Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#Empty expert subject categories

: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, but the target should be :Category:Women of the Austrian Netherlands within :Category:People of the Austrian Netherlands per consensus at #Spanish Netherlands below. – Fayenatic London 18:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:18th-century Belgian women to :Category:Women from the Austrian Netherlands

:Nominator's rationale: Belgium didnt exist then. Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• As the Oxford English Dictionary puts it: "The name Belgium and related words appear from the 16th cent. in several European languages, including English, as a name for the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary, often in contrast with Batavia". So the word was in use before there was an independent Belgian state, and it is accepted English usage to apply it to "the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support (unless we prefer Hapsburg Netherlands). I looked at OED which gave 3 pre-1815 examples, all for "Belgia". I can myslef attest that the name Belgium occurs in UK Customs Ledgers (in TNA) for United Kingdom of Netherlands after 1815. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

:One of the leading sources on English lexis explicitly states that "Belgium and related words" have for centuries been in English use to refer to the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary. Two minutes on Google turns up three examples of "Belgium" pre-1815, so perhaps the OED actually knows what it's talking about? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

:* It wasn't regularly used, Austrian Netherlands and Southern Netherlands were the more common terms. It is not very helpful to have two category trees largely covering the same topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

::As I've just said in another one of these proliferating discussions (why on earth is there not one central one?) it doesn't really matter how frequently it was used. It was used, and we have the authority of the OED to continue using it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

::* No we do not if that leads to multiple categories with the same or a largely overlapping purpose and just a different name, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. That problem does not happen here yet, but it is part of a broader discussion that is about overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• 'Merge to :Category:People from the Austrian Netherlands. I think this categorization of intersection of polity and sex directly violates ERGS rules. We do not allow it for modern polities, thus :Category:American women is only allowed to have sub-categories and non-biographical articles. I think the same rule should be applied to historical polities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• :I dont understand the point John Pack Lambert is making. There are thousands of articles about American women. Isnt that why the category is sub-divided and containerised? :Category:Women of the Mongol Empire, in contrast, is small and not much subdivided. Most of the subcats of :Category:18th-century women by nationality have plenty of individual articles, and when you go back to :Category:13th-century women by nationality there are barely any subcategories. What are ERGS rules please? Rathfelder (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• :No, the category is containerized because we made a deliberate decision to not categorize people as women directly. ERGS rules say people should only be categorized as women when the intersection is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

:::* If I remember correctly, women categories are only allowed if the genderless parent category is largely diffused and women articles are also in genderless sibling categories (or else, they should also be in the genderless parent category). That would avoid "ghettoization" of women articles. Perhaps WP:GHETTO is an existing link. Yes it is (noticing after preview). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:17th-century British engineers to :Category:17th-century English engineers

:Nominator's rationale: Great Britain did not exist until 1707. Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- fortunately none of the four people were Welsh or Scottish. I have just added a fifth, who was also English. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 18:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:17th-century Flemish physicians to :Category:Physicians from the Spanish Netherlands

:* Propose renaming :Category:Clergy of the Spanish Netherlands to :Category:Clergy from the Spanish Netherlands

:* Propose renaming :Category:Jurists of the Spanish Netherlands to :Category:Jurists from the Spanish Netherlands

:* Propose renaming :Category: Diplomats of the Spanish Netherlands to :Category:Diplomats from the Spanish Netherlands

:* Propose renaming :Category:Musicians of the Spanish Netherlands to :Category:Musicians from the Spanish Netherlands

:* Propose renaming :Category:Writers of the Spanish Netherlands to :Category:Writers from the Spanish Netherlands

:* Propose renaming :Category:Scientists of the Spanish Netherlands to :Category:Scientists from the Spanish Netherlands

:Nominator's rationale: To correct the preposition. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I thought "of" indicated a country category, and "from" was used for towns and cities? Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the renaming of the diplomats. They are diplomats of the country, not just "from" there.Rathfelder (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose all- it's :Category:People of the Spanish Netherlands. I think this is fairly standard for former entities, eg the much-discussed :Category:People of the Russian Empire. Oculi (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:Comment I didn't really tune into the Russian example. The problem is not so much that it is a former entity as that it does not have a convenient demonym. Like Democratic Republic of Congo or Georgia (country). "Of" means that they are officers of state, so I accept the objection to the diplomats nomination; "from" means that they just lived there at that time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:: But you need to start with :Category:People of the Spanish Netherlands as the present names follow (C2C) from this; and that follows eventually from :Category:People by former country which uses 'of' overwhelmingly. So this is indeed standard. Oculi (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose diplomats per Rathfelder. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a useful principle or guidance to cover this? If we can agree a format we can do them all speedily. Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

:* It has never been discussed thoroughly. As mentioned, denonyms did not work well with some (many?) former countries and "of" does not work well with certain occupations (e.g. painters, historians) while it works very well with other occupations (e.g. diplomats, military). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support (except diplomats, where "of" is better). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to think we should follow the example of :Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people by occupation and call them "Spanish Netherlands jurists". "From" is usually used for towns and cities. "Of" gives the impression of some sort of official relationship, like "Bishops of Foo".Rathfelder (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Bishop of Foo is a title. Do glance at :Category:People by former country, of which this is a sub-sub--sub-category. Oculi (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• :Category:People by former country seems to have all three formats. And its not obvious that former countries should have a different format than countries which still exist. I'd be happy to see some clearer principles here, but I dont have any strong preference. Rathfelder (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• 'Of' occurs 149 times versus 14 for 'from' on the page :Category:People by former country; only Rathfelder would argue about this. There was a very long recent cfd followed by a drv which settled on {{cl|People of the Russian Empire}}. The rule is to follow the head local category down (unless there are ambiguities such as 'painters of'). Oculi (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the physicians category, as the current title more accurately reflects ethnicity. 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
• Withdraw nominations per clarification of the standard from {{Ping|Oculi}}. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support all people should be categorized by polities they were connected to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose cat population not necessarily from, but can be of, which is inclusive and appropriate.Djflem (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 18:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:17th-century Belgian Jesuits to :Category:Jesuits of the Spanish Netherlands

:Nominator's rationale: Belgium didnt exist in 17th-century. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alt :Category:Jesuits from the Spanish Netherlands per above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. In this case I am neutral between "of" and "from". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• The Jesuit province was "Belgica", later split into "Flandro-Belgica" and "Gallo-Belgica". So there was a Belgian province even without there being a Belgian state. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

:* This is not a category tree by Jesuit province. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• As the Oxford English Dictionary puts it: "The name Belgium and related words appear from the 16th cent. in several European languages, including English, as a name for the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary, often in contrast with Batavia". So the word was in use before there was an independent Belgian state, and it is accepted English usage to apply it to "the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

:* It wasn't regularly used, Spanish Netherlands and Southern Netherlands were the more common terms. It is not helpful to have two category trees largely covering the same topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

::That's neither here nor there. In the 21st-century English language in which Wikipedia is composed, "Belgium" and "Belgian" can be applied to the historical southern regions of the Low Countries. That makes one nice, neat category tree in which you don't have to worry whether, at any given point in time, a little town in the Low Countries was "Southern" or "Spanish" or "Austrian" or "imperial", etc. It's admirable if somebody wants to make the distinctions with a scalpel, but at the moment they're being made with an axe. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

::* We categorize historical articles by historical polities if these are completely different from current polities. For example we have :Category:Russian Empire, we don't have that merged into :Category:Russia since both the type of government and the geography of the Russian Empire were completely different from what is Russia nowadays. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support In modern usage "Belgium" and "Belgian" refer to the modern nation-state. There are places where use of the term for historical polities works, but in this case it comes off as supporting a Whiggish interpretation of history insisting that what is now is what ought to be. That is the main problem with any category that imposes modern terms on past usage. Scholars when they write about this polity do not use "Belgian". That term is only used by modern scholars to refer to the nation that began in 1830.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Chinese pies}}

:Nominator's rationale: Category with only one unreferenced article since 2009 Spudlace (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:SMALLCAT. The one article, Pamirdin, is already well categorized under both Chinese cuisine and pies. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This category has been emptied when an AFD turned Pamirdin into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 18:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Rogers TV to :Category:Canadian community channels

:Nominator's rationale: Eponymous small category for an entity without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. This was created at a different time in Wikipedia's history, by an editor who thought we needed a separate article about each individual Rogers TV community channel in each individual Rogers Cable market in Canada -- but that's since been pruned, with all of the involved articles either deleted or redirected back to the parent article on the grounds of being virtually unsourceable. Meaning all that's left now is the two-headed Rogers TV (English)-TV Rogers (French) eponym, one differently-branded channel in which Rogers TV is a part owner, and the subcategory for "original programming" that I've listed for discussion below. This isn't enough anymore. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There may be some confusion about the meaning of WP:DEFINING; something can be a defining aspect of the topic's history without necessarily being a ground of notability. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Rogers TV original programming to :Category:Canadian community channel television shows

:Nominator's rationale: Of just nine shows in this category, three have had to be put up for AFD as unsourced and virtually unsourceable -- and of the remaining six, five derive their notability not from airing on Rogers TV per se, but from getting promoted to a conventional television network after premiering as a local public access show, meaning they're not all that strongly defined by their public access histories per se. (And even the one that didn't get taken over by a real television network was still part of a multimedia franchise with other non-Rogers iterations, and thus still isn't notable because it aired on Rogers TV per se.) And for added bonus, all nine of the articles here were left in the target category alongside this -- which reveals the distinction failure when you realize that there are only five other non-Rogers articles in the parent category, and two of those had to be listed for AFD too.
Community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) programming is rarely notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at all, so there just aren't enough genuinely notable community channel shows to warrant subcategorizing them for whether the particular community channel in question was Rogers or Shaw or Cogeco or Eastlink or Maclean-Hunter. With just fourteen articles between the two categories, of which five have had to be listed for deletion and a couple more are still questionable, there's just no pressing need for two separate categories here. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. These "original programming" categories are meant for TV programs which originally aired on that channel or network. It matters not if it become later notable on a different network or even a different country. If any article is not notable then that should be handled in AfD. If any article is placed in an incorrect category, such as in another "original programming" category, that should be fixed. But regardless, if there are programs that belong in this category, it should be kept. --Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

::Rogers TV is a public access channel, not a significant TV service for the purposes of caring whether it was the originating broadcaster. Exactly zero of these shows would ever have been notable at all if they had only ever aired on Rogers TV — they are all notable only because they got picked up as real commercial productions by real commercial networks later on, so originating on Rogers TV is not a defining or significant fact. The general fact that they originated as public access programming is significant; the particular public access channel that they happened to originate on is not. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: SNOW keep Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

{{coltop}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Academic Journals articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Aircraft articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Airport articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Alternative Views articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|American television articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Animation articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Asian Americans articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Assyria articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Astronomical objects articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Australian history articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Australian rules football articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Aviation/Aviation accident task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Backpacking articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Bahamas articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Bangladeshi Universities articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Basque articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Beauty Pageant articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Bengal articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Boston articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|British crime articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Burkina Faso articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Calvinism articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Capital District articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Cardiology articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Central America articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Chemical and Bio Engineering articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Christian theology articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Colorado articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Comedy articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Computer networking articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Cooperatives articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Costa Rica articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Croatia articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|CSI franchise articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Dallas articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Derbyshire articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Deserts articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Devon articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Dogs articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Earthquakes articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Eastern Europe articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Eastern Orthodox Church articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Ecuador articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Election articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Eurovision articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Extinction articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Fiji articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Fire Service articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Fish articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Gastroenterology articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Greenland articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Guyana articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Heraldry and vexillology articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Hinduism/Shaivism articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Historical information articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|History of photography articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Horror articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Horticulture and Gardening articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Hospitals articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Indian literature articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Information technology articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Interfaith articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|International development articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Internet culture articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Iowa articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Jainism articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Java articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Kayaking articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Kent articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Korea/Popular culture articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Latinos articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Lighthouses articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Lists articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|London Transport articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Louisville articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Manitoba articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Marxism articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Mass spectrometry articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Massachusetts articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Mauritania articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Medicine/Pathology task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Medicine/Radiology task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Metal articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Miami articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Military history/World War II task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Mississippi articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Mixed Drinks articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Montenegro articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Mozambique articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|National Health Service articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Neopaganism articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|New Jersey articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Non-tropical storms articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|North Carolina articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Novels/Fantasy task force articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Nursing articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Oceania articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Oman articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Opera articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Paranormal articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Pennsylvania articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Philosophy/Ancient articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Philosophy/Language articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Philosophy/Logic articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Philosophy/Philosophers articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Philosophy/Social and political philosophy articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Phonetics articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Politics/Political parties articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Primates articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Professional wrestling articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Punk music articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Qatar articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Radio station articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Rational Skepticism articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Rocks and minerals articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Role-playing games articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Salaf articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|San Francisco Bay Area articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Saskatchewan articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|School Years articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Science fiction articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Seattle articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Senegal articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Sex work articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Sexology articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Shi'a Islam articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Shopping Centers articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Sindh articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Soap opera articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Social movements articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Soil articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Solar System articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Somalia articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Songs articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Spirits articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Spirituality articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Squash articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Switzerland articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Television stations articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Textile Arts articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Thelema articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Theoretical Linguistics articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|U.S. Presidents articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|U.S. Streets articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|UK Parliament constituencies articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|University of Virginia articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Venezuela articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Veterinary medicine articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Volcanoes articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Warwickshire articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Western New York articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Wikipedia articles needing expert attention‎}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Yorkshire articles needing expert attention‎}}

{{colbot}}

:Nominator's rationale: All of these categories are empty. There is no need to keep around a bunch of empty maintenance categories, many of which are likely to remain empty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Question: why is it likely that they will remain empty? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong objection The fact that they may be empty most of the time is the whole point of the {{tl|Possibly empty category}} template that is part of the {{tl|Expert subject category}} template. WikiProjects depend on a whole slew of hidden maintenance categories to maintain their associated pages. Do you not think that even though a maintenance category is empty for years, it may be important for that WikiProject to know when an article is in need of expert attention? How do you propose to notify the WikiProject when an article is in need of expert attention? The necessity of these categories should be left up to the individual WikiProjects. There is no harm in leaving a {{tl|Hidden category}} exist even it is empty most of the time. The typical reader will never notice a hidden category. Hidden maintenance categories are part & parcel of the maintenance of Wikipedia. Peaceray (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Fully agree with Peaceray. --Bduke (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong objection As it says on the pages {{tq| This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time.}} These are maintenance categories, and are around for a reason as stated by Peaceray above. --SuperJew (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• It's a good thing that they are empty. Rathfelder (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, being empty merely means that at present there are no {{tl|expert needed}} templates sorted into the "articles needing expert attention‎" maintenance categories for those projects, a condition that is constantly in flux. In my experience, expert needed is not a very effective cleanup template, but unless we're getting rid of it, or getting rid of these WikiProjects, we shouldn't get rid of the associated categories. Worldbruce (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Per others. Also, why only these? The proposer has offered no evidence as to how many other similar categories are busy just now, or what the article turnover is. The fact that these are all empty suggests strongly that both they and the project members are doing a good job. Don't get in their way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. per pretty much everything above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous comments. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Everyone else has pretty much summed it up.★Trekker (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Snow keep. This was obviously a nomination undertaken without doing adequate background research. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 23:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Sure, go ahead and delete all 157 of those categories. And then does {{U|LaundryPizza03}} propose to monitor all those topic areas and then notify the relevant editor(s) when their help is needed? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• :Could you clarify your proposition? If these categories aare deleted and then become populated, just recreate them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

::*This tells people that those categories should exist. That they should be used. Their existence is a hint. Remove them and that business will be done... wherever. Without centrality. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. --evrik ^(talk) 03:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, would keep most of the categories, although no objection to deleting the Dogs articles needing expert attention. Rytyho usa (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Good faith but stupid mistake: Nominator did not read the notice on the categories. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• {{ping|Invasive Spices}} Regardless of how this came to be, please don't call someone "stupid." See WP:IUC. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

::*That’s obviously not what I said. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Those maintenance categories are semi-automatic parts of the tagging and assessing process of various WikiProjects and thus a fixture with permanent purpose regardless of currently being empty. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per everyone above. The whole point of these maintenance categories is to have a process in place to alert WikiProjects when articles need the attention of editors with expertise in a given subject area. They are often empty, which is a good thing, but we still need them around for procedural reasons. This was not a well thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• SNOW close this (do we really need to wait 7 days?) nom as an error. These cats should be kept, as clearly explained by alll the opposers above. - wolf 03:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The statement on the top of these pages "Administrators: Please do not delete this category even if it is empty!" suggests these should remain, even if empty. --- FULBERT (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Dogs articles needing expert attention. The category is empty because WP:DOGS has dealt with those placed in WP:DOGS articles. They did not need an expert, they needed to WP:CITE WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. With that in place, there is no need for experts. This is an encyclopedia, and not a domain for dog experts. William Harris (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Dogs articles needing expert attention, it is no value to WP:WikiProject Dogs. We have enough sources written by experts, we just need more time or editors to work through the backlog of articles requiring attention. Cavalryman (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC).
• Procedural comment, I have taken the liberty to move the comments about the dogs category to this separate subsection. I will also redirect the tag on the dogs category page to this section. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

----

: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.