Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21
August 23 >

August 22[edit]

Category:Songs by language of Pakistan[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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Apart from Urdu and English, no language has official status in Pakistan, but hundreds are spoken, written and sung. Countries can't claim "ownership" of works written in certain languages. For instance, Pashto isn't necessarily a "language of Pakistan". Ironically, 3 out 4 songs in Category:Pashto-language songs are national anthems of Afghanistan. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. In addition, there is no other country with this sort of tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in this case. We have to be careful about "this sort of tree". Category:Mass media by language has several sub-hierarchies by country and language, and Category:Mass media by language of India has passed scrutiny at CFD. However, I am not aware of any other such subcats for songs, and this one cannot be justified as it stands. If it had subcats for Pakistani songs by language (cf. Category:English-language mass media in Pakistan), that would be different. – Fayenatic London 05:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Some language-of-country categories can be justified. But in this case it leads to the paradoxical conclusion that three national anthems of Afghanistan are somehow "songs of Pakistan" just because Pashto is spoken in both countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2023 (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:Hawaiian songs[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Less ambiguous name. Follow-up to Category:Songs in Latin precedent, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Latin-language songs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (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.

Catholics in Europe[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_10#Category:Christians_by_country. I'm not sure these are needed at all, but let's at least clarify the purpose of the categories. I removed a Catholic footballer from one of these today. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Being a Catholic is not, per se, defining; potentially a billion people could have the category which would not be a useful thing to have. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. We're interested in whether their religion has a significant bearing on their career per WP:OCEGRS. For clergy it does by default. For footballers it does not, at least not by default. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, the man was already categorised in Category:Ukrainian Catholics. The question here is not whether religion is defining, but whether the intersection of religion and country of work/residence is defining. – Fayenatic London 07:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the category had been added by Laurel Lodged.[1] Maybe because the article describes him as an ethnic Pole? But it does not say his nationality was other than Ukrainian. – Fayenatic London 07:25, 25 August 2023 (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:Austrian world record holders[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:World record holders. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1) Austria is the only country with a cat for world record holders
2) The 2 people in it easily fit into the parent cat of world record holders. Dutchy45 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2023 (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 Civil War Union biography stubs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:American Civil War Union biography stubs

Texts in Fooian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Texts in Fooian

Category:Latin-language Christian hymns[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C, parent Category:Songs in Latin and child Category:18th-century hymns in Latin. Follow-up to recent renaming of parent Category:Songs in Latin, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Latin-language songs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec, Jc37, and Marcocapelle: pinging participants from previous discussion for follow-up, for your consideration. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (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:Italian countesses by marriage[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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 P, O C. Upmerge for now, with no prejudice against recreation (NPAR) if at leasy 5 items can be found. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2023 (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:Jews by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:Jews by country

Category:Italic art[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 21:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to:
WP:NARROWCAT. Redundant layer. It has only 1 subcategory, and 1 item (Warrior of Capestrano) which is already in the parent category (the target category).
Also WP:NONDEFINING; whoever made the Warrior of Capestrano, the fact that they were a native speaker of a language that was probably a member of the Italic languages family had no significant bearing on their career as a limestone statue artist (WP:OCEGRS). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (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:Italic archaeological sites[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 21:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to:
WP:NARROWCAT WP:NONDEFINING WP:CROSSCAT. The fact that the inhabitants of these ancient settlements spoke a wide range of Italic languages is WP:NONDEFINING. The practical scope of the contents is essentially is already the same as in the target category, and there is a lot of overlap with the target category already (e.g. Pompeii). Some contents are not in both yet (e.g. Category:Latin cities, Category:Sabine cities, although these are already siblings of target cat's grandchild Category:Etruscan cities in Category:Pre-Roman cities in Italy), and should therefore be merged. Category:Roman sites should be purged; its relevant grandchild Category:Roman sites in Italy is already in the target cat. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2023 (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:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel

Category:Missing person cases by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:Missing person cases by country

Category:The House of the Dead character redirects to lists[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: speedy keep after withdrawal by nom (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only has one member, and I doubt it will be expanded much any time soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 4 members currently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:14, 22 August 2023 (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:13th-century Russian women[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:13th-century Russian women

Category:Canadian trade unionists of Italian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a trivial triple-intersection of unrelated characteristics. There's no concrete evidence that being of Italian descent has any special meaning or status in trade unionism over other ethnicities per se, but there are no other categories for "Canadian trade unionists of [anything else] descent" sistering this -- so there's no compelling reason why just two people would need special treatment denied the German-Canadian and French-Canadian and British-Canadian and Polish-Canadian and Finnish-Canadian trade unionists. (Upmerging directly to Category:Canadian trade unionists not needed, as both people here are already in other appropriate subcategories of that.) Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding further, let's look at how The Canadian Encyclopedia has to say: In the introduction to the article on Italian Canadians, it states "Italian Canadians are among the earliest Europeans to have visited and settled the country. The steadiest waves of immigration, however, occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. Italian Canadians have featured prominently in union organization and business associations. In the 2016 census, just under 1.6 million Canadians reported having Italian origins." Lower in the article, it continues "Comprising a conspicuously large proportion of the labour force in both the construction and textile industries, Italian Canadians have been especially prominent, for example, in the International Labourers Union and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America."--User:Namiba 21:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing further, Category:American trade unionists of Italian descent was well-populated but (in my opinion) mistakenly deleted back in February.--User:Namiba 00:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the number of articles in this category has doubled (from 2 to 4) since it was nominated. Clearly, there is potential for growth and SMALLCAT does not apply. Nor can it be considered a trivial intersection given the existing literature on the subject.--User:Namiba 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:07, 22 August 2023 (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:Medieval Ukrainian people[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:Ruthenian people. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. One may argue that "Ukraine" as known from later times did not yet exist in medieval times, but Name of Ukraine#History does say that Ukraina has sometimes been applied to Halych-Volhynia. Therefore, I propose upmerging only Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia to Category:Ukrainian people by period, while leaving out the princes of Chernigov (Chernihiv) and Kiev (Kyiv), who are already in Category:Princes from Kievan Rus' and should stay there. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any sources for that change, or is that your own WP:OR? Marcelus (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it make more sense for Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia to be a subcat of Category:Ruthenian people instead? Mellk (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, probably yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was plenty of Jews in Galicia-Volhynia are they also Ruthenian? Marcelus (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we regard "Ruthenian" as a "nationality" synonymous with "Galician-Volhynian" (as I propose), then yes. If we were to define "Ruthenian" as an ethnolinguistic/religious grouping (which I do not recommend), then no. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be an ethnic category. There could also be a geographical Category:People from Ruthenia.  —Michael Z. 21:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"People from Fooland" is generally limited to former countries, not geographical regions. I think Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia already serves that function.
I did recategorise one 14th-century woman from Vitebsk who was called a "Russian princess" to "Ruthenian nobility". It's a slight improvement, but not yet ideal, I suppose. If she had been from Smolensk, I probably wouldn't have changed it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It was Maria of Vitebsk, who married Lithuanian grand duke Algirdas (Olgerd) around 1318. The Principality of Vitebsk is defined as a Ruthenian principality centered on the city of Vitebsk in modern Belarus, that existed from its founding in 1101 until it was nominally inherited into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1320. I suppose her marriage to Algirdas is exactly how Lithuania acquired Vitebsk then. It was never a "Russian" principality, it was a (Kievan) Rus' principality and then a Ruthenian principality, first independent, then under Lithuanian suzerainty, then annexed in 1501, and then the area became part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. I suppose if she had lived after 1569, she would have fitted in Category:Ruthenian nobility of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
At any rate, I recategorised Maria of Vitebsk from "Category:Russian princesses, Category:14th-century Russian women and Category:14th-century Russian people" to Category:Ruthenian nobility, because that is more fitting.
Incidentally, I'm not sure its child Category:Belarusian nobility is a legitimate category, that seems like an anachronism. (As far as I know, the Belarusian Democratic Republic is the first state calling itself 'Belarusian'; before that we only had non-political geographical usage of "White Ruthenia" etc.). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It occurred to me that Ruthenia (Rus) was at its root an ethnolinguistic territory, but continued to be established geographically and politically as Black Ruthenia, Red Ruthenia, White Ruthenia, and Carpathian Ruthenia, from medieval times into the twentieth century.  —Michael Z. 14:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot directly contradict that, I shall quote Charles J. Halperin on how the term "Rus' land" (Old East Slavic: ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́, romanized: rusĭskaę zemlę; Russian: Русская земля, romanized: Russkaia zemlia) has been used in primary sources: Charles J. Halperin (2016) summarised the scholarly debate so far: 'Application of the term "Rus" to Muscovy has always been a bone of contention, especially to Ukrainian historiography. Nasonov and others noted that in Kievan Rus' "Rus" originally meant the Dnieper (Dniepr’, Dnipro) River triangle of Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereslavl', not Vladimir–Suzdal'. (...) "Rus'" was not an ethnic term, it was a political term. By the late fourteenth century Rus' meant Moscow, Kolomna, and Serpukhov.' (bold by me, italics in original). Now there are some who disagree with Halperin on exactly when this happened (Ostrowski and Plokhy think it was in the late 15th century rather than 14th), but the point remains it was a political term rather than an ethnic term.
This is also how Rus' was eventually replaced by Rossija for political reasons.
I haven't studied it too much in-depth yet, but I think the same is true for Ruthenia. It came to signify the areas of the former Kievan Rus' principalities within Lithuania and later the Commonwealth. And what we sometimes call the Ruthenian language was actually more like Chancery Slavonic: a southwestern written standard of late Church Slavonic for purposes of civil administration rather than ecclesiastical and literary ones. That's what Casimir's Code and the Statutes of Lithuania were written in; not because the Lithuanians and Poles suddenly started self-identifying as Rus' or Ruthenians and speaking that language in everyday life, but because Chancery Slavonic was useful for codifying laws. In other words, for political reasons, not ethnolinguistic ones. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was speaking of the post-medieval period in what we call Ruthenia, precisely where the name was not replaced by Rossiia. Certainly the peasantry of southwestern Rus called themselves rusyn or rusnak in ethnic terms from long, long before modern nationalism was conceived and up to the beginning of the twentieth century.
This has little or nothing to do with the courtly use of rusʹskaia zemlia in medieval Kyiv or later in Muscovy (nor does the modern use of Ruthenia). And it is far detached from Yaroslav the Wise trying to widen the use of Rus Land to broaden the idea of a Scandinavian domain in Slavic lands.
Nor was the Ruthenian language wasn’t handed down by God. It was used in Lithuania because it was the native language of a significant segment of the population and the nobility in Ruthenia, or Rus.  —Michael Z. 19:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was speaking of the post-medieval period... Okay, but our topic here is Category:Medieval Ukrainian people. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, right, and I see all of the affected subcategories are full of medieval people. I was focussed on Ruthenian people.  —Michael Z. 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support alt, Ruthenian was more a common name in the late middle ages than Ukrainian. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt as it was used at the time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2023 (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:Members of the Yorkshire Naturalists' Union[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. Weak consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC & WP:NONDEFINING
The Yorkshire Naturalists' Union is an English membership-based organisation founded in 1861. According to their their membership page there are a variety of levels to join at including £25 for individuals, £30 four couples, and £15 for students or people with low income/unwaged. Paying dues online or mailing in a cheque is not defining. There is already a list of prominent members throughout it's long history, right here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mere membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic of an article. Renaming to "presidents" and purging the category is perhaps an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - category creator here. In defence of this Category - whilst the current membership page has costs of joining on it etc. the vast majority of the people currently categorised under this Cat are historic members, for whom the modern membership process simply doesn't apply. Members were elected by other fellow members into the Union and their association with it was historically regarded as a significant thing. It's not like being a member of the RSPB or something. In the 19th and early 20th century there was kudos associated with memberships like this. Categorising them together creates links between these people which would otherwise be lost - their memberships means they were likely to join together on field meetings or for lectures and contributed to the journals and aspects of wildlife recording. The "Notable members" title in the current article as this is a completely undefined idea. Surely every member who has a WP biograph is notable based on their inclusion critera in the Wiki? Arbitrarily listing notable members under this page would be daft - categorisation is a much neater way of collating them together. Zakhx150 (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakhx150: To avoid WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, we usually rely on the main article to help define inclusion criteria but there is not currently anything there to distinguish between the current wide open membership structure versus a historical one that was more rigorous. If there are reliable sources that this used to be more selective like a learned society, I'm totally open to a narrower historical category. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:00, 22 August 2023 (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:Archaeology of Southwestern Europe[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 20:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31#Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe (all Upmerged). I had tagged this category but forgot to list it as part of the bundle, so formally it was never voted on. Take no. #2. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2023 (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:British female artists[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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Category:British female artists is not necessary when Category:British_women_artists already exists. Rynb99 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Scottish female painters has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case I don't blame the emptiers. A duplicate tree was created and people recategorised from "women" to "female" by editor A, and then editors B and C reverted those edits because it was a completely unnecessary grammatically pedantic tree creation and recategorisation. The long-standing lack of women/female consensus will not be solved by the uncalled-for, unilateral and disruptive actions such as those of editor A. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the consensus was to use "women" for human beings and "female" for categories that were not about human beings. But I'm not a regular at CFD any more so I'm not sure if this is still the current point of view. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that is a good addition. I just had human beings in mind as we are discussing artists. Fictional character categories mostly use "female" because part (often a minority) of the fictional characters are aliens or animals. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Support the additional proposed merges above. (I have already !voted on the original.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2023 (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:KOICA's fellowship program[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 20:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous page, and potentially WP:OVERLAPCAT
The Yonsei-KOICA Master's Degree Program is a Korean scholarship that help students from other countries study at Yonsei University. That is the only article in this category and, if you populated it with recipients, that would overlap with Category:Yonsei University alumni. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very unlikely that it will be populated any better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2023 (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:Fellows of the Chartered Institute of Journalists[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 20:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OCAWARD, and WP:V
Fellow of the Institute of Journalists is a redirect that points to Chartered Institute of Journalists which makes no mention of a "fellow" program. This was my search result on the organisation's web site which didn't help. Two of the 3 articles mention the award in passing (1) (2) and the third doesn't mention it at all (3) so it's not generally treated as defining. I was going to create a list on the main article but I couldn't verify any of the citations (A) (B) so I copied the contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to find reliable sources and create a list. (Alternatively, if kept, we should merge to the one with "Chartered" in the title to match the main article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_22&oldid=1173337785"