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.
Nominator's rationale: While there is a difference in meaning between boating (which our article says is for pleasure and sport) not for transportation and shipwreck (which means the boat is defunct in WP parlance - so wouldn't include person-overboard type scenarios), I'm not sure the distinction of which lead to one's death is meaningful. Moreover, many of the articles included in the boating category are transport related and are the result of the ship capsizing, sinking, or otherwise being shipwrecked. Therefore, merge the two. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. I would keep these separate, and provide clear delineation between what constitutes a "boating accident" and what constitutes a "shipwreck". I can easily think of a situation where, for example, a boat passes under a bridge or other raised structure, an inobservant person on the boat stands up at an inopportune moment and is struck in the head, and they die without either drowning or being in a shipwreck. Of course, many deaths in boating accidents will either be drowning deaths, or will involve the "wreck" of the boat, but there needs to be room for the edge cases. BD2412T07:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to oppose -- I appreciate that the distinction is a fuzzy one. In sampling articles, I find that "boating accident" is the phrase commonly used. Some are sporting incidents (e.g. sailing); others are leisure boating. This is well populated and the related categories of shipwreck and death by drowning are cross-referenced. A lot of the boat incidents appeared to be in rivers or lakes; also yachts in coastal waters. The converse of shipwreck may refer to a commercial sailor or a passenger in a larger vessel (ship) and crossing the sea. I think we should leave it to the discretion of editors whether the incident involved a "boat" or a "ship". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the reason we're here is "discreation of editors" isn't working well. Evidence of confusion between boating and shipwreck. Better to rename with clear category names that editors will instantly recognize, less likely to put things in the wrong category. They can die of drowning or fire without being in a "shipwreck". William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW close Off the top of my head, Kirsty MacColl and Naya Rivera didn't die in shipwrecks, but accidents involving boats that remained afloat. Boating itself is a form of leisure activity and any number of accidents can result in death by injury or drowning. This nom is completely misguided, and the comments above show that nobody is confusing anything. Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Association football in the United States lists[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Same as previous proposal. "Association football" is included in only one title, the page that is listed below for renaming. DB1729 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in that case the many countries that only have "football" as the name of the sport should also be changed accordingly (e.g., England). Grutness...wha?00:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to reflect local usage, but do not change the rest. In most countries, "football" means soccer, but in USA, Australia, and perhaps a few other places, it refers primarily to another sport. Local usage should be used, without changing anything else, including parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (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.
Merge for Now While there likely were more than 5 mayors for each place, most would not be individually notable. No objection to recreating if any get up to 5+ articles but, right now, these hinder navigation with a bunch of underpopulated categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of association football stadiums in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Understood on the use of "association football" on most of the sport's pages. That said, every article title in this category contains the word "soccer". None contain the word "football". And of course, "football" generally refers to a completely different sport in the U.S. DB1729 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope. A manual merge is needed because the articles in the Baptist congregations categories may already be in a US subcat of Baptist churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. This is an improvement as congregations are not notable per se, but churches is more ambiguous than e.g. church buildings as it also refers to church bodies. For Baptists though I believe that each local church is an independent organization so churches is applicable. Place Clichy (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They built "four successive church buildings at this site." So they were originally in the 1818 church building, as would be expected. If you propose that each and every building renovation or replacement is documented in the categories, I'm not entirely sure that the current "yyyy constructed building or structure" system cannot be used. But do we really want that? William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the article be categorised only by (i) the century in which the congregation was established, and (ii) the year the current building was opened, unless the article has a substantial separate section about a previous building. Renovations are rarely defining. – FayenaticLondon22:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree "founded" is better than "established". But, we already have "yyyy constructed" and "yyyy demolished" for buildings subsequently moved or rebuilt, so we don't need yet another category. William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment founded may be a better term than established, period. However that move would need to be based on moving this whole huge tree. There is no reason to suppose this is unique even to churches, I am thinking whther we say founded or established effects everything.
Reverse merge that way we put the articles in categories that clearly say this is about when they were founded/established, not just that they existed in those times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (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 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.
Interesting, so the article Region uses the word "region" the same way as the categories use "subdivision". Ultimately it is just a matter of definition, so ultimately I am indifferent, but I thought the word "region" is primarily used for informal regions (including historical and touristic). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we ask subject matter experts. Remember that in English (and its legal system), "subdivisions" are smaller than "divisions", that in turn are smaller than "baronies", "counties", etc. It's been a long time since I'd RFC'd Tobias Conradi in 2005, and asked for arbitration twice, so I'm a bit fuzzy on all the details. After s/he was banned, all these "country subdivisions" were supposed to go back to "administrative divisions" and "political divisions". Many were done. Lots of redirects still around, too. Besides, a guy with 150+ sockpuppets can do a lot of damage over time. One of the worst we've ever seen. William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, for several reasons. But this subsection is getting 10 indents deep, so....
I've long been favorable to flatter hierarchies. Centuries with a hundred year subcategories, not decades with only 10.
Deep/tall hierarchies are annoying to navigate.
On a wider computer screen, it wastes lot of real estate, and you have to click through again and again.
On a small phone screen, you cannot see enough at a time, and you have to click through again. And again. And again.
So I'd put as much as possible under Category:Geography of Russia, with a navigation template (that does not yet exist) to slide sideways between top level things like Regions and others like Selsoviet/Somon/Sumon that are actually the same thing in different places.
It also means a tolerance for smaller categories at the bottom of the hierarchy. Just because there is only 1 entry, and it will not be likely to expand, doesn't mean it needs to be merged somewhere else.
Another thing that Conradi did is a massive Template (that s/he kept changing the name, so there are different redirects to it all over the place). I've been wrestling with it for a couple of days now. It purports to have all the geography "types" and "terms" for all languages in one template. Everytime you make a change, it propagates to hundreds of articles. Somebody changed it so it always defaults to collapsed and doesn't take up the bottom half of the screen on every article. But hard to maintain. A few days ago, it was full of redlinks. After I've fixed a dozen or so things, it is obviously missing many more after 10 years. So it needs to be pruned, and instead access our categories that already update dynamically.
NO, I said "subsumes". Human geography is messy. I'd prefer Regions would be side-by-side with Political divisions and Administrative divisions for ease of navigation, because most Regions have nothing to do with either Political divisions and/or Administrative divisions, and they all can cross each other's boundaries. If you want a strict hierarchy, that's it: Regions -> Political divisions -> Administrative divisions, largest to smallest size, upper to lower level. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Messy indeed. But then I wonder what you want to leave in Category:Political divisions of Russia, ultimately. As you want to move Administrative divisions to the Geography level, and presumably you want to move Economic regions to Geography level as well, and presumably you want to split the Former category, there is not much left in Political divisions than Federal subjects, which already has its own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom to match main article. However this should be a container for general articles and subcategories for different levels and types of division. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2020 (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.
@Carlossuarez46: Gosh, there's an error in Wikipedia?!?! But as with India, this isn't about fixing everything, this is just one issue. Besides, that's easy to change in the tree, doesn't require a process. Heck, I'll do it now. William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom, but it should primarily be a container for types of division. I do not see "regions", which might be a concept of physical geography, not political, in the category: someone else has perhaps fixed that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Nobody calls this type of star a C-type star, they are referred to as carbon stars, occasionally by more complex terms such as carbon-rich something or other. See the main article for the category as an example. "C-type" is misleading since the spectral type for these stars often doesn't begin with C, depending on the scheme used. Lithopsian (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the proposed name would be clearer and reduce potential confusion. While assigning this category to a star article I initially assumed it would be 'Carbon stars', and had to track down the alternate category name through the Carbon star article. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2021 (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.
As to the related category, it doesn't really serve a purpose. It only has 4 entries, so SMALLCAT. The Division (political geography) list article should be sufficient with proper references.
REname per nom, but purge of items that ought to be in subcategories. This should be a container with a few general articles, excludign those on individual divisions etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (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 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.
Merge with Category:Starfleet doctors which will still only get us to 13 entries in the category (there is 1 overlap at present). Upmerge also to Category:Fictional nurses, which will then be at 139 entires, which is reasonable. Several of those 139 entries are redirects, and at least one seems to be about someone who was more a wet nurse than a medical nurse, but I think for a fictional entities category both can be preserved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2020 (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 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:Administrative divisions of India by state or state or union territory[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- This is complicated because there is a level called "division". This is trying to be a container for all types of region below state or union territory. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2020 (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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:List of celebrities who served in the Indian military[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete I would oppose this if we used clearly designations like actors, musicians, etc. I do not think this is in either case a justified overlap category, but here it clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "celebrities" can be categorized in standard articles for military personnel. That they were celebrities is not defining. Dimadick (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Useless near-empty duplicate of the target. The current category description seems to precisely describe the scope of the other, better-named category: "types of administrative divisions, not specific (named) divisions (e.g., "county" is included, but not "Clark county"). For specific (named) administrative divisions, see the subcategories listed below". Note that in this discussion, the term of country subdivisions was preferred for categories. Place Clichy (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and pruneStrongly Oppose — The proper political science and geomapping term is "Administrative Division". Banned Tobias Conradi (talk·contribs) spammed "country subdivisions" all over the place, but that isn't technically correct. It often arrives as a mistranslation from French or German, especially in ISO 3166-2. You can often recognize it by "levels of subdivisions". These compounding words are not proper English grammar.
"Subdivision is the act of dividing land into pieces that are easier to sell or otherwise develop, usually via a plat." Much smaller than Administrative divisions.
I think that the category that would need to be reverse merged under this logic is Category:Country subdivisions (and its many children). The Types of... category is fine and should follow the name of its parent, keeping a structure with one category for the types and another category for the actual administrative entities:
Merge both together as the scope of both categories overlap. If "subdivision" is not a proper English term in this context, then at least I was not aware of that, but I will leave it to others to discuss that. Note however that the alternative "administrative divisions" will leave us with the problem where to leave subCategory:Regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That probably doesn't belong here. Look at the main article. It was recently added here by Rathfelder, but "Continental regions", "Historical regions", "Tourism region", etc. are not relevant here. I'll remove it. William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove it yet. That would only be appropriate if (and after) there is consensus to narrow this category to Administrative divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Types of country subdivisions do not translate well because they are context dependent. I dont see that political science or geomapping are terribly relevant. If anything Administrative divisions should be one of the Types of country subdivisions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States topic navigational boxes[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Current name of the category is confusing, templates are often miscategorized into this category (example). Name of the category should reflect the category description: Navigational boxes added to this category should include a link for each U.S. state and may also includes links for U.S. Territories, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands and the District of Columbia. I am very open to alternative suggestions—it is the best that I could come up with. —andrybak (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the rename proposals sufficiently clarifies the intent of the category, imho. Question, is this way of organizing navboxes really needed at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2020 (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 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:War crimes committed by the Home Army[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. However, the category was empty when I closed it, so I have deleted it. Due to the no consensus result, the category may be re-created if populated. Given the nature of the category, care should be taken in populating it – these things should be well-sourced. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Controversial category and likely ORish. Added to three articles, none of which contains the term "war crime" in the body, so this just a POV that those incidents are "war crimes". I did a quick Google Book search for Sahryń "war crime" / Pawłokoma "war crime" / Dubingiai "war crime" and got zero meaningful hits. Likewise, I cannot find any reliable source using the term "Home Army war crimes " or "War crimes committed by the Home Army". No prejudice to this being restored once there is some reliable body of scholarly research which discusses this logical concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename, at most "war crimes" may be changed to "massacres" but as they have clearly been committed by the Home Army there is no reason for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather like an argument for renaming “War crimes committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army” - although it depends on how the sources refer to these massacres - rather than keeping this as is. The pl category is not referring to “war crimes” so I’m not clear on how this one is suppose to be based on that one. Volunteer Marek 09:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the difference. Even a cursory search turns up sources for “UPA war crimes” [1], [2], [3], [4] etc. On the other hand, a search for “Home Army war crimes” (or similar) turns up... ONLY this Wikipedia category. That’s pretty good indication that this, unlike the case with UPA, is just your own original research. Volunteer Marek 09:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "War crimes" here seems to be used here in a consistent way to other WWII crimes, not all of them being nominally cited in e.g. the Nuremberg trials. I do not really see any reason to water down the responsibility of the Home Army, which would also be sticking to a pretty stinky POV. Renaming to massacres would be a second best option, but certainly do not delete. Place Clichy (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RenametoCategory:Massacres committed by the Home Army. The category and its parent needs a headnote saying that the Home Army was the main armed resistance in World War II Poland, loyal to the government in exile in London. At least one was a revenge attack. As far as I know, no one was convicted of a war crime for any of these massacres. It is not for WP to adjudge guilt: that fails NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Indeed, Renaming in such context makes sense. Also, Buidhe pointed out that this is what the Polish corresponding category actually sais. While in Polish, 'zbrodnia' literary means 'crime', Polish Wikipedia uses this term where we use massacre. For example, one of the articles included here, Dubingiai massacre, is pl:Zbrodnia w Dubinkach, and same for the others. They might be war crimes, but it's OR to call them that, but they are undisputable massacres and this is the right category tree for such tragedies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Home Army was an authorized military formation of the Polish Underground State, so the category should be consisted with other armed forces of WWII. No renaming is necessary, since massacres and reprisals are subcategories of the larger war crimes category. As far as the "no one was convicted of a war crime" argument goes, criminal convictions are not necessary to meet the definition of a war crime. Many events in WWII history w/o criminal convictions are classified as war crime. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only were none of these persecuted or charged as war crimes, none of them are actually described as war crimes in reliable sources. Hence, this is pure WP:OR with a side of POV. Volunteer Marek 09:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the articles in the cat seem to make reference to them being war crimes. It is not for us to decide if they are or not, that should be left to RS inside each article. So since none of the articles in the cat seem to have RS supporting their inclusion it would be an empty cat. I could also see a rename to avoid the OR issue. PackMecEng (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a rule that categories that temporarily become empty need to be deleted? Secondly, I checked the relevant category on the Polish Wikipedia. It includes articles about events that are clearly defined as war crimes with in-line references provided. See: [5]. I mean even if there are shortcomings with the current articles, the category surely has potential and shouldn't be deleted. Knižnik (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)<--- — Knižnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic - see 500/30 restriction Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020) [6][reply]
OK, but the issue remains that at least some of these events have been described as war crimes in reliable sources. See [7] - specifically mentions Dubinki as such. (The book title translates "Glinciszki and Dubinki. War Crimes in the Vilnius Area in Mid-1944 and Their Repurcussions In Today's Polish-Lithuanian Relations").Knižnik (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is not original research to say that the massacre of civilians, infants included, is a war crime. This could be renamed to Civilian massacres committed by the Home Army, which would then be a sub-category of other crimes (rape, looting, and so on), but this is much trouble for a now small category.--Astral Leap (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of clarification which is relevant here. Above Buidhe says that the category is based on the Pl-wiki category pl:Kategoria:Zbrodnie oddziałów Armii Krajowej. But that is not the same thing. "Zbrodnia" (-e, plural) means "crime". So the pl-wiki category is "Crimes by units of the Home Army". Not "WAR CRIMES by the Home Army". Otherwise it would be "zbrodnie wojenne". This looks purposeful since none of these are generally referred to as "war crimes" even though they were obviously crimes. Likewise the distinction between "Home Army" and "units of Home Army" looks to have a purpose. The three massacres in this cat currently were not ordered by the Home Army but rather were either rogue units "AK-associated" units. For example, Pawłokoma massacre took place March 3 1945. But the Home Army had been disbanded in January of 1945. So this wasn't "Home Army", although some of the participants had formerly been in the Home Army. Volunteer Marek 21:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that’s simply due to the fact that pl wiki cat system is a total mess. Not sure why we’d want to emulate that (obviously “war crimes” are a subcategory of “crimes”, not vice versa) Volunteer Marek 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, any intentional murder of civilians is a war crime, full stop.[8] Basically any event that could be described as a "massacre" and occurs in wartime is a war crime. (t · c) buidhe13:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, you can't construct this definition yourself. That's original research (it's incorrect too if for no other reason than it has to occur during a war). On Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename there are no reliable sources confirming this terminology as far as I can see. The category on Polish wikipedia doesn't translate as war crimes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category tree of "X nationality war crimes" is used for all similar events, and the criticism of it applies to the entire category tree. Therefore, any renames should apply to the entire category tree because treating war crimes by the Home Army differently from war crimes by literally any other group is clearly contrary to WP:NPOV. (t · c) buidhe16:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for English terms "War crimes committed by the Home Army", "Home Army war crime(s)" and "Armia Krajowa war crime(s)", and Polish "Zbrodnie wojenne Armii Krajowej", on Google Books and Google Scholar and I came away with nothing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please see my comment above. Some of these events have been described as war crimesinreliable sources. See [9] - specifically mentions Dubinki as such. (The book title translates "Glinciszki and Dubinki. War Crimes in the Vilnius Area in Mid-1944 and Their Repurcussions In Today's Polish-Lithuanian Relations"). It was published by the IPN when the institution still had non-nationalist credentials, so why should we omit such a good source? I am mostly active on Russian Wiki so I was quite unaware of set limits for newbies to edit some articles (tho how exactly Dubingiai massacre relates to Poland&Holocaust remains unclear), my relevant edits got reverted. A more experienced user might reinstate my changes to said article.Knižnik (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (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.
Delete — this one made me laugh. Actually wanted to see why anybody would think there was a Jewish Japanologist. Many/most of the articles don't even have a mention that they are Jewish. It's merely based upon the names seemingly sounding Jewish! How this escaped notice all these years flummoxes me. William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2020 (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 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:People with acquired Belgian citizenship[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nationality law is obviously different in each country. We have a large number of categories of "People with acquired Fooish citizenship" which are empty except for the Category:Naturalised citizens of Foo, which appears to suggest acquiring citizenship other than naturalisation is not possible everywhere. Rathfelder (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy with a reverse merge in principle, but I think in some places it may not work because acquired and naturalised are different things. Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, without much success. I think the problem is that citizenship is complex and by definition varies from country to country - and often over time too, and the necessary expertise is not available to us. So I'm inclined to suggest that we should use "People with acquired Fooish citizenship" as the default for all countries where the "Naturalised citizens of Foo" category doesnt contain any actual articles. If that is supported I suppose I had better nominate them all. Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have sought sources on which term is better in general, but don't have anything comprehensive to report here. In principle, to "acquire citizenship" is a more neutral and inclusive term than "naturalize" (or "naturalise"), but it looks like the latter is used pretty much universally in English-language materials. Kestenbaum (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Articles containing Old English (ca. 450-1100)-language text[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Nominator's rationale:AsMarcocapelle raised at a recent CfD (for which I was the nom), the usual name for these in English is "municipality", as evidenced by the fact that the parent is Category:Municipalities of Italy, which was moved there from "Communes of Italy" after a CfD in 2014. Indeed, the closer of that CfD requested that all these categories be tagged for speedy renaming per WP:C2C, but six years on seems a little late to try to do that as consensus may have changed. WP:C2C doesn't seem to apply otherwise because this is a proposal to rename the majority of subcategories of Category:Municipalities of Italy (a few are titled with "Municipalities of..." already). YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)00:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and Marcocapelle points out that these are municipalities not (necessarily) places populated by flower children or the organized proletariat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Also, High school and College students aren't Children, and often aren't minors. Many/most are duplicated or triplicated in the subcategories and other parallel subcategories.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their education status and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of siblings, and the occupations of their parents. See previous:
These ones could be disputed. It is not so much their occupation (student) but their young age which matters. Their suïcide may well be their primary reason of notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the current age so many people are enrolled in college over so much of their life, often as part-time students, this is less defining than the creators of the category act as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of these folks are only notable for their manner of death, so some aggregation may be ok but outright deletion may be wrong. I don't like the Category:Minors who committed suicide, which although provides an arguably objective inclusion criteria (although laws among jurisdictions define minority differently and may even have internal differentiation with respect to what disabilities/protections of minority pertain to what ages) misses the point of navigation among school age folks (who depending on regional laws may have reached majority). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Child and High School to "Youth Suicides"/Delete College I'm totally open to a different name for the student categories, since it's really the combination of youth and suicide that is defining, not their student status as a "career" per Marcocapelle. Delete college per JPL. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred something concrete defining "youth" but given that we have other far far less-than-perfect categorization schemes, I can live with that too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion -- No objection to merger. I do not think we should be eliminating categories for children who killed themselves due to cyber-bullying or social media pointing those looking into self-harm to more webpages on that subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something I'd like to point out is that we have a lot of pages in these categories where the article pagename is "Suicide of name of person", and the pagename "Name of person" is a redirect to the suicide-of page. There has been a consensus for a long time that the suicide-of pages are about the event (suicide) rather than about the person, and that the event is notable for our purposes whereas the person is not notable except for the event (as in WP:BLP1E). Thus, for example, we have Suicide of Tyler Clementi, to which Tyler Clementi is a redirect, and Category:Male violinists is applied to the redirect (because it's a category about types of persons), but not to the main suicide-of page (because it's not a category about types of suicides). Thus, I can see a case for renaming categories like Category:Students who committed suicide to something like Category:Student suicidesorCategory:Suicides by students. In other words, make the category names about the suicides rather than about the persons. Once one does this, it makes more sense to keep the various sub-categories, such as for college students or high school students, because they are logical sub-topics. Furthermore, although I agree that suicide is not a defining feature for these various student groups in general, the facts that these pages are about suicides by these particular groups of young people, whose suicides were triggered by social characteristics of high schools, colleges, and so forth, according to large amounts of reliable sourcing that focus upon the school environment as having caused the suicides, these categories are defining of the suicides and should be kept in revised form. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2021 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death, even though the death itself may have been notable.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their education status and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of siblings, and the occupations of their parents. See previous:
Support Clicking through several, the intersection does not seem to be notable even they they are defined by both. While it may seem that this reduces categories, they are also in their specific royal house/country and death by location, so it this is adding category clutter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, as trivial intersections, but it should be a merge rather than a deletion for most of these categories. This is the alternative proposal:
This shouldn't necessarily stop you from the nomination of the targets, but the rationale for sure will not be a trivial intersection with occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is NOT a trivial intersection. In these cases (or most of them) there is a clear link between being royal and committing suicide. Some were commanded to kill themselves (which is more like an execution than a modern suicide). Others faced a political situation where they had lost power and killed themselves, probably as a preferable alternative to starving to death in prison or being publicly executed. One of the Macedonians was given a noose, hemlock and something else and told to choose her mode of death. That is not a voluntary suicide. Similarly in the Roman world, it was accepted that those who had failed should "fall on their sword". I suspect that something similar applies in the Chinese cases. This is all quite different from most modern western suicides, which are the result of depression or other mental illness. Thus today, a coroner's verdict of (plain) suicide is rare, but usual one being suicide during mental illness (or such like). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their education status and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of siblings, and the occupations of their parents. See previous:
Support Clicking through several, the intersection does not seem to be notable even they they are defined by both. While it may seem that this reduces categories, they are also in their specific royal house/country and death by location, so it this is adding category clutter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, as trivial intersections with occupation. But, regardless whether the parent categories by gender are considered useful or not, as they still exist the nomination should become:
Comment -- The female models is well populated, which might indicate keeping. However, this seems a trivial intersection (in contrast to royalty, above). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Order of King Tomislav recipients[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Military decorations and medals of South Africa in order of precedence[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Category:Extinct insect families
