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: Foreign relations are a thing states do, but Wales is not a state. This category makes little sense and seems to be a catch all for anything Wales does with anything that is not Wales. Considered just proposing renaming, but it is too indiscriminate asis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - It's not a requirement to be a state to have some form of international relations. I'm not opposed to tweaking the name of the category though. See Category:Foreign relations of Scotland also. Titus Gold (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what are the inclusion criteria here? Things like pacifism in Wales are very tenuously linked with international relations. Also England–Wales relations are neither foreign nor international, as England and Wales are in the same state and realm. Renaming to International relations of Wales would be fine with me if the boundary were more tightly and clearly drawn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now it's been raised at CfD. There was a long discussion, during the creation and renaming of International relations of Wales about whether Wales had foreign relations (in the way Wikipedia uses the phrase), the conclusion was that Wales didn't have anywhere close to an equivalent role as sovereign states. Most of the content of [[Category:Foreign relations of Wales is already categorised more appropriately elsewhere. Scotland, in contrast, was an independent state far more recently (though I would question some of the content of Category:Foreign relations of Scotland).Sionk (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
repurpose but purge -- As Wales is not a sovereign country it does not have foreign relations: these are a reserved matter for the UK government, but it might be repurposed as Category:Foreign relations in Wales(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). England-Wales relations are not "foreign". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this has to be changed then so does the Scotland category. Since by the same logic Scotland doesn't have foreign relations in today's time. But Wales and Scotland did have foreign relations long before it came part of the UK. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So which articles are there about foreign relations of Wales before it was occupied by England? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closest is the subcat Category:England–Wales relations which corresponds to all entries in Category:Treaties of Wales which at the time Wales and England were distinct geopolitical entities. They were both different countries with different rulers. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So all 4 treaties in that category are from the 13th century and relate to the principality of Wales. The situation is rather more nuanced than you suggest here. The prince of Wales paid homage as vassal to the English king, so "different rulers" is true, but only half the story. As for different countries: the principality was not the whole country of Wales. The treaties were largely about settling threats of English invasion, and is it correct to call a treaty with a liege lord as "foreign relations"? In any case, if we grant that those 4 treaties in some sense constitute foreign relations of Wales, they are already in a category. They don't need an extra shell category. As per SionK above, the situation is rather different from Scotland's. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but open to re-create it should the people of Wales resolve to cast off their shackles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably be open to create international relations categories for each state if they one day become independent, be it Wales, Lusatia, Mordovia or Araucania. Place Clichy (talk) 12:20, 16 May 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just two people. We do not have any established scheme of subdividing people from Rio by individual neighbourhood within the city, and a category for just two people isn't sufficient to justify implementing a new scheme of that type now. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 13 May 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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization of club players by the league played in. Most leagues will feature promotion and relegation, therefore it is not useful to categorize by which league the team competes in, as this can change from season to season. Even in leagues without relegation, teams may have competed in other leagues before and after participating in the relevant leagues. For example, Category:Chicago Red Stars players contains those who competed in the WPS and NWSL, therefore currently the NWSL players are in the category tree of Category:Women's Professional Soccer players and the WPS players are in the tree of Category:National Women's Soccer League players, which makes little sense. This category structure also causes players of reserve teams to be within the category tree of leagues they do not participate in. For example, Category:FC Barcelona Femení B players is a subcategory of Category:FC Barcelona Femení players, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Liga F players. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by name - we should not categorise in this manner. GiantSnowman 16:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you say makes little sense, it seems you personally are experiencing multiple contextual blindspots. Additionally, it's noted you are not suggesting any revised organization - just deletion of categories related to women footballers. Weird. Why? Hmlarson (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: I am not suggesting deleting any categories containing footballers. These are all container categories, or categories that contain only subcategories. Grouping club players by league is not a useful categorization, as league affiliation can change from season to season. It is better handled separately: one category tree for players by club, and another for players by league. This is standard in the footballer category tree, except for these few categories. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many of these 15 women’s soccer / football leagues changed affiliation? Hmlarson (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Teams can change league affiliation, which I believe is the point. For example, Chicago Red Stars have been in four of the above categories, but its players have not played in all four of those leagues.
So I believe S.A.'s argument is that the "by team" categories might introduce ambiguous or unintentionally inaccurate associations, and are also poorly redundant with player categorization by team and league.
(As an additional point of context, the list is not composed of 15 women's leagues. Indian Super League, USL First Division, Canadian Soccer League, and USSF Division 2 Professional are exclusively men's leagues.) -Socccc (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Separately, to the point of how many leagues have teams that change affiliations _ by my reckoning, all of the listed leagues do, and only the Chinese Women's Super League would not be affected today simply because of how underpopulated it is.
The Women's Championship cat contains only one club, Sheffield, which was in the Championship for about three years and contains players who never played in the Championship, or for Sheffield when it was in the Championship. There aren't "players by club" categories for top-tier WSL or Sheffield's current third-tier WNL.
Liga F contains the Real Madrid women players cat, which contains CD Tacón players who never played for Real Madrid, for Tacón in the Primera División, or in the Primera División at all.
Some clubs (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are categorized specifically to the club's league or a corresponding timespan, avoiding the issue. Even then some are inconsistently so, such as Category:Boston Breakers players, which contains both WPS and NWSL players, while Category:Boston Breakers (WUSA) players contains only WUSA players. It's unclear why they're inconsistently separated in this fashion since WPS and NWSL have no affiliation with each other.
The D2 Pro players by club cat contains Category:North Carolina FC players because NCFC were the Carolina RailHawks in 2010. Christian Ibeagha played for NCFC for one year in 2017 when NCFC was in NASL, but is in the tree for D2 Pro and USL First Division as a result. Ibeagha most recently played for a USL Championship club, and USL Championship doesn't have a "players by club" cat. -Socccc (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — that makes more sense to me now. I'm not aware of the past discussions; I'll search but would welcome links. -Socccc (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. There were some more American men's teams also nominated in the past, though I cannot find them at the moment. Basically the idea is that one article = one category for the club, players, coaches, etc. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Socccc: Can you provide an example for women's teams instead when you write:『Consistently subcategorizing players by club's league or timeframe within leagues, for instance as Category:Portland Timbers players does with Category:Portland Timbers (1975–1982) players, Category:Portland Timbers (1985–1990) players, etc., would alleviate this problem without deleting the categories by providing a way to parent player categorization lists by club's league without removing the tree association with the club over time.』Hmlarson (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks to User:S.A. Julio's 19:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC) comment noting that those categories correspond to articles, which I wasn't aware of. -Socccc (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Socccc (talk) 03:53, 1 June 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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently 1 of 2 articles in each of these categories. The articles are already in a wildfires by year category, hence a second merge target is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have added that to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 15 May 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains 1 article 1 head category. Unlikely to grow significantly. User:Namiba 13:43, 13 May 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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, we use this type of categories only for descendants of emigrants. In this case there is no emigration. Note that nearly all articles are already in Category:Kashmiri people as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The category is explicitly for expatriates from Kashmir, which is potentially a valid distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People from Kashmir in the rest of India aren't expatriates. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Descent within a country is note notable. What's next, German people of Saxon descent? Note that for people for which Kashmiri identity is defining, then Category:Kashmiri people and its subcategories is appropriate even if they live outside of Kashmir. If it is defining for their parents only and not themselves, then no category is needed. Place Clichy (talk) 12:25, 16 May 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.
Category:Lists of spouses of national leaders[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.
Support, "spouses of national leaders" is vague and we do not otherwise have a tree for national leaders. In most cases it appears to mean "spouses of heads of state", but better make that explicit. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support generally -- They all seem to be containers for categories for spouses of holders of a particular office, so that the suggested change is appropriate. If any contained actual biographies, I would oppose to that extent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 14 May 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.
Category:OMICS Publishing Group academic journals[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: Appears to be that all items are redirects to the same pages. Unless I missed a handful of non-redirects, then perhaps a purge is in order to at least make it reasonable to find notable articles. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussions on similar categories. Redirects and cats are necessary to flag predatory journals. Headbomb will certainly give a more technical explanation shortly. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all the other discussions about these (Discussion 1, Discussion 2, Discussion 3, etc.). What is it with the repeated attempts to delete these categories? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to tell what it is with the repeated attempts to delete these categories: they are used for a purpose that is alien to normal category usage. Editors will keep nominating them for deletion until you found a better solution than categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, gotta be honest, the current solution is poor and needs replacing. I'm willing to withdraw since prior consensus exists and this is unlikely to change anyone's minds, but a category listing at the bottom of the page is a bad way of displaying this information and antithetical to normal category usage. If not for this alternate intent, I can't imagine any of these three surviving even one CfD, let alone the at least four that have been linked in these responses. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:37, 13 May 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.
Oppose Spliting by gender is the most helpful and natural way to diffuse these kinds of categories.★Trekker (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree, in politics a split by country is the most natural way. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm cautiously in favour of this, but what about Category:Daughters of monarchs and Category:Sons of monarchs? Monarchs are technically heads of state. Is it reasonable to keep them separated by gender, given that dynastic politics often involved marrying off one's daughter etc. and that (especially in Europe) only the oldest son had the right to inherit his father's throne etc.? Historically, gender did play a strong role for children of monarchs. For (modern) presidents, gender may no longer matter because they are elected/appointed rather than hereditarily succeeded. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the reason I haven't included daughters and sons of monarchs in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have said merge for first two, but they are already in the potential target. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 14 May 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 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:Nancy L. Schwartz Memorial Lecture speakers[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.
Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management hosts an annual lecture on economics and this category groups economists who gave the talk. This performance isn't treated as defining in the articles, which are generally already categorized somewhere under Category:Economists. The category contents are already listed right here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background We've deleted similar academics by lecture categories here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a performance category. I understand a list exits already or I would have said listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 14 May 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 21#Category:Types of scientific fallacy
