Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7
January 9 >

January 8[edit]

Category:Religious television stations in Florida[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:Religious television stations in the United States. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 T--C 04:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other "Religious TV stations in $STATE" categories in the U.S. This can and should be upmerged to the three parents. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:50, 8 January 2024 (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 C services[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) Seawolf35 T--C 04:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category C services was a Canadian classification for pay TV channels in the areas of news and sports. It's no longer in use. The members of this category are naturally categorized as news and sports channels, and this is not a defining characteristic any more. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, this is an outdated classification that meant something once upon a time, but doesn't have any meaning or relevance anymore in 2024. I've already double-checked all of the (thankfully not too many) articles here to ensure that they're in all of the other replacement categories they would need to be in — and indeed they are, so this can just be deleted rather than needing to be merged anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2024 (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:CNBC Arabiya[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete C2F, content has already been upmerged. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It really should be CNBC Arabia, but there are no other pages that even belong in this cat. The main article isn't even here, for some reason. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (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:CNBC Africa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete C2F. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Few reasonable expansion targets. Contents already in parent Category:CNBC global channels. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:19, 8 January 2024 (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:Class CNBC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete C2F. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Few reasonable expansion targets. Contents in parent Category:CNBC global channels. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:18, 8 January 2024 (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:Finnish mythology[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: not done for now/wrong venue. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 T--C 04:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I will try to explain 😁 why this is a more correct name - mythology of Karelians and Finns, and the category Karelian-Finnish folklore on the contrary needs to be divided (because the culture of folklore is always in active creation, unlike mythology). Although the category can be left as a unifying one. The category "Finnish folklore", by the way, already exists. mythology is the basis of folklore. To make two categories for the same "gods" (the difference in their pronunciation is usually not more than one letter - often without difference) makes no sense to me,because at the moment of formation of this mythology (which was a very long time ago), all the studies that I came across say that Karelians and Finns represent something more united than their cultures represent today. And about the presence here of the category: Sami Mythology..... I suggest creating a new category " Mythology of Finland", which better organizes the two categories. Miikul (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: I really struggling to follow your argument, and it seems like there are multiple elements to your proposal. Can you lay out your full proposal and explain why Karelian-Finnish is more correct. As written, I'm not sure why we couldn't just create a new category called Karelian-Finnish mythology and adding it as either a parent or child category. Mason (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in principle, this can be done, but all the current contents of the category correspond to the name I suggested. The option you suggested is to simply create a category "Karelian-Finnish mythology" and assign it parent or child, confuses the boundaries of cultural areas and modern states (for example, the subcategory Sami mythology ,belongs to a different ethnic group. that is, this category is a mixture of Karelian-Finnish mythology and mythology that exists on the territory of the modern state of Finland . Miikul (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, per article title Finnish mythology. If that article is renamed in a WP:RM procedure the category name can follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article mixes the history of the study of mythology in Finland and the subject itself (Karelian-Finnish mythology).... it can rather be called Mythology of Finland , and be intended for the future category proposed by me.... Miikul (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article needs to be split, that is still a discussion to be taken place in article space. It is too early for a discussion in category space. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close for Now/Wrong Venue This type of content proposal would be better on the talk page of the main article (and there I would ask for reliable sources to be cited). Once the main article is sorted out with consensus to rename or split, we can regroup in the category space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British North Borneo[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:North Borneo. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect, manually merging parent categories and Wikidata links. There is only one topic; British North Borneo redirects to North Borneo, and in the rest of the category hierarchy (e.g. establishments) categories do not include "British" in their names. All refer to the entire period 1882–1946 (British protectorate 1882–1946, crown colony of UK 1946–1963). – Fayenatic London 21:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2024 (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:Social gatherings[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:Social events. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no visible distinction in meaning. If not merged, rename to Category:Types of social event and move other articles about generic event types into this one. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 8 January 2024 (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:Chilean journalists by type[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:Chilean journalists. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one category in here, and this category is a difference of "medium" rather than "type" Mason (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2024 (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:Egyptian concubines[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 Category:Egyptian concubines. The rest were insufficiently discussed to attain consensus.
Nominator's rationale: Either this category needs to be renamed per Aciram's insistence that all Egyptian concubines are Slave concubines or the categories should be removed to reflect that this is an intersection between occupation and nationality Mason (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what you mean when you say insistence. It is merely stating a historical fact. In Islamic Egypt it was forbidden for a woman to be a concubine unless she was a slave. It was not possible or legal to be an official concubine without being a slave, hence a concubine was per definition a slave (please see Concubinage in Islam). You can verify this by controlling the individual articles in this category yourself. It is similar to, for example, "Egyptian slaves", and a subcategory to it (as it should, since being a concubine was one of the positions a slave - and only a slave - could have). I therefore assume "Egyptian slaves" will also be renamed to "Slaves of Egypt".
However I do not object to a renaming of the category, and I will not contest it. The main thing is that it reflect that these women were concubines, and in which country. I will support this renaming, if it is seen as necessary. I assume you will consider equivalent categories of concubines from other countries when renaming it, for consistency (I think many of this categories are called "from" rather than "of", but I might be wrong). --Aciram (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have: "Category:.Egyptian royal consorts". But it cannot replace a category whose purpose it is to list specifically concubines from a country.
Not all consorts of Egyptian monarchs were concubines. It is relevant to have a category for Egyptian concubines, and that need would not be met by creating a category of consorts to Egyptian monarchs, since not all of those consorts were concubines. --Aciram (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concubine is the defining characteristic and purpose of this category. The purpose of the category is to include women who were concubines (per definition slaves) by nation. This is similar to slaves, writers, politicians, or any other occupational category which is sorted by nation. Currently, the concubines in the category includes only the concubines of monarchs, but there were many concubines who were not the concubines of monarchs, and in the future there might be articles about them too.
The alternative name is worse than the name first suggested. I oppose to the category being renamed to include only the concubines of monarchs. The result of that would be that all consorts of monarch would be included in the same category regardless if they were concubines or wives. It is relevant to have a category for concubines.
We must be able to include both royal and non-royal concubines in the category should the need arise. It may very well do, since wikipedia already have plenty of articles of concubines to non-monarchs; just not of these three countries in particular.
The categories should be neutral in the sense that concubines of both monarchs and other could be included; and thus more usefull. --Aciram (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles do not make an issue of it at all, they just portray these women as the consort of a ruler. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your point. The articles could make an issue of it, if we put more text about the matter than the authors wanted to so far. No article is ever finnished. But that does not really have relevance here. Categories are used when they apply to the person. The fact that they were slave-concubines and not legal wives is not an unimportant fact.
There is a category called "concubines", just as there is a category as, for example, "Writers". The Concubine-category category should be divided by nationality, just as the writers-category is. These women should be categorized as concubines, simply because that is what they were. It should not be hidden or censured. Nor should the fact that they were slaves be hidden, even if that fact has occasionally been glanced over and often omitted entirely because it was seen as sensitive subject; it is certainly still relevant. Slavery is no trivial subject, and this classifies them by type of slavery: concubinage slavery, no trivial subject either.
The Ottoman- and Safavid-categories have also been added now: in those cases, there are separate categories for the consorts of the rulers as well as concubines, and these are combined when it applies to the individual, as it should.
Of course you can place them in a category for the consorts (euphemism) of rulers. But they should still be in a concubine-category, since both matters apply to them. A consort-category can not replace a concubine-category. They are two different things and should be treated as such. One can not replace another. Unless of course you choose to combine them somehow.--Aciram (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were "consorts" because they were concubines. "Consort" is a euphemism. If they are relevant as consorts, they are relevant as concubines (slaves), because they were consorts because they were concubines, and their consort-subcategory is that of concubines. To be a concubine and to be a wife were to different things. They had different positions, different rights, different terminology.--Aciram (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editors of the articles apparently do not think that the distinction is important, you are the only one who think it is. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I have a simple solution and a compromise that I hope everyone will be happy with. Let us name the categories "Concubines of Egyptian monarchs", "Concubines of Safavid monarchs" and "Concubines of Ottoman sultans". That would have several advantages:
1) Since the concubines were all the concubines of monarchs, this should fullfill the expressed wish of those who want to point out that these were the consorts of monarchs; if there should be concubines who were concubines of non-monarchs in the future in need of a category, then we can simply make the above categories sub-categories of "Concubines of Egypt", when/if that need should arize, that is a small adjustment.
2) All of these monarchs had both concubines and wives among their "consorts" (euphemism), and the categories should reflect that; the categories above can simply be made sub-categories of "Consorts of Ottoman sultans" etc (I believe such categories already excist in one or two of these cases), and that will solve the issue about different categories of consorts as well.
3) Finnally, this will, I think, solve the concern about nationality/occupation expressed in the beginning of this discussion.
In short, the above suggestion would be a simple solution, that follows already used categorization-principles, that would solve several of the concerns voiced by the participants of this discussion. I hope they can be accepted by all. A very happy Christmans to you all!--Aciram (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A small problem is the case of Egypt, since the rulers of Egypt in the 19th-century were not all strictly speaking monarchs; the khedives were formally governors, although de facto monarchs. The Egyptian case is in that sence different from the other two cases. However, the khedives is themselwes sorted as monarchs, so presumably, it will be fine. --Aciram (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Category:Concubines of Egyptian rulers. slave = concubine is probably Muslim law, not applicable to pre-Muslim periods. "of Egypt" will not do since Egypt is not a spouse. "in Egypt" might do. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would not solve the following problem: a category for slave concubines of Egypt is needed, as well as the categories of slave concubines of Ottoman and Sfavid rulers are needed.
It is just as relevant to have a category for slave-concubines, as there it is relevant to have categories for the military slaves ghilman/mamluks. The slave-soldiers known as ghilmans have numerous categories sorted by nationality. Example: "Category:Safavid ghilman".
Why should slave concubines not have categories by nationality too? That form of slavery is not less relevant than military slavery. Slave-soldiers and slave-concubines should not be treated differently. They all deserve their own category. It is relevant for the slave-categories.
The slave aspect of this issue is important. Some say the consort-aspect is the most important. But the enslavement was why these women were consorts in the first place. It was not the same thing as being a wife. They were slaves. That is a separate category, with separate rights, separate legality, separate position from that of a wife.
Slave categories are normally sorted by the country in which the slaves were kept in bondage. --Aciram (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please observe the caregories of slaves in Wikipedia: the common custom for slave-categories, is to sort slaves from the country in which they were slaves, not from their original nationality. For example: people in slavery in America is called American slaves despite them having a different original nationality. This is the common custom for slaves. Therefore, Egyptian slaves can be called "Egyptian" despite it not being their original nationality as per custom.
Because of this, the category "Egyptian concubines" do not really need to change; otherwise, you would have to change "Egyptian slaves" as well. If if were to change, then you may simply change it to "Concubines of Egypt", and avoid the problem with how the Egyptian "rulers" should be categorized.
2) It is important to distinguish "consorts" (which is a euphemism) in to the sub-categories "wives" and "concubines". Wife and concubine were two different things. They had different rights, different titles, different positions, different terminology, and this should be respected. --Aciram (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram, you have written a lot of text, but it's not really responsive to what others are bringing up. Personally, I think that Peterkingiron has an extremely good point, "slave = concubine is probably Muslim law, not applicable to pre-Muslim periods" I think that if the concubine category is kept, we should *not* have it subcategorized under slaves for any of the category. Instead individuals who are slaves can be places in both categories. Mason (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason In that case, the Egyptian category is different from the two other categories which are also brought up in this discussion: the Ottoman and the Safavid concubine category. I can agree that the Egyptian slave concubines should be listed individually, but the categories of Safavid concubines and Ottoman concubines should still be listed as slaves. The Safavid and the Ottoman dynasties were both Muslim, hence all the concubines in those categories were, indeed, slaves. --Aciram (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we should be adding the slaves category as a parent to any of these categories. Is being a slave a defining feature for every single person in the category? I find that hard to believe. As Marco pointed out that the defining feature of these categories is that they were spouses/partners etc of some flavor to the ruler, rather than a slave. Mason (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a rather Westernized way of looking at the concept of "slave". You appear to say that their "defining feature" can not be royal consort and slave at the same time, but that is a Westernized way of looking at slavery. Slaves had different rights and positions in different countries and cultures, but they were nonetheless slaves. We should not reserve the concept of slaves for those who lived the same way as slaves lived in the West, just because they have shaped our own model of slavery. There is no reason to say that slavery is not a "defining feature" for slaves of non-Western cultures, simply because the slavery looked different.
To be a concubine was a very defining feauture for a slave in Muslim culture. However strange it may seem for a Western person, it was not contradictory to be a slave and to be a royal consort at the same time in Islamic culture. There were two categories of consorts of a man in Islamic culture: to be a wife, or to be a slave concubine. A wife and a slave concubine was not the same thing. They had different rights, different positions.
The argument of "defining feature" indicate that to be a slave and to be a royal consort was something entirely different. It was indeed something very different in Western culture, but it was certainly not something different or contradictory in Islamic culture. Wikipedia should be neutral. To be neutral is to be factual. To reintepret these concept in order to fit them in to Westernized intepretations is not neutral or factual.
These "consorts" were royal slave concubines. To be a slave consort was their "defining feature"; it was not the same thing as being a wife. We have to abandon our own Western concept that this is somehow to be less of a slave just because slavery looked different in this culture. Wikipedia should have a global viewpoint. --Aciram (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt Rename/Rename to Category:Concubines of Egyptian rulers per Peterkingiron's analysis about pre-Muslim periods. Rename the rest as nominated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Egyptian concubines to Concubines of Egyptian rulers. Concubines of particular Egyptian dynasties can be placed as sub-categories to that (categorized as slaves were that applies).
  • Rename Safavid concubines to Concubines of Safavid monarchs, which would be a subcategory of Safavid royal consorts . That would be in line with eqvivalent categories (of course categorized as slaves were that applies).
  • Create Concubines of Ottoman sultans and make that a subcategory of Concubines from the Ottoman Empire. That will leave room for concubines of other Ottoman people. That would be in line with eqvivalent categories. Those solutions above are easy.--Aciram (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2024 (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:Female characters in fairy tales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 16#Category:Female characters in fairy tales

Category:Male characters in fairy tales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 16#Category:Male characters in fairy tales

Category:Resorts in Thailand[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Per User talk:Qwerfjkl#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 31#Category:Resorts in Thailand. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While other country resort categories may contain resorts in the sense of large recreational destinations like Disneyland Resort or entire resort towns, the term "resort" in Thailand usually just means "resort hotel", which I think should just be under the hotels category. Having a resorts category in addition to hotels is redundant here. Paul_012 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amanpuri seems to be resort destination as you mentioned with villas as opposed to traditional hotels. I agree in sense that there is a redundant overlap with these categories across most countries. Perhaps just merging Category:Hotels and Category:Resorts into Category:Hotels and resorts could gain support but unsure if it'd be the best option? –Aidan721 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I still primarily think of Amanpuri as a hotel, as it's a single property where guests check in to stay. But that's a fair point. We should probably focus on how to deal with the overlap. I don't think the combined approach would work though, at least not without separating all the resort towns/beaches/islands/etc. into a separate tree. I think it would be clearer to separate the overlapping members into a Category:Resort hotels tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, there is a big tree of Category:Resorts by country and we shouldn't single out Thailand on its own. Further comment, "resort" may alternatively mean a town that is almost exclusively focused on tourism. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking that maybe Thailand was different in its use of the term, but it seems the entire tree does need an overhaul. To the closer, please close this without relisting if no further comments are forthcoming, and I'll see if I can come up with a better scheme to propose (I'm thinking something along the lines of splitting Category:Resorts into Category Resort hotels, Category:Resort developments and Category:Resort towns). --Paul_012 (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 8 January 2024 (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.

High schools and secondary schools[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) Seawolf35 T--C 04:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: High schools are just one example of secondary schools. This category was created via a discussion over 15 years ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_18#Category:High_schools. Since then, the category has grown and Category:High schools and Category:Middle schools have been separated out. Because of this, rename this for better consistency across all levels of this category tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm thinking it would be preferable to merge Category:High schools by country etc. back into the combined by-country category. As a reader who doesn't know whether Japan has high schools or secondary schools, I'd want to be able to locate it in a single by-country category rather than forced to browse two categories in parallel to find it. As a side note, the country-level "high schools and secondary schools" cats should be renamed to follow that country's system, unless it actually has both. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all secondary schools are high schools. Secondary school is a more general term encompassing high schools and middle schools. Merging all to the High schools tree doesn't make any sense. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I said. I was suggesting that Category:High schools by country be merged back into Category:High schools and secondary schools by country, so that both high schools and secondary schools are browsable within the same by-country container. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 8 January 2024 (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:Shoplifters[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) Seawolf35 T--C 04:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A tiny category with 7 members, of a niche criminal offense? Plus including living people feels like a violation of WP:BLP Heyallkatehere (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an entirely reasonable subcategory of Category:Thieves. BLP should not be an issue here, any more than for the parent category: if people are incorrectly put into this category, that's an article problem that needs fixing, not a category one. — The Anome (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've removed one page from this category as it didn't mention shoplifting, other pages do mention it, and many subjects are defined by it, so I see no problem with this category. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I removed the politician's kid who was charged (but not convicted) of stealing Aqau Cream from Sephora as a pretty clear WP:BLP issue. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The remaining articles seem pretty defining as being professional shoplifters. Not sure if renaming to Category:Professional shoplifters or just need to not add notable people for a on-time minor crime. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid category. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:16, 16 January 2024 (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.

Establishments in Sabah[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/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename 1920s to join Category:20th-century establishments in North Borneo, and merge 1966 to Malaysia. The sibling hierarchy Category:Establishments in Sarawak by year is populated to a worthwhile degree, but North Borneo covers the older dates in Sabah, and the other states of Malaysia do not have such a hierarchy; so delete the rest. Category:19th-century establishments in Malaysia is a related anachronism covering Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak which were not connnected at the time. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a hugely complicated tree for only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Marco Mason (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given the limited number of articles with no prejudice to potential recreation if the Malaysia categories becoming populated enough to break up. CMD (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2024 (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:Images of young people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 T--C 16:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as this is vaguely defined. What counts as "young"? Mason (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle, but the target is a container category. Perhaps images do not necessarily have to be categorized, in that case the category may just be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Archaeology of Mandatory Palestine[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 to Category:Archaeology of Palestine (region). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added quite several articles.GreyShark (dibra) 12:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Now has more articles and further will be added. Zerotalk 12:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biography articles should be moved to an archaeologist category per WP:COPSEP, or just purged if they weren't an archaeologist. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed one, the only archaeologists in the category are there because they played a major part in the organization such as being director. They aren't there just because they were archaeologists. Zerotalk 12:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Mandatory Palestine existed for barely 30 years, but the archaeology refers to the area for 4000, even 5000 years. Category:Archaeologists in Mandatory Palestine might be as legitimate category for people, but archaeology is generally about a place, which may be successively in different countries. However I think we usually categorise places by their present country. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:49, 8 January 2024 (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 of Palestine governments[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication category Mason (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. Presumably the creator meant "cabinets" but the number of articles is currently too low for a separate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as is. There is a long-time mess between Category:Governments by country/Category:National governments (which often duplicate Category:National cabinets) in the sense of the successive individual governments (executive) that lead a country, and Category:Government by country which covers all aspects of government. It doesn't help that all those worlds, as well as administration or ministry, are used with several overlapping meanings. This merge proposal confuses the two notions. I rearranged the parent and children categories in order to restore some consistency. Place Clichy (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am striking my vote as the category now also contains two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2024 (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:Carrie Chapman Catt[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 18:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in here that are already linked. its not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge per nom (only the biography needs to be recategorized, because the topic article is already in an appropriate topic category). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My thoughts about creating this was that Catt is responsible for several women's suffrage initiatives and was a very famous person with a lot of places named after her, and I was going to go back and add those in. These would include Catt Hall, League of Women Voters, Carrie Chapman Catt House, and several others. I've added the 3 I just linked. I think it should be kept, but my specialty on Wiki is not in categories, and I'll bow to expertise here! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm no expert, but 5 articles with a clear theme seems like enough to keep a category. Besides, about half of the articles in the category wouldn't fit in the merge target anyway. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:40, 8 January 2024 (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:20th-century executions by Singapore[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 16#Category:20th-century executions by Singapore

Category:18th-century artisans by nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one nationality in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The philantropists category meanwhile has three subcategories but that does not change matters a lot. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2024 (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:Mill owners in Glossop[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 to Category:Businesspeople from Glossop. (And populate appropriately.) (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel merge there isn't a main category for mill owners, and I don't think we really need to make the distinction of where the owned mill is located Mason (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Businesspeople from Glossop which is the more usual format to group people by occupation and place. Also note that they weren't all in the textile industry, the first article is about someone who owned a paper mill and the second about printworks. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that Mason (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2024 (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:Russian Korean cuisine[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 to Category:Koryo-saram cuisine. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Russian Korean cuisine" is an inaccurate (and potentially offensive) name. Currently the category is for both Koryo-saram cuisine and Sakhalin Korean cuisine, but these are two distinct groups. Koryo-saram span multiple countries, including notably Ukraine, and may take offense to being called "Russian". Sakhalin Koreans may take offense to being lumped in with Koryo-saram, as Koryo-saram have historically treated them poorly in the past. I propose renaming this category and purging the Sakhalin Korean dishes (just Khe (food) and Pyanse at the moment). I'll get around to making a category for Sakhalin Korean dishes later, will make a few articles about their dishes. toobigtokale (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2024 (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:Native American men in politics[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a male politician categories, per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2024 (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/2024_January_8&oldid=1196505987"