Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 21

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21 edit

Category:Protestant martyrs of the Middle Ages edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The pre-protestant dissidents are indeed challenging to categorize but this issue is pretty straightforward: there's an extra layer here with no navigational benefit that should be merged. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2021 (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:Anti-Catholic propagandists edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split to Category:Critics of the Catholic Church and Category:Anti-Catholic activists. – Fayenatic London 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope, both categories mostly contain writers who write critically about the Catholic Church. Whether or not it is propaganda is rather subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't necessarily disagree with the proposal, it sounds like the issue is with Category:Propagandists by topic rather than with this specific category. I suggest merging to Category:Anti-Catholic activists.--User:Namiba 14:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose then the category should be split manually between Category:Critics of the Catholic Church and Category:Anti-Catholic activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable solution. I would support addressing the larger Propagandist category in a separate discussion.--User:Namiba 12:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how is this not an WP:OPINIONCAT? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I think we should categorize people by what they did, not the opinion of what they wrote, spoke, produced, directed etc (OK, most probably wrote their works, but you can become a notable religious apologist without ever writing, at least in theory).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2021 (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:Singaporean people of Chinese descent edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There was a lot going on in this nomination, which may have contributed to the failure to reach consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize, a clear majority of Singaporean people (74% in 2018) is of Chinese descent, so it is not meaningful to categorize them by this characteristic. This issue was raised earlier by User:Johnpacklambert and opposed by User:Prisencolin, as a side-track in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have Category:English people of English descent. When over 70% of a population fails under some heading, we do not categorize by being part of that heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: with respect, I think this nomination is seriously flawed as it would send the incorrect message that the ethnicity of the majority is somehow the norm, and that categories for other ethnic groups (“Singaporean people of Indian descent”, “Singaporean people of Malay descent”, and so on) are deviations or exceptions from the norm. It is akin to putting all male writers in a category called “Writers”, and then having a special category called “Women writers”. I cannot emphasize more strongly that such approaches are completely wrong-headed. Either we have categories for all ethnic groups, or none at all (and place all articles in “Singaporean people”). @Johnpacklambert: I do not think “English people of English descent” is a comparable example, because “English” is not, as far as I am aware, an ethnic group. It is a form of nationality. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • English is very much an ethnic group. There are areas of modern England where the population would not be considered historically English, and there are people of English descent like Henry Ford whose ancestors lived for ages in Ireland but never became Irish and never stopped being English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not being a sociologist, I can’t say for sure if my understanding is in line with contemporary thinking on the matter, but I would have thought that ethnicity refers to categories such as “Asian”, “Black”, “White”, and so on, rather than “English”, “Irish” and “Scottish”. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This does not change the fact that “English people of English descent” is not defining at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on further thought I think that when less than 80% of a population is of a certain descent, there is some reasoning for keeping by descent categories. However I think we need to make sure that this category is only applied where we have actual evidence, and it is not assumed or imputed without evidence. I had thought the percentage of those of Chinese descent in Singapore was much higher, but since it is only 74% I think in this case there is adequate argument for having the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the change of view, though I would point out that drawing the line at 80% is arbitrary and misses the point, which is that there is no warrant for treating one group of people as the “norm” and others as deviations from the “norm”. We should either have all the categories, or none of them (that is, do not categorize by ethnicity at all). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another descent category that no one can explain how much of Chinese descent one must be to be defining, how distance that descent can be to be defining, and what WP:RS tell us objectively that it is defining and that the purported descent is accurate. (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories for more insight). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Carlos, you've convinced me in the error of my ways. Too subjective, not enough definition as to what "Chinese Singaporean" might entail.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46 and Prisencolin: currently there are a whole lot of subcategories, that is why I proposed containerization instead of deletion. Should the subcategories be nominated for deletion too, or should we limit this to containerization of the top category? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All except the emigrants categories should be deleted as NONDEF, etc. "descent" categories. The emigrants categories are both clear in scope and verifiable - and I believe citizenship is defining, therefore change of citizenship brought about by migration across international borders (or overseas) is defining for the individual who actually migrated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPTION B
  • As nominator, I am neutral between option A and B, both are better than the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: There's too much new action being proposed at once. Please propose new deletions in another nomination..--Prisencolin (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Option B follows what Carlos said. I'm fine if you switch back from supporting option B to supporting option A. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I’m not fully understanding what is being proposed. If the proposal is simply to move all articles to subcategories of “Singaporean people of Chinese descent”, then I have no objection to that, although there may be some cases where the ancestral descent (Cantonese, Hokkien, etc.) is unknown. However, if the proposal is to delete “Singaporean people of Chinese descent” entirely, then I disagree unless all other subcategories like “Singaporean people of Indian descent” and “Singaporean people of Malay descent” are also deleted and all articles put into “Singaporean people”. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both option A and option B there would be no article directly in Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent because a large majority of Singaporean people is of Chinese descent anyway, so it is not a defining characteristic. That argument does not apply to people of Indian or Malay descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most egregious situation would be for “Singaporean people of Chinese descent” itself to be deleted and for “Singaporean people of Indian descent”, etc, to remain because this is exactly suggesting that those other people are “deviations from the norm” which, I have said, is a very bad message to send. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a message at all. It is characterising people by what defines them, which is what categories are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why “Singaporean people of Malay descent” is defining but “Singaporean people of Chinese descent” is not, because the difference escapes me. I do not see how an ethnicity ceases to be defining simply because it happens at one point in history to be the majority ethnic group in a country. It is another thing entirely if the argument is that ethnicity as a whole is not defining because it is difficult to determine whether someone belongs to an ethnic group or not (a discussion for another occasion, perhaps), but in that case all ethnicity subcategories need to be deleted. Moreover, even if being of Chinese descent is “not defining” (which I dispute), what would the justification be for deleting, say, “Chinese people of Hakka descent”? The Hakkas as a group do not form a majority of people of Chinese descent. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why there is a choice between option A and option B. The rationale of option B would be that there is no separate Hakka ethnicity in Singapore. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: and how is the latter conclusion reached? It seems counterfactual. Many people in Singapore identify as Hakka, Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew, and so on. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is if there are reliable sources about a Hakka ethnicity etc. in Singapore. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I've come to agree with your opinions on matters regarding categorization but I have to say you do a terrible job at basic google searches, a simple "Hakka people in Singapore" search yields academic journals about the subject e.g. [1] and news articles from Singapore's newspaper of record Straits Times [2].--Prisencolin (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. On Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent, I agree with Jacklee's opinion. If you define one ethnicity, you got to define them all, regardless of the proportion of the ethnicity in the nation. Right now Chinese is the majority, but that doesn't mean that the possibility of Malay being the majority in the future is zero. WP:CRYSTAL here, but if it happens so, doesn't it mean that we will have to go through another round of exercise to reopen this category and delete Category:Singaporean people of Malay descent On the subcategories. Not all Chinese people BLP have their dialect group defined. Even if so, there are some which are unsourced, and worth looking into if the subcategories end up being kept as well. If Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent is to be kept, I suggest keeping the subcategories as well per WP:DIFFUSE. Pulling the articles up to Chinese descent category without checking if the BLPs' dialect groupings are sourced or not will overpopulate the category needlessly. – robertsky (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Given Singapore is actually part of the Malaysian peninsula and not China, I think it's not unreasonable to categorise people by Chinese descent even if a majority are. It wouldn't exactly be obvious to people not in the know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all subgroups unless they are amoung the 55 recognized ethnicities in China, which as far as I can tell the above are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2021 (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:Majorcan Muslims edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Spanish Muslims. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion and upmerging of only entry into "Spanish Muslims". Mallorca was under Muslim rule, as was most of Spain, a lot of it for much longer (though ironically this only entry was born in a Christian Mallorca) - but there aren't categories for Muslims from Granada or Córdoba. This is an acute WP:OVERCAT of location and religion, there are no categories for Mallorcans from any other religion (nor should there be), nor are the larger population of "French Muslims" divided by location (excluding Réunion), or even the huge and diverse population of "Indonesian Muslims" broken down by island. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. In theory there could be Muslim people from the Taifa of Majorca to be categorized separately, but that was a very short-lived state. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Majorcan is not a "nationality" as its parent category suggests. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2021 (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:Catalan Muslims edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Spanish Muslims. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT intersection of region of birth and religion, propose upmerging to Spanish Muslims. Only one of the four people in the category lived in an independent Catalonia, two are modern Spaniards and one lived in a Moorish kingdom. There is no category for the majority of Catalans who are Catholic, nor should there be as that is equally overcategorising. In a European country with a larger Muslim population, France, the only category split by location is for Réunion, an island in the Indian Ocean. Even the largest and most diverse Muslim country, Indonesia, does not divide "Indonesian Muslims" to "Balinese Muslims", "Javan Muslims" Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (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:Archbishops of Salzburg edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one diocese. They are all Roman Catholic. The anchor article is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg. Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2021 (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.

Iranian literature researchers edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In most cases these are not mentioned in the biographical article text, so not WP:DEFINING. Others are WP:SMALLCAT. This is a follow-up to a similar merge at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Category:Sanai Researchers from Iran. Note: I have already added the contents of each category as an entry or list under "See also" in the related articles on the literature topics (early writers). – Fayenatic London 19:28, 21 March 2021 (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:Archbishops of Mexico edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To designate the denomination. To match the Category:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico (city) (which I have boldly created). To disambiguate the city from the state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2021 (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:Gay nobility edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For similar reasons as discussed for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#Category:Gay royalty. Particularly with an historical set, categorising an individual as gay specifically rather than LGBT more broadly is difficult to define. I'm also not sure if nobility is an occupation Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (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:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category no longer populated by the software after gerrit:585519 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like a procedural deletion. This category was populated only by the MediaWiki software, and MW no longer does so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2021 (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:Our Lady of Częstochowa churches in the United States edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:SHAREDNAME Le Deluge (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Request @Le Deluge: Can you please repopulate this category so we can evaluate this nomination? - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. Please do not nominate a category at CFD and then empty it. It wastes everyone's time. If the emptying was done by another editor, my apologies. But this has happened a lot recently. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something, or was it the tail on the third letter? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is 100% a case of shared name. It is not really a de facto ethnic category. I had friends who were immigrants from India who went to such a Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shared names of churches is one of the enumerated examples at WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still fail to see what purpose deleting a category for churches established in the US by poles for polish immigrants serves, established at a time when the more conservative Polish RC adherents actually split off from the Pope over a lack of Polish speaking priests. Many of the articles have left off the tail on the third ę due to an apparent lack of usage of the 'character map' available thru windows. The churches that should be so signified are in this category, i.e Polish churches started at the turn of the 20th century with roots to the The icon of Our Lady of Częstochowa which has been intimately associated with Poland for the past 600 years. (They also still conduct services in Polish)... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to form Category:Churches founded in the United States by Polish immigrants they can procede, but that is a very different category than this one by shared name. There were at least a dozen churches in the city of Detroit that would count as the former in Detroit, none of which fit in this category, unless the Shrine of the Black Madonna has an even more complicated and convoluted history than I realize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I was right Shrine of the Black Madonna of the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church has nothing to do with the Black Madonna of Czestochowa. Instead it was formed by a bunch of extemist activist who subsrived to the false notions of Pan Aficanism. We still suffer from lots of people in Detroit who subsribe to lots of these false notions, and want to teach our children all sorts of false and not supported by records things about the Egyptians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2021 (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 entire Category:Cancer survivors tree edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT and WP:NONDEFINING
We have a categories for people who died from all of these types of cancers so these are the equivalent categories for people that did not die. Part of the problem here is that cancer survivors will eventually die of something, and there's an above average chance that it will be cancer which creates a maintenance issue. These odds vary a lot by cancer type: prostate cancer has a 99% five year survival rate while pancreatic cancer is only 6%. The biggest problem is that Wikipedia is not a medical history of every diseases or ailment (even serious ones) notable people contract in their lives. The category headers encourage only adding articles where this was defining and, while this is often personally defining for people I know, I don't think it's defining from an encyclopedic standpoint. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: If there is a consensus to do so, I would favor deleting many of the cause of death categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a disease does not actually kill someone the definingness of it is not enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & precedent. It's hard to define surviving a disease. We also deleted People with cancer which was where articles were kept until the person either survived 5 years or died and then their article would "move on" to either the deaths from cancer categories or these categories. Of course, that left the messy situation if one survived 4 years with cancer and got hit by a bus...they did survive cancer? Due to the inherent uncertainty, particularly when cancers recur, it's best to delete these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the previous discussions, not defining. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2021 (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:Locations near Mount Everest edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
I can't accuse this category of false advertising: all these mountain peaks are indeed near Mount Everest but they're also in Category:Mountains of the Himalayas. But what qualifies as "near" is subjective and we already have overlapping non-subective categories: Category:Mountains of the Province No. 1 for the Nepalese side of the border and Category:Mountains of Tibet for the Chinese controlled side. In the articles space, we already have List of Himalayan peaks and passes for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no standard defitnition of "near" and any definition we imposed would be arbitrary. Categories need clear definitions, and this is the very definition of lacking one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining, and also "near" is not well defined to have clear inclusion/exclusion. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (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:Ukrainian military formations edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created duplicate of extensive hierarchy at Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine Le Deluge (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is less obvious than it seems because these are military formations consisting of Ukrainian people but not of the Ukrainian state. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2021 (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.

Travancore–Cochin edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to option A, mainly because the head article is still at Travancore–Cochin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming either:
Nominator's rationale: to standardise on either a hyphen or an endash for spelling the Indian state of Travancore–Cochin (1949–1956). I have no preference, and would be happy to standardise on either form.
I created the establishments categories, using the endash per the head article Travancore–Cochin. I then noticed that the parent Category:Travancore-Cochin uses a hyphen.
To standardise the names, I considered speedily renaming the parent per WP:C2D, but it was ineligible for C2D because the head article's move to an endash had not been discussed. Category names usually follow article names, but there was no consensus on the article name, so I opened an RM discussion at Talk:Travancore–Cochin#Requested_move_12_March_2021, in the hope of finding a consensus one way or the other. But consensus there was none ... so I bring this to a full CFD discussion.
As above, I really have no preference either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (use endash) Follow the article is the usual route. Oculi (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2021 (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:Khaganates edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories use Khanate as the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Several other languages' Wikipedias also have both, and it may be helpful to keep the redirect here. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 21 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_21&oldid=1019863402"