< May 23 May 25 >

May 24

Category:Polish enlightenment

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: rename as nominated. ✗plicit 07:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalisation. Nihil novi (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Capitalization seems correct. No major preference with regards to Fooian E vs E in Fooland, but per Category:French Enlightenment, Category:French Enlightenment and Category:Scottish Enlightenment, the former seems preferable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could the article "Enlightenment in Poland" first be moved to "Polish Enlightenment"?
How does a category get moved to a new title?
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nihil novi: for moving the article you may initiate a WP:RM procedure. If you do that then please consider my vote to be on hold pending the outcome of the RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks, I've taken your very helpful advice and submitted a WP:RM.
Nihil novi (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A technical move of the article means there has been no discussion and so WP:C2D no longer applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thank you. How does one now move "Category:Polish enlightenment" to "Category:Polish Enlightenment", with a capital "E"?
Nihil novi (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the nomination can stay here for sure. The thing is, I am not sure that enlightenment should be capitalized and I would have preferred a discussion about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "Enlightenment" – in the sense of a particular national Enlightenment, or of the "Age of Enlightenment" – always capitalized.
Nihil novi (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
alt rename per Marcocapelle. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support nom (main article moved). ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to clear old CfD pages, and category tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 24 May 2022 (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.

Geography and place templates

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: Rename and merge as nominated. Marcocapelle's point is persuasive, especially as there is a Category:Place templates hierarchy within the nominated parent, and this remains a suitable parent for e.g. Category:Buildings and structures templates. – Fayenatic London 09:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "places" are naturally a part of "geography", they do not have to be added in the name of the broader category. Likewise we have Category:Places as a subcategory of Category:Geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there are any further suggestions about what to do...so far not really seeing any consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 24 May 2022 (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:School shootings committed by adults

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: merge and delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, there is nothing special about an adult being the murderer. It is also an odd subcategory of Category:Adult culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 24 May 2022 (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:19th-century Holy Roman Emperors

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. – Fayenatic London 09:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category only contains Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, the last Holy Roman Emperor from 1792 to 1806. He is already in the 18th-century sibling category, so this 19th-century category contributes nothing to quickly navigating between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is already in the 19th-century tree as emperor of Austria. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2022 (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:Parodies of conspiracy theories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Category:Parodies of conspiracy theories

Category:Women beekeepers

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 12:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Propose merging Category:Women beekeepers to Category:Beekeepers
Nominator's rationale: Would seem to be a classic example of an occupation where gender is irrelevant per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Gender (in fact I have a vague memory of beekeepers being used as a specific example in one of the guidelines???) Le Deluge (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which previous discussions were had on this subject, but the article you linked specifically mentions Category:Ice dancers shouldn't have gendered subcategories. Not arguing that those subcategories should be merged as being against Wikipedia's guidelines, I just thought it was funny that not even the guidelines you linked to are internally consistent. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Several of the women (as well as men) included in this category are scientists who studied bees as a subset of entomology. See Annie Betts, Eva Crane, Dorothy Galton, and Ellen Smith Tupper. Admittedly this is not true for all of them, right now the category makes no distinction between different kinds of beekeepers. But as apiculture both as a profession and as a scientific pursuit is typically a male-dominated field, I don't think having a category for women is irrelevant or superfluous any more than Category:Women farmers or Category:Women entomologists is. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument, it has to be on its own merits. The entomology argument is irrelevant - they're separate things, in the same way that a zoologist is not a zookeeper. If they're entomologists, then categorise them as such. As an aside, having worked alongside bee entomologists, it fits the general pattern these days that biology is if anything more weighted to women, even if that was less true in the past. If being a women beekeeper is so unusual, then there will be media coverage specifically relating to the fact that they are women - I should know, I've had two relatives with national media coverage specifically relating to them being the first women to do their jobs - as in the actual title of the article. Good luck finding an equivalent for beekeeping, given that women have been involved with bees since the Minoans at least. Le Deluge (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not saying "other stuff exists" so much as pointing out there's a lot of predecent for this in how similar/related categories are, well, categorized. Pointing out consistency is not an irrelevant argument, nor does simply saying my argument is irrelevant make it as such. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2022 (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:Films scored by Manabendra Mukhopadhyay

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These films are already listed in the article for the person. There is no need for a category ~XyNqtc 07:34, 24 May 2022 (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:Forza (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: rename to Category:Forza. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy move was opposed, therefore I am nominating this category for a move. There is no other topic that could be called this so it is relatively unambiguous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2022 (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:Barbie Sheroes

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. – Fayenatic London 12:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:29, 24 May 2022 (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