Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17
July 19 >

July 18[edit]

Category:National Highways in China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 26#Category:National Highways in China

Category:Psychonautics researchers[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 purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This list contains many individuals who are not researchers. However everyone on the list is a advocate for psychonautics. jps (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per WP:CATV, WP:CATPOV and WP:CATDEF The nominator's rationale is sound. Many individuals in this category are not researchers. Hence, this is currently a misnomer. Psychonautics proponents more accurately describes the subjects which populate this category. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge to avoid that this becomes an WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge - my intention when populating the category was only to add researchers in at least a loose sense of the word (though I won't claim to have not made mistakes!). I think if we want to keep it as a subcategory of parapsychologists we should purge the non-researchers rather than renaming. - car chasm (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 19 July 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:Nations at competitions[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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C per parent Category:Competitions by country and per all children Countries in/at (except Category:Nations at sports competitions). Follow-up to "Category:Nations at beauty pageants" being renamed to Category:Countries at beauty pageants. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Laurel Lodged meant that it was an "X by Y"-type container category, I don't agree. This contains parent cats of e.g. "France at the Olympics". Moreover, the immediate sub-cats are "by competition" rather than "by country". If anything this category is "Participation in international competitions by competition and country", but that's far too long-winded. So I oppose the Alt merger, and support the original proposal. – Fayenatic London 15:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt 2 only 1 spliter is necessary - "by country". So a clearer alt would be Category:Participation in international competitions by country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot wordier, and I can't see any benefit in that, just like Fayenatic says.
    Looks like Marco, Faye and I agree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 19 July 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:Philosophy writers[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 10:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previous discussion was closed against consensus, and the arguments in favor of keeping it were clearly poor, as the contents demonstrate it's not obvious to anyone that "writers" refers to people who aren't "academics." If someone doesn't really "count" as a philosopher, we shouldn't categorize them as one at all. - car chasm (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we already have philosophers by nationality and by century categories and everyone who is not a philosopher does not belong in those trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose I don't think one can single-handedly re-interpret the closure of a previous discussion as having had an incorrect conclusion. There were 2 votes for "Merge" (all three); 2 votes for "Keep/Oppose" (all three); and 1 vote for "Merge" (only) Category:American philosophy academics to Category:American philosophers + Alt merge, not in this nom. That makes 2-2-1, so there is no reason to question the no consensus result. Plus: the previous discussion was never about Deleting, only about Merging, so the present nomination is a very different proposal, and the rationale is misleading.
Nor do I think it's a good idea to randomly orphan 7 +7 subcategories and 274 + 565 items. The consequences of a deletion have not been considered at all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point for the subcategories: there should be a manual check to ensure that they stay in the tree of Category:Philosophers. As for the articles, I am not changing my earlier statement. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just checked the subcategories and added some missing categories that will keep the ones that contain philosophers in the Philosopher tree. - car chasm (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 19 July 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:Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine[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. An additional rename nomination may be necessary. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only a main article and a subcategory. The subcategory suffices. If kept, rename per main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update It now has a smattering of articles, and I'm unclear on what the main article would be. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main article is Government of Ukraine. The English title is ambiguous though, as Government in English is a general broad term, while what we are talking about here is the executive branch only. --Base (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently there is a main article, 4 subcategories, and 8 pages linked to this category. Shari Garland (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The just added articles should be purged, except for one article they are about government in general, not about the cabinet of ministers. All that is needed is Category:Government ministers of Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that is the only category that kind makes sense for Secretariat of Cabinet of Ministers (Ukraine) out of the 3 it has. In ukwiki it has more members and subcategories. I am not sure if poor coverage the English Wikipedia has is a valid reason for category deletion. Government ministries concerns particular ministeries, but not the government as a whole. --Base (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now Not conceptually opposed to a possible executive branch category here, but only Secretariat of Cabinet of Ministers (Ukraine) clearly fits and there is not a separate "Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine" main article to establish clear inclusion criteria to help navigation for lay readers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? Government of Ukraine is the main article, it is an article about the executive branch, not about the whole government. I am not sure why it is called that, but that is besides the point in this discussion. --Base (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Government of Ukraine is a main article for Category:Government of Ukraine per WP:C2D, but it should not be the main article for this particular subcategory. If that article only covers the executive branch, it should be expanded to cover the rest of the government and live up to it's name (or be renamed to "Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine"). - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it shouldn't be. Category:Government of Ukraine is about all the branches of Ukrainian government, while the article Government of Ukraine is about the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine — the government's executive branch. My suggestion is to rename the article to Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, then most of the confusion would be gone. --Base (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would work too. There are some categories that are obvious, like Category:Restaurants in Melbourne but, in general, namesake main articles make things clearer for readers and editors alike. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the main article, the category should be named accordingly, and articles that are not about the Secretariat should be purged from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 19 July 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:Executive power in Ukraine[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:Government of Ukraine. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Executive power" is unique category component. The only sibling to be re-categorized to Category:Government of Ukraine Estopedist1 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:21, 19 July 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:Serbian-speaking countries and territories[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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename the category as per WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language. Iaof2017 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Notrealname1234 (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through lots of texts of constitutions of former Yugoslav, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Slovenian, (North) Macedonian, Kosovan etc. states and territories, and what is WP:DEFINING here is whether these languages are identified as "official language(s)" in these constitutions (or other top-level legislation) or not. Per WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language that is also exactly what we should do. Arguing which language which people speak where is extremely WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT (and if you do it long enough, you will easily arouse needless intercommunal tensions), and pointless, whereas official legal status is an objective criterion to check category membership that we can actually work with because it is all officially written down. Given recent renamings of its siblings, including Category:Albanian-speaking countries and territories to Category:Countries and territories where Albanian is an official language, this is evidently the way forward. At Serbo-Croatian#Legal status I've already given an overview of countries and territories whose constitution says/said that "Serbo-Croatian" (or "Croato-Serbian" or "Serbo-Croato-Slovene") is an official language. This can be done for all of them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Griboski @RevelationDirect and I seem to agree we should Rename All. Could you confirm that, please? Thanks!
If so, @Iaof2017 are you as nom prepared to add the other three for Renaming as well? That way we would probably reach consensus. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All Correct, I support changing all of these to "official language" categories and purging as necessary per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and, at this point, WP:C2C since this has become the clear consensus. A group nomination seems appropriate in this case to allay any concerns about uneven treatment. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename All as per reasonings given above. --Griboski (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:35, 22 July 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:Urban development[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 20:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Urban development is a redirect to Urban planning Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 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:Potentially dangerous food[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 20:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Going with the spirit of food safety and "safe to eat" expression, "unsafe" could be a better option, while "dangerous" may sound vague bordering WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Brandmeistertalk 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the rename does not solve the problem. How many health issue cases does any sort of food need in order to qualify for this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any food could be dangerous/unsafe if consumed in large enough quantities. (It's not food, but beware the deadly dihydrogen monoxide.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. The first rule in toxicology is that everything is toxic if you consume too much of it. (Love the dihydrogen monoxide example!). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:45, 23 July 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:Arab[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: procedural close. – Fayenatic London 01:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I had already removed "Category:Muslim communities in Africa" and "Category:Muslim communities in Asia" with the edit summary "Arabs are not Muslim by definition. This is an incorrect generalisation." (Millions of Arabic speakers are irreligious, Christian, Jewish, or adherents of other religions. Arab =/= Muslim.) But I now see that there are multiple issues with the category as a whole. Why can't people whose native language is Arabic, but have been born and raised outside MENA be called "Arabs", for example? Why does geography matter? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: (edit conflict) I do think that Category:Arabs may be a legitimate category within the Category:People by ethnicity tree. But it needs to be Purged from "people by nationality" subcategories such as Category:Syrian people and Category:Iraqi people, because this categorisation implies all Syrian and Iraqi nationals are "Arabs", even if their native language is Kurdish, Turkmeni, Turkish, Persian etc. Nationality and ethnicity of groups of people rarely/never coincide completely; in reality, humanity is a series of Venn diagrams. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Marcocapelle, you saved your edit just before I could add this postscript. What do think of this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per Special:Permalink/1163761648#NAC_requests_July_2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am still confused as to why this category can't be merged to Category:Arab world, the two concepts are not the same but very overlapping. Arab world is defined by Arab ethnicity. One of the articles in this category even has "of the Arab world" in the title, so why would it not belong in Category:Arab world? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography.
    Genetic history of the Arab world does belong in Arab world, which is why I added it there. But it also belongs in the top category about Arab ethnicity, because it is specifically about "ethnic Arab populations" in the Arab world.
    IMHO Arab diaspora should be in the top category Arab, alongside Arab world. I don't object to it also bring in the people category, as it includes both general and biography articles. -– Fayenatic London
  • Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too, because the word "Arab" depends on ethnicity, as all parents of Category:Arab, Category:Arab world and Category:Arabs show. The term "Arab world" depends on an ethnic group called "Arabs" living in it, even though, indeed, Ethnicity transcends geography (I completely agree with that). That's how "Arabs" can live in Brussels, but nobody would categorise Belgium as part of the so-called "Arab world".
The term "Arab world" is necessarily a generalisation, and cannot be anything other than a generalisation. Some generalisations may be useful for certain purposes (such as the article Arab world), but not for categorisation purposes per WP:CATSPECIFIC, WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. (Just because there is an article doesn't mean there should be an identically-named category).
Therefore, Category:Arab world cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted or Merged, Category:Arab cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted (and it almost already was before this CfD was reopened), and Category:Arabs cannot have a geographic focus because Ethnicity transcends geography and should be Purged. Repurposing Category:Arab people for individuals is an additional option we can use to fix the issues here (because it is a redirect, we practically don't need a CfS to do it, as I suggested earlier, although formally agreeing to repurpose it for that purpose may be a good idea). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this? If you've got corrections or additions, please say so. I wanna do this correctly from the beginning. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler than that; do it all as renaming, to keep the page history of each category:
etc. I'm not sure the proposal will gain consensus, but I won't oppose it. As a simpler alternative, consider renaming only Category:Arab to Category:Arabs (ethnic group). – Fayenatic London 14:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london Thanks very much! Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 15#Arabs and Arab people. You are invited to participate. Should we close this CfD, and change the target of the CfD template at Category:Arab to Category:Arabs (ethnic group) and tell people to go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 15#Arabs and Arab people for the discussion instead? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: that's not what I said… I meant, either list all of the combination that I listed; or ONLY list 1 category for renaming, viz. Category:Arab to Category:Arabs (ethnic group). Your new nomination does not propose to use Category:Arabs for either the ethnic group or for biographies. I suppose it could be a disambiguation for "Arabs (ethnic group)" and "Arab people", but it goes against the previous CFD rationale not to follow the article name Arabs for either category. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london Ok what should I change? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to keep the concise "1st-century Arabs" etc, so I'd take out all lines of the nomination except the first. – Fayenatic London 04:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london I changed it. Is this what you mean? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the exact opposite of what I just said, but it is what I meant before. Note: I may be taking a wikibreak shortly. – Fayenatic London 07:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london Ok, well thanks for your correction. I appreciate your knowledge and expertise at CfD, I've learnt a lot from you in the past several months, even when we didn't always agree. Hope to work together again after your wikibreak, should you like to enjoy one. Have a good day in any case. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This proposal and many others have made it very clear that Nederlandse Leeuw has no idea what they're talking about. Going to ping the "Arab world" WikiProject so more knowlegable editors step in and put a stop to this madness. Right now, the discussions seem to be driven by 3 editors of presumably European descent with cursory knowledge of the region in question. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WikiProject participation would be welcome. As it happens, I have visited 8 countries in the Arab world, and Brussels and Spain too for that matter, but that has little bearing on anyone's competence to discuss category names according to Wikipedia policies and precedents. – Fayenatic London 04:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What Fayenatic said. We're already past the point where we want to delete this category, this CfD is gonna be closed soon and be replaced by the new CfR, so voting here now is pointless. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Notrealname1234 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We have Arabs, which we need, but we don't need Arab - I even find myself quite confused with a logic behind this. Ethnicity is subjective feature of person's deepest feeling of identity and belonging, so, all matters ethnicity will always be an obstacle rather than solution and encyclopaedia should not meddle into peoples' personal sense of belonging, identity and so on. We have objective parameters like nationality, language and culture, those are relatively measurable things that are registered in various formal and informal ways in public domain, not personal. Then, there is an issue with this Arab cat being a rather unexpectedly small for a category which is supposed to be defining for a member of a large ethnic group (or group itself?). Do we have "German", "Slav", etc categories?
౪ Santa ౪99° 20:16, 18 July 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:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1809[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 10:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (1 P) in all. The established tree starts later. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP:SMALLCAT, as part of a established series. Most series have a bit of tail and this tail is small. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged, please do not paste the same comment into every discussion mentioning SMALLCAT (and some that don't). — Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 18 July 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:Berber dynasties[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to many CfDs concluding language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, states, dynasties, and individual people. Co-nominated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries, a follow-up of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries (the latter has an elaborate precedents background rationale). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how these are non-defining at all, as it's not based on a language family but rather an ethnicity. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Berber languages, the Iranian languages and the Kurdish languages are all language families. E.g. the Category:Berber dynasties has the category description: "Dynasties of the Berbers", which article in turn says Their main connections are identified by their usage of Berber languages, many of them mutually unintelligible. You can call that "ethnicity" if you like, but it is just "language family" by another name. And we've already established that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. The "Turkic" AfD recently confirmed that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the Berbers, but I still don't think Kurds are identified through language. The test I'm using is to replace the adjective with either Serbian/Croatian or Serbo-Croatian just because the way the language group is named makes it obvious you're talking about language or ethnicity - if it's Serbo-Croatian and not either Serbian or Croatian, then you can't keep it, but I think Kurds are equivalent to Serbian or Croatian whereas Turkic is clearly Serbo-Croatian. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I buy your premise, because I consider Serbo-Croatian to be a pluricentric but single language (see Declaration on the Common Language by linguists). On the other hand, the article Kurdish languages (plural title) identifies the following languages/dialects (depending on one's point of view):
How do we know these are not separate "ethicities", but one single "ethnicity"? Kurmanjis redirects to Kurds, but Sorani people redirects to Sorani, and Zazas is a separate article. The Lak (tribe) even self-identify with the Lurs rather than with the Kurds. Who are we to say they must be Kurds? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think these are "nondefining"? Why do you think they are linguistic rather than ethnic qualifiers? Srnec (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Berber languages, the Iranian languages and the Kurdish languages are all language families (see my reply to SportingFlyer above for a longer explanation). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dynasties, delete states, dynasties can be rooted in ethnicity, states can't. These ethnicities are attributed for real, unlike "meta-ethnicities" like Germanic or Turkic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Berber languages and the Iranian languages are language families (see my reply to SportingFlyer above for a longer explanation). Whether the Kurdish languages are a "language family" or a group dialects that are closely related enough to be considered a single "language" turns out to be a matter of dispute (as I found out later yesterday). I'm prepared to withdraw the Kurdish items from this bundle if this is considered to be a significant issue, because my current rationale relies on them being considered a language family (and I'd rather not change the rationale in the middle of a discussion). This would probably satisfy the objections raised by you, SportingFlyer, and Srnec. For the Kurdish cases, I will just have to do better preparation and perhaps a different rationale in a future nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I withdrew Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries, which resulted in no consensus, with the recommendation to re-nominate the items individually if I would like to. I have re-nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries (2nd nomination) individually as a result. The rationale remains the same, but it does mean List of Kurdish dynasties and countries and Kurdish emirates are not nominated for deletion anymore (at least for now). Therefore, I'm also withdrawing all Kurdish categories from this nomination for now. This also follows from some of the objections made in this CfD against deleting the Kurdish cats. This was partially based on the argument that "Kurdish" either represents an ethnicity, or that the Kurdish languages are a single language rather than a language family (there is scholarly disagreement about this, and I don't think a CfD is the right place to "settle" that matter, if at all possible). So now, only the "Berber dynasties" and "Iranian Muslim dynasties" are under consideration in this CfD. I thank you for your feedback. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer, Srnec, and Marcocapelle: For your information, 6 of the original 8 nominees have been withdrawn (due to my own procedural mistake at the related AfD). You may or may not want to alter your !vote/stance. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the notification. I am not altering my stance. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you think that Berber and Iranian are not here used in an ethnic sense? Certainly historically the ethnicity of a ruling house is not necessarily unimportant. (Although a glance at Cat:Berber dynasties suggests it is populated with crud... "Numidia" isn't a dynasty and the ancient Egyptian dynasties are not "Berber" except possibly in a linguistic sense.) Srnec (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I purged Category:Numidia, agree that it is not a dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Firstly, the idea that all groups today known as "Berbers"/"Amazigh" constitute a single "ethnic" group is a distinctly modern idea. Names of the Berber people says as much: Historically, Berbers did not refer to themselves as Berbers/Amazigh but had their own terms to refer to themselves. For example, the Kabyles use the term "Leqbayel" to refer to their own people, while the Chaouis identified themselves as "Ishawiyen" instead of Berber/Amazigh.[12] (...) Although Amazigh as a term had been used throughout history, its use as a claim on collective indigenous North African identity is more recent. Many scholars suggest that the 1945 poem “Kker a mmis umazigh” (“Rise up Son of Amazigh”) by Mohand Idir Aït Amrane to be its first use as a cultural claim.[32] That means all pre-20th-century dynasties are out, most definitely Numidia (as you two already agreed, and have carried out), the ancient Egyptian ones (as Srnec already pointed out), the medieval Mauro-Roman Kingdom, the Almohads, the Almoravids, etc. I'm not sure that leaves many.
        Secondly, the point I already made above to SportingFlyer still stands: the Category:Berber dynasties has the category description: "Dynasties of the Berbers", which article in turn says Their main connections are identified by their usage of Berber languages, many of them mutually unintelligible. You can call that "ethnicity" if you like, but it is just "language family" by another name. It is only in hindsight, after Berbers/Amazigh are being claimed to be an "ethnic" group in the 20th century, primarily on the basis of related but often mutually unintelligible languages (which is kind of the definition of a "language family"), that ancient and medieval dynasties are retro-actively being reframed and rebranded as "Berber". If that isn't WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (as well as imagined community + invented tradition), I'm not sure I know what is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The dispute has descended into a meta-dispute about the definition of the Berber peoples.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with SportingFlyer, these are defining categories. Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw all My nomination has evidently failed. I tried to rescue it by withdrawing some of the nominees, but we are no closer to reaching consensus. I should go back to the drawing table to reconsider how these categories can best be organised. Sorry for the confusion and frustration it caused. I'll try better next time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:44, 22 July 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 rulers of Monaco[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 10:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 2 P 0 C. WP:OR/WP:ARBITRARYCAT: François Grimaldi and Rainier I of Monaco, Lord of Cagnes both briefly held Monaco in practice, but had no de jure title with "of Monaco" in it. Rainier is identified as the progenitor of the Grimaldi dynasty, but his son Charles I, Lord of Monaco is the first to be identified as a "Lord of Monaco", both on the official Monegasque govt website and in literature such as page 83 of Françoise de Bernardy, Princes of Monaco: the remarkable history of the Grimaldi family, ed. Barker, 1961 (the main source cited in all three bios). If you search for "first Lord of Monaco", you'll also find "Charles Grimaldi" more often (example). His bio also says he had no predecessor as "Lord of Monaco": None (Rainier I, controlled the lordship of Cagnes). The claim in Rainier's own bio that Rainier I of Monaco (1267–1314) was the first sovereign Grimaldi ruler of the area now known as Monaco. is full of original research, and so is calling him I of Monaco in the article title. I think it should just be Rainier, Lord of Cagnes, Rainier I, Lord of Cagnes, Rainier I Grimaldi, Lord of Cagnes or something, just like the govt website and RS do. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The consequence of deletion will likely be that Category:14th-century rulers of Monaco should be upmerged. I'm not sure if I should nominate that category for Upmerging as part of this CfD, or just await the outcome of this CfD first? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category reflects their control of the area, and not their official title. Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, shouldn't we just consider them as warlords who controlled a certain area by force of arms, but without any political legitimacy (as evidenced by a title like Foo of Monaco)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Warlord" does not really apply here. They were Genoese leaders trying to establish their own regime, in the context of internal conflicts in the Republic of Genoa. Monaco was a Genoese colony since 1215, but Genoa was in a state of civil war by the 1270s and the House of Grimaldi was facing the threat of exile. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks a lot for providing that historical context! Well, doesn't that neatly fit the definition given in warlord?
        • warlord: A warlord is a person who exercises military, economic, and political control
          • Dimadick: They were Genoese leaders trying to establish their own regime
        • warlord: control over a region
          • Dimadick: The category reflects their control of the area
        • warlord: a region in a country without a strong national government
          • Dimadick: Monaco was a Genoese colony since 1215, but Genoa was in a state of civil war by the 1270s
        • warlord: largely because of coercive control over the armed forces.
          • Dimadick: They were Genoese leaders trying to establish their own regime, and The category reflects their control of the area.
        To me this confirms François and Rainier Grimaldi were warlords. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we categorize rulers by country, duchy, county or lordship, but not by occupied area. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:46, 18 July 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:Swiss chronicles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 27#Category:Swiss chronicles

Category:Bigg Boss Malayalam contestants[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 26#Category:Bigg Boss Malayalam contestants

Category:21st-century women prime ministers in Europe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 27#Category:21st-century women prime ministers in Europe

Category:Housing in Iceland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 26#Category:Housing in Iceland

Category:Defensive gun use[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 20:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This does not seem like an appropriate category because very few shootings are explicitly categorized as "defensive gun use". Most of the articles in this category are cases where someone shot someone and claimed self-defense, and either was not charged or was charged but acquitted; but none of that really represents a reliable source saying that "defensive gun use" occurred. Rather, the use of this category to characterize the listed shootings seems to be original research and, in many cases, potentially POV-pushing. If there were a clear definition of "defensive gun use" I would support just removing those that don't meet that definition, but it's a subjective term and so any category will be subjective too. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definition is murky and I agree that there is potential for OR and POV-pushing. More importantly, the link between members of the category is tenuous. Pichpich (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, the category could potentially be controversial, but it's an important category, I'd say. I'm sure many people find it useful for research. Silent-Rains (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silent-Rains: Could you explain your understanding of what should actually be included in this category? Right now it includes cases such as the killing of Tamir Rice (shooting an unarmed 12-year-old on the mistaken belief that he was armed), the shooting of Jacob Blake (probably a BLP violation; no conclusion that Blake was threatening anyone), the killing of Alvin Cole (was shot while fleeing, did not point gun at anyone), and the Ash Street shootout (an article I wrote which explicitly notes that it was never determined who fired the first shot). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps we could refine the scope of the category to specify that articles must demonstrate, through WP:RS, that the shooting was genuinely intended as a defensive action in response to a reasonably perceived threat. Cases where the justifiability of the defense claim is highly questionable (again, based on WP:RS) or undetermined could then be excluded. It should also be noted that the category includes not only instances where defensive gun use was claimed, but also topics which discuss defensive gun use. I don't think deletion is the appropriate option here. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the intent is for the category to include false claims of defensive gun use, then as a BLP matter it must be renamed. We cannot have "Defensive gun use" at the end of an article like Shooting of Jacob Blake when there is no evidence that there was anything to defend against. Still, I favor deletion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this could include a lot of warfare -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and WP:OPINIONCAT. Anyone can claim they only use their gun(s) "defensively", but at the end of the day, it is not defensive protective gear like medieval armour or a bullet-proof vest or a helmet etc. No amount of shots fired can "defend" a gun user against an incoming bullet. Guns are weapons which cannot by themselves "defend" the user, except by shooting first, threatening to shoot first, or retaliating, or threatening to retaliate. That's it. They are weapons for offence/attack, and can only be used "defensively" according to the adage The best defense is a good offense, which is itself quite contentious, and often not true in practice. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:09, 22 July 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:Philosophers of Judaism[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 10:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, no significant delineation from Jewish philosophy - car chasm (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. If it had been something like "Philosophers about Judaism", which could include non-Jewish philosophers thinking about Judaism as a topic, it would be different (like Category:Historians by country of study instead of Category:Historians by nationality (or "Historians by country of residence")). But this is just the same category under another name. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is about philosophers of religion, in contrast to the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per SEP the philosophy of religion deals with religion in general, not specific ones. There also doesn't seem to be anything for "Philosophy of Judaism" as distinct from "Jewish philosophy" outside of polemical sources, the terms most seem to be used interchangeably. - car chasm (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admittedly this is more a sibling category of Christian theologians than a subcategory of Category:Philosophers of religion but the fact remains that people in this category are scholars of the Judaic religion. A merge is really inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That category already exists as Category:Judaic scholars. Would you prefer upmerging to that? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Judaic scholars is surely a better parent category than Category:Philosophers of religion. I am not sure why we would merge though, we would not merge Category:Christian theologians to a non-Christian parent either, would we? And we also have Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. Better rename the category to Category:Jewish philosophers of Judaism to clarify its purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. By the way, "Judaic scholars" appear to be practitioners of Judaic/Jewish studies: an academic discipline centered on the study of Jews and Judaism. It combines everything from history, women's studies etc. to religious studies. So 'Judaic' refers to the field of study, not the scholar's personal religion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Then again, jc37 makes a good WP:OCEGRS point about whether it is relevant to categorise philosophers of Judaism (as a religion) by their personal religion/ethnicity? If yes, can we expect Christian philosophers of Judaism, French philosophers of Judaism etc. in the future, or is this actually a road we don't really want to go down? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Same here. I am against ethnicization (including confessional labeling) of bio/blp in combination with occupation like in Judaic/Christian/Muslim/, however, French, Israeli, etc philosophers of Judaism/Islam/religion, where this explicitly implies nationhood/nation-state, should be OK. Also, I think that Category:Christian theologians, Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. and so on, are deeply flawed. Who are Muslim scholars of Islam? Are they simply Islamic clerics, or is this include academics whose personal religiosity is somehow relevant, how we measure person is religious enough, or is this also implies Muslim(s) as an ethnicity (like Jew(s)), where, then, we can encounter an "atheist-Muslim"; how we know (what source can tell us for fact how person feels, or should we seek primary as a personal admonition), and even if we know how is that relevant? ౪ Santa ౪99° 09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with car chasm. Moreover, if this category is about philosophy of religion, then it can be practiced by Jews and non-Jews alike. However, its two parents Category:Jewish philosophers and Category:Jewish philosophy suggest "Philosophers of Judaism" must be Jews by definition, and I do not see any non-Jewish people in this category at all. Therefore, the parent Category:Philosophers of religion seems to be the odd one out. If we still want to maintain that these philosophers philosophised a lot about the philosophy of Judaism as a religion, then an Alt rename to Category:Jewish philosophers of Judaism may be a better idea than an Upmerge. A second Alt rename could be Category:Jewish philosophers of religion if these Jewish philosophers philosophised a lot about religion in general and not just about Judaism as a religion in particular. Anyway, that's my philosophy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems that every time we bump into a category that uses an WP:EGRS-related word as an adjective, we run into this same issue. Does the adjective refer to the the topic or the person? It's almost always unclear, so the name typically needs to be adjusted. I don't think this situation is any different. WP:PRECISION would seem to be the order of the day. - jc37 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OCEGRS is not relevant here because studying one's own religious beliefs is completely different from an outsider's perspective. That applies to all religions alike. In Christianity there is even a separate word for it (theologians) that occasionally is used in Islam and Judaism as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:13, 18 July 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:Women astronauts[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. Article is currently at List of women astronauts (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Women is not an adjective; make category consistent with closed request for renaming page List of women astronauts to List of female astronauts Panamitsu (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there is a long-standing lack of consensus (since 2013) about whether "women" or "female" should be preferred for categorisation purposes (I personally prefer "female" for grammatical reasons, but that's not important). No changes from one to the other should be made just for the sake of conformity. It might trigger an endless WP:C2C war without really improving anything. That said, the article space always prevails over the category space, so again: undo that not-uncontroversial RM/TQ first, then I might support this nom per WP:C2D. Until then, I'm not taking any sides. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:07, 23 July 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:Commodity exchanges in Egypt[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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 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:Croat scientists from Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 26#Category:Croat scientists from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Category:Buildings developed by the Related Companies[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 20:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Buildings developed by Foo company" is unique solution in enwiki. Undiscussed scheme. Better to mention these buildings at Related Companies Estopedist1 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have listified the category content into the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 20 July 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:Educational structures in the Philippines[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: manual delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Educational structures in" is unique name scheme. Some members are not universities or colleges, then just deleting this category Estopedist1 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 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:High-speed rail in Latvia[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 as per Marco. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:30, 18 July 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_July_18&oldid=1167461349"