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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Venezuelan protests (2014–present) to Category:Protests against Nicolás Maduro

Nominator's rationale: Main article moved to same title (Protests against Nicolás Maduro), more specific. NoonIcarus (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Charles Essie (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom / WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle has a good point. This isn't really / just about Maduro. There are also some pro-government / pro-Maduro protests (although not nearly as many). Defer, I want to wait if anyone wants to revert the undiscussed move before I decide what to !vote here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the article was moved without RM and Nicolás Maduro is not even mentioned in the top of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The move has not been disputed since it was done on 4 November 2022, and the title was proposed even earlier in 2019, without any feedback, so this really seems like a uncontroversial move. I have mentioned Maduro in both the first paragraph and in the infobox now, but if anyone finds the move objectionable I don't mind that there is a wider discussion on the matter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in absence of any further challenge to the move of the main article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 2 August 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 result of the discussion was: rename to Transgender foo-related topics. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trans men to Category:Trans men-related topics
• Propose renaming Category:Trans women to Category:Trans women-related topics

Nominator's rationale: The current setup is needlessly confusing. Category:Transgender men contains articles about individual people, while Category:Trans men covers related topics. Ditto for Category:Transgender women and Category:Trans women. I would like to rename the topic categories to make their scope more obvious, but I can't think of a way to do so gracefully. (I am very open to any better suggestions.) Cheers, gnu57 20:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• See also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild support, while the proposed names are clunky, something should be done to improve the current confusing setup. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The current name is hopelessly confusing. Open to an alternative rename if there are other suggestions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• alt Category:Transgender men-related topics. The problem is that the main article uses to "trans man" and "transgender" is the opening line. Perhaps fix the article name first then fix the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's then wait with the alternative until and if the article is renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd favor renaming the article in an WP:RM. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:Transgender men-related topics. I prefer using the entire word rather than the abbreviation/ slang "trans".4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Transgender. "Category:Foo-related topics" is not standard Wikipedia category naming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: related to this CFD, Paul 012 created Category:Firearm topics by country for topic categories as distinct from Category:Firearms by country for set categories, which may be a comparable example of using "topics" in the name. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also fine with Category:Transgender men-related topics as suggested by Laurel Lodged and 4meter4. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Underlined added just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahem. I think you'll find that it was my suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 25 July 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 result of the discussion was: no consensus on whether the possessive was necessary. The additional discussion about whether nationality is defining could better and more thoroughly discussed in a separate nomination, but insofar as it was discussed in this discussion, there was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Works by writer nationality to Category:Works by writer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Books by writer nationality to Category:Books by writer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Bibliographies by writer nationality to Category:Bibliographies by writer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Plays by writer nationality to Category:Plays by writer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Films with screenplays by writer nationality to Category:Films by screenwriter's nationality

Nominator's rationale: Following the precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 19#Category:Poems by nationality, the possessive form would be better. – Fayenatic London 10:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also consider Alt-1: Category:Works by country and writer, Category:Films by country and screenwriter etc. In that case Category:Poems by writer's nationality should also be renamed to Category:Poems by country and writer. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak support Seems reasonable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Category:Books by writer is a nice conventionally titled category. It has a subcat scheme Category:Books by writer nationality: this should perhaps be Category:Books by writer and nationality (although that might imply that the book has a nationality). Not sure why 'country' has been introduced. I'd probably go for the first version, Alt0. Oculi (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If renamed, "by writer's nationality" (as originally nominated) hits the nail best. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added "if renamed" in my previous comment, as I prefer to remain neutral about a 's matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and Rename Category:Poems by writer's nationality (which has been tagged) to Category:Poems by writer nationality. The grammar is correct, there's no need for the " 's " possessive. In fact, it would create problems. First of all, if using the apostrophe s, it's a possessive, so you will need the article "the" added. So for example, Category:Films by ''the'' screenwriter's nationality. Problem number 2 - what about works written by more than 1 person? It's just better grammatically, and for categorisation, it's also better structurally, without the 's. - jc37 01:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and Rename per jc37's proposal. Fayenatic london's proposal has very poor grammar. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming Category:Poems by writer's nationality. It was renamed thus at cfd. A longer version would be 'Poems by the nationality of the writer' which seems to me to shorten to 'Poems by writer's nationality'. 'by writer nationality' is not grammatical at all. Oculi (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid your vote might be misinterpreted if read literally -- you seem to be opposing the counter-proposal, thus supporting the original proposal, no? fgnievinski (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As both sides think their grammar is better I suspect it is a matter of British versus American English. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying the adding the 's is bad grammar (if rephrased), just that it isn't appropriate for our usage in this case, because it would create issues. - jc37 17:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to jc37's alt proposal. Pinging Fgnievinski, Peterkingiron as participants in the previous CFD who are still active here. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support for the original proposal, "... by writer's nationality". It's not an uncommon expression and it also doesn't seem to require "the", e.g., "... provides details of a writer’s nationality" in a dictionary by Oxford University Press [1]. fgnievinski (talk)`

  Well, "a", and "the", are both definite articles. So in your example, actually, it did. - jc37 23:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A" is not a definite article, it's an indefinite article. In either case, they are not mandatory. For example, "writer's nationality" would be fine at the beginning of a sentence. And in headlinese, as often adopted in category titles, it's not uncommon for minor words to be dropped (typically articles, short prepositions, and some conjunctions).

About the possessive or not, I've consulted ChatGPT [2]:

In terms of English grammar, the expression "writer's nationality" is preferable to "writer nationality." Here's why:
In English, when we want to indicate possession or association, we typically use the possessive form by adding an apostrophe and an "s" ('s) to the noun. This construction is called the "genitive case" or "possessive case." It helps clarify the relationship between two nouns.
In the case of "writer's nationality," the noun "writer" is being used to indicate possession or association with the noun "nationality." By using the possessive form, we show that the nationality belongs to or is associated with the writer. The apostrophe-s ('s) indicates the possessive relationship.
On the other hand, "writer nationality" does not convey the possessive relationship. Instead, it presents "writer" and "nationality" as separate nouns without any indication of ownership or association between them.
Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
Correct: The writer's nationality is British. (The possessive form clarifies that the nationality belongs to the writer.)
Incorrect: The writer nationality is British.
Correct: I'm interested in knowing the writer's nationality. (The possessive form indicates that we want to know the nationality associated with the writer.)
Incorrect: I'm interested in knowing the writer nationality.
Therefore, when discussing the nationality of a writer or any other possessive relationship, it is more grammatically accurate to use the possessive form "writer's nationality."

I'd appreciate any sources contradicting the above guidance. fgnievinski (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT is now a reliable source? That's interesting to note...

Anyway, you're correct, "a" is an indefinite article. I phrased that poorly. Though that's pretty much immaterial here, as I note below.

As for the rest, category titles double as the inclusion criteria of a category. So when we categorise, we're talking about a topic. So "writer nationality" is the topic, not 2 unrelated words. So no, you're incorrect about usage in this case, because we are not writing a sentence about a particular writer's nationality. - jc37 03:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing article content, so I'm not sure WP:RS applies. I've brought usage examples and guidance from a popular tool. It'd be nice to have any external source supporting your interpretation. Anyways, I've weakened my vote in deference to your vehemence. Kind of reverse appeal to authority, as I assume you have special training in the subject. fgnievinski (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: additional related proposals -- seeking a wider consensus: fgnievinski (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Videographies by artist nationality to Category:Videographies by artist's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Video games by country of developer to Category:Video games by developer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Sailboat type designs by nationality of designer to Category:Sailboat type designs by designer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Works by musician nationality to Category:Works by musician's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Films by producer nationality to Category:Films by producer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Films by director nationality to Category:Films by director's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Film scores by composer nationality to Category:Film scores by composer's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Discographies by artist nationality to Category:Discographies by artist's nationality
• Propose renaming Category:Albums by artist nationality to Category:Albums by artist's nationality

• Support use of the possessive case ('s). Even if it's BritVar it's still more correct IMHO. 09:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: the above vote is by user Laurel Lodged.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question At the risk of making a complex discussion even more complex: how is the nationality of the writer of a work WP:DEFINING? Who cares if a book about, say, civil engineering has been written by an Austrian, a Liechtensteinian, a Swiss, a German, a Luxembourgian, or an eastern Belgian writer, or an expat/migrant living in - I don't know - Canada, if the text of the book is written in German? Why should the reader care about the author's nationality? Books can and are published around the world and even online nowadays. I think a basic understanding of the German language and civil engineering are what actually matters if you want to read the book. (And even language might not be a barrier if the book has been translated and published in a language you do understand). I'm getting the impression this whole category tree may be WP:NONDEFINING. But maybe I'm wrong? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Somewhere (I forgot where) there is an instruction that we may diffuse by e.g. nationality, irrespective of definingness, if otherwise it would lead to exceptionally large categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Except in this case (as I note below) there's no need for this entire tree at all - it should probably be uprooted... - jc37 05:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  if otherwise it would lead to exceptionally large categories. Fair enough, but if I (randomly) look at Category:Works by musician nationality, for instance, I'm seeing lots of 1C 0P. So, too, with Category:Sailboat type designs by nationality of designer. Lots of redundant layers that don't seem to aid navigation.

  Who is really setting out to read Wikipedia to search for Category:Sailboat type designs by Slovenian designers anyway? Nothing against Slovenian sailboat designers, they're probably good at their profession, but it's oddly specific and has only 1 item. So does Category:Slovenian yacht designers. It's sub-sub-subcategorisation run amok. (Except that they're not designing submarines, but you get my point. ) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) - You know, that's a fair point.

  Something like Italian Opera is a thing, which is subcatted under Category:Opera by country, which is part of the Category:Performing arts by country tree. And any creators should already be under the Category:Works by creator tree. We probably shouldn't be further intersecting by nationality.

  Maybe the whole Category:Works by creator nationality tree should be nominated for deletion. - jc37 05:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also good points. When I read the opening lines of Italian opera, I see Italian opera is both the art of opera in Italy and opera in the Italian language. Category:Italian-language operas (language-based) might thus be even more accurate and specific than Category:Italian music (country-based). If some opera performance group in, say, the Swiss region of Ticino, would like to write and perform a new opera piece in the Italian language, I think - depending on several characteristics - we would still call it "Italian opera". It's not like Italy as a country or Italians as a nationality have a monopoly on writing or performing an Italian(-language) opera. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if we changed Category:Opera by country to Category:Opera in Italy more specifically, as Italy is where this style/genre of opera originated and is apparently the dominant form of opera in that country (not surprising).

  I wouldn't even mind designating Italian opera as the main article of both Category:Italian-language operas and Category:Opera in Italy. It's an intersection of the country/nationality and language trees; probably neither can claim it exclusively for themselves.

  Nominating the whole Category:Works by creator nationality tree might be a good follow-up; let's just first establish consensus here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Nationality is evidently relevant for biographies of creators, writers etc. but I don't see how it is relevant for the works of those creators. Is a civil engineering book written in German, translated to English, published in EPUB format by some publishing house in the UK (say, Palgrave Macmillan), distributed online by U.S. corporation Amazon and bought by me from my home in the Netherlands, "Liechtensteinian" just because the author, who might be living in Zürich since her teens when she began studying at ETH Zurich, has Liechtensteinian nationality due to being born in Schaan? I really don't see the point in categorising the book as such. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I won't attempt to answer a rhetorical question, but note that Category:Works by American writers has more than 700 subcategories. If we would add works categories from all nationalities it would become thousands of subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. While it doesn't really help anyone find anything. If you're looking for books by an American writer, why not just Category:Writers by nationality > Category:American writers > Category:Foo Bar > Category:Works by Foo Bar. What else but works would our readers expect American writers to write? Writing submarines? Writing chocolate factories? It's a boatload (pun intended) of redundancy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That will not work because the third layer Category:Foo Bar does not exist for many writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the two chains need to be connected. Category:Works by Foo Bar would be under Category:Works by creator. Which is my point, there's no need to intersect "works by creator" with "creators by nationality". So I'm saying that we uproot the triple intersection of "works by creator by nationality". - jc37 07:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, but then we are still stuck with the fact that the Works by creator will contain thousands of subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Strong oppose to the later suggestion of deleting these categories. The nationality of a work's author is treated as defining in many contexts; for instance, consider the WP articles on Italian opera, Chinese art, Russian literature, or Japanese poetry. The defining trait of all of these topics is that they concern works by people associated with a specific country, and RSes cited on these articles, likewise, treat them as such. In addition, Wikipedia typically mentions the nationality of a work in the first sentence of an article for a creative work, fulfilling the requirement for WP:DEFINING. Here are some examples: the To Kill a Mockingbird article begins, "To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel by the American author Harper Lee"; Ulysses begins, "Ulysses is a modernist novel by Irish writer James Joyce"; The Three-Body Problem begins, "The Three-Body Problem ... is a science fiction novel written by the Chinese writer Liu Cixin"; Revolver begins, "Revolver is the seventh studio album by the English rock band the Beatles"; Mona Lisa begins, "Mona Lisa ... is a half-length portrait painting by Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci"; Carmen begins, "Carmen ... is an opera in four acts by the French composer Georges Bizet". There are literally thousands of articles that begin like this, defining the work in the first sentence as the product of an author of a given nationality. The work-by-artist-nationality categories thus reflect standard Wikipedia practice for articles about creative works. There is also another practical consideration here, which is that the artist nationality categories allow works by artists without their own categories (or even their own articles) to be easily sorted, without having to make dedicated "works by [name of artist]" micro-categories for all of them. Either of these reasons would be enough to keep the categories on their own; together, they reflect both established Wikipedia practice and serve a useful navigational function, making them essential for articles about creative works. Phediuk (talk) 16:26, 28 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Redirects from songs only. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bluey (2018 TV series) song redirects to Category:Redirects from songs and Category:Bluey (2018 TV series)

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for redirects for songs from specific television series. I'm not sure the redirects need to be categorized or even need to exist at all, but for the discussion I'm suggesting an upmerge to its parents. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator. I do not know what I was thinking when I made that. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Redirects from songs only, as all of the redirects point to articles that are already in Category:Bluey (2018 TV series). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:38, 27 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indian hospitality to Category:Indian culture

Nominator's rationale: unique "by nationality" (i.e. Fooian hospitality) category. Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1-2 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. No prejudice against re-creating category if at least 5 items can be found. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There isn't even a Category:Hospitality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:32, 26 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of the Pakistan Super League to Category:Pakistan Super League

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorisation. Only one article specifically applies to the history: History of the Pakistan Super League, that article should also be upmerged into Category:History of Pakistani cricket too. The others are related to the PSL but not to the history specifically, so should just be upmerged into Category:Pakistan Super League. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 2 August 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 result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Patreon creators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Patreon is a platform used by nearly current every content creator, thus making this a non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 13:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question There is a lot of overlap with Category:YouTubers, but those do seem to be defining. Why not Patreon creators, given that some YouTubers will only release premium content to Patrons? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, these people are known as YouTubers rather than as Patreon creators. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmmmaybe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:32, 26 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Vietnamese posthumous empresses to Category:Vietnamese empresses and Category:Posthumous empresses

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. I was able to populate its only child Category:Nguyễn dynasty posthumous empresses‎ though. I checked zh:Category:阮朝追封皇后 with a lot of autotranslate and checking linked enwiki articles. Not all of the latter could confirm the women in question had been posthumously granted the title of "empress", so I didn't simply copy whatever zhwiki (or viwiki) said. I can't find posthumous empresses from other Vietnamese dynasties with enwiki entries for now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Maybe that subcategory should be merged too, as a very narrow intersection, but that is not what this nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 25 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Đinh dynasty empresses to Category:Vietnamese empresses and Category:Đinh dynasty

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: Dương Vân Nga was the only Đinh dynasty empress ever. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 25 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ratchet & Clank characters to Category:Ratchet & Clank

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - only one current entry. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 25 July 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 result of the discussion was: keep. Users agree that there is a need for some other countries, such as Mexico, to have a similar holding category for both national and sub-national symbols. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Symbols of Canada to Category:National symbols of Canada

Nominator's rationale: unique country category. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:National symbols of Canada is probably perceived to contrast Category:Provincial and territorial symbols of Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation I concur with Marco's observation. Moreover, there is no Category:Symbols by country tree (which would be a logical parent), but there is a Category:Symbols of country subdivisions tree and a Category:National symbols by country tree. Compare that to, say, Mexico. There is no Category:Symbols of Mexico. But there is a Category:National symbols of Mexico, which has a child called Category:Mexico symbols by state (which is also in Category:Symbols of country subdivisions) and another child called Category:Municipal coats of arms in Mexico. But states and municipalities are not "national". Category:National symbols of the United States is even worse: symbols of cities, states, D.C., Puerto Rico, "places" etc. are decidedly by definition not "national". Most sibling categories in Category:National symbols by country don't have that, however. Perhaps we should only purge Canada, Mexico and the USA then. A Category:Symbols by country tree seems unnecessary. But that would not mean merging per nom. I'm leaning delete because the cat trees generally keep national and subnational symbols separate. At the same time, subcategories like Category:Canadian coats of arms don't keep 'em separated. So I don't know. No firm view yet. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and build category tree - there should be a category tree for symbols by country. And a category for symbols for a country as a whole. Build that category tree to fix the problems pointed out by Nederlandse Leeuw with the current category tree. Symbols are not restricted to countries and subnational divisions. There are other symbols found in countries that represent other groupings as well. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 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 result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ethnography of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I see no useful way of populating or merging. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lone article, Laura Boulton, does not mention ethnography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:45, 27 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indo-European archaeological artifacts to Category:Archaeological artifacts

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between language family and archaeological findings. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:51, 25 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Armorials of the Netherlands to Category:Dutch coats of arms
• Propose merging Category:Armorials of Brazil to Category:Brazilian coats of arms
• Propose merging Category:Armorials of Finland to Category:Finnish coats of arms
• Propose merging Category:Armorials of Russia to Category:Russian coats of arms
• Propose merging Category:Armorials of Finland to Category:Finnish coats of arms

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1-2 entries. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Armorials by country or Category:Armorials. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where to merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My previous comment should be read as: "also manually merge to either Category:Armorials by country or Category:Armorials as appropriate". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question An armorial or roll of arms is like a book full of coats of arms, right? (Dutch wapenboek, German Wappenbuch etc.). There is an odd mismatch between those two articles and the Category:Armorials category tree. The catinfo says:

This category is for Wikipedia articles and subcategories that contain galleries of coats of arms. For historical, notable printed or handwritten works of similar nature, see Category:Rolls of arms.

So the category tree claims to be about galleries of coats of arms, not books of coats of arms. Where does it say that "gallery" is part of what an armorial is? wikt:armorial doesn't. armorial / roll of arms don't. The only parent of Category:Armorials is Category:Coats of arms, not something like Category:Galleries. So I'm not even sure what the purpose and scope of the Category:Armorials category tree is. Could anyone explain? Otherwise this could be WP:OR, and perhaps the whole tree should be re-examined and possibly renamed to make it WP:CATSPECIFIC. If I look at the contents, like Armorial of Estonia or Armorial of Europe, what "armorial" really means is List of coats of arms of Foo. (edit: indeed, Category:Lists of coats of arms redirects to Category:Armorials). I suppose "armorial" is very WP:CONCISE, but this is giving a Wikipedia-invented meaning, namely "Wikimedia list of coats of arms", to a term that has no such commonly recognised meaning. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: On closer inspection, there were indeed originally separate categories:
  • Category:Lists of coats of arms was created on 30 September 2006‎ by Explendido Rocha.
  • Category:Armorials was created on 6 October 2011 Dbachmann in order to distinguish actual armorials from Wikipedia list articles
  • On 21 December 2018, Ssolbergj apparently unilaterally made Category:Lists of coats of arms a redirect to Category:Armorials, exactly what Dbachmann hoped to avoid by creating a separate category. That's why these two category trees are now mixed up. Perhaps we should un-mix them? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. What I said above indeed may lead to what I was concerned about, namely mixing up something like Gelre Armorial with the coat of arms of Gelderland in Armorial of the Netherlands#Provinces by calling them both "armorials". That's unhelpful and confusing. And it does not surprise me that it was also Ssolbergj who on 23 December 2018 (2 days later) unilaterally renamed Coats of arms of provinces of the Netherlands to Armorial of Dutch provinces, and 2 days later to Armorial of the Netherlands. This is just WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a primary source. We do not produce armorials. If other people agree with me, then we might be looking into undoing all of these undiscussed moves. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I do have a lot of respect for Ssolbergj, who has produced a lot of coats of arms, some of which I have used in my own articles. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:55, 25 July 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 result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Works about zebras, which seems to satisfy almost everyone and no explicit arguments against it were made. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional zebras to Category:Zebras in art

Nominator's rationale: because if there's Category:Camels in art, why can't zebras have that as their category name? ChameleonGamer 13:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename to Category:Works about zebras and re-parent, per actual content. The articles in this category are not directly about zebras, they are also not about art, but they about works. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fixed malformed nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as nominated. Most of the articles are not about works of art but about characters inside various media like books, films, video games, etc. This category is clearly meant to be targeting zebras within works of fiction . I would support re-naming the cat Category:Zebras in fiction or Category:Fiction about zebras to align with the larger category structure Category:Fiction about creatures.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Works about zebras, per Marcocapelle. The problem is that this includes far more than merely literature. There are films, and even product mascots. But go ahead and subcat under Category:Fiction about creatures and Category:Films about animals, and and and..., all of which are part of the Category:Works by topic tree. - jc37 20:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 17 July 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} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 4meter4's argument. These are characters not artwork. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @4meter4 and Dimadick: for example Zebra (chess) is not about fiction, so Category:Fiction about zebras does not work. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that they're both opposing renaming to Category:Zebras in art. I agree and also oppose that. While also supporting your alternate target of Category:Works about zebras, for the reasons you state. - jc37 22:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category was never properly tagged until now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename per Marcocapelle. Seems to be the most suitable target. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 2 August 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 result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Assassinated heads of government with Category:Assassinated heads of state
• Propose renaming Category:Assassinated heads of state and government

Nominator's rationale: Head of government and head of state have no uniform interpretation or usage across the world regarding their top officials. Articles often have both categories. In some countries for example, the president is head of state and government (President of the United States), while in others, the president is head of state but not head of government (President of Israel). In the page List of current heads of state and government this situation is well illustrated.

In addition, in monarchy systems of government, the monarch could be head of state but not of government as is currently the case in most monarchies, but historically, monarchs could be head of state and government. Also, relevant subcategories could be more accurately placed in the parent category. For example, Category:Murdered monarchs, some of which have the issues mentioned above. One drawback I can think of is that some editors might be looking specifically for heads of state, for instance, and not heads of government. Thinker78 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, they are very different offices in many countries. The comment about monarchs is not relevant because monarchs have their own category tree anyway. This is mainly about the distinction between presidents and prime ministers. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some presidents are only heads of state, others are heads of state and government. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Marcocapelle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very different offices. Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The phrase "heads of state and government" is also used very much by reliable sources.^[1] Thinker78 (talk) 00:53, 26 July 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 result of the discussion was: merge/rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Western Connecticut State Colonials to Category:Western Connecticut Wolves
• Propose merging Category:Western Connecticut State Colonials football to Category:Western Connecticut Wolves football
• Propose renaming Category:Western Connecticut State Colonials football coaches to Category:Western Connecticut Wolves football coaches
• Propose renaming Category:Western Connecticut State Colonials football players to Category:Western Connecticut Wolves football players
• Propose renaming Category:Western Connecticut State Colonials baseball to Category:Western Connecticut Wolves baseball
• Propose renaming Category:Western Connecticut State Colonials baseball coaches to Category:Western Connecticut Wolves baseball coaches
• Propose renaming Category:Western Connecticut State Colonials baseball players to Category:Western Connecticut Wolves baseball players

Nominator's rationale: The intercollegiate athletics teams of Western Connecticut State University are now known as the Wolves. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support categories change names as teams do, see Category:Edmonton Eskimos (now Elks), Category:George Washington Colonials (now Revolutionaries), etc. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one category per team, regardless of how many times it's changed team name is the standard for sports article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 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.