Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 24

[edit]

Category:Pages using AM station data without facility ID

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Category:Pages using AM station data without facility ID

Category:Pages using FM station data without facility ID

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Category:Pages using FM station data without facility ID

Category:People with Asperger syndrome

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Category:People with Asperger syndrome

Category:Sam & Cat

[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:iCarly and Category:Victorious. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. Should also be merged to Category:Victorious. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films produced by Thomas K. Gray

[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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: This is a category for films directed by someone who has either never had or no longer has a Wikipedia article about them. It has only one entry for a film from 1993 and a search for additional articles that meet the criteria of this category turned up no results. I would not oppose this category being re-created in the future if Gray produces additional films, but at the present moment this is unhelpful for navigating Wikipedia Vegantics (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2024 (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:Cochise County conflict

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Category:Cochise County conflict

Category:American folklore

[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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a people and non-people category. --woodensuperman 12:14, 24 July 2024 (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:Family of Boris Johnson

[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: keep. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reverse speedy name change. It was an error on my part; I didn't realize that the original version was the correct form. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I would say that the name, for now, should be made consistant with all the other categories and then a later Cfd can be opened with an A and B option for categories like this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the principle of discussing the A and B options; would that be an RfC or can CfDs present two possibilities like that? I've found many more categories to add to Category:Families by person (which has been speedily renamed since earlier in this conversation), and the picture now looks very mixed. Ham II (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. If it is the family of a single notable individual, it should be in the form Family of [person], but if it is the whole family being discussed, is should be [Surname] family. --woodensuperman 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "Family of Boris Johnson" per above, on grammatical grounds & others. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Proposed name sounds awkward and current name is better. It only makes sense to use "X family" if it's just the surname. An ordinary person called John Smith would refer to his family as "the Smith family" and never "the John Smith family". MClay1 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2024 (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:Works about villains

[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 to delete , so rename to Category:Works featuring villain protagonists. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This topic is really vague in the extreme, almost anything can be called a "villain" by someone or characterized as being "about" a villain if they feature heavily in the plot. It doesn't make sense as a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Works with villain protagonists. Looking at one of the articles, I think this is supposed to be about works with a villain as the protagonist, such as Soon I Will Be Invincible. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Works featuring villain protagonists, like the video game subcategory, Category:Video games featuring villain protagonists. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:29, 24 July 2024 (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:Dobrujan Tatar

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 9#Category:Dobrujan Tatar

Category:People from the Savoyard state

[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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison and Marcocapelle: Any compromise here? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Marcocapelle has really excellent and thoughtful points. I think that the current names and the entire tree is a mess. No consensus? I would love for a solution but I think we'd really need to taken the full tree. Mason (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2024 (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:Technology articles with topics of unclear notability

[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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if these are needed as they aren't listed as one of the valid categories in {{Notability}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used by Template:Notability, according to source code. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:04, 25 July 2024 (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:Bombing of the Gaza Strip

[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:Airstrikes during the Israel–Hamas war. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has a lot of overlap with the parent category. I think a better name would be Category:Israeli airstrikes during the Israel–Hamas war, which more closely mirrors sibling categories like Category:American airstrikes during the Syrian civil war Mason (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2024 (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:3-honeycombs by order

[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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly redirects with few unique articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (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:American veterans activists

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Category:American veterans activists


Category:Bedouin businesspeople

[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). Qwerfjkltalk 14:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not necessary to subcategorize the target category this way. Also contains only 2 articles. Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Egyptian businesspeople and Category:Syrian businesspeople, which should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there some benefit to categorising by ethnicity and nationality? Anecdotally, every Bedouin I've ever met would say that they're a Bedouin first and their nationality second. – Joe (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I will nominate Category:Arab businesspeople shortly because it conflates ethnicity and nationality, like so many similar categories that have been brought to CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it conflate them or just set up a parallel scheme for ethnicity, i.e. Category:Businesspeople by ethnicity? Do you also object to Category:African-American businesspeople and Category:Jewish businesspeople? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Jewish businesspeople is a recreation of a previously deleted category, so it is at least controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But it exists now. And Nyttend recently declined a CSD nom with this enlightening edit summary: We're no longer in the same situation as before — the recent "keep" for Jews by occupation (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 26) means that there's recent support for categories of this type, and speedy-deleting just this one would be absurd. I don't have a dog in this fight, but wouldn't it make sense to establish a consensus for or against categories by ethnicity, rather than seeking to delete individual ones here and there? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I can list quite a few reasons for this: Bedouins have a distinct cultural, historical, and social identity within the Arab world. Merging their category into a general "Arab businesspeople" category could be seen as diluting the unique aspects of their cultural heritage. A specific category helps represent their unique challenges and contributions which might not be adequately covered. The Bedouin community has a history of nomadic trade and business practices that differ significantly from other Arab groups. A specific category preserves this historical context. Bedouins have distinct social structures and community dynamics that influence their business practices. Specific business strategies, success stories and challenges faced by Bedouin businesspeople can be studied with the help of a dedicated category. For cultural studies research, having a specific category can help in drawing more nuanced conclusions about the Bedouin way of life and their integration into modern economies. Furthermore, Wikipedia claims to be an inclusive platform representing diverse perspectives and communities. This category aligns with the principle of giving minority groups adequate representation. Merging the category marginalizes the Bedouin community within the larger Arab context.--Simxaraba (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this addresses the small size of the category, and this is just WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several more businessmen that are notable enough to be written about. Just because the category is small at the moment doesn't mean there aren't more. Simxaraba (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete? Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge

Gjs238 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that the originally proposed merge target has been deleted following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:Arab businesspeople.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:26, 24 July 2024 (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:4-polytope stubs

[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:Geometry stubs. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small 26-page stub category on a niche topic. Consider also checking if articles are directly in Category:4-polytopes. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:23, 24 July 2024 (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:Reginar Brussels

[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). Qwerfjkltalk 14:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination of a category which was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 16#History of Brussels by period but was never tagged; I have no opinion on whether this should happen or not. Pinging Marcocapelle. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:20, 24 July 2024 (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:Palestinian bedouins

[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: Reverse merge * Pppery * it has begun... 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Effectively redundant. Will require manual addition of parent categories to the target, for it is a downmerge. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's newer comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (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:Brainwashing theory proponents

[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 (non-admin closure). Qwerfjkltalk 14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whatever the difference is supposed to be between these two categories is beyond me. As far as I can tell, both categories are about people notable for writing works promoting the legitimacy of the sociological concept of brainwashing/mind control (which are more or less the same thing). This just seems like a slightly less neutral version of the other category made by a banned sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete, but only mildly. Mason (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't in the other category. I would rather not have to add them to it manually after the fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2024 (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:Video games with expansion packs

[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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Last year, on May 7, 2023. A similar category "Video games with downloadable content" was deleted, and expansion packs are pretty much the same as downloadable content. In turn, this category is probably non-defining. Expansion packs are as common as DLC, and are essentially the same. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd agree with the nominator - having an expansion pack does not always modify the base game, so it's hard to call it a defining feature. Categories should be defining aspects of the subject, not something tangential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because there are several other potentially non defining categories like "Video games with alternate versions" that I would have put under discussion in the same nomination or whatever. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to note that nom is QuantumFoam66.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's objection seems bizarre. They can just make a followup nom. Mason (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2024 (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.

Museum collections

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Museum collections

Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters

[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 Category:Kingdom Hearts characters to Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over 100 characters from various animated Disney movies, were removed from "Kingdom Hearts characters" about 1 or 2 years ago, also that category contains only 1 article. Also, we have to add an explanation to that category after the merge, since then it would only be for original characters. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Kingdom Hearts characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:03, 24 July 2024 (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:1370 in Brussels

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Category:1370 in Brussels

Category:19th-century feminists

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2#Category:19th-century feminists

Category:Counts of Geneva

[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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category consists of two very different sets of medieval ruling counts of Geneva, who are already in Category:House of Geneva and for early modern members of the House of Savoy for whom this was merely an empty title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At times yes, however the county (-1564 duchy) was under the authority of the cadet branch Savoie-Nemours for the majority of the 16th century and parts of the 17th century, and they were primarily French princes.
      Irrespective of whether they or the dukes of Savoy enjoyed practical control, this surely challenges the notion that it was an 'empty title' and it is therefore meaningful to keep it. sovietblobfish (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:56, 24 July 2024 (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:Villains in mythology and legend

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 1#Category:Villains in mythology and legend

Category:Decades in the Colony of Virginia

[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: keep and let Gonnym work their magic (this is the ping you requested). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categoey lay Mason (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Implement Gonnym's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is @Gonnym willing to fix the template? Mason (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that isn't an issue. Ping me if this closes with that result. Gonnym (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Gonnym or someone else is willing to fix the template, I'm fine with keeping the category. Mason (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2024 (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:Irish blind musicians

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 1#Category:Irish blind musicians

Category:British companies established in 1706

[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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Template:British companies established in the year only works for companies established after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 24 July 2024 (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:Biological literature by Janet Frost

[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). Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories contain two non-notable dissertations that are going to soon be deleted. User who created these has been also indeffed for multiple reasons, including COI and hoax creation. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Every deletion area on Wikipedia has its own rules and quirks. You won't find me at WP:TFD! Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 26 July 2024 (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.