< February 8
February 10 >

February 9

Category:Princes of Scotland

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) 00:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much the same category but named differently. I initially wanted to change it to match the article but discovered it already existed. Also will avoid confusion with Category:Scottish princes. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A careful reading of the article reveals that (before the 14th century) there were Princes of Scotland who were not also Great/High Steward (and vice versa). Though it makes obvious sense for Prince and Great Steward of Scotland to be one article, I'm not yet convinced the categories can be merged wholesale. DBD 20:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DBD, I would note that the title is held concurrently by the heir to the Scottish throne which is the Category:Dukes of Rothesay. So its pretty much covered by both the "Dukes" one and the "Lord high stewards" one. And, as for leaving it at "Princes of Scotland", that is covered by Category:Scottish princes. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2025 (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:International airports by country

Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Category:International airports in India and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Category:International airports. Gray eyes (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the rationale is weak to me (decisions from 14 years ago?) and I disagree with the idea that international airports aren't defining. I certainly don't want to have look through dozens of aerodromes to find international airports. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale still stands firm in my opinion. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge All "international airports" are airports. No need to have an overly specific and confusing category. That does not help our readers because they need to know the difference while airports can also change status. The Banner talk 23:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose And thank you for the relist HouseBlaster. The nominator references outcomes of 14 year old deletion discussions about a catch-all category "International Airports", and a specific category "International Airports in India" as rationale. However, this nomination calls for deletion of a master category and merging all those nested under it. It would be a stretch in my view to accept the arguments made in those discussions blanketly apply to ALL of the merges proposed here. For example:
- Both the 2011 discussions relied on arguments that calling the Airports "International" was not a defining feature, nor set them apart. To support this, TheBushranger cited an example of an Airport in the US renaming itself as an International airport simply for marketing reasons and there appeared a level of agreement that this was the norm. I contend that while this may be the case in the USA, it is not necessarily so globally.
- International Airport defines specific characteristics (eg. customs and border control facilities allowing International travel). Look at the categories affected by this proposal, this definition is certainly the case in Australia, where the "International" status must be endorsed and designated by the government.([1])([2]) I believe this is also the case in Denmark.([3])
- While the "International" distinction may or may not have been a defining feature of Airports in India in 2011, it most certainly is in Australia in 2025. None of the arguments presented so far provide arguments based in wikipedia policy, nor does it make any sense to remove the category "International Airports in Australia", which easily identifies the 30 or so actual designated international airports as distinct from the other 600 airports in the country! Dfadden (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might split the nomination between countries. At least in the Netherlands the only relevant distinction is with or without passenger services. Almost every airport with passenger services is an international airport. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would be a very sensible course of action. The nomination as it stands is far too broad and the merge proposals seem arbitrary and poorly considered. Further examples: Bangladesh (3 clearly defined International Airports) [4]; New Zealand - number has varied over time, but the government certainly differentiates between International and domestic only airports based on defining characteristics like customs and immigration facilities. [5] Dfadden (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example. Not too long ago, Indonesia stripped a lot of airports from their international status ([6]). I have not checked if those 17 airports were recategorized but without a merge they would suddenly disappear. IMHO that is an argument for merging. The Banner talk 13:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check. There is no such category as International Airports in Indonesia, nor is any such category named in this proposal so I'm not sure it is relevant? But assuming your argument is relevant, if recategorisation causes articles to disappear from a category that no longer applies to them, isnt that the system working as intended? Dfadden (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed the point that it is an example. The Banner talk 03:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Canary Islands are considered neither part of the EU nor part of Europe. Is a flight from Spain to Tenerife "international"? Or Denmark to Greenland? How would you categorise Lydd Airport? And what happens when Scotland gains full independence or is bought by Trump? If you retain two separate categories, how will you audit the decision as to which category applies? As already pointed out; you cannot trust the airport names alone. Will it be based on airlines & destination tables (another contentious issue), or the provision of passport control and customs facilities, and how often are these features identified? How does this apply for Schengen area flights? If the airports are all lumped together in one category, these questions are all neatly avoided.
FUN FACT; Birmingham International and Dusseldorf International have both voluntarily removed "international" from their official names, but I can assure you both still provide plenty of international flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WendlingCrusader (talk • contribs)
Hello, not sure who you are (your comment was unsigned), but I agree with you that the category should not just be defined by name alone, and that the distinction varies from country to country. Europe and the Schengen area is a special case. I do think in most other parts of the world, having customs and passport control facilities is fairly definitive though. That's why i think Marcocapelle's suggestion to split the nomination and consider the country merges individually is sensible. See the examples i gave above for Bangladesh and Australia where it is very clear in official sources that certain airports are designated as international gateways and there is some legal/administrative status as such. I would suggest these sources are much more reliable than airline and destination tables or what an airport chooses to call itself. Dfadden (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - not really a WP:DEFINING feature of airports. Many airports are 'international airports' that are not International Airports, and many airports (such as Tallahassee International Airport for instance) have the name but don't offer the service. Above all, this isn't a useful categorization for the reader, as it splits a region's airports between multiple categories. This may well be a case where it'd be useful for a (well-referenced and carefully curated) list, but not for categorization. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main category & merge categories on a case-by-case basis per Marcocapelle and Dfadden. Scope has evolved since the 2011 discussions. it's lio! | talk | work 05:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was surprised this CFD discussion is still open as Gray eyes has already emptied all of these categories. Just pinging HouseBlaster. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I generally recuse from re-closing CFDs which I had previously closed. It appears that a non-admin closure was attempted, but reverted, so that is probably why Gray eyes started processing the discussion. Gray eyes, would you be able to revert your changes until the discussion is properly closed? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reply here, Gray eyes, on undoing your edits? This doesn't look like unanimous opinion here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a defining feature of airports, as those which accept international flights need to have physical facilities and staff for this (e.g. immigration facilities and officers, customs facilities and officers and often more stringent security screening arrangements). For instance, only a small subset of airports in Australia are approved to accept international flights - see the official list here. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substack writers

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) 00:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Substack is not a publication; it's a newsletter platform. This is like categorizing by webhost or email provider. Trivialist (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This was debated previously. There has been a large recent influx (in 2025) of writers from New York Times and network news to the Substack platform. It is convenient to users of Wikipedia that they be identified.Kmccook (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2025 (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:Sports events by month

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 as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Month year categories
Nominator's rationale: Follow up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 14#Category:Events by month. In spirit of WP:C2C to align with Category:January by year, etc. and Category:Sport by period. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2025 (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:Government in Riverside, California

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 rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is for a city with its own government. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 9 February 2025 (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:United States secretaries of the treasury

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:United States secretaries of the treasury

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_9
No tags for this post.