Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10
June 12 >

June 11[edit]

Category:Australian Survivor contestants[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:Australian Survivor contestants

Category:Works attributed to David[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 17:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just a WP:POVFORK of category:Psalms really - a list of almost all the Psalms attributed to the quasi-mythological King David as the presumed author; which is the vast majority of them. A better handling of this information, if it is indeed even necessary, would be a brief statement on the page Psalms, or a sub-category of category:Psalms, listing the few Psalms not attributed to David. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggestion invalidates the authorship disputes of individual psalms. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in fact only about half of the psalms are attributed to David, so potentially we might diffuse Category:Psalms by attribution. However if that does not happen consistently, it would be better to delete this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support — however many are "attributed" to David, this is a subcategory of Category:Works of uncertain authorship. There's nothing here (other than a headnote) denoting the uncertain authorship, and the authorship or attribution is not verifiable. Better a well-referenced section in the article. Under no circumstances would Kentish Psalm be attributed to David, as it was millenia later. This is WP:POV category abuse, contrary to policy.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can't get around WP:V by adding wiggle room to the category name. - RevelationDirect (talk)
  • Just for clarification, the attribution is in the psalm text itself, so in that sense it is verifiable. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really good point. Deferring to others whether this is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not in Psalm 2 itself. Only the Book of Acts in the New Testament attributes it to David, but that's essentially WP:SYNTH.
    I do think main article Psalms should have an "Authorship" section rather than some scattered sentences here and there. This allows us to explain why these attributions to David (or Allah, according to Islam) exist, and why they are generally rejected by modern biblical scholars as the text already says. That seems the best way to deal with this (better than Listify, which is often a good solution to these kinds of categories in which membership is arguable). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srtong keep but Rename to Category:Psalms of David. Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) will know that many psalms are preceded by a statement as to their authorship. This should be treated as a RS. There is inevitably some doubt, as the collection of 150 psalms that has come down to us has inevitably been edited during or after the Exile when the present canon of the Hebrew Bible was completed, but that is typical of works of the period. I would question this being parented to "works of uncertain authorship": the authorship is clear, the question is whether that is credible. There should be some sibling categories: Psalms 42-49 are labelled as of the Sons of Korah, also 85 87-8; 50 and 73-83 are Psalms of Asaph. I strongly object to King David being called semi-mythological, which is a misuse of the word myth. I suspect that there are a multitude of more recent works where we only know who the author is because the title page gives a name. This is no different in principle, merely older. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David#Psalms - "...no psalm can be attributed to David with certainty". - jc37 03:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WAS, RD, and Jc37. I only have to add that I have not seen any serious modern scholars attribute any psalm to David. Most question his existence, or at least say it has been wildly exaggerated later traditions. Categories are just not a good way to take a stand on authorship questions, especially if it doesn't really matter who or how many people attribute work X to person Y. PS: Yeah some texts themselves claim to have been written by David, but those words could easily represent later interpolations (as we know from the earliest copies of the First Gospel, which did not yet attribute the text to "Matthew"; probably a case of guessed/mistaken attribution), or - if part of the original text - signify that the whole text is a forgery. This may be the case with especially 2 Peter, which is widely regarded as a forgery by modern scholars. How seriously should Wikipedia still take an attribution that has already been rejected by scholarly consensus? I think we shouldn't, at least not for categorisation purposes.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2 Peter has little to do with this. Psalms are poetry so the text as a whole can't be forgery. This discussion is just about whether or not the opening statement of the psalm text is a defining characteristic. I'd say it is borderline. By categorizing as "attributed to" we already imply that it is not surely written by. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I'm just using 2 Peter as an analogy. (Turns out there is actually a Category:Petrine-related books, which is about Books attributed to Peter the Apostle, so we are theoretically talking about the same situation, and I'm considering to CfD it as well). Just because a text says it's written by Foo doesn't mean we need to categorise that as if it is a fact, let alone a significant fact. To play the devil's advocate: would it be a good idea to create a subcategory of Category:Psalms named Category:Psalms misattributed to David or Category:Psalms forged in the name of David? I don't think so, but it is arguably a legitimate categorisation.
    I think we need to look for "attributed" precedents in the CfD archives, which may give us guidance on what to do in situations like this. Here's what I found:
    This last one is close to the point I was making with Categories are just not a good way to take a stand on authorship questions, especially if it doesn't really matter who or how many people attribute work X to person Y. (emphasis by me). The text itself may say "a psalm of David", but who wrote those words? The original author? (Then it was genuinely David, or a forger). A later editor? (Then it was an interpolation, perhaps based on nothing more than a guess, which could easily be mistaken - just like the attribution of the First Gospel to "Matthew", or the Epistle to the Hebrews to "Paul"; names not found in the oldest surviving copies). We don't know.
And simply pointing to the text as evidence is circular reasoning / WP:CIRC/WP:REFLOOP (Who wrote it? "David, because the text itself says so". How do we know David and not somebody else wrote those words? "Because David tells us with those words that he wrote those words himself." How do we know that? "The text says so." Etc.).
So, the self-attribution of the text to David cannot be used for categorisation purposes, because it violates MOS:WEASEL. To prevent violating WEASEL, we must find an independent, named authority who attributes Psalm X to David. The text itself can't do that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:WEASEL is to avoid descriptions that do not come to the point, this is not applicable here because "attributed to" is a spot-on description in this particular case. Regarding authority, I suppose that biblical scholars will mention the attributed authorship when discussing the psalm text, that is why the attribution could be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In looking over this again, and looking at Psalms#Origins, this might make a nice list. Where each each Psalm's legendary origins may be explained. But, not a category. - jc37 14:14, 27 June 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:Bishops of Gibraltar[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Category:Bishops by country Estopedist1 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 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:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists politicians[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: OUN wasn't a political party per se, it was more of a movement, many members cannot be described as "politicians" Marcelus (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - ugh. So, "members" creates WP:DEFINING and maintenance issues; and "leaders" is a word we should just avoid in categorisation. I thought about "activists", but being a member of something doesn't necessarily make one an activist. Due to the issues here, I think I'm leaning towards Listify to List of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists members, and then Delete. - jc37 10:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, being member of the OUN is clearly defining for the all people listed in the category. Marcelus (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to being convinced, do you have references supporting that assertion? Key words being "clearly defining", and "all". - jc37 00:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:18, 11 June 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:Kamikaze in fiction[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) 04:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I removed the redirect, and moved the subcat to Category:Kamikaze, which left the category with no members. Anyone can revert, if they really think this cat is needed. Though I would suggest building a list, with references, instead. - jc37 22:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am surprised we don't have any articles on novels about kamikaze, or kaiten. I don't recall any titles now, but I would expect that some of them would have articles. If we do have some, the "in fiction" category would have membership. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 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 interested in health and hygiene[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 27#Category:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene

Category:10th-century Kings of the Romans[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) 04:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the title King of the Romans was established in 1002, i.e. in the 11th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Well-spotted. On a related note, why is Charlemagne in Category:9th-century Holy Roman Emperors? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No wait, why does that category exist at all? Holy Roman Empire generally starts at 962. The two references claiming it started in 800 are both quite old (1899 and 1967), WP:AGEMATTERS. CfD that one too? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the title of a monarch it seems there is a sort of succession since 800. Of course the Holy Roman Empire as the name of a country is only applied since 962. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't normally support fudges, but back then, who's to say when a state as we now know it was created? Calling someone a "King of X" was usually taken to mean that X was sovereign as we would now call it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 15 June 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.

Photography museums and galleries[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 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 11 June 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.

Assassinated judges[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) 04:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, and besides there are only 10 more articles in Category:Assassinated judges so it is completely meaningless to expand this tree on a short term. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While a couple countries might be viable subcats here, creating a whole by country tree is not warranted given the article count. No objection to creating/recreating any country that reaches 5+ articles (and hopefully that doesn't happen given the topic). - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 17 June 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:Bus stations in Perth, Western Australia[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) 04:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with List of Transperth bus stations. Also, Lakelands and Mandurah stations are not in Perth but are in the Transperth system so the current name does not make sense. Steelkamp (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per nom. Does make sense. Fork99 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 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:Railway stations in Perth, Western Australia[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) 04:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with List of Transperth railway stations, which was moved in 2021. This would be a more natural grouping than "railway stations in Perth", which excludes Lakelands and Mandurah stations, but includes non-Transperth stations such as Byford or Mundijong stations. If this is renamed, then another category can be created for Transwa railway stations. Steelkamp (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This one I’m on the fence about. In theory I think it makes sense, however, it would not be consistent with other categories for railway stations in other cities of Australia, such as [[Category:Railway stations in Sydney]]. However, if the principle is that because Transperth serves stations outside of the Perth metropolitan area, then I may change this to a support. If in this case, this does go through, we need to fix up the categories for Queensland Rail stations as they also run outside of the Brisbane metropolitan area. I don’t think Adelaide Metro or Metro Trains Melbourne run out of their respective metropolitan areas, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Fork99 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually looking at those other categories right now to see if they should be changed too. Steelkamp (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe: we could just change every single “stations in bla city category” to “operator’s stations category” + categories for the regional/intercity train operators. I don’t see the harm in that, and it’s easily adjustable in the future in case of a name change or expansion of the metropolitan rail operator’s network into rural areas. Though, I’ve just had a look to see how it’s done in the US, Union Station (Los Angeles) has categories for both its operator(s) AND for the city it’s in. Fork99 (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note for context for anyone from outside of Australia: each capital city (if it does have a rail network), only has one suburban/urban/commuter rail operator (with the sole exception of Sydney Trains and Sydney Metro), and maybe a regional operator (that is also run by that capital city’s state government) for intercity/regional trains. Fork99 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another Comment (sorry): We also need to take into consideration railway stations that are closed that are in these categories, as they may have never been in operation under the contemporary rail operator. Fork99 (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: while taking into consideration the comments above. Please also take into consideration a separate discussion that has taken place at User talk:Fork99#NSW railway stations category. Fork99 (talk) 07:35, 11 June 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.

Viceregal 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 and rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split/rename, follow-up on this earlier discussion: governors and regents are completely different offices. I think the 5th-century category and higher only contain regents, therefore the proposal for those categories is to rename instead of to split. If I am mistaken they should be split too. @Dimadick, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 11 June 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:ISIRI standards[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:Standards of Iran. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete and move the three articles to Category:Standards of Iran, per WP:SMALLCAT, the category is mainly populated with redirects to the same list article. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent category with one article and this category with three articles is nevertheless better to be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Articles I'm wondering if a redirect category would be helpful here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, merging and keeping it as a redirect would surely be helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 11 June 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:Thai Industrial Standards[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:Thai Industrial Standards

Category:Heads of state of Austria[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 18:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't Category:Emperors of Austria also be under there somehow? But if there's agreed intent to separate modern countries from their historical predecessors in such categories, then go ahead. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why was category Monarchs of Austria excluded? Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel Lodged excluded it on 1 October 2021 saying "not part of the modern republic of Austria". If we consider Austria-Hungary, Austrian Empire etc. to be predecessor states of 'the modern republic of Austria', then it's reasonable to restore monarchs of Austria, and it would no longer be a redundant layer. I see that you've already done that, so this nomination has no rationale anymore and I withdraw the nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support, the (arch)dukes of Austria were subordinate to the Holy Roman Emperor, so "head of state" is really inappropriate. The Austrian Empire was a very different state than the republic of Austria. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't actually considered that. I've struck my withdrawal for now, because it seems like there's more to discuss. Would you agree that after 1806 the Category:Emperors of Austria were no longer subordinate to the Holy Roman Emperors and therefore "heads of state of Austria"? It would mean we don't include the whole Category:Monarchs of Austria tree in Category:Heads of state of Austria, just its child Category:Emperors of Austria. Incidentally, Category:Heads of government of Austria also combines the pre-1918 ministers-president of Austria and the post-1918 chancellors of Austria, and all of the above are in Category:Austrian people by occupation. If we want a clear-cut separation at 1918, we may have to disentangle significantly intertwined trees. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We want a clear-cut separation at 1918. We have to disentangle significantly intertwined trees. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you favour a downmerge? (I'm still open to many options). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's best to just delete Category:Heads of state of Austria. Presidents is adequate on its own. The entire "Heads of state" tree structure is just a dreadful amalgamation of modern states and their historical predecessors. Dukes of Germany, Prince-Bishops of Germany when Germany didn't even exist at that time. Disentangle modern from supposed historical predecessors (which are often more imagined than real). Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 11 June 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:Film directors from Alappuzha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:Film directors from Alappuzha

Category:Kennedy Center honorees[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 1#Category:Kennedy Center honorees

Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world

Category:National Football League Olympians[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) 04:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cross categorisation that fits better in a list, which it is: List of National Football League Olympians. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 11 June 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:Ukrainian-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. Additionally, no cleanup is needed except for one article that does not identify an official language. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2C parent Category:Countries and territories by official language. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apart from Transnistria there are only territories in the category roughly within the current boundaries of Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant point is that most of them are former countries, not the same as the current republic called "Ukraine", which was established in 1991. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:02, 11 June 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_June_11&oldid=1164538318"