
• This CFD should be considered alongside the current Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_20#18th-century_Lithuanian_people_by_occupation which follows the same direction as the original CFD. Clearly they must not both be approved. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify:

  • The stated target category Category:18th-century Polish people does exist, and has several sub-cats including women/nobility/LGBT - mistake on my part, of course the target category is Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation
  • If I understand correctly, the current nomination is intended to split Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation, I'm advocating moving back the said category to it's original name, people whose nationality was Lithuanian are already in the Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation
  • The question comes down to whether to sub-divide the occupational sub-categories by this Polish/Lithuanian identity, which would result in many even smaller categories, or whether occupations should only be categorised at the level of the official nationality., Polish and Lithuanian were these people "official" or "civic" nationality (of course such notion didn't really exist back then in the form as we understood it today), since both Polish and Lithuanian states still very much existed. Also your presumption that these categories will be small is wrong, because all categories which are currently in the Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation tree were originally in the Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation and should stay there. So the size of categories will remain basically the same. Moreover, I emphasise once again, parent Category:18th-century people by nationality refers to nationality understood broadly, i.e. as both 'civic nationality' and 'ethnic nationality'. We should base our categorisation on reliable sources.
  • This CFD should be considered alongside the current Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_20#18th-century_Lithuanian_people_by_occupation which follows the same direction as the original CFD. Clearly they must not both be approved, that's correct; we should restore the previous state of affairs and reconsider creating new category tree for people of the PLC.

  Marcelus (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:18th-century Polish people is fine, the PLC one is a bit iffy but I guess both trees can exist as an overcat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking a bit more, and noting that Polish wiki does not replicate this split, I'd point out that for pretty much most instances and purposes, PLC=Poland for that period. There may be some value in having the PLC parent cat, but Polish 18th century category should of course exist just as Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation does. Analogical situation: we have Category:18th-century people of the Holy Roman Empire which is parent to Category:18th-century German people. So right now I think both categories should stay separate, but probably much of the content from PLC needs to be merged / recategorized to Polish.

  @Cukrakalnis makes good point below that geographical logic (Poland=Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania=Grand Duchy) makes sense too. Should we rename Category:18th-century Polish people to Category:18th-century people from the Kingdom of Poland and Category:18th-century Lithuanian people to Category:18th-century people from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and ditto for 17th century, 16th century might merit both)? That might be a productive discussion to have in the future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming, but agree with the procedural solution. Perhaps it would be wise to have overcats for states - Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation, Category:18th-century people from the Kingdom of Poland by occupation and Category:18th-century people from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by occupation, while there would be separate category trees for nationalities/ethnicities like Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation, Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation, and probably Category:18th-century Jewish people by occupation and others if there are enough people. After all, many ethnicities lived in that state. I am hesitant about the creation of categories for Belarusians and Ukrainians considering that they were both just Ruthenian in the past and drawing a line when one becomes another before the 20th century is rather complicated. Perhaps a Category:18th-century Ruthenian people by occupation would be a solution? Just throwing out ideas, perhaps they will give rise to something better later.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please reread my propostion; I don't propose renaming anything, but just to restore the previous state of affairs, which was wrongfuly changed. If we do that we can start talking about new category trees for countries, which I think is in general good idea. Marcelus (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you are proposing to rename something, even if you are renaming it to what it was in the past. Second, that rename would be factually wrong because Lithuanians are not Poles even if the Polish–Commonwealth did exist. Having an overcat for Poles that includes subcats for non-Poles would go against the very basics of WP:CATEGORIZATION.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second, that rename would be factually wrong because Lithuanians are not Poles even if the Polish–Commonwealth did exist. I don't understand this comment. There is a separate Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation which contains people of Lithuanian ethnicity/nationality; currently there isn't one for Polish people, because Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation was wrongly renamed Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. I'm advocating restoring previous state of affairs and creating Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation as a parent category for both.

I don't know why you are opposing this move if it is fullfilling your request, which is existence of separate categories for Lithuanians and Poles of 18th century. By all means you should be supporting such move, especially since you opposed merging Lithuanian categories with PLC categories. Why are you blocking analogous move for Polish categories? It's clear incosistence in your actions. Marcelus (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation was correctly moved to Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation, because not everyone from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a Pole.

I am for Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation to be parent cat of Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation and Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation, but my impression was that what you are proposing is that Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation would become the parent cat of Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation, which is factually incorrect.

Considering that you repeatedly keep saying to me that your actions are actually in-line with what I want, I will strike-through my "oppose" and say that I am FOR THE RENAMING, although only on the condition that Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation will be the immediate parent cat of the Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation, Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation and etc.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer, I tink that our intention are aligning; there was never my goal for Lit people category being a subcat of Pol people cat. That would be nonsensical. And that's why I think the initial move was wrong because it renamed Pol people cat, which contained only Pol people, to Pol-Lit Com people cat. Marcelus (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in the spirit of WP:OCEGRS, Polish and Lithuanian people were de facto ethnicities in the Commonwealth (next to many other ethnicities) and we do not intersect ethnicities with every possible occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment is factually incorrect. In the 18th century there was the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which together formed the Commonwealth, this fact alone indicates that we can not only speak of Polish or Lithuanian nationality in the ethnic sense, but also nationality in the civic sense. (Compare: Category:18th-century Scottish people by occupation).

  Moreover, WP:OCEGRS says clearly such categories can exist if "ethnic background constitutes a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." So even if it is nationality in the sense of ethnicity there is justification for such a category to exist. Marcelus (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Actors, architects, artists etc. are not the kind of occupations for which ethnicity is a relevant discriminator. It would be, hypothetically, for e.g. activists for an ethnic cause. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for existence of Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation and Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation; weak support for existence of Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. Adding this here as I don't think I voted in bold above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Blatant OCASSOC. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with the University of Auckland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "People associated with" is a vague category. We already have as better categories: Category:Academic staff of the University of Auckland and Category:University of Auckland alumni. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic WP:OCASSOC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do have the whole Category:People by university or college tree (which I just added this category to) so a rename would work as well to Category:University of Auckland people. But there are no direct loose articles in this category yet so delete for now without objection to recreation under the standard naming format. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless you are also going to also nominate all the other "People associated with the University of" categories for deletion. Have you checked? Just start typing in the Category search, and you'll see that "People associated with..." categories abound. This particular Category has only just been added, so best to let it sit awhile and see who adds to it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chrisdevelop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is just WP:OTHERSTUFF to be nominated too. It is telling that there is no parent category and you can only get there by typing in the search bar. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, but logical and syllogistic fallacies can still be true some of the time. The nominator's rationale: '"People associated with" is a vague category' surely applies to all "People associated with..." categories. If "People associated with..." is a vague category, then all "People associated with.." categories are therefore vague, and should accordingly all be nominated for deletion on the identical grounds that they're a "vague category". Why is "People associated with the University of Auckland" vaguer than, say, "People associated with the University of Edinburgh"? Not everyone "associated with" a university is an academic staff member or alumnus. Same goes for other "associated with" categories. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this category should be renamed to Category:University of Auckland people. The similar Scottish subcats should also be kept and renamed, unless there's a subtle WP:ENGVAR issue I'm missing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency's sake, such a rename would require all other "People associated with" categories to be equivalently renamed, e.g. "People associated with the University of Edinburgh" would have to become "Edinburgh University people" alongside dozens of others. Also, "University of Auckland people" might not include those who had been awarded honorary degrees, or those who had been invited as guest lecturers, since they never enrolled there or been employed there, and thus were not an "Auckland University person", such as an alumnus. Readers and Editors are accustomed to the current "People associated with" nomenclature, so this suggested rename is a hair-split that I don't think improves the encyclopedia. Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter would be perfectly fine, because for people with honorary degrees or guest lecturers who aren't employed it is not a defining characteristic. The default in Category:People by organization is fooian people, e.g. Category:Bain Capital people, so let's apply that here as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are currently 60 ‘People associated with’ Categories. Do you plan to rename them all? Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • How did you get to this number? I just checked New Zealand where there aren't any equivalent categories, and Australia where the format is consistently "University of X people". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Go to any Category list, click + and then start typing "People associated with" I scrolled through all the results and it came to 60. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah ok that isn't even a specific count for universities. Then we can safely assume that 99% of universities already have a "University of X people" format. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      So the difference between "University of X people" and "People associated with [the] University of X" is that the former would be 'people of', i.e. staff and students, while the latter would be those otherwise associated with U of X, such as benefactors and honoraries. Note that not all university categories commence with the definite article, e.g. "People associated with Aberystwyth University" is not categorised as "People associated with the University of Aberystwyth". There are 12 categories commencing "People associated with the University of", and 24 more where the category starts with the hometown of the associated university, as in the Aberystwyth example. If we are to delete the "associated with" category for the University of Auckland on the nominator's grounds that it is "vague", then why keep any of the other 35 university associations? Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • As said earlier, that is WP:OTHERSTUFF to be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        'Other stuff' doesn't mean we should not be consistent in Category naming conventions. Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the intent of the two naming formats might be the same (even though one would be broader). I couldn't find a university with both categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many synomous expressions possible, but we should surely stick with a consistent nomenclature, given that, for example, there is no "People associated with the University of Aberystwyth" while there IS a "People associated with Aberystwyth University". The latter doesn't appear in the Add Category window if you start typing "People associated with the University...". Without an agreed consistency of nomenclature, we could end up with synomous Category names such as "Persons connected with..." / "Individuals related to..." / "Humans who are a part of..." etc.

"People of" is constrained to staff and students, while "People associated with" encompasses benefactors and honoraries. I could see someone falling into both categories if, say, they graduated, and subsequently became a benefactor, both of which are defining characteristics of the same inidivual, or if they represented the university in another capacity, such as in a foreign charitable enterprise. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Other stuff' doesn't mean we should not be consistent in Category naming conventions. Completely agree on that and earlier we have established that the convention is University of Foo people. Only a very small number of universities uses People associated with, and the number is obviously small because it goes against WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ‘University of X people’ means students and staff, and doesn’t incorporate benefactors, honoraries or government ministers, nor notable relatives thereof. At last count I found 60 ‘People associated with’ categories, 35 of which are universities, most, but not all of which start ‘People associated with the University of…’. Are you planning to nominate all 60 categories for deletion on the nominator's grounds they're "vague"? ‘Whataboutism’ is indeed at issue here, in that if ‘People associated with the University of Auckland’ is vague, then what isn’t vague about ‘People associated with Aberystwyth University’? Note the Aberystwyth University category doesn’t commence ‘People associated with the University of’, moreover, some universities include the definite article in their name, while others do not. Unless you are prepared to nominate all 60 categories for deletion and defend this in CfD, I can’t see why Auckland has to be singled out without more persuasive grounds than perceived “vagueness”. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course the other 35 universities should be nominated too. But that isn't a reason to not go ahead with this nomination because it brings us 1 step closer to the convention of "(X) University (of X) people". While 1 step is less than 35 steps it is still an improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet 'University of X people' is not the same as 'People associated with X University'. People OF the university are staff and students. How do government ministers, benefactors and honoraries associated with the university (or other body) who are neither alumni nor staff get categorised if this category is deleted? Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Special:Search/prefix:"Category:People associated with the university" has 112 results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the argument that 'People of' is semantically identical to 'People associated with', and have painstakingly explained this above. To reiterate: 'People of' is current staff and students, whereas 'People associated with' is everyone else, including honoraries, government ministers and benefactors, who are by no means 'People of' unless they're also an alumnus or former employee, indeed, if 'former', then they're not really 'of' any more. If this category is deleted on the grounds of 'vagueness' and merged with 'People of' then there is no reason not to delete the other 111 equivalent categories on the same grounds. How does this improve the encylopedia? Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not semantically identical at all. 'People of' specifically ensures that vague associations like honoraries are avoided, in line with WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCASSOC. And yes, when we get around to it, any other "associated with" cats should get nominated too. And the current members of this cat are already in the specific (sub-)subcats of Category:People by university or college. - jc37 12:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OCASSOC I agree suggests this on the grounds of subjectivity, which makes me wonder how all these 112 categories were never challenged to begin with, over the past decades. Are you going to "get around to" deleting 112 "associated with" categories yourself, or just a bee in the bonnet about Auckland? Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You created this cat in August of this year - [3]. So it hasn't been decades.

  That aside, WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. So other subcats can be addressed at editorial discretion, in due time. - jc37 15:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: weak consensus to merge. Pinging @Ceyockey who said they will take care of this. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American Civil War Union biography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)/Template:AmericanCivilWar-Union-bio-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Makes a distinction not used in parent stub cats or permcats; also not discussed or proposed anywhere that I can tell. If Category:American Civil War biography stubs needs diffusing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting is the best place to discuss it. Her Pegship (?) 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pegship: surely merge to Category:American Civil War biography stubs? – Fayenatic London 21:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Her Pegship (?) 03:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the resurrecter of the stub template and category: I brought this redirect to life ONLY to help to reduce the article count in Category:American Civil War biography stubs, which is oversized. The category can be eliminated once the need for it as a siphon off the parent is no longer needed. A comparable category + stub template Category:American Civil War Confederate biography stubs I was planning to create would siphon off enough, between the two of them, to have the parent largely, but not completely, depopulated. This is a Stub-maintenance activity. As an aside, one of the first things I did on Wikipedia was to help establish and implement the entire stub sorting system that is now in place, so I'm not casually strutting through and doing things willy nilly. Thanks for considering this. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. if you still decide that this should go away, I'll take care of the clean-up and reversion and not rely on someone else to clean up what they consider to be a mess. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did make note of your experience and expertise on WP and I appreciate it. I'm looking at not only the stub categories but the permcats: there is a Category:People of the Confederate States of America, which could be the permcat for Category:American Civil War Confederate biography stubs, but I see no equivalent permcat for Category:American Civil War Union biography stubs. I feel that we should either create the former permcat and its stub cat and type and create the latter permcat for the new stub type, or eliminate the new stub type and merge the articles back "up" into Category:American Civil War biography stubs. I hope I'm making sense. Her Pegship (?) 02:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified WT:WikiProject United States of this discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sub-categories could be useful for anyone who wanted to work on articles in the sub-category and would like a smaller, more specific list, assuming editors actually do that much. We probably can't estimate how many more users would look at smaller sub-categories and pick out articles to improve. I think that the two proposed sub-categories could help. I think there is no way to know how much work could get done, but I suspect it might be small. As to further considerations, the stubs include Union and Confederate army officers (no generals except a few Union "brevets" as near as I can tell), politicians, Medal of Honor recipients, persons who were more notable for later accomplishments, and more types among these stubs. That is why I comment that even more sub-categories could be drawn. I suppose even more sub-categories might or might not attract more interested editors. That's why I do not take a firm position on this and just offer some random thoughts for others to take into account if they are of any worth. To create the sub-categories manually might end up being considerable work for little if any additional benefit. As suggested perhaps the stub sorting tool (which I had not known about before looking at this) is the best option and that is perhaps where these thought may lead. Thanks to all who are working on this. Donner60 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: disperse. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jews by country to Category:Jewish religious workers by country
  • Re-parenting from Category:Jews to Category:Jewish religious workers

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 10#Category:Christians by country, which renamed Category:Christians by country to Category:Christian religious workers by country, and re-parented it to Category:Christian religious workers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt proposal (as nom):

• Propose un-parenting Category:Jewish groups by country‎; this tree is for individuals, not groups. (Cat may have to be deleted later as a follow-up).
• Propose renaming Category:Lists of Jews by country to Category:Lists of Jews by nationality per parent Category:Lists of people by nationality, and re-parent from Category:Jews by country to Category:Jews by nationality
• Propose re-parenting Category:Jews by dependent territory from Category:Jews by country to Category:Jews by nationality
• Propose re-parenting Category:Jews in the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon‎, Category:Jews in Ottoman Palestine‎, Category:Jews in Ottoman Syria, Category:Jews in Mandatory Palestine‎ to Category:Jews and Judaism by former country
• Propose upmerging Category:Jews in the State of Palestine‎ to Category:Palestinian Jews
• Propose upmerging Category:Jews by country to Category:Jews and Judaism by country (i.e. moving all 4 items to parent: Historical Jewish population comparisons, Judaism by country, Historical Jewish population by country, Jewish population by country).
• Propose un-parenting Category:Rabbis by country (already a greatgrandchild of Category:People by country through Category:Religious leaders by country and Category:People by occupation and country)

Alt proposal rationale: See "Alt rationale thread" below. In short: this works much better. I've already retracted the original proposal, but we can continue with this alt proposal. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: pinging participants of previous CfR for follow-up. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. I'd support this as long as we also clean up all the rabbi categories to distinguish between nationality and country. There are a lot of Rabbis of [City] that should probably be Rabbis in [City]. Mason (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I wonder where all current subcategories and articles would go. After the rename almost nothing would fit the reduced scope. I think this needs to be addressed more from bottom up. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit: Alt rationale thread Hmmm good point. The new name obviously fits child Category:Rabbis by country, but this category isn't just about people by occupation, as Category:Christians by country was. Category:Lists of Jews by country should evidently be renamed Category:Lists of Jews by nationality (parent Category:Lists of people by nationality also demonstrates this), and re-parented Category:Jews by nationality. I'll check further. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Jewish groups and Category:Jewish groups by country are a bit WP:ARBITRARYCATs, because "group" can mean anything ranging from Hasidic dynasties to Jewish organisations to individual people who happen to be Zionists. Category:Zionism in Poland also includes both Jewish and non-Jewish anti-Zionists; the latter can hardly be categorised as "Jewish groups". Moreover, maybe groups don't belong in a category tree about individuals by religion? I don't know. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Jews by dependent territory belongs more in the people by nationality tree, so I would recommend re-parenting to Category:Jews by nationality. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Jews in the State of Palestine seems to duplicate its parent Category:Palestinian Jews; all people in it have Palestinian nationality. The remaining children mostly seem like they should be in Category:Jews and Judaism by former country, while I would put all items in parent Category:Jews and Judaism by country. Category:Rabbis by country is the only one which really fits proposed parents Category:People by country and Category:Jewish religious workers.

  So on the whole, what we need to do is not to rename this category, but to manually merge it to a lot of related categories because it is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison @Marcocapelle What do you think of my analysis above? I've clearly not examined the category well, the original proposal I submitted won't really work. But what about my alt proposal to manually merge everything along the lines of what I have suggested upon closer inspection? Would love to hear your feedback, because without the remarks both of you made I wouldn't have spotted the issues with my original proposal. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your analysis seems reasonable; I had to reread what you wrote a couple of times to process it. I think it would be really helpful to map out a workflow/logic for specific classes of manual merges. So I think if you can make a tiny table with common merge/reparent cases that would help others get a good handle of what this merge would look like. Mason (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I think I could do that. :) I just made these observations one by one in order to form a complete picture of what to do with this category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Shemaiah_Angel for example is not a religious worker. What does religious worker even mean? Is it that they work for the rabbinate? Is it that they are religious Jews who come from specific countries? In both cases, the proposed cat would be wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• As for "un-parenting Category:Jewish groups by country‎": if this is done, "see also" links should be added to both categories, so that navigation links will remain. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disperse per alt proposal. Thus mainly rabbis stay in a by-country parent (and even that is questionable because Judaism doesn't have missionaries). Note that Category:Rabbis by country still stays in Category:Judaism by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems fine. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, nationality has much broader meaning than just "belonging to one state", so "Category:Lists of Jews by country" is much better name, as it's much more concrete. Same goes for Category:Jews by dependent territory. Marcelus (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disperse per alt proposal. Category is a roiling mess of different parent category scopes at present. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow-up nomination: Rabbis by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Secret Six to Category:American abolitionists

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." User:Namiba 11:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The Secret Six is a very well-kmown group, as in "Ambivalent Conspirators: John Brown, the Secret Six, and a Theory of Slave Violence", Civil War History, 1983, and "The Secret Six: The True Tale of the Men Who Conspired with John Brown ," Civil War History,, 1996. There are thousands of categories with fewer members than this one. deisenbe (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a category doesn't mean the topic isn't well known. The topic article itself isn't going to be deleted. It means that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for categories.--User:Namiba 16:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these spelled out? deisenbe (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe - WP:CAT, and others listed at: Template:Wikipedia categorization navbox. - jc37 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which criterion do you believe this category violates? deisenbe (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the rationale, Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth specifically says that categories which by their definition will not grow beyond a few articles are not allowed.--User:Namiba 15:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a very contentious policy. The page is flagged. deisenbe (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These seems like an important category to keep, even in the face of smallcat. It has a reasonable number of pages in it (7 at my count) Mason (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hymns in Ancient Greek to Category:Hymns in ancient Greek

Nominator's rationale: "Ancient" only gets a capital letter at the start of a page name; see e.g. Category:Films based on ancient Greek plays. This is eligible for speedy renaming under WP:C2A, but I wanted to leave a record rather than using the Speedy page, because this was just renamed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 1#Hymns by language. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and WP:C2A. Indeed, I would have speedied this, but I appreciate the caution due to the recent renaming. NLeeuw (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kings of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:English monarchs, even contains Anne. DrKay (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Anne's case, Category:Kings of England has been removed. Kirschtaria (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I added that category is to distinguish kings before the Kingdom of England from kings during the Kingdom of England. If it has to be deleted, I don't object. Kirschtaria (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. No prejudice against a future renaming of Category:English monarchs to Category:Monarchs of England per the Monarchs of Foo principle. NLeeuw (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--which England? Drmies (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Kingdom of England. NLeeuw (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:16th-century Danish farmers to Category:16th-century Danish people
• Propose merging Category:15th-century Danish farmers to Category:Medieval Danish farmers
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Danish farmers to Category:Medieval Danish farmers
• Propose merging Category:13th-century Danish farmers to Category:Medieval Danish farmers

Nominator's rationale: Smallcat Mason (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, only one article in these four categories. Also merge to Category:15th-century farmers and Category:15th-century Danish people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge for now with NPAR. NLeeuw (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:13th-century Danish women farmers to Category:13th-century Danish women
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Danish women farmers to Category:14th-century Danish women
• Propose merging Category:15th-century Danish women farmers to Category:15th-century Danish women
• Propose merging Category:16th-century Danish women farmers to Category:16th-century Danish women

Nominator's rationale: Smallcat. In theory this is an empty category, because Category:13th-century Danish women landowners‎ shouldn't even be in this category. The categories are siblings, as someone can be a farmer, without owning the land, and vice versa. Mason (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant and inappropriate category layer, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. As a historian, I would like to note that before the mid-19th century, more than 90% of all people in pretty much all cultures/countries on planet Earth were occupied in the agricultural (primary) sector of the economy. I.e. throughout history, most of humanity was just busy producing food for themselves and a few select people who did other jobs, until industrialisation, mechanisation and scaling enabled far greater division of labour. So being a farmer prior to c. 1850 is almost WP:NONDEFINING by default, because almost everyone was a farmer or something like it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting note. In some ways if pre-1850s farmer has a wikipedia page that's kinda notable... As most folks in that remaining 90% aren't going to have the opportunity to become notable. (But I get your point). Mason (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Granted. NLeeuw (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: manual merge to Category:Fascism in Russia. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ruscism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Looks like a WP:SYNTH category. The term "Ruscism" is quite loosely defined to refer to far-right elements of the Russian government's ideology (particularly under Vladimir Putin), but the category also includes ordinary neo-Nazis not affiliated with the Kremlin and the invasion of Ukraine, like Russian National Socialist Party and Block FACT (the latter is, in fact, anti-Kremlin and pro-Ukrainian). In general, since "Ruscism" is more of a pejorative than a rigorously defined term in political science, it may not be a good name for a category; the pages belonging to it may be more appropriately recategorized under Category:Putinism, Category:Russian irredentism, Category:Russian war crimes in Ukraine, Category:Neo-Nazism in Russia, etc. --HPfan4 (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At least purge the articles that do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Fascism in Russia, purge items which do not belong in it. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT is pertinent here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That is also a possibility. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or upmerge, the term is not well-defined and is often used as a swear word, and this is not what we want in encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. NLeeuw (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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