< February 27 February 29 >

February 28

Post-classical

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete/rename Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Post-classical history by country
  • Propose deleting Category:Post-classical history by continent‎
  • Propose deleting Category:Post-classical history of Asia‎
  • Propose deleting Category:Post-classical history of Europe‎
  • Propose deleting Category:Post-classical Europe‎
  • Propose deleting Category:Fictional Asian post-classical people (or possibly merge to Category:Fictional medieval people, see below)
  • Propose renaming Category:Fictional European post-classical people to Category:Fictional medieval people (over redirect)
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a confusing basis for categorization. Two examples why it is confusing: classical Japan is part of post-classical history of Asia, while Hellenistic period (after Classical Greece) is not part of post-classical history. Besides this tree does not have much content, only the fictional people categories are decently populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commanders of the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters to Category:Chiefs of Defence Forces of Thailand

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:LGBT saints

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete but make list. I have added a bare list in the "See also" section at History of Christianity and homosexuality, see [1]. – Fayenatic London 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This was listed for speedy deletion as an empty category, but has existed for two years as a populated category and only recently became emptied — and I have been unable to find any evidence of a discussion to establish a consensus for its emptying. Accordingly, since it's not clear that proper process was followed here, I'm listing it for discussion about whether the category is warranted or not, and whether the articles that were formerly here should be readded — we can pull an old dump to see what used to be here, and repopulate the category, if necessary. People cannot make categories they dislike go away just by emptying them out arbitrarily — there needs to be a discussion of whether the category is warranted or not. Note that it appears that the person who tagged this for speedy deletion was not the emptier, because their own edit history does not seem to include any evidence of removing this category from any articles themselves, so they should not be rapped on the nose for this — but somebody tried to make this disappear without establishing a proper consensus that it needed to disappear, and we may need the dump to figure out who. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the 2 articles, both of them are individuals who lived centuries ago. (If it had more than two before this, I do not know of them.) WP:CATEGRS states, For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate....historically, however, LGBT people did not always come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification may, in some cases, be impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For such a person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such—but no such doubt exists about the sexuality of Oscar Wilde or Radclyffe Hall.
A broad consensus is lacking for the two articles that were there, Aelred of Rievaulx and Sergius and Bacchus. For the first article, check the history: [2] There was some edit warring going on over the subject's sexuality, and looking into it, I saw that there wasn't a clear consensus among the sources in the article. That is why I removed the category and changed the text to say, Some historians argue that Aelred was homosexual, drawing upon his work, private letters, and Vita by Walter Daniel (a contemporary at Rievaulx Abbey), because of what the cited source says on pages 8-9: [3] This was a compromise and admittedly I did not spend a very long time investigating; however, the text in the article following that statement also seems to show it to be disputed. As for Sergius and Bacchus, the article had already been stating before I got there, Boswell's methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians. followed by 7 sources.
So, I removed the category in both places because they did not follow WP:CATEGRS. This is not surprising to me. As much as I respect John Boswell and have even cited him on Wikipedia, I know that, as his article says, as his book's article says, and is to be expected in a field like history, his conclusions are disputed by other historians sometimes. I further know that definitely determining the sexuality of someone who lived 800 years ago, or 1,600 years ago, is likely going to be inconclusive according to secondary RS, and especially Christian saints which will have no shortage of scholars disputing it. And my intention was never as sneaky as it may seem. I wanted to see if my decategorizations held first before taking it to CfD, because my understanding was that it was best to remove improperly categorized articles before the discussion (which I am certainly questioning now). However, somehow another editor found it and put it up for CSD instead. If we do have well-sourced persons to put in the category, or the ones I removed truly do belong, by all means let's keep it. Crossroads -talk- 16:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 9#Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia

Category:British television series based on South Korean television series

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Appears to have been created solely for The Masked Singer (British TV series) which is currently the only page listed, and I don't personally know of any other shows to include. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 09:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Victorian-era naval ships by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on 19th-century ships, so keep Australia & Canada, delete/merge others. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we go this way (though I am not too certain if that is the right way) then it should become a rename to 19th-century iron ships. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with that, but there would need to be a headnote explaining its scope: iron clads were timber ships with iron plates. With the rise of mild steel (from Bessemer and Open heath processes) steel replaced wrought iron. The headnote would thus have to say, "This category includes ironclad ships and those made of steel". I do not think it is wise in a category scheme such as this (at least not initially) to split out those that were only ironclad and those made of steel rather than iron, though this might eventually be desirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why some of the categories (e.g. Category:Victorian-era ships of Australia are still marked for deletion rather than upmerge? DexDor (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles in the top categories of the Victoria-era ships tree are also in another subcategory of the ships tree of that country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seats of local government

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seats of local government, the main article for this, redirects to town hall. All subcategories of Category:Seats of local government by country are named 'City and town halls in Fooland', see the rename proposal for that category below this one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seats of local government by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories here are "City and town halls in Fooland". See also related CfD for parent category I will post in a sec. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mobile applications by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge/delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is any more defining. Is TikTok commonly and consistently referred to as a Chinese mobile app? Any more so than Twitter an American app? But splitters like to split. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More