Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 26
August 28 >

August 27[edit]

Category:Video games set in Northern 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 15:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Just like precedent Category:Northern European countries, anyone can claim any "country" to be "in Northern Europe" without any criteria whatsoever. Apparently Guernsey, the Arctic, the Soviet Union, and the fictional Disney kingdom of Arendelle are all located "in Northern Europe" for all sorts of not particularly obvious reasons. Meanwhile, a game like Medieval II: Total War: Kingdoms (which I actually possess and could recommend) set in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa (so all continents except Kangarooland and Penguinland[Joke]) should apparently be categorised as "set in Northern Europe" specifically. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer between continent and country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 28 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:Celtic history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 5#Category:Celtic history

Category:Germanic history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 5#Category:Germanic history

Category:Persecution of Turkic peoples[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 19:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to precedents named in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:20, 27 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:Military history of the Turkic peoples[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 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to precedents named in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 27 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:Presidents of New York University[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 5#Category:Presidents of New York University

Category:CreateSpace books[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 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a misleading and inaccurate category, and not a defining attribute. The page says it's for "books published by CreateSpace", but CreateSpace wasn't a publisher per se, but a provider of publishing services. It was what was largely viewed as a "self-publishing platform", where the person submitting the book was the publisher, and CreateSpace provided printing and distribution services. That some books are listed on Amazon description pages as published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" is simply a matter of whether the publisher bought their own ISBNs or used a free one provided by CreateSpace, and there are plenty of books published through them that are not so listed (I published many myself that way.) Who paid for the ISBN is a matter of trivia. I cannot think of any other cases where the printer or distributor of a book is considered a defining characteristic. The category has very few books (and it looks like in some cases, even those are inaccurate), and, due to CreateSpace being subsumed into Kindle Direct Publishing years ago, the list seems unlikely to grow substantially. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sidestepping your point that CreateSpace books aren't even published by CreateSpace, regarding defining characteristics I wonder whether you consider any of the categories listed under Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Books published by to represent a defining characteristic. Largoplazo (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some, yes, because a true publisher will often represent a viewpoint, an editorial purpose, a sensibility that can show up in the grouping. On that list, "Books published by the Church of Scientology" seems a blatant case of a defining characteristic, as the Church publishes books to promote its beliefs, and the books it publishes about its beliefs can be deemed official. While CreateSpace may have had some limitations on what it would carry (I don't recall them at the moment), the default was that what was brought to them got published; the "CreateSpace" ISBN ownership suggested nothing about the nature or quality of the content. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)* (and before anyone notes it: yes, I'm aware that the Church doesn't just publish books directly pushing their religion, that they have an imprint that publishes fiction, notably the works of L. Ron Hubbard - but it all appears to be part of a quest for larger goals.) Nat Gertler (talk) 03:25, 28 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:Indo-European gods[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 19:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Essentially the same contents, but nominated cat is slightly narrower than target cat. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 27 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:People in Malta[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, wrong platform (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: People in Malta is use a~s People of Malta, both referring to the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabe56 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 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:Joseon dynasty[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 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match main article Joseon, also to match similar category Category:Goryeo. Also concision. toobigtokale (talk) 18:44, 27 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:Triple Gold Club[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 19:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:PERFCAT. This was nominated in April 2021 with no consensus reached. User:Namiba 16:14, 27 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:12th-century women rulers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 5#Category:12th-century women rulers

Category:State attorneys[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. Something needs to be done here, but there isn't consensus on what. This probably needs another nomination with a strong path on what to do. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same thing, more or less; they even have the same subcategories. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:44, 27 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.

English and British monarchs[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. The alternative proposal was insufficiently addressed to come to a clear consensus either way, but there was consensus against the original proposal. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and consistency with article names. Векочел (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename either per nom or else to e.g. Category:Edward VI (England) to clarify that England is a disambiguator rather than part of the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They need a disambiguator. Categories are different to articles. In an article, you can clarify the scope; that's more difficult to do in category space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are to use the disambiguator, we should also title Category:Henry VIII as Henry VIII of England, Category:Queen Victoria as Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, etc. Векочел (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: what do you think of my alternative above? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems unhelpful. Including brackets in URLs can lead to broken links when copypasted outside Wikipedia. It also doesn't really improve what we've already got.
      Right now I Oppose as I see no navigational benefit from renaming. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The alternative is acceptable. Who pastes URLs of categories? Doesn't happen. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. What problems would these proposals solve? All the standard rationale are meant to be based on the over-riding idea that there is an actual problem?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the category names are not consistent with the article names. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose categories are not articles. It would need extensive policing -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They need a disambiguator. The name of the country must be included. Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 1 September 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:Germanic archaeological cultures[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 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NPOV WP:OR. The question whether these archaeological cultures were "Germanic", "Slavic", "Celtic", "Baltic", "pre-Indo-European", a mix, or something else is hotly contested, and many articles say so explicitly. Moreover,Germanic peoples says: Scholars generally agree that it is possible to refer to Germanic-speaking peoples after 500 BCE.[5] Anything before that should be disqualified already, such as the Battle Axe culture (ca. 2800–2300 BCE), which is way too early to say anything about language. "Age" articles such as Nordic Stone Age do not belong in the archaeological cultures tree in the first place. Every single article in this category admits that there is disagreement on how to group this or that archaeological culture, and "Germanic" is always just one of the terms in the mix. See for example Dębczyn culture#Identification; lots of options, no definite conclusions. We shouldn't be categorising items by language family if we've got nothing but archaeological findings that point to multiple possibilities, which are explicitly admitted; that would be Wikipedia taking a POV on a contested issue. Follow-up to precedents named in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, as well as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Archaeological cultures by ethnic group. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, ethnicity is too disputable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The people of an archaeological culture are a defining characteristic of that archaeological culture. WP:CATDEF defines a defining characteristic as "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". The Jastorf culture, Oksywie culture and other cultures contained in this category are consistently and commonly characterized as Germanic in modern archaeological literature. Below is for example an exert from the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age:

    • "The issue of the presence of Germanic tribes in central Europe, especially its eastern part, used to provoke heated debate among archaeologists. Nowadays it is generally accepted that the first archaeological unit whose population can be considered Germanic with a high degree of certainty is the Jastorf culture... In a late phase of the early pre-Roman Iron Age, the Jastorf culture found itself in the zone of Celtic influence... brooches modelled on La Tène types appear in grave assemblages in place of traditional pins... In the third century BC, for obscure reasons, the population of the Jastorf culture began to expand towards the south and east. The main axis was the Elbe, which naturally oriented the migration in a southerly direction. However, this path was blocked by the Celts occupying territories north of the Danube. Thus, the migrant Germanic population of the Jastorf culture only reached the north-western edge of the Czech basin... Besides peripheral groups of the Jastorf culture, abundant testimonies of the migration of this population are found... [I]n the middle Dniester region, they form a distinct cluster of settlements and cemeteries distinguished as the Poieneşti-Lukaševka culture. Its clear parallels to the Jastorf culture, such as the presence of vessel forms similar to specimens from the western Baltic area, or characteristic objects such as the crown neck-rings just mentioned, leave no doubt that these relics represent a Germanic population... The Oksywie culture played a singular role in the history of studies on the ethnogenesis of Germanic peoples." – Haselgrove, Colin; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Wells, Peter S., eds. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191756931.

As described in the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age, these cultures had a material culture characteristic of Germanic peoples, were closely interconnected to one another, and emerged and spread as a result of movements of Germanic peoples. They are therefore characterized Germanic in modern archaeological scholarship. WP:CAT states that "the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia" so that readers and editors "can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." This category provides our readers and editors with useful navigational tools to get an overview of a set of closely interlinked articles on a topic, which helps users acquire more learning and editors improve Wikipedia further. Deleting this category will be a definite disimprovement for both readers or editors. Krakkos (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is all very interesting, but:
  1. a high degree of certainty is not certain. The source openly admits there is uncertainty and La Tène ("Celtic") influence to be found in the Jastorf culture. Are we also going to categorise it as Category:Celtic archaeological cultures then?
  2. WP:WTAF. The articles in question currently do not say so. I would recommend you to summarise this information in the article space first. Especially the Oksywie culture speculates out loud about its supposed connections with Pomeranian culture (currently categorised as "Slavic"), La Tène culture ("Celtic"), and "Western Baltic languages", without providing reliable sources. The word "Germanic" is nowhere to be found in the main body, only in the template and the category at the bottom. The contents of the article give no reason for that at all. .
  3. You would have to agree that, at the very least, all pre-Jastorf archaeological cultures (pre-500 BCE) will have to be purged from this category, because the first archaeological unit whose population can be considered Germanic with a high degree of certainty is the Jastorf culture. That doesn't leave many items in practice. Reihengräber culture#Ethnicity shows that there is no consensus on the ethnicity of this one, with disputes about how to categorise it, and whether that is scholarly useful to attempt at all. And you can point to articles on German-language Wikipedia, but they don't count here. We could still delete this category per WP:SMALLCAT if Jastorf (and maybe Oksywie) is all you've got.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula region can be equated with the Goths... The Oksywie culture played a singular role in the history of studies on the ethnogenesis of Germanic peoples... In the early first century AD, a cultural change occurs in the region of the lower Vistula and the Baltic coast east of the river mouth. Cemeteries of the Oksywie culture grow richer... These changes provide a basis for distinguishing a new archaeological unit, the Wielbark culture. Its formation in the area previously dominated by the Oksywie culture is largely attributable to Scandinavian influences... Towards the end of the second and in the early third century AD, the territorial focus of the Wielbark culture changed decisively... [B]urial grounds typical of the Wielbark culture now appeared east of the middle Vistula, in Mazovia and the Lublin upland, and even further south-east, in Volhynia. The same period saw the formation in southern Ukraine of the Chernyakhov culture, which displays close links to the Wielbark culture. These developments imply that a major group of the Wielbark culture may have abandoned its homeland and headed south... This migration seems to find an echo in the ancient texts... [R]emarkable convergence of texts and archaeology permits us to identify with some certainty the population of the Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures as Goths." – Haselgrove, Colin; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Wells, Peter S., eds. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191756931.

  • "[A] clear ethnic identification of these finds is supported... The Celts, Balts, Germans, and Slavs successively became front-stage actors in the processes described by archaeologists studying the following phases of the Iron Age... In the south, "Pomeranians" met Celtic newcomers, who had settled in Silesia in the fourth century b.c. About a hundred years later the next wave of the La Tène culture bearers settled in Little Poland. Farther north a small Celtic colony existed... Pomeranian societies were replaced by two groups of the Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture, expanding from its cradle in Jutland and northern Germany. It probably was this new influence that prompted further development, resulting in the formation of two new cultures... Of these two, the Przeworsk culture was the more successful in its territorial expansion and the more durable (lasting more than six centuries). It originated somewhere in central Poland in the second half of the third century b.c. During its early phases it developed under the strong influence of Celtic traditions... Even stronger was the Jastorfian impact in the north, where the Oksywie culture formed in the lower Vistula region... This culture later gave birth to the Wielbark culture, identified with the Goths... The decline of the continental Celts allowed for the vigorous expansion of Germanic peoples. Germanic ethnicity is ascribed to two archaeologically distinct cultures that dominated Polish lands during the early Roman Age (a.d. 1–150). The Przeworsk culture expanded east and south, where it replaced societies attached to the Celtic traditions... This chronological clarity also pertains to studies of the northern neighbor of the Przeworsk culture, the Wielbark culture. This culture represents societies that gave birth to the famous tribes of Goths and Gepids, who migrated southeast in the second half of the second century a.d... During the younger phase of the early Roman Age (c. a.d. 80–150), the new Luboszyce culture emerged in the region of the middle Oder River. It showed strong affiliations with both the Przeworsk and the Wielbark cultures. Retreat of the latter group toward the southeast opened the way for a stronger influence emanating from the Elbian region in eastern Germany, which led to the formation in western and central Pomerania of the De˛bczyno group, known for its late Roman "princely" burials. The late material culture of this area shows Scandinavian connections." – Crabtree, Pam J.; Bogucki, Peter I., eds. (2004). Ancient Europe 8000 B.C.--A.D. 1000 Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 9780684806686.

Most the archaeological cultures in the category are discussed in the two quotes above. As one can see the Germanic character of these cultures is repeatedly emphasized in scholarship. These cultures were closely connected to one another, were materially similar, and their development were closely connected to activities of Germanic peoples. The category is a good tool for getting an overview of the topic and understanding this interconnectedness. This is helpful for both readers and editors, and thus serves Wikipedia's purpose well. Krakkos (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Category:Turkic archeological cultures and Category:Italic archaeological cultures have just been deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the best argument for keeping would effectively mean that material cultures should be in multiple categories for every different language group they have been associated with in scholarship. I think that would be impractical. Simples consensus about such matters is rare in this type of field, and even in uncontroversial cases scholars tend to see these cultures in terms of multiple influences, not one language. It would also make no sense to have a category which could only be used in a tiny minority of clear cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:42, 27 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:Baltic archaeological cultures[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 20:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NPOV WP:OR. The question whether these archaeological cultures were "Baltic", "Slavic", a mix or something else is hotly contested, and 4 out of 5 articles say so explicitly. Kolochin culture: The culture has been identified either Balts and Slavs. The presence of Baltic river names in the area has lent support to the former theory. People living to the south of the Kolochin culture are however believed to have been Slavs. Milograd culture: Their ethnic origin is uncertain, but likely to be either Baltic or Early Slavic. etc. We shouldn't be categorising items by language family if we've got nothing but archaeological findings that point to multiple possibilities, which are explicitly admitted; that would be Wikipedia taking a POV on a contested issue. Moreover, the "Baltic" part has almost nothing to do with the Baltic states geographical region, because the finds are all from outside this region (Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Russia etc.). Only Brushed Pottery culture is in Category:Archaeological cultures in Lithuania and Category:Archaeological cultures in Latvia (not even Estonia). Follow-up to precedents named in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, as well as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Archaeological cultures by ethnic group. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only Western Baltic culture was clearly Baltic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure about that one either. It is poorly sourced, making lots of claims about centuries before any text written in a Baltic language has been attested, and it is improperly linked to other articles. E.g. I'm not sure what the difference is between nl:West-Baltische cultuur (unsourced) and nl:West-Baltische grafheuvelcultuur (unsourced), which is linked to de:Westbaltische Hügelgräberkultur. Are these the same concepts? Different concepts? A lot of this also seems to be based on that rather outdated 1963 book of Marija Gimbutas, the American-Lithuanian archaeologist and anthropologist who came up with the Kurgan hypothesis that sought to associate burial mounds on the Pontic–Caspian steppe with the proto-Indo-Europeans. Although it is the most widely accepted hypothesis, it remains a hypothesis. It shouldn't lead Wikipedians to jumping to all sorts of conclusions. Just like the Hallstat culture is often associated with the Celts, but it's not that clear cut, essentially every archaeological culture has been associated with some language family or ethnic group based on little more than extrapolation of sources written centuries later back in time and place. Much of this is pseudo-scholarship or at best speculative. Wikipedia shouldn't participate in it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The people of an archaeological culture are a defining characteristic of that archaeological culture. WP:CATDEF defines a defining characteristic as "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". The Milograd culture, West Baltic barrow culture, Western Baltic culture, and other cultures contained in this category are consistently and commonly characterized as Baltic in modern archaeological literature. Below is for example an exert from the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age:

    • "Similar pottery found in the middle Dnieper region is attributed to the Milogrady culture... Other shared features are barrows, albeit without stone settings, and a settlement model based on small hillforts. These common features have led to the West Balt barrow culture being considered an effect of the migration of Milogrady population groups to the Baltic Sea region. The West Balt barrow culture population is also classified as a western faction of the Balts, which was the first to break away from the community of Balt-Slavs in the middle of the first millennium BC..." – Haselgrove, Colin; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Wells, Peter S., eds. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191756931.

As described in the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age, these cultures had a material culture characteristic of Balts, were closely interconnected to one another, and emerged and spread as a result of movements of Balts. They are therefore characterized Baltic in modern archaeological scholarship. WP:CAT states that "the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia" so that readers and editors "can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." This category provides our readers and editors with useful navigational tools to get an overview of a set of closely interlinked articles on a topic, which helps users acquire more learning and editors improve Wikipedia further. There is lots of potential for improvement on Wikipedia's coverage of Baltic archaeological cultures, and this category helps facilitate such improvements. Deleting this category will be a definite disimprovement for both readers or editors. I'm pinging some active editors on the topic (Antiquistik, Ario1234, Skllagyook, Tewdar, Austronesier, Hunan201p, पाटलिपुत्र, Taromsky, Miki Filigranski, E-960, Turaids, SeriousThinker, Cukrakalnis) in case they have an opinion. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern archaeological literature is, in fact, sharply divided on the very concept of archaeological culture, which is central to culture-historical archaeology, but widely rejected by processual archaeology. The latter are especially critical of the culture-historical approach's tendency to link stuff found in the ground to the languages spoken by prehistoric people who couldn't read or write and didn't leave any written sources behind. Culture-historical proponents may classify lots of things however they like amongst themselves; that doesn't mean their conclusions represent the consensus in the entire field of archaeology, particularly when processualists reject their very methodology. For the rest, the same counterpoints apply here:
  1. The text itself is ambiguous. For one, I see no evidence that Milogrady culture is considered "Baltic". Second, These common features have led to the West Balt barrow culture being considered Okay, but Template:By whom?. Anyone can write that they personally consider it to be so, but does this hypothesis carry a consensus? I don't think so, otherwise this would have been worded more strongly, e.g. These common features have led to the common acceptance of the West Balt barrow culture as a society of Baltic-speaking people, or something. The West Balt barrow culture population is also classified as a western faction of the Balts Again, Template:By whom?. If a bunch of culture-historical proponents are just referring to each other's books and ignoring the likely fact that all processualists reject their conclusions, then we do not have a consensus in an entire field; we've got a hypothesis with a small amount of agreement amongst one school of scholars.
  2. The articles currently don't say so. It would be helpful to put that information there instead of trying to convince people of it here at CFD.
  3. You can refer to dewiki articles, but they don't count here. Without a clear indication whether any of the 5 articles in the category really qualifies as "Baltic" alone, and not "Slavic" or "Germanic" or "Celtic" or whatever, this category will fail to be WP:CATSPECIFIC, remain WP:ARBITRARY WP:NPOV WP:OR, and we soon run into WP:SMALLCAT territory.
In the end, what is WP:DEFINING for these finds is stuff like pottery, barrows, albeit without stone settings, and a settlement model based on small hillforts, not supposed language families which were not attested in surviving written sources until many centuries later. That all remains in the realm of speculation amongst culture-historical proponents, whilst the processualists look on, shaking their heads and considering whether they should ignore it, or once again respond by explaining that one cannot infer language family or ethnicity from a bunch of pottery shards (without any writing on them) found in the ground. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos:@Joy:, a lot of common, valid categories which were used for many years on Wikipedia are being deleted/merged per proposition of one editor whose proposition is often supported by only one and same editor. Often there's no discussion. The topic about all these categories is very complex and deserves a proper discussion also because the propositions aren't following the mainstream neither the editor is an expert on the topic. However, this is worst possible period for such complex discussion/consensus building because it is summer, a lot of editors who would be active to participate aren't available. Myself have a lack of time to follow all categories discussion's, but arguably Oppose all propositions for now. I think all this activity about categories proposed by Nederlandse Leeuw, which is in good faith, should be postponed for September or October because the changes are possibly making serious disimprovements. Cheers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 27 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:Baseball players suspended for drug offenses[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: Listify and delete * Pppery * it has begun... 22:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by a non-defining characteristic. WP:TRIVIALCAT User:Namiba 14:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it were defining, it would be commonly mentioned in the introduction of the articles, which it is not. I just surveyed 20 random articles in the MLB category and their suspensions are mentioned in 3 introductions. In the vast majority of cases, being suspended for a drug offense is a mere footnote.--User:Namiba 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename Category:Baseball players suspended for doping and Category:Major League Baseball players suspended for doping and remove the cocaine addicts. Doping and baseball are well-connected, other drugs not so much, certainly not in a career-defining way ([cough] Barry Bonds, even if not suspended). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cocaine (and even moreso, amphetamines, for that matter) were used by MLB players as PEDs at least from 1970s onward. That's not to say players don't also recreationally, but some have admitted to using cocaine for performance Tim Raines comes to mind. —siroχo 01:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - If kept, I think Clarityfiend has the right idea, based on the discussion above. But I think that these are better as lists. So Listify/Delete per WP:BEFORECAT. - jc37 14:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Listify/delete per jc37. Doesn't seem defining enough. As above, split if kept. Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/delete per jc37 and WP:BEFORECAT, particularly the first point on the list of disadvantages: "Categories only list the name of a page. And individual category members cannot be annotated with descriptions or comments, so they give no context or elaboration for any specific entry." If I am told someone was suspended for a drug offense, I would want more information: what drug? Why? How long were they suspended for? Etc. A list can contain that information. HouseBlastertalk 14:54, 16 October 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:Political violence in the Byzantine Empire[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 21:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems somewhat needless - the assassinations can just be classified as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost every medieval empire saw violence. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:38, 27 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:Nationalist terrorism[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. Associated discussion was also closed as keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bit of dead-end category that also has the problems associated with general "terrorism" labelling. Most of the contents would be better sorted into some sort of "Political violence" type of category. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very unclear scope and it is likely that it has been misused. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:37, 27 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:Jewish websites[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: combine to Category:Websites about Jews and Judaism. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evident difference between Category:Judaism websites and Category:Jewish websites. Propose merging to be consistent with other Jewish media-related categories, such as Category:Jewish media. Longhornsg (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 27 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:Category:Carnivals in Malta[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 6#Category:Category:Carnivals in Malta

Category:Female political office-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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency, for human people we normally use "women", see subcats of Category:Women by occupation. This nomination was opposed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose all per long-standing nonconsensus on "female" versus "women". See User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process#Admin manually moving categories without discussion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: pinging contributor to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors participating in XfD, especially those forums with a small number of regular participants, are reminded to be careful about forming a local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers at an XfD forum may also want to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC).
This CfR will not reflect the broader community consensus by a long shot. The long-standing nonconsensus on "female" versus "women" cannot be resolved in a low-participation CfR. I recommend a full-blown RfC which pings all relevant WikiProjects to establish a community-wide consensus. Personally I'm not signing up for it, but I think it would be very brave for you to try, and I would certainly participate if you ran it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for any of these categories that would include reigning queens. While there are certain categories of heads of state for which "women" is not inappropriate (i.e., it would be for "Women presidents of the United States" when we finally need such a category -- not too long, I hope!) people not only can but have become officially reigning queens before any recognized form of maturity, when they are not actually women but girls. "Female" is age-independent; "Women" is not. And we're not using "female" in its controversial noun sense here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That implies you do not oppose any of the above but you would prefer to have Category:Women monarchs renamed to Category:Female monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In a narrow sense, I agree with @Marcocapelle that "reigning queens" is not quite a relevant argument to oppose this nom as a whole (the relevant subcategory is Category:Queens regnant), and Marco is right that this would technically only be a call for renaming its parent Category:Women monarchs to Category:Female monarchs (which I would theoretically support).
    But I agree with @NatGertler in the broader sense that "Female" is age-independent; "Women" is not. And we're not using "female" in its controversial noun sense here. And the fact that people not only can but have become officially reigning queens before any recognized form of maturity, when they are not actually women but girls is recognised by the existence of Category:Child monarchs. That tree is currently gender-neutral, but one could imagine a subcategory tree about
    1. "Category:Girl monarchs"
    2. "Category:Women child monarchs", or
    3. "Category:Female child monarchs".
    "Girl monarchs" just sounds odd and unlike any established category tree. Nobody uses "girl" as an adjective (except maybe in Category:Girl groups as in boy band, but even here "girl" and "boy" are probably nouns rather that adjectives). "Women child" sounds like either a contradiction in terms, or like King James Version biblical English (see Numbers 31, for example); we don't talk/write like that anymore in modern English. So if I had to choose, I'd opt for no. #3 "Female child monarchs". It's comparable to Category:Female child soldiers etc., and recognisable as part of both the Category:Child monarchs tree and the would-be Category:Female monarchs tree (if we agree on renaming the latter from Category:Women monarchs).
    Consequently, that is a good reason to Oppose renaming Category:Female heads of state to Category:Women heads of state, because "female child monarchs" are not yet "women". By extension, Category:Female political office-holders shouldn't be renamed to Category:Women political office-holders either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it would apply to the "Female heads of state" in at least some historical instances, although I am speaking well outside any area of expertise. (But yes, my same argument would apply to Women monarchs.... although I cannot say with certainty that there were any child queens who did not survive on the throne to however we measure adulthood -- some fixed age? Local age of majority? Onset of menses? Queen's bat mitzvah? - and thus qualify for a Women monarchs category.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The cat desc of Category:Child monarchs says: A child monarch is someone holding an office of sovereign and temporal authority who has not yet reached the age of majority in their culture. Before modern times this generally seems to have been around age 15 or 16. So we could take that as a rule of thumb, but it did vary in time and place. Exactly because most states throughout history have been hereditary monarchies, and thus most heads of state monarchs, there have been many instances of the heir presumptive/apparent acceding the throne as head of state before reaching the local age of majority, and plenty of them were female, and I think it wouldn't be correct to call them "women". That's a word we generally reserve for female adults, not female children. NLeeuw (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, there is no use of "men politicians" or the like, but rather "male politicians". I'm not too sure why there's been movement to break the consistency between the two. Furthemore, most styleguides (outside of Wikipedia) reject the idea of woman as an adjective. I'd really like to see Wikipedia's MOS make a consensus on this before we commit further. I also agree with other comments about woman vs girl. Panamitsu (talk) 11:06, 3 September 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:Anti-communist terrorism[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. May need purging. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Anti-communist terrorism" seems to just be a euphemism for right-wing or far-right terrorism. Suggest merging to "right-wing terrorism" as the broader target of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Category:Mỹ Lai massacre can be categorised as Category:Right-wing terrorism. Then again, maybe it shouldn't be in this tree to begin with. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, we should just make Category:Right-wing terrorism a parent of this category. But not all right-wing terrorism is aimed against communism or communists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mỹ Lai massacre should be under war crimes, not here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already under Category:Vietnam War crimes committed by the United States, were it should be actually. I've removed the terrorism categories, which are the wrong tree. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 05:33, 27 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:Celtic fairy tales[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 21:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Both are already in parent Category:European fairy tales. Follow-up to deletion of Category:Germanic fairy tales, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#Category:Germanic music. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection with language family (and Scottish and Irish aren't even necessarily Celtic). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Nominator gives flawed comparison with "Germanic fairy tales", which nobody employs (an anthology of German, English, and Icelandic fairytales ?).
Whereas titles like Celtic Fairy Tales (Joseph Jacobs) are commonplace.
Attempting to deleted "Scandinavian ~" is also inadvisable.
Categories are there for utilitarian purpose. Do not try to develop some sort of taxonomic science. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only two sub categories are Irish and Scottish, but not everything Irish or Scottish is Celtic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge to both parents, if not kept. - jc37 14:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: the subcategories are already deeper down in the tree of the parents, so merging is not needed in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that that could ptentially change per the below nom. But otherwise, I agree. - jc37 14:45, 3 September 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:Celtic folklore[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 6#Category:Celtic folklore

Category:Celtic film festivals[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 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 item. Upmerge for now with no prejudice against re-creation (NPAR). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 27 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:Wikipedians by alma mater: United World Colleges[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 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a high school alma mater category. Delete per precedent at WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by high school and elsewhere. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 27 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_27&oldid=1182065992"