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.
By my count only five out of ten are actually described as archaeologists in the article text, and none of these descriptions are supported by reliable sources. Some might legitimately be called influential or precursors to modern archaeology (e.g. Michele Mercati#Legacy, but that's not the same as being one. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call him a historian (as the article does). An analogy to other sciences might be that we wouldn't primarily categorise Copernicus as a "physicist", even though his work was foundational to the modern field (but this isn't the best analogy because physics is much older than archaeology). Category:Antiquarians is nested under Category:Archaeologists so it's not like we'd be entirely detaching these articles from that category tree. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea that archaeology only started in the 18th century is sourced to Britannica, and I have long thought it is an uneliable source. And the argument that archaeologists are historians could equally well apply to 21st-century archaeologists. Archaeology has not changed that much since the Renaissance figures studied the Greco-Roman past. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick:Britannica as a whole isn't a great source, yes, but that particular article was written by Glyn Daniel. I included it because it's an accessible source (I don't like to assume everyone has library access these days), but I think you'll find the 18th/19th century origin of archaeology is accepted in any history of the field, e.g. Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, Daniel's Towards a History of Archaeology and A Short History of Archaeology, Murry & Evan's Histories Of Archaeology, Fagan's A Little History of Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment our article Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli (b. 1391) calls him the father of archaeology. That line isn't well sourced and who knows who called him that (maybe unreliable). Archaeologists and antiquarians were mixed disciplines in these times (like chemistry and alchemy for a time, and geography and travel writing). Where we cut off the disciplines should be based on sourced usages and a headnote in the "by centuries" to direct readers to earlier centuries' "archaeologists" to the corresponding "antiquarian" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: I agree but the reason I nominated these categories is because the "mixing period", according to all the sources I can find, was the 18th–19th century. I can't find much to substantiate Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli being called the "father of archaeology" that can't be put down to citogenesis from the unsourced claim in our article. This paper usefully reviews the various figures included in early histories of archaeology in different languages, and doesn't mention him at all. In any case, we should distinguish between "archaeologists", i.e. people who studied the modern field, and what you might call forerunners to archaeology. The latter category includes some very ancient figures indeed, e.g. Shen Kuo (b. 1031), Saint Helena (b. 246 BCE, the patron saint of archaeologists), Ennigaldi-Nanna (b. c. 600 BCE), Nabonidus (b. c. 600 BCE), Khaemweset (b. c. 1303 BCE). Retrospectively we can say that what they did resembled what modern archaeologists do, but it would be anachronistic to actually categorise them in a field that didn't exist until the 19th century, as it is for these French and Italian scholars who lived centuries before. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: I suppose one can be viewed as the "father" of some field that wasn't named when that person practiced it or its antecedents. If it is anachronistic, they should be merged to antiquarians per Peterkingiron, if that is what the then-current terminology was. I wasn't against the proposal and did find the claim to be poorly sourced but couldn't (with minimal effort, I'll admit) find a better one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion instead merge to the equivalent Category:15th-century antiquarians, which might be parented in an archaeologists tree. If there are any who do not fit this, they should be purged to the equivalent historians tree. I note that the present content is all Italian (with a few French) whereas the target's content is largely English. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that's a fine solution. Antiquarian is more common than antiquary in current usage, though. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 8 March 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.
Weak keep $100M is a reasonable definition of the super-rich, so that we might keep it. I accept that the term is not commonly used, but it is potentially accurate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:00, 28 February 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:Generals of the Georgian Armed Forces ( 1991 - )
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.
Alternative rename -- The use of defence/defense gives rise to an unnecessary ENGVAR issue, as does military (which in British English is limited to army). We do not need a disambiguator in this country since Georgia (state) does not have its own armed forces (unless the National Guard counts). Georgia was a constituent SSR of USSR until 1991. I presume that Georgian generals of USSR automatically became general of the subsequent republic, making 1991 unnecessary. I would therefore favour Category:Generals of the Georgian Armed ForcesorCategory:Generals of the Georgia (country). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 28 February 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:Category:Type designers was merged into Category:Typographers following a CfD back in 2009, the reasoning being that the distinction between the two isn't always clear, and it's often confusing to determine which category or both a subject belongs in. However, this is not technically accurate, and there are many clear examples of type designers who aren't typographers, especially in the modern industry. I'm suggesting renaming the categories to use typographers and type designers, to make it clear that they're inclusive of both. Paul_012 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing names. Even if there are fine distinctions between the two professions, they are too fine for spearate categories to be needed. The solution is to provide a head note to each category to the effect that it includes type designers. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Seems like a logical solution to the issues set out by the nominator. I'm not sure I understand Peterkingiron's comment about not needing separate categories. That's kind of the point of this nomination – to prevent the creation of separate category schemes for the two professions. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — the main article explicitly states "The term typography is also applied to the style, arrangement, and appearance of the letters, numbers, and symbols created by the process. Type design is a closely related craft, sometimes considered part of typography; most typographers do not design typefaces, and some type designers do not consider themselves typographers." Therefore, it has become impossible to distinguish without a reliable source indicating how each person views themselves, better in each person's article. William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:02, 2 March 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:Wikipedians in the Featured Article Drive
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:Wikipedians who contribute to the Article Incubator
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:Wikipedians by regional Wikipedian notice board
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.
Delete -- also one of the songs categories. The other can be kept, with the Bio and discography articles made main articles for it. The normal minimum for a category is 5 articles, which the one surviving category would just meet. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 21 February 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: disperse, it is not meaningful to have two by-period trees in parallel, and the nominated categories do not match with other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. The periods in this series seem largely randomly chosen, according to one editor's POV. It would be more to the point to use presidencies (possibly series of them where the successor was of the same party, e.g. Reagan/Bush. Why 1964? I could understand 1945-60 - The Truman/Eisenhower post WWII period, ending with the inauguration of Kennedy as a new young president. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peterkingiron, you are a veteran editor. You still have not noticed that we already have Category:Presidencies of the United States and its 46 subcategories? You are suggesting the creation of categories that already exist. 08:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
@Fayenatic london: the reason why I was not aware of the other siblings is that only the above four were subcats of a "modern history" category that meanwhile has been merged. You are completely right that the other siblings need to be added as well. I'll do that later today or tomorrow. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 23 March 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 countries and territories don't speak languages and not all residents of any particular area speak the language ascribed to it and many outside it do speak the language. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 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.
People by 4th level administrative divisions in Greece
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 for consistency. This is not a WP:SMALLCAT nomination per se because the nominated category contains 6 articles. I would rather refer to the exception rule in WP:SMALLCAT: smallcat does not apply to categories that are accidentally small but fit in a tree where most siblings have a decent size. The argument of this discussion is that the reverse should apply as well: we should not keep categories that accidentally have 5 or more articles as part of a tree that we do not want to keep. In this case: we should not keep a tree for 4th level administrative divisions (not even 3rd level), so consequently we should not keep potential subcategories that would be a member of that tree.
Note that the consequence of accepting this nomination is that we really turn categories for 4th level administrative divisions into categories for populated places (if kept). In case there is a category for a town that it is eponymous with a 4th level administrative division, we should discount and purge people born in surrounding villages in SMALLCAT nominations.
This nomination is a clearer case to start off, because this 4th level administrative division only contains several villages, rather than a central town with several small surrounding villages. It contains:
(As nom) WA Simpson is right in that the notability of these people is unrelated to these particular locations so I would also support a straight deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom I disagree with William Allen Simpson. We typically categorize people by their place of origin. Not all categories have to do with notability, and they should not. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 24 February 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.
Vehicle categories with only one article and redirects
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:Honored in Garden of the Righteous in Warsaw
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.
That's not quite accurate. A new person(s) is honored each year, but the honored remain honored. A tree is planted for each person and that tree remains. WP:PERFCAT doesn't apply since this is not a "performance".
And re: nominator's rationale, I have no idea what "Non-defining award" means and I seriously doubt the nominator checked all biographies of all sixteen persons mentioned there. Which ones exactly did you check Buidhe? Please list them. Volunteer Marek 02:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was seeing the dedication as the honour rather than the tree so maybe WP:PERFCAT doesn't fit. Having a tree planted in someone's memory clearly fails WP:OCAWARD though: "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, I see now this whole “defining characteristic” thing. The award is fairly new so there probably a lot of older sources that don’t mention it. Volunteer Marek 19:08, 21 February 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: Non-defining award. Randomly checked three biographies in this category and the award is not mentioned in any of them, making this a verifiability issue. (t · c) buidhe01:46, 21 February 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.
Keep, municipal elections aren't necessarily mayoral elections. Though some articles need to be moved from the mayoral to the municipal elections category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 21 February 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:Recipients of the Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir
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.
During World War II, the Nazi puppet state in Croatia issued the Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir based on loosely defined criteria "for merits done, in peace or in war" We only have one article, Kurt Waldheim, who is definitely defined for being a Nazi (and is categorized as such) but not for receiving this award. I can't say I "listified" the contents but that one article is now linked right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 21 February 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.
We don't have an article on Chechen national heroes to define what the inclusion criteria would be for this category. Every article is already under Category:Chechen nationalists and this may be a subjective judgment by Wikipedia editors. (Alternatively, it's possible this is a non-defining award without a main article.) Either way, the articles treat it as non-defining: 3 of 4 articles make no mention of being a "hero" and the 4th one has this unsourced sentence:
... He is considered by many Chechens to be a national hero.
Merge back to nationalists. Unless someone can find an objective criterion for inclusion, this is subjective, but even if there was, it would be an AWARD category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 21 February 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.