Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 8
August 10 >

August 9[edit]

Category:Hindi songs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Category:Hindi songs

Category:Jewish websites[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Category:Jewish websites

Colony of Santo Domingo[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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, the Colony of Santo Domingo ceased to exist as late as 1821 and Haiti separated as French colony as late as 1697. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename due to anachronism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I had not noticed that. In that case I am fully open to an Alt rename to "Captaincy General of Santo Domingo". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should scold you for your lack of WP:Before. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:42, 11 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 archaeological sites[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, trivial intersection between language group and archaeology. Only the subcategories should be included in the merge process, while the articles are already somewhere else in the tree of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. In line with all the other recent nominations for WP:NONDEFINING language-family-based "Indo-European" WP:CROSSCATs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Future follow-ups: Category:Celtic archaeological sites, Category:Germanic archaeological sites, Category:Indo-Iranian archaeological sites (manually merge to existing continent-based cats?), Category:Indo-Aryan archaeological sites (rename "Archaeological sites in South Asia"?), Category:Iranian archaeological sites (manually merge to existing continent-based cats?), Category:Italic archaeological sites (merge with Category:Archaeological sites in Italy?). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The people of an archaeological site are a defining characteristic of that site. WP:CATDEF defines a defining characteristic as "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". J. P. Mallory, for example, describes the Dereivka site as follows: "One of the primary prehistoric sites of Europe relevant to the entire question of horse domestication is that of Dereivka , a settlement of the Sredny Stog culture in the Ukraine , which in the " Kurgan solution " IE homeland problem has often been portrayed as an almost archetypal settlement of the earliest Indo - Europeans. (Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, 1997, p. 275)". Pinging a few active editors on the topic (Ario1234, Tewdar, HJJHolm, Wikiuser1314, पाटलिपुत्र) in case they have an opinion. Krakkos (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Archaeological culture says in its opening lines: An archaeological culture is a recurring assemblage of types of artifacts, buildings and monuments from a specific period and region that may constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society. The connection between these types is an empirical observation, but their interpretation in terms of ethnic or political groups is based on archaeologists' understanding and interpretation and is in many cases subject to long-unresolved debates. (emphasis by me). "Archaeological cultures" are scholarly ideas based on grouping various archaeological sites together, so the same long-unresolved debates around interpretation in terms of ethnic or political groups apply to archaeological sites. The Kurgan hypothesis is quite well-known, but it remains, well, a hypothesis. If we are creating categories on the basis of our WP:POV that the hypothesis is correct, then we are creating WP:SUBJECTIVECATs or WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH cats. While it may be true that The people of an archaeological site are a defining characteristic of that site, we often have no direct evidence what language they spoke, let alone which language family that language belonged to. Even if we do, that language family may still be WP:NONDEFINING for the people of that archaeological site (also considering WP:OCEGRS). There was not a single Proto-Indo-European person who would have thought of themselves as, well, a "Proto-Indo-European person". That is a modern scholarly term for a modern scholarly idea, which should be seriously studied, but it should not be a basis for our Wikipedia categorisation practices. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I would agree with Krakkos on this: the category is part of Category:Archaeological sites by culture and according to its definition is for articles about archaeological sites related to the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but that doesn't seem to be how it is actually being used, and I don't fully understand why the current random-seeming assortment of articles in this category are there. Why are Celtic, Germanic, and Italic sites all part of this category, but Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites is not? If this isn't merged it needs some sorting out Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. We are working on that. In general, language family just appears to be irrelevant when it comes to archaeology, especially prehistoric archaeology. After all, if people didn't have a written language yet and thus didn't leave any written sources behind which archaeologists may retrieve and analyse, how can we be confident which languages they spoke, let alone wrote, let alone which family that language belonged to? (And audio recordings which may document spoken language weren't invented until the 19th century, so anything that isn't written down is, very unfortunately, often lost to historical linguistics). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:11, 2 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 (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:23, 9 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:Timurid empresses[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 19:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: 2P, 0C. It had 1 item, I did WP:BEFORE and found only 1 more, so I think this should be Upmerged. Most empresses consort of the Timurid Empire do not have their own page. Mihr Nigar Khanum does, but her husband Sultan Ahmed Mirza practically controlled only 3 provinces of the empire that was falling apart, with each provincial governor proclaiming themselves the one and only Timurid "emperor" (Umar Shaikh Mirza II, Sultan Mahmud Mirza and Ulugh Beg II). Essentially, all 4 were pretenders, and Wikipedia can hardly take a side as to who had the "better" claim per WP:NPOV. See also Timurid dynasty; this 2-century-long empire was constantly torn apart over succession crises and legitimacy conflicts, making objective categorisation of who was "legitimately" in power and their spouses quite challenging. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:14, 2 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 (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:22, 9 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:Former empires in Europe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. No consensus to use in over of. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT WP:ARBITRARYCAT, sometimes WP:SHAREDNAME. What an "empire" is, is a neverending discussion. In its most basic definition, it is a monarchy where the monarch has the title of "emperor" or something similar (Augustus, Caesar, Kaiser, Csar/Tsar, Imperator, Autokrator etc.). Most items in this category would fit that description. There is a general albeit not universal idea that "empire" and "republic" are mutually exclusive. In this view, a "republican empire" is a contradiction in terms.
But lots of republics with an elected or appointed head of state developed (colonial) empires such as the Dutch Republic (Dutch colonial empire), or states which started out as monarchies and established colonial 'empires', but then became republics, such as France (so the French colonial empire was 'republican' during 1792–1804, 1848–1852, 1870–1980). Putting them in this category may be no more than WP:SHAREDNAME.
Besides, the name "Former empires in Europe" may be considered misleading for these two examples, as the Dutch and French colonial empires consisted of overseas colonies in other continents; ironically, the "mother countries" in Europe were the most "republican" and the least "imperial". Contrast that with Category:Carthage, a republic based in North Africa but with overseas colonies in Europe; was Ancient Carthage an "empire in Europe", but a "republic in Africa"? Both? Neither? Depends on your point of view, I guess...
Then there are Category:Republic of Pisa and Category:Republic of Venice etc. who themselves do not even contain the word 'empire' in their catnames.
There are several ways to solve this.
  1. The easiest way I think is to Upmerge to Category:Former monarchies of Europe and Purge all non-monarchies (hence the nom).
  2. We could also Purge all subcats and items which do not contain the word "empire", but that may not solve the WP:SHAREDNAME issue.
  3. We could also establish more strict definitions of what counts as an "empire" on the basis of the monarch's title, and Purge all republics, as well as monarchies with "kings" etc. (that means purging subcats like Category:Kingdom of Norway (872–1397) and Category:Belgian colonial empire because they were reigned over by "kings"). A problem with that is it could lead to similarly endless discussions about which titles may be considered the equivalent of "emperor", and which ones are supposedly "below" or "above" that rank. See Tsar#Russia.
  4. Finally and most drastically, we could eliminate the entire Category:Empires tree because its categories have all these same issues. But I would very much advise caution, and not act too rashly in eliminating an entire tree. If we do, let's just use this category as a first test case.
So, my recommendation is Upmerging + Purging non-monarchies (#1), but I'm open to alternatives. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I might add that on 21 April 2023, Category:Muslim empires was moved to Category:Former Islamic monarchies. I think this precedent supports option no #1. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically both should remain since they had a presence in Europe. However, the presence of the Achaemenid Empire in Europe was both nominal and transitory. It was more like a long raid than a period of rule so I'd be fine with purging them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Satrapy of Skudra (or Achaemenid Thrace) has existed for c. 48 years, longer than current countries in Europe like Montenegro (17 years) or North Macedonia (31 years) have been independent. Meanwhile, the Ancient history of Cyprus#Persian period lasted almost 200 years (525 BCE ~ c. 330 BCE). One might argue that island is geographically part of Asia rather than Europe, but the Republic of Cyprus has been a member state of the European Union for almost two decades now (and EU membership is conditional on being located in Europe, reason why Morocco's application was rejected). So I don't think we can say the presence of the Achaemenid Empire in Europe was both nominal and transitory. It was more like a long raid than a period of rule. It was a well-established empire in Europe in these two regions, and in the latter lasted longer than any human being's lifetime ever. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So let them remain then. I forgot about Cyprus. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that clarification. So I think your !vote comes down to supporting Option 1, just like Marcocapelle did? You're not proposing to purge kingdoms, for example, just all non-monarchies like republics.
If so, then all three of us agree on Option 1 as our preference. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:11, 11 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 (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:22, 9 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:6th-century women rulers[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: split. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 22#Category:3rd-century women rulers for why "women monarchs" should be grouped.
Proposed split into 3 new categories
Women monarchs
Women regents
Empresses consort
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 9 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.

Fooian culture to Culture of Fooland[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D main article Culture of Fooland. For some background: in the early 2000s most articles and categories on English Wikipedia were actually named Fooian culture. Somewhere in the 2010s almost all articles were renamed Culture of Fooland, but only some categories were renamed Category:Culture of Fooland. E.g. Category:Georgian culture was already renamed to Category:Culture of Georgia (country)‎ back in 2009; while as recently as 30 March 2023, "Irish culture" was speedied to Category:Culture of the Republic of Ireland; nevertheless, they are so far quite lonely in parent Category:European culture by country. So to be honest, at the moment, there is quite a mismatch between almost all articles being named Culture of Fooland after renamings, but most categories still being named Category:Fooian culture. Meh...
I've tried making the article names consistent first. On 23 August 2022 I had Ukrainian culture moved to Culture of Ukraine; it was the only article about culture of countries in Europe which had still not been renamed to Culture of Fooland (somewhat ironic considering the events since 24 February 2022, but I digress). This morning I had the undiscussed move of Culture of Albania to Albanian culture reverted back to Culture of Albania. I thought speedying "Greek" to "Greece" and "Dutch" to "the Netherlands" would be a good follow-up as a test case, as I didn't want to speedy all children of Category:European culture by country just yet. I'm glad I didn't. @Marcocapelle: Opposed the request per WP:C2C, so here we are at full discussion. Hopefully this rationale explains why I think renaming per WP:C2D should be favoured. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Just to be clear on this, I do not have an objection to the principle (i.e. I no longer have an objection, after an earlier discussion about this), but renaming just two categories to a different format than all of their siblings is not speediable. If reactions with respect to the principle are favourable, I would advise to add the siblings immediately to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Would it not be good practice to nominate the siblings in a follow-up CfR instead of adding them long after the discussion has opened? I don't want to end up with a situation in which early participants have only !voted for Renaming "Greece" and "Netherlands", but when I later add "Germany" etc. they are upset that I hadn't notified them of significantly expanding the nomination, some nominees of which they might Oppose and thus the nom as a whole. I'd rather not change the eligible candidates in the middle of an election after some people have already cast their votes, so to say. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Unlike with the archaeological cultures nom, I expect this nom to be a little more controversial, so I prefer being more cautious and setting a precedent first before doing a great, big, bundled nom that might fail. Compare how the political prisoners by country nom is going because lots of people object to the Polish category alone... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the lack of comments about the proposal at hand, the categories were not properly tagged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 Yeah sorry about that, I just noticed that you fixed them, thanks! Is it common practice to replace the speedy tags as soon as a nomination has moved to full discussion? I wasn't sure about that because with the Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, the regular CFD tag was just added on top of the speedy tag. I'm relatively new to speedy noms, this is only the second time or so that a speedy of mine was moved to full. I'd like to do it correctly in the future. Thanks in advance! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, adding or replacing are both fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I gather it is also good practice or even required to post a copy of the speedy discussion (between collapse top and bottom templates) when it has gone to full discussion? I haven't (yet) done that in this case, but in a recent speedy of mine that moved to full, LP posted a copy of the speedy discussion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:38, 3 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 (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like nobody is opposed. The only reason why Marcocapelle initially opposed was because of its siblings, but we agreed to nominate them for renaming next per WP:C2D. But we gotta start somewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:12, 9 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:Ancient women rulers by century[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories of Category:Ancient women rulers by century have either been split or renamed after careful consideration and discusion of the biographies of these ancient women. The last one, Category:1st-century women rulers, has also been agreed to split, then the category will become empty. Upmerging to grandparent Category:Women rulers just for historical metadata's sake. Same goes for parent Category:Ancient women rulers, which only has Category:Ancient women rulers by century as a child now anymore, and has become a redundant layer. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:47, 9 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:Films shot in Brooklyn[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Was undeleted with the edit summary Restoring category, as it is populated, albeit by such a small and arbitrary selection of all the potential articles as to make its usefulness questionable - I concur with that question and am hence nominating it for proper deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reason given above (which was a quote from me when I reverted my own deletion of the page); it is unrealistic to expect that most of the articles to which it might apply will ever be added to the category; and also because it is too unnoteworthy a concept to be a useful category. There are some films for which the location of shooting is significant, but in general it isn't. JBW (talk) 19:14, 9 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 19#English and British monarchs

Category:District attorneys in North Dakota[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 19#Category:District attorneys in North Dakota

Category:Bohemian literature[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per actual category content. I have already moved Bartholomaeus of Drahonice and Johannes von Tepl to Category:15th-century Bohemian writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - seriously? What does a "Bohemian writer" suggest? Terminally ambiguous. "Writers from Bohemia" might work, though I don't really see why they need to be distinguished from Czechs. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to "Writers from Bohemia" but Category:Bohemian writers happens to be its current name. Feel free to nominate it if you wish. People from Bohemia weren't necessarily Czechs though, they could also be Germans. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 2 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 (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 07:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have nominated the target for renaming, see here. That settles the oppose then. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, on that basis support, if 2 stages are needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 11 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:State attorneys[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 19#Category:State attorneys

Category:Hindi-language works[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 20:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with only one subcat and no parents. Tagged since April but not listed. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 9 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_9&oldid=1171226354"