Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who wish Ched would come back[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) 20:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category no longer serves a purpose given that Ched has returned to active editing. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means delete. Didn't know I was missing. — Ched (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is my all-time favorite CFD nom. Finally, a happy ending! - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 18 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:Lists of Members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority[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 - jc37 09:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Replace capital "M" with lowercase "m". Category names should follow sentence case as much as possible. Woko Sapien (talk) 21:11, 17 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:National symbols of the Republic of China[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. Note: I will also set up Category:National symbols of the Republic of China (1912–1949) (within Category:Republic of China (1912–1949)). – Fayenatic London 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per common name. Republic of China should be reserved only for historical events between 1912 and 1950 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:14, 17 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:Bishops by country[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: withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: these categories were never tagged for the full discussion, but only for the speedy. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These follow the decision in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_28#Category:Bishops_by_nationality where it was decided to move all bishop categories from nationality (which is ambiguous - is it the nationality of the individual or the see?) to country but were opposed at Speedy. All these categories, as far as I can see, are populated by bishops in their native countries. Those with non-native incumbents will need further discussion, but the proposal was to categorise them as Fooish priests where that was appropriate if their diocese was not in Foo. Rathfelder (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I doubt whether Rathfelder has checked all the articles in Category:Argentine bishops including the subcategories (hundreds of articles). I expect Rathfelder would like to rename Category:Argentine popes to 'Popes in Argentina'. (Of course the nationality of a cleric is important - this is not either/or as we can have both.) Oculi (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bishops operate in a national territory, regardless of their own nationality. Popes dont. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bishops should be categorized by nationality. We can create seperate categories for location of service, but that is a seperate issue. This is also way to broad a set of categories to group together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should stop placing categories for those who served as bishops of specific diocese as sub-categories of categories by nationality. Category:Albanian bishops should include all Albanians who served as bishops, without regard to where they were bishops, but exclude all non-Albanians who served as bishops in Albania. The same with the Lutheran bishops categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision has been made that bishops are to be categorised by the country of their diocese, not by nationality of the bishop. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop spouting lies. That was not a decision, that was a running roughshop over any and all objections to reimaging Wikipedia by a small group of editors who ignored the actual contents at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per consistency with Category:People by occupation and nationality and the rest of the categories in the tree. In all fairness to the previous discussion, I don't think it represents a widespread consensus to rename all these categories. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous "decision" was a small minority of editors trying to impose their own idiosincratic reimaging of categories without broad discussion or concensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous decision was implemented with reckless disregard for the likes of Michael Banach, someone who holds the rank of bishop but has never held an actual bishop's office and instead has been Papal Nuncio to multiple countries. Banach is clearly American, but was not bishop there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In this case my biggest objection is procedural. There are too many categories grouped together. I can see case by case arguments for repurposing some of these categories. However in some of those I think splitting is better. For example my guess is that Category:Estonian Lutheran Bishops is going to bring up 4 issues. 1-do we want to group together in 1 occupational category nationals of the nation state Estonia which only has existed in 1918-1940 and 1991-the present with ethnic Estonians no matter when or where they lived? 2- are we willing to compromise with the de facto treatment of Estonia as a quasi state from 1941-1991, ignore the large often transient population from elsewhere in the Soviet Union, and back categorize? 3- do we want to group all Lutheran bishops who served in Estonia, many of whom in the earliest centuries were probably ethnic Swedes, especially when the area was under Swedish control. At what point does conflating nationality and ethnicity into one category become anachronistic, and at what point do we draw lines? At what point do we draw lines against use at the time? These are complex questions and to date they have been too rarely discussed, and in general there has been an imposition of the view of 19th and 20th century nationalists even when it does violence to the way historic people viewed themselves. The holding to as clunky names to identify past countries subjects as possible does not help the situation. My view is that we really need to limit by occupation and nationality categories much more to the intersection of the two than we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record I think Category:Albanian bishops should be limited to bishops who in some ways were nationals of the modern nation state of Albania. We should not be putting in one by nationality category what in theory could end up being people from at least 4 nations. Those would be Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Montenegro. This is assuming we will exclude those of Albanian descent from the US, Australia and many other countries. Unless we want this to be bishops by ethnicity?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Each of these nominations really needs to be a separate one with separate discussion. For example what is up with the proposed 17th-century bishops in Albania? Is there even an Albania in the 17th-century for a bishop to serve in? In the 17th-century Albania was under Turkish rule. It was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. There was no unit of the Ottoman Empire that corresponded to modern Albania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:17th-century Albanian bishops and instead categorize these bishops as Category:17th-century bishops from the Ottoman Empire, or with other relevant intersection categories for the actual nation state they were subjects of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I have read through the odd category 17th-century Albanian bishops. This is a mess and we really need to apply more non-nationalistic scholarship to the whole matter. One of the men was a native of Turin who probably at best was an Italian or Savoian expatriate in the Ottoman Empire. 2 of them seem to have been part of an armed revolt against Ottoman rule, which seems to indicate they were Otyoman subjects. People who revolt against a given rulership are still under it a d subjects of it. A few more our current articles are so colored by post-1878 nationalism it is hard to tell. Another is categorized with the Republic of Venice and another with the Republic of Ragusa. Another we have no info on his origins at all. However this srt served in at least two bishopric and there is no clear evidence that they should be grouped together at all. I would say as a first step we should delete the category totally as anachronistic step retroactively assuming the boundaries drawn in the 1910s have some intrinsic value. Wikipedia needs to stop doing Whiggish history. We need to stop anachronism. We need to really reconsider how many articles we have that POV push a certain nationalist agenda and support founding myths of various countries instead of reflecting the reality of good scholarship. It is past time we stopped having articles saying "x was an important freedom fighter". At this point I think we are best categorizing the people in this category by the specific diocese they served in. The other possibility would be to figure out a greater than diocese level grouping that existed in the Catholic Church in the 17th-century for them. What we should not do is group 17th-century bishops by boundaries drawn in the 20th-century. This is all the more so considering how contested the process of actually drawing those boundaries was in the 20th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the other hand with Category:Argentine bishops, [:Category:Mexican bishops]], Category:American bishops, Category:Peruvian bishops,and Category:Columbian bishops, for sure, and maybe some others I would use the following strategy. A- I think it is worth debating whether we should have trans-deniminational bishop groupings at all. Bishop H. David Burton is a case I can think of really fast who is clearly notable as a bishop, and yet some would question if he was a bishop in the sense meant here. So would some say about thousands of Pentecostal bishops, when worldwide Pentecostals rival the number of Catholics. I can point out other cases where bishop is used in a different way, and considering some Episcopalian dioceses have under 2000 members and one the Diocese of Northern Michigan has less than 500 attendees in all parishes, while many Catholic dioceses exceed 1 million members, some of the notions we keep to about uniformity and all bishops being notable begin to be suspect. Something is clearly off when we have thousands of articles on bishops sourced to only one directory style blog. Hmm this is a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am starting to think that we need to abandon the by nationality bishops categories but keep them in the case of some denominations. We also need to avoid pre-reformation general bishops categories and post reformation categories being conflated. The issue is that bishop is a title that in the end is tied to a particular denomination and philosophy. Too long Wikipedia has taken the POV that Amish, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Pentecostals are wrong in how they use the term and Catholics, Orthodox Christian's and high church Protestants who use it similarly are right. The way this was justified has been claiming the later are way more numerous than the former, but this is only possible because Pentecostals largely coming from the global south, the poor and ethnic minorities can be ignored, not because their numbers are really small enough to ignore. The problem with the current situation is seen when we look at what point t comes under Category:American bishops. Some are also under Category:Bishops in the United States. We have several Anglican bishop categories, the largest connected to the Protestant Episcopal Church covers an almost all American body where even among those bishops that were not serving in the US a majority were American. The best way to handle this category to keep down category clutter is to categorize them by denomination. The same applies to at least some Lutheran categories. On the other hand the Roman Cathlic Church is a truly trans-national body. There it makes sense to categorize bishops by both nationality and place of service. We can basically create categories per diocese and then group dioceses by location, so any one bishop will be in say in Category:American Roman Catholic bishops and Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Salt Laje City. I am not sure what to do about auxiliary bishops.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The large majority of bishops, at least in established churches, serve in their native countries. If categorised by diocese that links them to their country and trying to run country and nationality separately has led to chaos because editors often assume that nationality refers to the nationality of the diocese, not of the individual bishop. I agree that bishops need to be anchored in their denomination, but I dont see that Wikipedia has authority to decide whether such titles are legitimate. Rathfelder (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment United Methodist Church needs to be treated in the same way as Catholics. While that Church began as an essentially American body, the majority of its members now live outside the US. In that case I am not sure we have enough articles to justify by diocese categories. I think having both Category:American United Methodist bishops and United Methodist bishops in the United States is going to be worth it so we avoid putting an American who served as bishop in Angola in Category:Angolan United Methodist bishops when Category:United Methodist bishops in Angola is all that really applies.
  • Comment From a historical perspective I think in the cases of the US, Brazil, Argentina, Colimbia for sure, and probably cases like Peru and Mexico we should only apply Category:American bishops, Category:Argentine bishops etc. To those who served as bishops after independence. With the US I think this will be fairly easy since I am fairly sure that no Church appointed bishops in the 13 colonies. Even in Sana Fe there was not if I remember correctly a bishop until 1850. Louisiana had a bishopric before purchase. We also need to exclude European expatriates from this category. A good example of why is Louis William Valentine DuBourg. Yes he was head of the Catholic Church in Louisiana for 13 years, but he then returned to France and was bishop there the rest of his life. He would always have been described and viewed as a French priest or bishop, no one would have ever described him as an American born in France. He was a French expatriate in the US. Yes Archbishop Hughes and others would have been described as immigrants to the US. Both exist, but one is not the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to withdraw these nominations for the time being. I think we need to devise a way of handling the conflict between nationality and location for clergy which is less ambiguous and commands general agreement. I entirely agree that clergy - and probably other occupations - should be put in categories that reflect the country as it was when they were there. I created Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in New Spain, Category:17th-century Roman Catholic bishops in New France and Category:17th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Holy Roman Empire to try to deal with this issue. I'd like to know whether you think this works, and please correct anything I've got wrong, as the historical geography of eastern Europe is very confusing. Rathfelder (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close and renominate in parts – This might in the light of previous discussions have been uncontroversial. However there are several problems with it:
    • Bishops in countries that did not yet exist: before 1912 for Albania; and 1918 for Estonia (though we may treat Estonia SSR as the same country).
Albania appears to have existed in some sense under the Ottoman Empire. Albania under the Ottoman Empire. The question of whether a country existed is often complex. Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to make this American-centric but the U.S. has a history of foreign-born clergy serving in the country. When I was doing my research in the early 2000s, 24% of American clergy were born outside the U.S. and while these priests are usually not elevated to bishops or archbishops it has happened, especially in the 19th century. Would an Irish-born archbishop serving in New York, who became a U.S. citizen at 40 years of age, be an Irish archbishop or an American archbishop? I don't think they should be classified as a "Missionary priest" even though this is exactly what they are in this example.
This issue much have come up before with other occupational categories. CFD is a pretty idiosyncratic place but precedence rules here. How has it been settled with other professions? Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know of any other occupation where people are allocated territory by a supranational organisation. But dont forget that to say a person is "from" somewhere is always ambiguous. Most biographies are categorised as "Workers from somewhere". That somewhere may well be in a country different from the subjects nationality. And very few biographies say anything explicit about the subject changing nationality. I've worked through several thousand articles about clergy and not a single one has said anything explicit about nationality when the subject moved between countries.Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my mind about all this. I think we should exploit the ambiguity of nationality. If we characterise bishops by nationality, so for each country there is a category of Fooish bishops, then we can have a subcategory of Bishops in Foo - where not all the individual bishops will personally be Fooish - if its needed. Those in the superior category will be the Fooish bishops who served somewhere else. The Bishops in Foo can be subcategorised by diocese in Foo. The migrant bishops will be categorised as Fooish bishops but also as Bishops in Bar. If we go about it like that perhaps we only need one superior category - Bishops by nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Bishops shouldn't be categorized by nationality! For what reason? Are we partisans of identity politics? No, we are non-partisan at Wikipedia, we need no nationalist spectacles and supporting actions. --Just N. (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isnt a clear distinction between categorisation by country and nationality in practice. Both terms are a bit ambiguous, and many categories of Fooish people actually include many people who do not appear to be of Fooish nationality. Not that most articles say anything explicit about nationality. Bishops in Foo is less ambiguous. In these categories there is little difference. Almost all the Albanian bishops were bishops in Albania. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the CFD precedent on "Bishops by nationality" (linked above) is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_18#Category:Roman_Catholic_bishops_by_nationality and may end up being relisted. – Fayenatic London 12:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: the DRV noted above ended with "relist". The relisting is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 4 May 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:Planters[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 Category:Plantation owners. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too ambiguous, the article here (Planters) is about the company while Commons:Category:Planters is about the objects that you grow things in such as flower pots and Planter is a DAB page. There was discussion at Talk:Planters on renaming the article and the company was accidentally added to this category, see User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 059#Automatic category adding. The Commons category is at Commons:Category:Plantationers so Category:Plantationers is another option. The usual rule is the a category is as ambiguous as in articles space such as Category:Rothwell/Category:Rothwell, West Yorkshire or more so such as Plymouth/Category:Plymouth, Devon. The sub categories can be nominated for speedy renaming after this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 17 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:Novels by John Green (author)[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 Rename - jc37 09:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: John Green is releasing his first nonfiction book, The Anthropocene Reviewed (book). It seems silly for this to not be included in a category with all of his other books, but since it is not a novel, it either needs to be excluded from this category or we can change the name to "Books by John Green (author). Cerebral726 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rename would imply re-parenting and re-parenting would mean removing these novels from the tree of Category:American novels, that is a bit odd. Perhaps instead add a link to the non-fiction book in the header of the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. No cat reparenting. Seems like nominator might withdraw. --Just N. (talk) 21:13, 23 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:Ion Television subchannel-only affiliates[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 (Do not have as separate) - jc37 14:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge: Consistent with related categories Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No other American television network has a separate subcategory to segregate the "subchannel-only" affiliates from the "#.1" affiliates, and Ion has no unique need of special treatment on this basis. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Are there any good reasons for such an exception? Probably no. --Just N. (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearcat and Justus Nussbaum: please clarify whether you have a rationale to delete (i.e. remove the contents altogether from this hierarchy), or intended to support the merge as nominated. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 12 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.

Squatting by country[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 and purge. There are currently 4 articles for the Philippines; none of the others contain more than 3. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT — there are too many subcategories of Category:Squats by country with 3 or fewer articles and too few articles in the parent Category:Squats. Several subcategories can be dual-merged to the corresponding subcat of Category:Squatting by country where applicable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all of these squatting articles per WP:SMALLCAT and nom Shushugah (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Per WP:SMALLCAT "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time" - many of the cats have been recently created as a part of a WP:SQUAT project drive to create "Squatting in X" pages. It makes sense to categorise squats by country and the categories have realistic potential for growth; it does not make sense to have Category:Squats with 100 entries. Mujinga (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to that. There are 55 pages currently that do not exist in a Category with 9 more siblings (so excluding Italy, US, UK, Netherlands, Germany), which seems low enough to keep within Category:Squats. If they were recently created, that does change my view.
Another option would be to categorize them by continent. Generally though, what's the criteria/rule to create a category? If there are 2 or more articles? WP:SMALLCAT does explicitly state that small categories can exist, if it's a structured schema, which countries certainly are. Shushugah (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup many are recently created and to be honest I'd rather have help filling out the categories than be discussing their deletion. But each to their own and we all see things differently; I'll just say that it's helpful for me to have things categorised by country as I compile more "Squatting in X" articles ... Squatting in South Korea dropping next. Mujinga (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could an article be written about it? If so, I suggest one be written and then put in the category. If not, it may not be notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd point, there already is an article about it. Mujinga (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The exception in WP:SMALLCAT for "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" does not apply when the whole tree is anemic. Also purge unrelated articles, as appropriate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks for the comments, seems like here is the best place to centralize a rather sprawling discussion which also encompasses Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Marcocapelle are you suggesting that categories should have five items minimum? I could see the merit in that but I don't see it in the policy. Three seems reasonable to me and would include most of these cats. But then we get into specifics, for example Category:Squats in Czech Republic is (I would say) unlikely to increase from three items in the short term, but it seems much more logical to me to have Klinika, Ladronka and Squat Milada easily linked than those three items dumped amongst a 100+ items in Category:Squats. However, most of the other "Squats in X" categoires will be expanding in the short term, especially majority world ones, and people are welcome to help with that. Remember also that as already explained, "Squats in X" is a subcategory of "Squatting in X". I am currently working on and expanding these categories, so for me it would be better to keep them and expand them like this (hence my appeal to SMALLCAT), otherwise I'll be fored to keep offwiki notes and that doesn't seem as easy for workflow. I'm happy to follow policy but then we need to discuss policy with examples, RevelationDirect saying the whole tree is anemic without justification makes me wonder how much you have looked into this, i'd be happy to discuss specific examples. I'll answer to Carlossuarez46 above. Mujinga (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to realize that the category information is not lost, since all the articles are still retained in Category:Squats. So there is no reason to keep track of anything offwiki. Even if a country would reach e.g. 10 articles and you would not realize this it would not harm to still have them in Category:Squats. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply, you misunderstood my point I think. I don't see the use in having Category:Squats filled with over 200 squats (not 100!), which is what would happen if we emptied all the subcats into it. I'm currently building these categories so would need to keep track of which squat is in which country, having thought about it more I don't need to do it offwiki, I could do it in a table on WP:SQUAT, to me it still makes sense to use categories to do this. And breaking things down by country seems useful. Maybe you didn't see it, I asked you below if there was a policy guideline backing your suggestion to categorise 5 items or more .. to me 3 or more seems adequate, but I looked and couldn't find a guideline on that specific point. Mujinga (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most, but purge -- The normal minimum is 5 articles per category. However none of the categories seems to have a main article; in some cases (e.g. Luxembourg) the article does not mention squatting. In others it may have been a short-lived event that is clearly a NN aspect of the building's history. The Pakistan item is about a whole town. In it and other third world countries there may be informal settlements, whose status is problematic: a landlord may well be collected ground rents, but the settlement may be without government authorisation. Possibly this is a case for merger by continent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. For some reason referenced info was deleted from Orangi Town, i've re-added it and the relevant bit is "The Orangi area was the largest squatter settlement in Karachi at the time". When it's an area that is squatted (and often informal settlements start off squatted) then I think it's better to use Category:Squatting in X than Category:Squats in X, so I've changed it. Is there a guideline on this five article per category thing? Someone else mentioned it being as well, but I still haven't found the guideline. And as explained already I'd rather have 3 members if there must be a minimum, I'll don't see the advantage of placing them all into Category:Squats. ::* I'm not sure why you say none of these cats don't have an article, the hierarchy is Category:Squatting in X with the subcat Category:Squats for specific squats, so then the article would be Squatting in X. For the Pakistan cats I don't mind if they're deleted, I can recreate them if necessary when I make Squatting in Pakistan. For the others well there are already Squatting in X pages eg Squatting in Australia Squatting in the Czech Republic, Squatting in Norway, other are coming soon, it's a current project and the overall page is Squatting. There's plenty of sources for informal settlements in the majority world being squatted, see for example Squatting in Zimbabwe Mujinga (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in some cases (e.g. Luxembourg) the article does not mention squatting." - I just wanted to check that, Kulturfabrik Esch-sur-Alzette does mention it was squatted then legalized. Mujinga (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RevelationDirect and WP:SMALLCAT. Maybe merger by continent would be suitable? --Just N. (talk) 21:21, 23 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:Squatting in Zimbabwe[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: selective merge for now as there are fewer than five articles for which squatting is WP: DEFINING. No prejudice against re-creation when there are five or more. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only article is Epworth, Zimbabwe, a town with a large squatting community. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further explanation elsewhere. Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, meanwhile many articles have been added for which squatting is not a defining characteristic. If after purging the category is small again, support merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested which articles you mean to purge, as part of the ongoing process of filling out these newly created categories, I've added squatted informal settlements and Operation Murambatsvina in which 700,000 squatters were evicted. Mujinga (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that depends on your perspective, I see squatting on a global perspective. There's plenty of reliable sources referring to squatting at Squatting in Zimbabwe Mujinga (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the deletion of squatting categories began with LaundryPizza03 doing a masspurge despite me asking them to stop and discuss. Fayenatic london has now broken the existing hierarchy by merging Squats in X into Squats despite nobody telling me why a three item category is not acceptable. Now we are discussing whether to merge a cat with seven items, I must say this is becoming bizarre. What's most irritating is that people aren't looking at the sources at all, that should be step number one, otherwise it's just opinions being spouted and there seems to be a general ignorance that of the fact many places in the majority world begin/swell as squatted informal settlements, which much more of a defining characteristic than being "about squatting". Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 12 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:Squatting in Sweden[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 21:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only article is Norra Sorgenfri, which mentions a squat that happened in this neighborhood. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further explanation elsewhere. Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreation of the category when we have 5 articles defined by this characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to the outcome of the main nomination above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Being an informal settlement for perhaps 18 months is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 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:Squatting in South Korea[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 21:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles, both of which are squats. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:51, 17 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:Squatting in Ghana[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:Squats per the main discussion above. The two locations are mentioned in the new article Squatting in Ghana, which will be moved instead to Category:Squatting by country. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only article is Agbogbloshie, where squatting is incidental to the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further explanation elsewhere. Mujinga (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, article does not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to the outcome of the main nomination above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow -- perhaps "Shanty towns". This is a slum, but it is not clear from the article that the occupants are squatters. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 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:Squatting in Peru[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, moving San Juan de Miraflores, Villa María del Triunfo and Villa El Salvador to Category:Shanty towns in South America (per Squatting in Peru – but the reason for the category needs to be documented in each article). The main article goes instead to Category:Squatting by country. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only article other than main is Villa El Salvador, which does not mention squatting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:44, 17 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:Squatting in Nigeria[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. Makoko has also been added, which may be appropriate, and Lagos, which IMHO is not. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only articles are Squatting in Nigeria and Somolu, the latter of which is about a subdivision of Lagos where squatting is a major issue. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:42, 17 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:Squatting in Malaysia[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 21:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, both of which are places with squatter communities. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a good rationale, Category:Squats is for specific squats, areas where squatting occurred are better listed under a "Squatting in X" category. Further explanation below at Category:Squatting in Chile Mujinga (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreation of the category when we have 5 articles defined by this characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to the outcome of the main nomination above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 19 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:Squatting in Ireland[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 21:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User:Mujinga belatedly suggested on my talk page that Category:Squatters' movements would be a more appropriate merge target than Category:Squatters. I agree, and will amend the outcome accordingly. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: Only article is Dublin Housing Action Committee, which is about a protest group who squatted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hierarchy as it stands is "Squats in X" for individual squats in an individual country, "Squatters" for people who squat, "Squatting in X" for things related to the phenomenon such groups, zones, laws, books etc etc Mujinga (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to the outcome of the main nomination above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 19 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:Squatting in Chile[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: purge and merge. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. The sole member is Massacre of Puerto Montt, where squatting was incidental to the event and is mentioned only in passing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT: "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". Squatting was not incidental to the event, which was the eviction of the squat. I've added Anarchism in Chile and Squatting in Chile will be added soon. There is a current drive to create "Squatting in X" pages and as part of the WP:SQUAT hierarchy of categorisation we have the cat "Squatting in X" with "Squats in X" as a subcat. This makes sense for general navigation I think and asked the nom to pause the deletion proposals so I could explain this. Mujinga (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge the Anarchism in Chile article. Merge to Category:Squatting per WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreation of the category in de we have 5 articles defined by this characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks that's an interesting idea about 5, I would be ok with 3, but is there a policy guideline on this because I haven't seen it (sorry I wanted to centralize discussion above but I think this is really worth discussing and don't want it to get lost) Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 19 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:Geographical naming agencies in Australasia[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 - jc37 09:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough of these agencies to subcategorize by continent or region, so I suggest upmerging (to the category that I just created). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 17 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:Recipients of the House Order of Hohenzollern[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. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The House Order of Hohenzollern was general purpose award from Prussia and the reasons for issuing include being a member of the Hohenzollern, being a prominent teacher, and George V for some reason. The overwhelming majority receiving it as soldiers in WWI either because they were prominent during that war like the Red Baron or young soldiers who didn't become prominent until WWII like Hermann Göring. Across all the types of recipients, the award is usually mentioned in passing and doesn't seem defining. I created a collapsible list right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 17 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:Recipients of the Empress of India Medal[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. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD approaching WP:TRIVIALCAT)
Queen Victoria was pronounced "Empress of India" in 1877 and the Empress of India Medal was created as a one-time award as part of the celebration. According to that main article, "the medal was awarded in gold to Indian princes and senior officials, and in silver to selected British and Indian officers and civilians, as well as a selected soldier from each British and Indian regiment serving in India at the time". There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 17 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://acceptablelobster.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_17&oldid=1023022930"