June 16

Category:Daystar (TV network) affiliates

• Propose renaming Category:Daystar (TV network) affiliates to Category:Daystar Television Network affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The article was boldly moved 9 months ago but it has been consistent and uses WP:NATURALDIS. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, 9 months should be enough for a speedy rename. But it may not have been enough for WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3rd-century BC women rulers

• Propose splitting Category:3rd-century BC women rulers to Category:3rd-century BC queens regnant and Category:3rd-century BC women regents
  • Queens regnant: Arsinoe II, Arsinoe III of Egypt, Deidamia II of Epirus, Berenice II of Egypt, Etazeta of Bithynia
  • Women regents: Amastris (ruler of Heraclea), Berenice Syra, Etazeta of Bithynia, Laodice III, Teuta, Queen Dowager Xuan
  • Un-parent Berenice I of Egypt (queen consort), and Nicaea of Corinth (tyrant) per the "Ancient Greek rulers" CfR

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it is silly to have this category parented to a regents category while quite a few articles are about queens regnant. They are quite different. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4th-century BC women rulers

• Propose splitting Category:4th-century BC women rulers to Category:4th-century BC queens regnant and Category:4th-century BC women regents
  • Queens regnant: Ada of Caria, Artemisia II of Caria, Caeria, Cleopatra of Macedon, Onomaris
  • Women regents: Amastris (ruler of Heraclea), Queen Marcia, Olympias, Qin Xiaozhu, Queen Dowager Xuan
  • Un-parent Cratesipolis (tyrant) per the "Ancient Greek rulers" CfR

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it is silly to have this category parented to a regents category while quite a few articles are about queens regnant. They are quite different. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century BC women rulers

• Propose renaming Category:9th-century BC women rulers to Category:9th-century BC queens regnant;
  • re-parent from Category:9th-century BC rulers to Category:9th-century BC monarchs;
  • re-parent from Category:Ancient women rulers by century and Category:Ancient women regents to Category:Ancient queens regnant
• Propose renaming Category:8th-century BC women rulers to Category:8th-century BC queens regnant;
  • re-parent from Category:8th-century BC rulers to Category:8th-century BC monarchs;
  • re-parent from Category:Ancient women rulers by century and Category:Ancient women regents to Category:Ancient queens regnant
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century BC women rulers to Category:16th-century BC women regents;
  • un-parent Category:16th-century BC rulers and Category:Ancient women rulers by century

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand correctly, two of the three articles in the 16th century are about regents. In that case this nomination may well be merged with the one above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle Hatshepsut was both a woman regent and a queen regnant, as her bio shows: Upon the death of her husband and half-brother Thutmose II, she ruled initially as regent to her stepson Thutmose III, who inherited the throne at the age of two. Several years into her regency, Hatshepsut assumed the position of pharaoh and adopted the full royal titulary, making her a co-ruler alongside Thutmose III. She is both in Category:Female pharaohs and Category:Regents of Egypt for this reason. Ahhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari were only women regents, so it makes sense to rename this category from "women rulers" to "women regents", as this is what all three women had in common. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok. It appears I overlooked that the target for the 16th century is different from the 8th and 9th. But we should make sure that Hatshepsut also stays in the queens regnant tree, shouldn't we? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. And she will, because Category:Female pharaohs is a child of Category:Ancient Egyptian queens regnant. If we rename and un-parent as I suggest, Hatshepsut will still be a "female pharaoh" and thus an "ancient Egyptian queen regnant". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (with caveat as just mentioned), it is silly to have this category parented to a regents category while (at least in the 8th and 9th century) none of the articles are about regents. They are quite different. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Utica Pentups players

• Propose merging Category:Utica Pentups players to Category:Utica Pent-Ups players

Nominator's rationale: There are three separate categories for players on the same minor league baseball team with the only difference being formatting. They are Category:Utica Pent Ups players, Category:Utica Pentups players and Category:Utica Pent-Ups players. While it is policy to have different categories for the same team when it changes names (e.g. Category:Washington Commanders players and Category:Washington Redskins players), the distinction here is so minute that I don't think it justifies having three separate categories. It should also be taken into consideration that this team played in an era when team nicknames were far from official and could be formatted differently within the same newspaper article (if the nickname was used at all). The corresponding article name is Utica Pent-Ups and that seems the most reasonable target category to me; it seems to be a happy medium between "Pent Ups" with a space and no hyphen and "Pentups" with no space or hyphen. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm sorry for creating two separate nominations but Twinkle didn't give me an option to propose merging more than two categories. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Since this is too granular. We can leave a redirect if appropriate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Utica Pent Ups players

• Propose merging Category:Utica Pent Ups players to Category:Utica Pent-Ups players

Nominator's rationale: There are three separate categories for players on the same minor league baseball team with the only difference being formatting. They are Category:Utica Pent Ups players, Category:Utica Pentups players and Category:Utica Pent-Ups players. While it is policy to have different categories for the same team when it changes names (e.g. Category:Washington Commanders players and Category:Washington Redskins players), the distinction here is so minute that I don't think it justifies having three separate categories. It should also be taken into consideration that this team played in an era when team nicknames were far from official and could be formatted differently within the same newspaper article (if the nickname was used at all). The corresponding article name is Utica Pent-Ups and that seems the most reasonable target category to me; it seems to be a happy medium between "Pent Ups" with a space and no hyphen and "Pentups" with no space or hyphen. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Since this is too granular. We can leave a redirect if appropriate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defence organisations based in Barbados

• Propose merging Category:Defence organisations based in Barbados to Category:Organisations based in Barbados

Nominator's rationale: "Defence/Defense organisations/organizations" is ambigious name. E.g. we have "Civil defence organisations", but not the case here Estopedist1 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge if only per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish manuscripts

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (0 C, 2 P) + WP:NONDEFINING (not written in Polish, but Latin; they are preserved in 2 different libraries in Poland, but that's Category:Manuscripts by collection, not "area". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two entries, there may be more on Polish Wikipedia. I think this is a category that has potential to grow. There were notable Polish manuscripts. There is some overlap for example with Category:Chronicles about Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll ping some users interested in medieval Polish history: User:Orczar, User:Artemis Andromeda. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Okay, but before you do, what is your scope? Would you like to make this category about manuscripts about Poland, manuscripts written in Polish, manuscripts produced in Poland, manuscripts preserved in collections located in Poland, or something else? Because there is a risk of lumping everything that is "Polish" in all sorts of different ways together in a way that isn't very useful for categorisation. I've already made a lot of effort to make clear what was "Polish" about the "Polish chronicles", which led to it being renamed to Category:Chronicles about Poland. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw That's a good question. Commons-category is named "Polish-language manuscripts". What is the scope of the works we have in Category:Manuscripts by area? We also have there, for example, Category:Czech manuscripts and Category:French manuscripts, the latter (but not the former) under a rename discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Exactly. I'm working on clarifying that. I don't know the best solution for Category:Czech manuscripts yet, but if you'd like to take a look at my notes, this is what I've got so far:

Czech-language manuscripts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_Verborum Latin, Czech, dictionary, National Museum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Dalimil Latin, Czech, chronicle

Manuscripts in collections in Prague

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal, National Museum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_viaticus Latin, produced in Silesia, liturgy, National Museum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_Verborum Latin, Czech, dictionary, National Museum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passional_of_Abbess_Kunigunde Latin, passional, from Prague, National Library

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velislai_biblia_picta Latin, Bible, National Library

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vyssegradensis Latin, evangeliary, National Library

Manuscripts about the Czech lands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas Latin, chronicle, Bible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen_Codex Latin, history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronica_Boemorum Latin, chronicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Dalimil Latin, Czech, chronicle

Manuscripts produced in the Czech lands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp_Bible Latin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas Latin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vyssegradensis Latin, evangeliary, National Library

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen_Codex Latin, history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passional_of_Abbess_Kunigunde Latin, passional, from Prague

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velislai_biblia_picta Latin, Bible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenceslas_Bible German, Bible, Austrian Nat. Library

I would like to have at least 5 items to create a new category, and this category should be WP:DEFINING. "Czech-language manuscripts" is my preferred option, but I've only got 3 items so far. The "Manuscripts in collections in Prague" shouldn't be thrown together (see my comment to Johnbod below about Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge). "Manuscripts about the Czech lands" may be a good idea, but I'd like to have at least 5, and Srnec said earlier today "manuscripts about Fooland" may not be the best choice for a category. "Manuscripts produced in the Czech lands" is WP:NONDEFINING in my opinion. So you can see I don't really know how to move forward with this category right now, haha! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw It is tough, and I certainly agree that Fooish manuscripts is not well defined. Your analysis above is very solid. I am pretty sure this can be applied to many countries, including Poland. Here's a Polish Wikipedia category named "Manuscripts in Poland": pl:Kategoria:Manuskrypty w Polsce. Here's a random entry I checked that exists on en wiki but is not in the Polish manuscripts category yet: Minuscule 653. And here's more headache stuff that you've likely seen: Category:Slavic manuscripts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Thanks, I appreciate your comments. And yes, this applies to many countries/languages, I'm looking all European chronicles / manuscripts in Europe since 26 May. I've been able to clarify, refine and reorganise a lot. But there is a lot left to do, and certain problems I have not yet solved. The Category:Polish manuscripts could be saved, but it needs to have a good purpose. I am open to any suggestions you have. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification is needed, for sure. Are there manuscripts written in Polish, other than historical documents? Perhaps not. I wouldn't object to the other cats, if large enough to escape WP:SMALLCAT. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There certainly are manuscripts written in Polish, but I doubt that English Wikipedia has many stand-alone articles about them. Lots of manuscripts produced in Poland were written in Latin, including the two currently in this category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish literature by period

• Propose merging Category:Irish literature by period to Category:Irish-language literature

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 0 C, 2 P; plus "Irish literature" is in the "by country" tree (Ireland), while Early Irish literature and modern literature in Irish are in the Category:Literature by language tree (Irish language). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, and it is also ambiguous: it may be interpreted as including English-language literature by Irish authors. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. Or medieval Latin literature by Irish writers (of which there is a lot). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge

• Propose renaming Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge to Category:Manuscripts of the University of Cambridge

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B (majority), WP:CATSPECIFIC, to indicate we're talking about the manuscript collection of the University of Cambridge.

Incidentally, parent Category:Manuscripts by collection shows that manuscript collections are named inconsistently:

• 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Bar' is the most common description (11X; 6 of them are libraries),
• 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Library' is also common for library collections (6x),
• 'collection(s)' is almost never used in combination with 'manuscript' (so the collection(s) in question probably preserve other items beside manuscripts, such as 'paintings' in the case of Category:National Library of Wales collections).

While I would prefer 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Bar collection(s)' as a rule of thumb, this seems unnecessary, impractical, and sometimes perhaps inaccurate. After all, 'of' seems to indicate ownership rather than location, and it's possible for manuscripts to be temporarily removed from their collections for expositions elsewhere. Grammatically, 'in' is fine for 'in the library', but not for 'in the university', so it also seems the wrong preposition for 'Manuscripts in the University of Cambridge'. Perhaps 'at' would be better if we wanted to indicate a university location. But 'of' to indicate ownership is probably the best option, and the easiest way to be consistent with the library catnames.

So... should we rename the 6 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Library' cats to 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Library'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it really matter? Not everyone will be aware that the Fitzwilliam Museum is part of the university - if I was. I'd forgotten it. We don't have other "MS by location" cats, but it wouldn't be a terrible idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnbod Well in this case it doesn't really matter. But I'm currently trying to reorganise Category:Czech manuscripts, and I've found out that 6 of them are preserved in Prague, but 3 in the National Library of the Czech Republic and 3 in the National Museum (Prague). They are two different, independent institutions located 1.5 kilometres from each other. Evidently, two separate collections, so it would not be a good idea to just throw these 6 items together as Category:Manuscripts in Prague as a child of Category:Manuscripts by collection. The point about "of/in/at" is more trivial, although for consistency's sake and because "ownership" rather than "location" seems to be meant, "of" is probably the best option. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge seems like a more natural choice of name than the alternatives offered so far, and it's mainly the placing of it within Category:Manuscripts by collection that's proving to be a problem. Is there any reason not to have a Category:Manuscripts by city for Cambridge, Prague and any others, just as we have Category:Paintings by city? Dublin, London, New York and Paris have multiple collections at Category:Manuscripts by collection. Ham II (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  

  @Ham II Is there any reason not to have a Category:Manuscripts by city for Cambridge, Prague and any others? Yes. As I said, 'of' [in 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Bar'] seems to indicate ownership rather than location, and it's possible for manuscripts to be temporarily removed from their collections for expositions elsewhere.

  I might add that the University of Cambridge could have a permanent secondary collection depot, archive, museum, library or gallery that is located outside of Cambridge. Suppose that for some reason, the University of Cambridge decided to acquire the Cambridgeshire Archives and Local Studies, located in Ely, Cambridgeshire, but outside the city of Cambridge itself. (Acquisitions like that can happen all the time). Any manuscripts preserved in those Archives will be Manuscripts of the University of Cambridge, but not Manuscripts in Cambridge. This is the difference between ownership and location.

  • As the Prague example shows, manuscripts located in the same city aren't necessarily part of a collection or set of collections owned by the same institution/organisation (but National Library versus National Museum).
  • As my fictional Cambridge/Ely example shows, manuscripts which are part of a collection or set of collections owned by the same institution/organisation aren't necessarily located in the same city/town/village (but Cambridge versus Ely).

  For paintings, the city may be defining, because paintings are usually on public display (although many are also stored in depots instead). Manuscripts, on the other hand, are usually not on public display, except for very historically or culturally significant ones. E.g. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is the size of a credit card, but is of great importance to Textual variants in the New Testament and therefore on public display behind lots of protective glass for visitors to gaze at. But that's the exception rather than the rule. The average visitor of a museum or library etc. usually doesn't know the value of some letters written down on a very old scrap of paper if they can't even read it, but they usually do not have to be art historians/critics to be fascinated by seeing a painting they know nothing about. I think that makes all the difference. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Lists such as List of Glagolitic manuscripts, List of manuscripts of Plato's dialogues, Vulgate manuscripts, Vetus Latina manuscripts, Septuagint manuscripts, List of Irish manuscripts, List of Hiberno-Saxon illuminated manuscripts, List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, , etc. will always mention the 'custodian'/'institution'/'library' and the 'designation'/'siglum'/'Ms. catalogue no.'. But the location/city/state/country is usually not mentioned, or only as part of the place where the main building/office of the given 'custodian'/'institution'/'library' is located. Especially the 'state/country' columns are probably irrelevant, because anyone can look up in which state or country a particular city is located; it is very irrelevant for the manuscripts we're talking about. (I bear part of the blame here, as co-author of Vetus Latina manuscripts). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've been intending to eventually propose a single consistent naming convention for the subcats of Manuscripts by collection, but my plan was to focus on other kinds of objects in museums first before moving on to manuscripts, as they can also be in libraries (the naming conventions for which have developed rather differently from those for museums). I've started (or re-started, my earlier attempts having foundered in 2021) with a CfD nomination to make all subcats Paintings by collection follow the style "Paintings in Foo", which is still open. My view is that the "of" in "Paintings of Versailles", "Photographs of the Musée d'Orsay", "Drawings of the Louvre", etc., is unsatisfactory because it suggests depictions of those places, and so for consistency's sake I'd like to avoid "of" for other kinds of objects in museums – so I much prefer the style "Manuscripts in the Fooian Library". Ham II (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hah, I hadn't even considered that possibility. For manuscripts such a confusion is unlikely, but for paintings you've got a great point. "Paintings in the University of Cambridge" is probably incorrect, and "Paintings at" suggests they are just hanging there on walls for regular decoration just like plants or flowers, not as part of an artistic collection, doesn't it? "Paintings in the University of Cambridge collection" instantly clarifies the situation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no "University of Cambridge collection", other than the Fitzwilliam & faculties etc. It would have to be plural, as the colleges are independent. Generally I much prefer "in" or "at" to "of", but this would be an exception, I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plural is fine by me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. I was about to say "WP:C2C per parent Category:Culture of the University of Cambridge" until I realized this is unrelated to university culture. It should probably be re-parented directly to Category:University of Cambridge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I'm not even know sure "culture" is supposed to mean here. My global history professor says "culture is everything humans make;. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Category:Collections of the Fitzwilliam Museum is in Category:Culture of the University of Cambridge, so should this be. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Or we can move them together, which would be my preference. I understand university culture to be about university traditions, student culture etc. Collections are a very different topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I rather doubt that is the general understanding. I think most people would expect it to cover all that, plus "culture" in the sense of the arts, relating to the university. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that Marco and I have difficulty understanding what "culture" is supposed to mean suggests that the name should be more specific. But perhaps a future nom should take care of that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emigrants from Ireland (1801-1923)

• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923)
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to the United States to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to the United States
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to New Zealand to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to New Zealand
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Canada to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to Canada
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Australia to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to Australia

Nominator's rationale: To correspond with the parent Category:People from Ireland (1801-1923) which is the period from the end of the absorption of the Kingdom of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until it attained / regained sovereignty as the Irish Free State. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this conflicts with the open cfd which is proposing to use 'Irish'. Category:People from Ireland (1801-1923) was created 2 days ago. Also it should be 1801–1923 (en-dash) per MOS:DATERANGE. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to outcome of conflicting CfD. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Query What conflict? None of these proposals is the subject of the nomination cited above. A mention of an intention to perform another nomination does not give rise to a conflict. I simply got to the nomination table before anyone else. Plus, lest there be any doubt, I did not create Category:People from Ireland (1801-1923). Everyone is free to discuss the nomination as proposed on its own merits. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearer geographic scope. Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not so, @Dimadick: see my comment below. There is precisely zero difference in geographic scope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think this is a conflicting nomination. It is adding a start date to a period that already has an end date. But nevertheless - consistent with the other discussion - I would propose a completely different alternative, namely to upmerge the country subcats and to disperse the four articles. For emigration, the political status of Ireland does not matter a lot. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "For emigration, the political status of Ireland does not matter a lot." If that's true then it's also true for Scotland. But Category:Scottish emigrants had 23 subcats. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Have I missed something, @Laurel Lodged? When did the land boundaries of Scotland change? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The upmerge would presumably be to Category:Irish emigrants (amongst others, perhaps), which is not dissimilar to a rename to Category:Irish emigrants. Oculi (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle the reason for the break in 1923 is that in December 1922 Ireland was partitioned, so by some views, "Irish" no longer referred unambiguously to the whole island.

  However for nearly all other purposes, en.wp categories simply use a Category:Irish fooers with a subcat for Northern Ireland. So I like your suggestion that we should do the same here. I will make an ALT proposal on that basis. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The only ay in which this nomination serves any purpose is split Irish emigrants before an after the year 1801, which is a thoroughly unhelpful idea. Ireland was a unite political entity before the Act of Union 1801, and it remained so after the Union. "So the term Irish emigrant" in 1799 means exactly the same as it did in 1802. The only change of scope happened with partition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply The same could be said of Austrian people. Yet we have Category:Emigrants from the Austrian Empire (a former country like the Kingdom of Ireland), Category:Emigrants from Austria-Hungary (a successor state) and also Category:Emigrants from Austria after the Anschluss. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged Not so. n some of those Austrian cases there was a change of geographical scope, which doesn't apply here.

  If there wasn't a change of geographical scope, then the Austrian split is a bad idea which should be reversed, not replicated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A state changing from the islands of Great Britain and Ireland to just 26 counties is not a change of geographical scope? Interesting view. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't play games, @Laurel Lodged.

  This nom is about is not about 1922; it is about a proposal to add a break point in 1801. That break point is un-needed because "Irish" had exactly the same geographical scope before the 1801 Act of Union as it did afterwards.

  The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland lorded over exactly the same territory in 1799 as he did in 1802.

  "Irish" referred to exactly the same territory in 1799 as it did in 1802. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies. I should have written a state changing from the island of Ireland to the islands of Great Britain and Ireland is not a change of geographical scope? Interesting view. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Still irrelevant. The word "Irish" had exactly the same geographical scope in 1799 as it did in 1802. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1 based on a suggetion above by Marcocapelle. For nearly all other purposes, en.wp categories simply use a Category:Irish fooers with a subcat for Category:Fooers from Northern Ireland. So we should do the same here. Instead of adding another breakpoint, just remove the existing breakpoint.

• 'Delete Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923)
• Merge
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to the United States to Category:Irish emigrants to the United States
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to New Zealand to Category:Irish emigrants to New Zealand
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Canada to Category:Irish emigrants to Canada
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Australia to Category:Irish emigrants to Australia

That's simpler. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt1 per above remarks. It has the added benefit of combining some emigrant categories. Oculi (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opting out of this ill-tempered discussion. Oculi (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarify Let's not go down BHG rabbit holes. Let's keep things calm. It's just putting a pre-date where there is currently just a post date. It was clearly the intent of the category that such a start date existed. The nomination does no more than make the implicit explicit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither date is needed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like an attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure. Ireland is a former country of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"; so is the Kingdom of Great Britain, which is why it has its own category of Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Great Britain. This nom is just a scope clarifiation with a "from" date. If BHG wants a wider nom to de-legitimise an entire tree structure, she should create a new set of noms and quit trying to hijack this nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. No of course it's not any such attempt.

  And please withdraw that absurd allegation of a "hijack". Proposing an alternative action is a routine part of XFD discussions, as you should know very well after your many years at CFD ... and your allegation is just another of your disruptive attempts to add acrimony to a CFD debate and to maliciously allege a non-existent motive.

  This discussion just about Ireland, and in particular about the very very very very simple fact which you seem resolutely determined to ignore: that "Irish people" has throughout history referred to people from the island of Ireland, and that the scope of the term "Irish people" was unchanged by the Act of Union 1801.

  If you want to chop up all the biographical categories for Irish people into the subcats for the various states and regimes which have existed on the island of Ireland, then open a WP:RFC where you can set out your case for why we should divide emigrants, lawyers, clergy, writers, lawyers, nuns, medics, farmer, businesspeople etc in this way. There you can explain why this carve-up would improve navigation, which is the central purpose of categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarity 2 (1) It's my anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sigh. Job done. (2) There is no conflict. (3) This is not a delete or merge nom. (4) The nomination is just putting a pre-date where there is currently just a post date. It was clearly the intent of the category that such a start date existed. The nomination does no more than make the implicit explicit. (5) The existence of the dates in the current title points to the political nature of the current category, not the ethno-cultural nature of of it (it has none). In short, the scope is about states not ethno-cultural blocks. (6) Sister categories like Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Austrian examples show that this is a valid thing to do. See also Category:History of Ireland (1801–1923). (7) This is not the place to attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure. Such an attempt ought to be the subject of an entirely different set of nominations. (8) Brace yourselves for more sighing and possibly worse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh.

  Laurel Lodged continues to ignore the very very very very simple fact that the scope of the term "Irish people" did not change in 1801 ... so there is no need for a split.

  Th rest of LL's comment is irrelevant hot air maliciously false allegations, and is explicit about their desire to troll me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The latter is an unfair assessment, imho. LL tries to keep some humour in this discussion and you take it far too seriously. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle: it's fine to be humorous, so long as it's done without trying to denigrate the person to whom you are replying. LL repeatedly personalises their replies, and I am sick of it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded. Oculi (talk)

Category:Irish texts

• Propose renaming Category:Irish texts to Category:Irish-language texts; re-parenting from Category:History of literature in Ireland to Category:Irish language; purging all non-Irish-language items and subcategories

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C per parent Category:Texts by language and child Category:Irish-language works (which I just added, so it doesn't really count). Child Category:Texts of medieval Ireland (which I've also CfR'd) is not Irish-language-based, as its grandchild Category:Latin texts of medieval Ireland‎ shows. So child Category:Texts of medieval Ireland must be removed. Finally, parent Category:History of literature in Ireland is inadequate, because Irish-language texts can be written outside Ireland, and literature in Ireland can be written in Latin, English etc., so re-parenting to Category:Irish language is due. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with example Python (programming language) code

• Propose renaming Category:Articles with example Python (programming language) code to Category:Articles with example Python code

Nominator's rationale: So it is named similarly to the other categories with example code. Frap (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marine reserves of Malta

• Propose deleting Category:Marine reserves of Malta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Only sibling has already proper categories Estopedist1 (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:SMALLCAT. The one article is already well-populated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Texts of medieval Ireland

• Propose renaming Category:Texts of medieval Ireland to Category:Texts from medieval Ireland
  • Alt rename 1 Category:Texts of medieval Ireland to Category:Texts produced in medieval Ireland
  • Alt rename 2 Category:Texts of medieval Ireland to Category:Texts about medieval Ireland; re-parent to Category:Works about Ireland, and purge all items which are not about medieval Ireland

Nominator's rationale: WP:CATSPECIFIC. Grandparent Category:Medieval texts is in Category:Texts by date, so we should interpret "of medieval" to mean when these texts were written, not that they are about "medieval Ireland" as a topic. It is not yet clear whether the texts need to be produced in medieval Ireland itself. For instance, Proverbia Grecorum is unsure: compiled in the seventh or eighth century AD in the British Isles, probably in Ireland. But this does seem to be the intention of "Ireland", because the contents of this work are not "about Ireland", but about sayings of the Ancient Greeks. For this reason, Alt rename 1 Category:Texts produced in medieval Ireland may be even better. At any rate, this category is not language-based, as child Category:Latin texts of medieval Ireland shows, so parent Category:Irish texts (in the Category:Texts by language tree) should be removed. I'm using this as a test case to see if similar categories should also be renamed to make this clear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt rename 2 rationale: Another approach would be to rescope this category to be about medieval Ireland, but that would require putting it in a different tree, like Category:Works about Ireland, and purging it. It's not the most obvious choice, unless we regard country of production as something WP:NONDEFINING. I currently lean towards this opinion, because items such as Proverbia Grecorum are of unknown country of production, so it can hardly be defining for them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: This relates to what we've been talking about. I think this is meant to be a "texts by medieval country of production" category (so I guess Category:Texts produced in medieval Ireland would be even better), but the name and one of its parents doesn't make that clear. Moreover, from some items such as the Proverbia Grecorum it is uncertain where they were produced originally. What do you think we should do with it? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered a similar problem at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 5#Category:Medieval documents of Norway: The current name is ambiguous. Are these medieval documents... Written in Norway? Found in Norway? Owned by Norway? Preserved in Norway? Or... about Norway? I think they are about Norway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Texts produced in medieval Ireland" is the most logical to me. Although I would regard "Texts from medieval Ireland" as equivalent, it is slightly less clear. ("Produced" could be "written" or "composed".) "Texts about medieval Ireland" is too broad. It encompasses books published this year. I assume the purpose of the category was to grab only medieval texts. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also assume that texts produced in the Middle Ages was the intended purpose, because it is in grandparent Category:Texts by date. But because we are talking not talking about manuscripts here, but even more abstract "texts" (which we may presume means the Autograph (manuscript)/holograph), which is in countless cases has been lost, we may have to Purge lots of items from this category on account of uncertainty of the country of production. E.g. some of the earliest manuscripts containing the Proverbia Grecorum have Old Irish glosses in them, but that doesn't definitively prove the original was "produced in Ireland". It could also have been England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall etc., as the article says all surviving manuscript [sic] have an Anglo-Saxon or Celtic connection. I'm not sure if we Wikipedians are in a position to decide it is a "Latin text produced in Ireland", just because that is the most likely candidate.

Moreover, what if it was produced in Northern Ireland? Category:History of Ireland is both in the Category:History by country (which suggests "Ireland" means Republic of Ireland, so the Proverbia would be out) and Category:Ireland (meaning the island of Ireland, so the Proverbia would be in).

More generally, Category:Medieval texts by region is quite a small and odd category, in which Category:Texts of medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina (obvious reference to modern country/borders) sits alongside Category:Texts of Anglo-Saxon England (the Category:History of England by period tree recognises "England" as a "former country"), Category:Texts of medieval France (ambiguous, does that include Corsica and Franche-Comté or not?), Category:Texts of medieval Ireland (this CfR), and child Category:Medieval documents by country. As far as I can tell, Category:Texts of medieval Ireland is the only subcategory of Category:Medieval texts by region in which "Ireland" could be understood as a "region" (namely, an island) rather than a (former) country.

I'm not sure if Category:Medieval texts by region really adds anything in particular to the other manuscript, chronicle, literature etc. trees we already have. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I've CfR'd Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 16#Category:Irish texts as well, because users evidently interpreted "Irish" as both "Irish-language" and "pertaining to Ireland". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maltese medallists

• Propose merging Category:Maltese medallists to Category:Medallists

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if 5 articles ever emerge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malta in the arts and media

• Propose deleting Category:Malta in the arts and media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry.

To be noticed that we have three such-named categories yet which probably should be merged/deleted/re-organized:

• Category:Berlin_in_the_arts_and_media
• Category:Lagos_in_the_arts_and_media
• Category:Munich_in_the_arts_and_media Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entrenchments in Malta

• Propose merging Category:Entrenchments in Malta to Category:Fortifications in Malta

Nominator's rationale: "Entrenchments in" Foo country is unique name. We even don't have the parent Category:Entrenchments Estopedist1 (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditional medicine in the Maldives

• Propose merging Category:Traditional medicine in the Maldives to Category:Health in the Maldives

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Getting up to 5 articles seems unlikely. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Too small. Creation of articles seems unlikely. There is also not any material in the Maldivian Wikipedia to show it is expandable. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Category:International baseball competitions hosted by France

• Propose merging Category:International baseball competitions hosted by France to Category:Baseball in France, Category:International baseball competitions in Europe and Category:International sports competitions hosted by France

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (3 P). –Aidan721 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Object: With three articles it is not a "small" category and anyway it is part of a category tree for "International baseball competitions hosted by country” which includes 24 countries! Why leave one country out? Team sports like baseball or cricket are more likely to have international competitions competed for by a country team than sports often competed for by individual sports people.like boxing or judo. Hugo999 (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean toward Merge 3 articles is small but no objection to recreating if it gets up to 5 articles. Hugo999 makes a plausible case that this is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme but, since most countries don't have this category, I don't think one more country not having one will hinder navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment: Being in a category tree (as here) is what the exemption in WP:SMALLCAT covers. If the articles were upmerged it should be upmerged to Category:International sports competitions hosted by France and Category:International baseball competitions as well as Category:Baseball in France. Hence the excemption as many article writers will not put a new article into all three categories. And who is going to check if the potential category reaches five article? Hugo999 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 05:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The merge targets Hugo999 identified make sense, if we end up merging this cat. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mineralogists

• Propose merging Category:Belarusian mineralogists‎ (1 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belarusian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Belgian mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belgian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Brazilian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Brazilian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Bulgarian mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Bulgarian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Chinese mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Chinese geologists
• Propose merging Category:Dutch mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Dutch geologists
• Propose merging Category:Estonian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Estonian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Hungarian mineralogists‎ (1 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Hungarian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Indian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Indian geologists
• Propose merging Category:New Zealand mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:New Zealand geologists
• Propose merging Category:Pakistani mineralogists‎ (1 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Pakistani geologists
• Propose merging Category:Polish mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Polish geologists
• Propose merging Category:Romanian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Romanian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Slovenian mineralogists‎ (4 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Slovenian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Spanish mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Spanish geologists

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SMALLCAT is for categories with limited or no expectation or possibility of growth (such as Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor). These categories do not fit that criteria. All have potential for growth. I also don't see what the cut off point is: Category:Danish mineralogists has five entries, Category:Finnish mineralogists has four entries. Plus, I personally find it easier to navigate by specific terms. ExRat (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. We do create categories if we already have members, 5+ members are good, 3+ are acceptable. If 1-2 members, almost alwyays to be deleted. Pinging the keeper user:ExRat--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That isn't what WP:SMALLCAT states at all. WP:SMALLCAT is for categories that have no potential for growth. It is for categories that are, by nature, extremely limited and can't possibly ever be enlarged. Examples would be Category:Xhosa-speaking countries or Category:Norwegians who fought in the Second Upper Peru campaign, which are limited in nature and can never be enlarged. All of the nominations have potential to be enlarged and don't fit the SMALLCAT criteria. ExRat (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Recreate when more Belarusians can be found. Oculi (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for Slovenian mineralogists. It has 3 articles and is certainly expandable. In the Slovene Wikipedia, it has 6 at the moment. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valentin Vodnik doesn't mention mineralogist at all; Albin Jarić has an unsourced mention. So Category:Slovenian mineralogists‎ has one valid member. Oculi (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for pointing this out. I have added a few words on that in Valentin Vodnik (the source contains: "he had the opportunity to combine his love for the mountains with his interest in mineralogy where he invested a lot of his time"), whereas the other article contains reference No. 3, which explicitly states that he studied "in Ljubljana at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Mineralogy" and then worked as a junior researcher. --TadejM ^{my talk} 02:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albin Jarić - being a student of mineralogy does not make one a mineralogist; his research was at "the Metallurgical and Mining Institute" (which does not make him a metallurgist or a miner either). Was he notable as a mineralogist: obviously not. Oculi (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about categories. We're not discussing notability but whether mineralogy is defining for him. Obviously he was a mineralogist since he studied at the department of mineralogy and then people employed in mining/metallurgy also frequently research mineralogy. You're trying to split the indivisible here. --TadejM ^{my talk} 01:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a category (tree) by occupation, not by education. His occupation is student. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. It's clearly stated that he completed hia studies and worked as a junior researcher. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added another article which is available at Stanko Grafenauer. I can add more. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for Now with no objection to recreating cats later if they ever reach 5 articles that belong there. The "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" exception in WP:SMALLCAT does not endorse having whole trees of underpopulated subcatgories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what it does - what is the point of it otherwise? Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that an incidental subcategory in an otherwise (nearly) complete tree is omitted. This tree is far from complete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Different editors see this differently; for example, the number of at least 3 members is mentioned above which seems reasonable to me. In addition, per WP:SMALLCAT, the category must have some potential for growth. --TadejM ^{my talk} 15:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep WP:SMALLCAT says "... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which is the case here. If this nom were to create a precedent, heaven knows how many thousands of categories would be impacted. It's nice to see new faces here, but merging this would be a terrible precedent, as well as appearing to favour the large and rich countries that have 5+. It's very easy to say "Recreate when more Belarusians can be found", but, Oculi, are you going to keep an eye on the main Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belarusian geologists to see if this has happened? Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Mineralogists by nationality is hardly large. I am not interested in either Mineralogy or Belarusia, but those who are can put Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belarusian geologists on their watchlists and pounce once another 3 or 4 can be found. WP:NARROWCAT might be a better rationale - there is no need to intersect these 2 categories as the combination of Belarusian and Mineralogists‎ is not defining, indeed far from it. (Belarus wiki has only found the same lone Mineralogist.) Looking deeper into this, the lone Belarusian Ignacy Domeyko (1802-1889) in fact spent 50 years in Chile, and is categorised as Chilean, Belarusian, Lithuanian and Polish, as well as 'from the Russian Empire' and is one of the 3 in Category:Polish mineralogists‎. His mineralogy was nothing whatever to do with Belarus or Poland (or Lithuania): he should only be in Category:Chilean mineralogists‎ (so Category:Chilean geologists should also be watchlisted). Oculi (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Systems and Category:Conceptual systems

• Propose deleting Category:Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Conceptual systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME, appears to have been created as a WP:SYNTH category for an ambitious project back in 2007 - car chasm (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was a long discussion on this in 2007 after the original versions of systems categories were deleted. The consensus then was to reinstate them. Has Wikipedia policy changed on this? In this case, we need evidence of the change in policy since 2007. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this section of that long discussion, it doesn't link to the WP:SYNTH policy or WP:SHAREDNAME guideline but the concerns are almost identical to the ones raised here. The policy and guideline have not changed since 2007; the question is does this "new" category do a better job of following them? - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was struck when reading that discussion on how legitimate policy concerns kept being brought up, which were then simply ignored by the members of the wikiproject! It seems like they just waited until everyone else lost interest and pushed their own ideas through. - car chasm (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Remove Cat Headers if Kept Normally the problem with inclusion criteria is that there is not a main article, but here it's what Conceptual system does say:

In psychology, a conceptual system is an individual's mental model of the world. In humans, a conceptual system may be understood as kind of a metaphor for the world.

That's it! There are references and further links but that's the entire narrative of the article. The category then has it's own completely different definition in the header, but neither one is a clear inclusion criteria. Same issue with the parent category, dueling definitions in the main article and the category header and neither seems actionable.

In practice, both cats seem to rely heavily on WP:SHAREDNAME. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These two categories seem like useful container categories. They classify articles by content rather than name. Re the definitions, both may be valid, depending on the field and context. The article itself seems like a dictionary definition. --TadejM ^{my talk} 16:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the commonalities between the subcategories is utterly vague, apart from the names of course. Category:Systems science and Category:Systems theory should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]