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.
Nominator's rationale: This list contains many individuals who are not researchers. However everyone on the list is a advocate for psychonautics.
jps (
talk)
19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support renaming per
WP:CATV,
WP:CATPOV and
WP:CATDEF The nominator's rationale is sound. Many individuals in this category are not researchers. Hence, this is currently a misnomer. Psychonautics proponents more accurately describes the subjects which populate this category. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
22:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep and purge - my intention when populating the category was only to add researchers in at least a loose sense of the word (though I won't claim to have not made mistakes!). I think if we want to keep it as a subcategory of parapsychologists we should purge the non-researchers rather than renaming.
- car chasm (
talk)
03:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nations at competitions
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.
If
Laurel Lodged meant that it was an "X by Y"-type container category, I don't agree. This contains parent cats of e.g. "
France at the Olympics". Moreover, the immediate sub-cats are "by competition" rather than "by country". If anything this category is "Participation in international competitions by competition and country", but that's far too long-winded. So I oppose the Alt merger, and support the original proposal. –
FayenaticLondon15:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Philosophy writers
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.
Nominator's rationale:Previous discussion was closed against consensus, and the arguments in favor of keeping it were clearly poor, as the contents demonstrate it's not obvious to anyone that "writers" refers to people who aren't "academics." If someone doesn't really "count" as a philosopher, we shouldn't categorize them as one at all.
- car chasm (
talk)
02:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, we already have philosophers by nationality and by century categories and everyone who is not a philosopher does not belong in those trees.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose I don't think one can single-handedly re-interpret the closure of a previous discussion as having had an incorrect conclusion. There were 2 votes for "Merge" (all three); 2 votes for "Keep/Oppose" (all three); and 1 vote for "Merge" (only)
Category:American philosophy academics to
Category:American philosophers + Alt merge, not in this nom. That makes 2-2-1, so there is no reason to question the no consensus result. Plus: the previous discussion was never about Deleting, only about Merging, so the present nomination is a very different proposal, and the rationale is misleading.
Nor do I think it's a good idea to randomly orphan 7 +7 subcategories and 274 + 565 items. The consequences of a deletion have not been considered at all.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
09:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've just checked the subcategories and added some missing categories that will keep the ones that contain philosophers in the Philosopher tree.
- car chasm (
talk)
15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with only a main article and a subcategory. The subcategory suffices. If kept, rename per main article.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The main article is
Government of Ukraine. The English title is ambiguous though, as Government in English is a general broad term, while what we are talking about here is the executive branch only. --
Base (
talk)
04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, that is the only category that kind makes sense for
Secretariat of Cabinet of Ministers (Ukraine) out of the 3 it has. In ukwiki it has more members and subcategories. I am not sure if poor coverage the English Wikipedia has is a valid reason for category deletion. Government ministries concerns particular ministeries, but not the government as a whole. --
Base (
talk)
04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
What do you mean?
Government of Ukraine is the main article, it is an article about the executive branch, not about the whole government. I am not sure why it is called that, but that is besides the point in this discussion. --
Base (
talk)
15:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If that is the main article, the category should be named accordingly, and articles that are not about the Secretariat should be purged from the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Executive power in Ukraine
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.
Update & Keep, This category was previously attached to Wikidata "Category:Executive power (Q9679597)." It is now attached to Wikidata "Executive power in Ukraine (Q10015994)" with 4 subcategories and 4 pages in the category appearing in the English version. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shari Garland (
talk •
contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Serbian-speaking countries and territories
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.
CommentOppose There doesn't seem to be consistency in the tree category as some sub-categories follow the "X-speaking countries and territories" format while others follow the "Countries and territories where X is an official language" format. So, either we nominate all for consistency or keep things how they are. The Serbian category's parent category is
Category:Serbo-Croatian-speaking countries and territories of which there is Bosnian and Croatian, who follow the same pattern as Serbian so for the time being I am for keeping it the way it is. --
Griboski (
talk)
17:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Although from a linguistic point of view,
Serbo-Croatian is a single but pluricentric language, from an "official" / legal point of view, Austronesier may be correct that what really matters is the standard
registers. And then we've got 5 standards: B, C, M, S, and S-C. Whether these should a have separate categories or a joint one is up for question. Until we figure that out, I'm neutral.Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: I've figured it out, and now I support Rename All, i.e. Rename this category as nominated, as well as that of its 3 sibling categories, see below. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I've gone through lots of texts of constitutions of former Yugoslav, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Slovenian, (North) Macedonian, Kosovan etc. states and territories, and what is
WP:DEFINING here is whether these languages are identified as "official language(s)" in these constitutions (or other top-level legislation) or not. Per
WP:C2C parent
Category:Countries and territories by official language that is also exactly what we should do. Arguing which language which people speak where is extremely
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and
WP:ARBITRARYCAT (and if you do it long enough, you will easily arouse needless intercommunal tensions), and pointless, whereas official legal status is an objective criterion to check category membership that we can actually work with because it is all officially written down. Given recent renamings of its siblings, including
Category:Albanian-speaking countries and territories to
Category:Countries and territories where Albanian is an official language, this is evidently the way forward. At
Serbo-Croatian#Legal status I've already given an overview of countries and territories whose constitution says/said that "Serbo-Croatian" (or "Croato-Serbian" or "Serbo-Croato-Slovene") is an official language. This can be done for all of them. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Griboski @
RevelationDirect and I seem to agree we should Rename All. Could you confirm that, please? Thanks!
Rename All Correct, I support changing all of these to "official language" categories and purging as necessary per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and, at this point,
WP:C2C since this has become the clear consensus. A group nomination seems appropriate in this case to allay any concerns about uneven treatment. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Urban development
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Potentially dangerous food
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.
Delete, the rename does not solve the problem. How many health issue cases does any sort of food need in order to qualify for this category?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arab
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:ARBITRARYCATWP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I had already removed "
Category:Muslim communities in Africa" and "
Category:Muslim communities in Asia" with the edit summary "Arabs are not Muslim by definition. This is an incorrect generalisation." (Millions of Arabic speakers are irreligious, Christian, Jewish, or adherents of other religions. Arab =/= Muslim.) But I now see that there are multiple issues with the category as a whole. Why can't people whose native language is Arabic, but have been born and raised outside
MENA be called "Arabs", for example? Why does geography matter?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
09:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: (edit conflict) I do think that
Category:Arabs may be a legitimate category within the
Category:People by ethnicity tree. But it needs to be Purged from "people by nationality" subcategories such as
Category:Syrian people and
Category:Iraqi people, because this categorisation implies all Syrian and Iraqi nationals are "Arabs", even if their native language is Kurdish, Turkmeni, Turkish, Persian etc. Nationality and ethnicity of groups of people rarely/never coincide completely; in reality, humanity is a series of
Venn diagrams. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
11:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Indeed, especially the loop gives me the idea that the category has an identity crisis: it has no idea what it is, or meant to be doing. It's a typical case of a category wanting to do lots of different things simultaneously, and failing to do any of them well.
@
Fayenatic london if "Arab world" is really about a "group of countries", then I think I'll CfD it. Recent months have taught us not to mix up language (families) and countries, or to categorise Fooian-speaking countries and territories, but only Countries and territories where Fooian is an official language. I've seen several renamings of "Arab world" to "Arab League", which is a more useful and objective group.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london @
Marcocapelle By the way, I've been meaning to Purge
Category:People by nationality subcats from
Category:Arabs. "Arab" isn't a nationality, there is no country called "Arab" or "Arabic" or "Arabia" or "Arabian". (At most there is Saudi Arabia, but the demonym for that is obviously "Saudi Arabian" or just "Saudi"). There is no reason for us to assume/generalise, for example, that allCategory:Iraqi people are "Arabs"; e.g.,
Demographics of Iraq#Ethnicity states: According to the CIA World Factbook, citing a 1987 Iraqi government estimate, the population of Iraq is formed of 70-80% Arabs followed by 15-20% Kurds. Putting all
Category:Iraqi people in
Category:Arabs is essentially denying/erasing the existence of millions of
Kurds in Iraq. We can't do that, can we?
I disagree. Removal of national categories has already been tried and reverted, e.g.
[1]. Categories for nationals of Arab League countriescountries where Arabic is natively spoken belong in
Arabs because
WP:SUBCAT allows cases where the majority of contents would belong in the parent. The description on the category page indicates how individual biographies should be diffused to subcats. –
FayenaticLondon15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:SUBCAT allows cases where the majority of contents would belong in the parent.
That's not how I read it:
When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also.
It's been in Arab people/Arabs since 2017. By all means open a discussion on that (and selected others, e.g. Lebanon?) as an RFC. I don't think disagreement about such longstanding categorisations can be resolved in this discussion. The editor who was recently removing such parenting said he would open a project discussion, but did not do so before he was blocked as a sockpuppet. –
FayenaticLondon16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
countries where Arabic is natively spoken What does that mean? There are native Arabic speakers living in Brussels. Should we therefore categorise
Belgium in
Category:Arabs?
Putting whole country/nationality subcats in an Arab ethnic parent category is common practice in Wikipedia, but it is also bad common practice, misrepresenting Kopts, Kurds, Berbers etc.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Either way, this interpretation of what "Arabs" means in order to justify that Categories for nationals of countries where Arabic is natively spoken belong in
Category:Arabs is, in my opinion (and probably that of Marco), deeply flawed. A bad common practice that we should cease.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Your opinion about how categories should operate is noted, but does not represent a consensus on English Wikipedia. (I understand that German Wikipedia operates more as you have described.) We have other cases where people are sub-catted for less than a majority, e.g.
WP:IRE-CATS is a consensus that people from Northern Ireland are parented by both British and Irish hierarchies, even though many do not identify as both but only as one or the other. –
FayenaticLondon21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I am still confused as to why this category can't be merged to
Category:Arab world, the two concepts are not the same but very overlapping. Arab world is defined by Arab ethnicity. One of the articles in this category even has "of the Arab world" in the title, so why would it not belong in
Category:Arab world?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography.
Genetic history of the Arab world does belong in Arab world, which is why I added it there. But it also belongs in the top category about Arab ethnicity, because it is specifically about "ethnic Arab populations" in the Arab world.
IMHO
Arab diaspora should be in the top category Arab, alongside Arab world. I don't object to it also bring in the people category, as it includes both general and biography articles. -–
FayenaticLondon
Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too, because the word "Arab" depends on ethnicity, as all parents of
Category:Arab,
Category:Arab world and
Category:Arabs show. The term "Arab world" depends on an ethnic group called "Arabs" living in it, even though, indeed, Ethnicity transcends geography (I completely agree with that). That's how "Arabs" can live in
Brussels, but nobody would categorise
Belgium as part of the so-called "Arab world".
The term "Arab world" is necessarily a generalisation, and cannot be anything other than a generalisation. Some generalisations may be useful for certain purposes (such as the article
Arab world), but not for categorisation purposes per
WP:CATSPECIFIC,
WP:ARBITRARYCAT and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. (Just because there is an article doesn't mean there should be an identically-named category).
Therefore,
Category:Arab world cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted or Merged,
Category:Arab cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted (and it almost already was before this CfD was reopened), and
Category:Arabs cannot have a geographic focus because Ethnicity transcends geography and should be Purged. Repurposing
Category:Arab people for individuals is an additional option we can use to fix the issues here (because it is a redirect, we practically don't need a CfS to do it, as I suggested earlier, although formally agreeing to repurpose it for that purpose may be a good idea). Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
11:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic londonCategory:Arab is for the ethnic group overall. Why? Isn't
Category:Arabs already fulfilling that exact role?
Category:Arabs's description says: The main article for this category is Arabs. That main article in turn says: The Arabs are an ethnic group (...). Importantly,
Arab redirects to
Arabs. So
Category:Arab is redundant. It does not have a main article, and describing the ethnic group overall is already done by
Category:Arabs and
Arabs.
@
Fayenatic london I agree that biographies of individuals should be kept separate from ethnic groups. That's why I proposed to re-purpose
Category:Arab people for biographies of individuals: I think
Category:Arab people should be split off for individuals, and
Category:Arabs kept for the ethnic group known as Arabs in general, and we still have no need for
Category:Arab. This is in line with how we categorise elsewhere. Your example of Category:Cheyenne (ethnic group) and
Category:Cheyenne people is actually a good one. What you do not seem to realise (unless I'm wrong, which is possible) is that "
Cheyenne" can be both singular and plural (although "Cheyennes" is also a correct plural according to
wikt:Cheyenne), whereas "Arab" is always singular and "Arabs" is always plural. So we can't leave out the "s" after "Arabs" for the ethnic group category. Maybe that is the confusion here?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
We discussed that above, on 7 July. That's not a split, it would be a rename, although a few non-bio articles may need recategorising. –
FayenaticLondon10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: that's not what I said… I meant, either list all of the combination that I listed; or ONLY list 1 category for renaming, viz.
Category:Arab to
Category:Arabs (ethnic group). Your new nomination does not propose to use
Category:Arabs for either the ethnic group or for biographies. I suppose it could be a disambiguation for "Arabs (ethnic group)" and "Arab people", but it goes against the previous CFD rationale not to follow the article name
Arabs for either category. –
FayenaticLondon17:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london Ok, well thanks for your correction. I appreciate your knowledge and expertise at CfD, I've learnt a lot from you in the past several months, even when we didn't always agree. Hope to work together again after your wikibreak, should you like to enjoy one. Have a good day in any case.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose This proposal and many others have made it very clear that Nederlandse Leeuw has no idea what they're talking about. Going to ping the "Arab world" WikiProject so more knowlegable editors step in and put a stop to this madness. Right now, the discussions seem to be driven by 3 editors of presumably European descent with cursory knowledge of the region in question.
Al-Andalusi (
talk)
21:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
WikiProject participation would be welcome. As it happens, I have visited 8 countries in the Arab world, and Brussels and Spain too for that matter, but that has little bearing on anyone's competence to discuss category names according to Wikipedia policies and precedents. –
FayenaticLondon04:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
What Fayenatic said. We're already past the point where we want to delete this category, this CfD is gonna be closed soon and be replaced by the new CfR, so voting here now is pointless.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
05:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. We have Arabs, which we need, but we don't need Arab - I even find myself quite confused with a logic behind this. Ethnicity is subjective feature of person's deepest feeling of identity and belonging, so, all matters ethnicity will always be an obstacle rather than solution and encyclopaedia should not meddle into peoples' personal sense of belonging, identity and so on. We have objective parameters like nationality, language and culture, those are relatively measurable things that are registered in various formal and informal ways in public domain, not personal. Then, there is an issue with this Arab cat being a rather unexpectedly small for a category which is supposed to be defining for a member of a large ethnic group (or group itself?). Do we have "German", "Slav", etc categories?
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1809
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.
Keep generally as part of a larger series. I do not think the 1809 foundation is correct, though, as I cannot source that anywhere, and the one source I've found says 1887. I'm not sure which is correct but I'm happy upmerging that category.
SportingFlyerT·C13:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Aidan721: what do you mean by the established series begins in 1880?
Most series grow as we develop the 'pedia, and in 7 years at CFD I have never before seen a CFD decide that a category series cannot be expanded because new entries are available some years after mot of categs were created.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There's currently 7 categories for 7 articles. This is ridiculous overcategorization. We don't need a category for every single year. I find it very unlikely that more 4 more GAA clubs for each of the 7 years are going to appear in the near future. Beginning at 1880, there are consistently 5+ articles per year on average. This end of the tree is not aiding navigation. –
Aidan721 (
talk)
15:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Query Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
16:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Berber dynasties
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
Berber languages, the
Iranian languages and the
Kurdish languages are all language families. E.g. the
Category:Berber dynasties has the category description: "Dynasties of the
Berbers", which article in turn says Their main connections are identified by their usage of Berber languages, many of them mutually unintelligible. You can call that "ethnicity" if you like, but it is just "language family" by another name. And we've already established that language family is
WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. The "Turkic" AfD recently confirmed that.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know enough about the Berbers, but I still don't think Kurds are identified through language. The test I'm using is to replace the adjective with either Serbian/Croatian or Serbo-Croatian just because the way the language group is named makes it obvious you're talking about language or ethnicity - if it's Serbo-Croatian and not either Serbian or Croatian, then you can't keep it, but I think Kurds are equivalent to Serbian or Croatian whereas Turkic is clearly Serbo-Croatian.
SportingFlyerT·C09:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I buy your premise, because I consider Serbo-Croatian to be a pluricentric but single language (see Declaration on the Common Language by linguists). On the other hand, the article
Kurdish languages (plural title) identifies the following languages/dialects (depending on one's point of view):
Keep dynasties, delete states, dynasties can be rooted in ethnicity, states can't. These ethnicities are attributed for real, unlike "meta-ethnicities" like Germanic or Turkic.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The
Berber languages and the
Iranian languages are language families (see my reply to SportingFlyer above for a longer explanation). Whether the
Kurdish languages are a "language family" or a group dialects that are closely related enough to be considered a single "language" turns out to be a matter of dispute (as I found out later yesterday). I'm prepared to withdraw the Kurdish items from this bundle if this is considered to be a significant issue, because my current rationale relies on them being considered a language family (and I'd rather not change the rationale in the middle of a discussion). This would probably satisfy the objections raised by you, SportingFlyer, and Srnec. For the Kurdish cases, I will just have to do better preparation and perhaps a different rationale in a future nom.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
09:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Update I withdrew
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries, which resulted in no consensus, with the recommendation to re-nominate the items individually if I would like to. I have re-nominated
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries (2nd nomination) individually as a result. The rationale remains the same, but it does mean
List of Kurdish dynasties and countries and
Kurdish emirates are not nominated for deletion anymore (at least for now). Therefore, I'm also withdrawing all Kurdish categories from this nomination for now. This also follows from some of the objections made in this CfD against deleting the Kurdish cats. This was partially based on the argument that "Kurdish" either represents an ethnicity, or that the
Kurdish languages are a single language rather than a language family (there is scholarly disagreement about this, and I don't think a CfD is the right place to "settle" that matter, if at all possible). So now, only the "Berber dynasties" and "Iranian Muslim dynasties" are under consideration in this CfD. I thank you for your feedback.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
21:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Why do you think that Berber and Iranian are not here used in an ethnic sense? Certainly historically the ethnicity of a ruling house is not necessarily unimportant. (Although a glance at Cat:Berber dynasties suggests it is populated with crud... "Numidia" isn't a dynasty and the ancient Egyptian dynasties are not "Berber" except possibly in a linguistic sense.)
Srnec (
talk)
01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the idea that all groups today known as "Berbers"/"Amazigh" constitute a single "ethnic" group is a distinctly modern idea.
Names of the Berber people says as much: Historically, Berbers did not refer to themselves as Berbers/Amazigh but had their own terms to refer to themselves. For example, the Kabyles use the term "Leqbayel" to refer to their own people, while the Chaouis identified themselves as "Ishawiyen" instead of Berber/Amazigh.[12] (...) Although Amazigh as a term had been used throughout history, its use as a claim on collective indigenous North African identity is more recent. Many scholars suggest that the 1945 poem “Kker a mmis umazigh” (“Rise up Son of Amazigh”) by Mohand Idir Aït Amrane to be its first use as a cultural claim.[32] That means all pre-20th-century dynasties are out, most definitely Numidia (as you two already agreed, and have carried out), the ancient Egyptian ones (as Srnec already pointed out), the medieval
Mauro-Roman Kingdom, the Almohads, the Almoravids, etc. I'm not sure that leaves many.
Secondly, the point I already made above to SportingFlyer still stands: the
Category:Berber dynasties has the category description: "Dynasties of the
Berbers", which article in turn says Their main connections are identified by their usage of Berber languages, many of them mutually unintelligible. You can call that "ethnicity" if you like, but it is just "language family" by another name. It is only in hindsight, after Berbers/Amazigh are being claimed to be an "ethnic" group in the 20th century, primarily on the basis of related but often mutually unintelligible languages (which is kind of the definition of a "language family"), that ancient and medieval dynasties are retro-actively being reframed and rebranded as "Berber". If that isn't
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH (as well as
imagined community +
invented tradition), I'm not sure I know what is. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
14:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The dispute has descended into a meta-dispute about the definition of the
Berber peoples. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
00:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdraw all My nomination has evidently failed. I tried to rescue it by withdrawing some of the nominees, but we are no closer to reaching consensus. I should go back to the drawing table to reconsider how these categories can best be organised. Sorry for the confusion and frustration it caused. I'll try better next time. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:13th-century rulers of Monaco
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.
If that is the case, shouldn't we just consider them as
warlords who controlled a certain area by force of arms, but without any political legitimacy (as evidenced by a title like Foo of Monaco)?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This does not seem like an appropriate category because very few shootings are explicitly categorized as "defensive gun use". Most of the articles in this category are cases where someone shot someone and claimed self-defense, and either was not charged or was charged but acquitted; but none of that really represents a reliable source saying that "defensive gun use" occurred. Rather, the use of this category to characterize the listed shootings seems to be
original research and, in many cases, potentially
POV-pushing. If there were a clear definition of "defensive gun use" I would support just removing those that don't meet that definition, but it's a subjective term and so any category will be subjective too. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)05:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Definition is murky and I agree that there is potential for OR and POV-pushing. More importantly, the link between members of the category is tenuous.
Pichpich (
talk)
18:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sure, the category could potentially be controversial, but it's an important category, I'd say. I'm sure many people find it useful for research.
Silent-Rains (
talk)
04:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Silent-Rains: Could you explain your understanding of what should actually be included in this category? Right now it includes cases such as the
killing of Tamir Rice (shooting an unarmed 12-year-old on the mistaken belief that he was armed), the
shooting of Jacob Blake (probably a
BLP violation; no conclusion that Blake was threatening anyone), the
killing of Alvin Cole (was shot while fleeing, did not point gun at anyone), and the
Ash Street shootout (an article I wrote which explicitly notes that it was never determined who fired the first shot). --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)11:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Perhaps we could refine the scope of the category to specify that articles must demonstrate, through
WP:RS, that the shooting was genuinely intended as a defensive action in response to a reasonably perceived threat. Cases where the justifiability of the defense claim is highly questionable (again, based on
WP:RS) or undetermined could then be excluded. It should also be noted that the category includes not only instances where defensive gun use was claimed, but also topics which discuss defensive gun use. I don't think deletion is the appropriate option here.
Someone who's wrong on the internet (
talk)
01:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If the intent is for the category to include false claims of defensive gun use, then as a BLP matter it must be renamed. We cannot have "Defensive gun use" at the end of an article like
Shooting of Jacob Blake when there is no evidence that there was anything to defend against. Still, I favor deletion. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning Delete per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT,
WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and
WP:OPINIONCAT. Anyone can claim they only use their gun(s) "defensively", but at the end of the day, it is not defensive protective gear like medieval armour or a bullet-proof vest or a helmet etc. No amount of shots fired can "defend" a gun user against an incoming bullet. Guns are weapons which cannot by themselves "defend" the user, except by shooting first, threatening to shoot first, or retaliating, or threatening to retaliate. That's it. They are weapons for offence/attack, and can only be used "defensively" according to the adage
The best defense is a good offense, which is itself quite contentious, and often not true in practice.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
16:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Philosophers of Judaism
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.
Per
SEP the philosophy of religion deals with religion in general, not specific ones. There also doesn't seem to be anything for "Philosophy of Judaism" as distinct from "Jewish philosophy" outside of polemical sources, the terms most seem to be used interchangeably.
- car chasm (
talk)
16:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree. By the way, "Judaic scholars" appear to be practitioners of Judaic/
Jewish studies: an academic discipline centered on the study of Jews and Judaism. It combines everything from history, women's studies etc. to religious studies. So 'Judaic' refers to the field of study, not the scholar's personal religion.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Then again, jc37 makes a good
WP:OCEGRS point about whether it is relevant to categorise philosophers of Judaism (as a religion) by their personal religion/ethnicity? If yes, can we expect Christian philosophers of Judaism, French philosophers of Judaism etc. in the future, or is this actually a road we don't really want to go down?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Same here. I am against ethnicization (including confessional labeling) of bio/blp in combination with occupation like in Judaic/Christian/Muslim/, however, French, Israeli, etc philosophers of Judaism/Islam/religion, where this explicitly implies nationhood/nation-state, should be OK. Also, I think that Category:Christian theologians, Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. and so on, are deeply flawed. Who are Muslim scholars of Islam? Are they simply Islamic clerics, or is this include academics whose personal religiosity is somehow relevant, how we measure person is religious enough, or is this also implies Muslim(s) as an ethnicity (like Jew(s)), where, then, we can encounter an "atheist-Muslim"; how we know (what source can tell us for fact how person feels, or should we seek primary as a personal admonition), and even if we know how is that relevant?
౪ Santa ౪99°09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - It seems that every time we bump into a category that uses an
WP:EGRS-related word as an adjective, we run into this same issue. Does the adjective refer to the the topic or the person? It's almost always unclear, so the name typically needs to be adjusted. I don't think this situation is any different.
WP:PRECISION would seem to be the order of the day. - jc3722:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:OCEGRS is not relevant here because studying one's own religious beliefs is completely different from an outsider's perspective. That applies to all religions alike. In Christianity there is even a separate word for it (theologians) that occasionally is used in Islam and Judaism as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women astronauts
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.
On the other hand, there is a long-standing lack of consensus (since 2013) about whether "women" or "female" should be preferred for categorisation purposes (I personally prefer "female" for grammatical reasons, but that's not important). No changes from one to the other should be made just for the sake of conformity. It might trigger an endless
WP:C2C war without really improving anything. That said, the article space always prevails over the category space, so again: undo that not-uncontroversial RM/TQ first, then I might support this nom per
WP:C2D. Until then, I'm not taking any sides. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
22:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Commodity exchanges in Egypt
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Croat scientists from Bosnia and Herzegovina
Category:Buildings developed by the Related Companies
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Educational structures in the Philippines
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Educational structures in" is unique name scheme. Some members are not universities or colleges, then just deleting this category
Estopedist1 (
talk)
05:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:High-speed rail in Latvia
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This list contains many individuals who are not researchers. However everyone on the list is a advocate for psychonautics.
jps (
talk)
19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support renaming per
WP:CATV,
WP:CATPOV and
WP:CATDEF The nominator's rationale is sound. Many individuals in this category are not researchers. Hence, this is currently a misnomer. Psychonautics proponents more accurately describes the subjects which populate this category. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
22:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep and purge - my intention when populating the category was only to add researchers in at least a loose sense of the word (though I won't claim to have not made mistakes!). I think if we want to keep it as a subcategory of parapsychologists we should purge the non-researchers rather than renaming.
- car chasm (
talk)
03:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nations at competitions
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.
If
Laurel Lodged meant that it was an "X by Y"-type container category, I don't agree. This contains parent cats of e.g. "
France at the Olympics". Moreover, the immediate sub-cats are "by competition" rather than "by country". If anything this category is "Participation in international competitions by competition and country", but that's far too long-winded. So I oppose the Alt merger, and support the original proposal. –
FayenaticLondon15:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Philosophy writers
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.
Nominator's rationale:Previous discussion was closed against consensus, and the arguments in favor of keeping it were clearly poor, as the contents demonstrate it's not obvious to anyone that "writers" refers to people who aren't "academics." If someone doesn't really "count" as a philosopher, we shouldn't categorize them as one at all.
- car chasm (
talk)
02:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, we already have philosophers by nationality and by century categories and everyone who is not a philosopher does not belong in those trees.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose I don't think one can single-handedly re-interpret the closure of a previous discussion as having had an incorrect conclusion. There were 2 votes for "Merge" (all three); 2 votes for "Keep/Oppose" (all three); and 1 vote for "Merge" (only)
Category:American philosophy academics to
Category:American philosophers + Alt merge, not in this nom. That makes 2-2-1, so there is no reason to question the no consensus result. Plus: the previous discussion was never about Deleting, only about Merging, so the present nomination is a very different proposal, and the rationale is misleading.
Nor do I think it's a good idea to randomly orphan 7 +7 subcategories and 274 + 565 items. The consequences of a deletion have not been considered at all.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
09:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've just checked the subcategories and added some missing categories that will keep the ones that contain philosophers in the Philosopher tree.
- car chasm (
talk)
15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with only a main article and a subcategory. The subcategory suffices. If kept, rename per main article.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The main article is
Government of Ukraine. The English title is ambiguous though, as Government in English is a general broad term, while what we are talking about here is the executive branch only. --
Base (
talk)
04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, that is the only category that kind makes sense for
Secretariat of Cabinet of Ministers (Ukraine) out of the 3 it has. In ukwiki it has more members and subcategories. I am not sure if poor coverage the English Wikipedia has is a valid reason for category deletion. Government ministries concerns particular ministeries, but not the government as a whole. --
Base (
talk)
04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
What do you mean?
Government of Ukraine is the main article, it is an article about the executive branch, not about the whole government. I am not sure why it is called that, but that is besides the point in this discussion. --
Base (
talk)
15:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If that is the main article, the category should be named accordingly, and articles that are not about the Secretariat should be purged from the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Executive power in Ukraine
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.
Update & Keep, This category was previously attached to Wikidata "Category:Executive power (Q9679597)." It is now attached to Wikidata "Executive power in Ukraine (Q10015994)" with 4 subcategories and 4 pages in the category appearing in the English version. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shari Garland (
talk •
contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Serbian-speaking countries and territories
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.
CommentOppose There doesn't seem to be consistency in the tree category as some sub-categories follow the "X-speaking countries and territories" format while others follow the "Countries and territories where X is an official language" format. So, either we nominate all for consistency or keep things how they are. The Serbian category's parent category is
Category:Serbo-Croatian-speaking countries and territories of which there is Bosnian and Croatian, who follow the same pattern as Serbian so for the time being I am for keeping it the way it is. --
Griboski (
talk)
17:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Although from a linguistic point of view,
Serbo-Croatian is a single but pluricentric language, from an "official" / legal point of view, Austronesier may be correct that what really matters is the standard
registers. And then we've got 5 standards: B, C, M, S, and S-C. Whether these should a have separate categories or a joint one is up for question. Until we figure that out, I'm neutral.Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: I've figured it out, and now I support Rename All, i.e. Rename this category as nominated, as well as that of its 3 sibling categories, see below. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I've gone through lots of texts of constitutions of former Yugoslav, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Slovenian, (North) Macedonian, Kosovan etc. states and territories, and what is
WP:DEFINING here is whether these languages are identified as "official language(s)" in these constitutions (or other top-level legislation) or not. Per
WP:C2C parent
Category:Countries and territories by official language that is also exactly what we should do. Arguing which language which people speak where is extremely
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and
WP:ARBITRARYCAT (and if you do it long enough, you will easily arouse needless intercommunal tensions), and pointless, whereas official legal status is an objective criterion to check category membership that we can actually work with because it is all officially written down. Given recent renamings of its siblings, including
Category:Albanian-speaking countries and territories to
Category:Countries and territories where Albanian is an official language, this is evidently the way forward. At
Serbo-Croatian#Legal status I've already given an overview of countries and territories whose constitution says/said that "Serbo-Croatian" (or "Croato-Serbian" or "Serbo-Croato-Slovene") is an official language. This can be done for all of them. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Griboski @
RevelationDirect and I seem to agree we should Rename All. Could you confirm that, please? Thanks!
Rename All Correct, I support changing all of these to "official language" categories and purging as necessary per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and, at this point,
WP:C2C since this has become the clear consensus. A group nomination seems appropriate in this case to allay any concerns about uneven treatment. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Urban development
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Potentially dangerous food
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.
Delete, the rename does not solve the problem. How many health issue cases does any sort of food need in order to qualify for this category?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arab
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:ARBITRARYCATWP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I had already removed "
Category:Muslim communities in Africa" and "
Category:Muslim communities in Asia" with the edit summary "Arabs are not Muslim by definition. This is an incorrect generalisation." (Millions of Arabic speakers are irreligious, Christian, Jewish, or adherents of other religions. Arab =/= Muslim.) But I now see that there are multiple issues with the category as a whole. Why can't people whose native language is Arabic, but have been born and raised outside
MENA be called "Arabs", for example? Why does geography matter?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
09:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: (edit conflict) I do think that
Category:Arabs may be a legitimate category within the
Category:People by ethnicity tree. But it needs to be Purged from "people by nationality" subcategories such as
Category:Syrian people and
Category:Iraqi people, because this categorisation implies all Syrian and Iraqi nationals are "Arabs", even if their native language is Kurdish, Turkmeni, Turkish, Persian etc. Nationality and ethnicity of groups of people rarely/never coincide completely; in reality, humanity is a series of
Venn diagrams. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
11:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Indeed, especially the loop gives me the idea that the category has an identity crisis: it has no idea what it is, or meant to be doing. It's a typical case of a category wanting to do lots of different things simultaneously, and failing to do any of them well.
@
Fayenatic london if "Arab world" is really about a "group of countries", then I think I'll CfD it. Recent months have taught us not to mix up language (families) and countries, or to categorise Fooian-speaking countries and territories, but only Countries and territories where Fooian is an official language. I've seen several renamings of "Arab world" to "Arab League", which is a more useful and objective group.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london @
Marcocapelle By the way, I've been meaning to Purge
Category:People by nationality subcats from
Category:Arabs. "Arab" isn't a nationality, there is no country called "Arab" or "Arabic" or "Arabia" or "Arabian". (At most there is Saudi Arabia, but the demonym for that is obviously "Saudi Arabian" or just "Saudi"). There is no reason for us to assume/generalise, for example, that allCategory:Iraqi people are "Arabs"; e.g.,
Demographics of Iraq#Ethnicity states: According to the CIA World Factbook, citing a 1987 Iraqi government estimate, the population of Iraq is formed of 70-80% Arabs followed by 15-20% Kurds. Putting all
Category:Iraqi people in
Category:Arabs is essentially denying/erasing the existence of millions of
Kurds in Iraq. We can't do that, can we?
I disagree. Removal of national categories has already been tried and reverted, e.g.
[1]. Categories for nationals of Arab League countriescountries where Arabic is natively spoken belong in
Arabs because
WP:SUBCAT allows cases where the majority of contents would belong in the parent. The description on the category page indicates how individual biographies should be diffused to subcats. –
FayenaticLondon15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:SUBCAT allows cases where the majority of contents would belong in the parent.
That's not how I read it:
When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also.
It's been in Arab people/Arabs since 2017. By all means open a discussion on that (and selected others, e.g. Lebanon?) as an RFC. I don't think disagreement about such longstanding categorisations can be resolved in this discussion. The editor who was recently removing such parenting said he would open a project discussion, but did not do so before he was blocked as a sockpuppet. –
FayenaticLondon16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)reply
countries where Arabic is natively spoken What does that mean? There are native Arabic speakers living in Brussels. Should we therefore categorise
Belgium in
Category:Arabs?
Putting whole country/nationality subcats in an Arab ethnic parent category is common practice in Wikipedia, but it is also bad common practice, misrepresenting Kopts, Kurds, Berbers etc.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Either way, this interpretation of what "Arabs" means in order to justify that Categories for nationals of countries where Arabic is natively spoken belong in
Category:Arabs is, in my opinion (and probably that of Marco), deeply flawed. A bad common practice that we should cease.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Your opinion about how categories should operate is noted, but does not represent a consensus on English Wikipedia. (I understand that German Wikipedia operates more as you have described.) We have other cases where people are sub-catted for less than a majority, e.g.
WP:IRE-CATS is a consensus that people from Northern Ireland are parented by both British and Irish hierarchies, even though many do not identify as both but only as one or the other. –
FayenaticLondon21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I am still confused as to why this category can't be merged to
Category:Arab world, the two concepts are not the same but very overlapping. Arab world is defined by Arab ethnicity. One of the articles in this category even has "of the Arab world" in the title, so why would it not belong in
Category:Arab world?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography.
Genetic history of the Arab world does belong in Arab world, which is why I added it there. But it also belongs in the top category about Arab ethnicity, because it is specifically about "ethnic Arab populations" in the Arab world.
IMHO
Arab diaspora should be in the top category Arab, alongside Arab world. I don't object to it also bring in the people category, as it includes both general and biography articles. -–
FayenaticLondon
Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too, because the word "Arab" depends on ethnicity, as all parents of
Category:Arab,
Category:Arab world and
Category:Arabs show. The term "Arab world" depends on an ethnic group called "Arabs" living in it, even though, indeed, Ethnicity transcends geography (I completely agree with that). That's how "Arabs" can live in
Brussels, but nobody would categorise
Belgium as part of the so-called "Arab world".
The term "Arab world" is necessarily a generalisation, and cannot be anything other than a generalisation. Some generalisations may be useful for certain purposes (such as the article
Arab world), but not for categorisation purposes per
WP:CATSPECIFIC,
WP:ARBITRARYCAT and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. (Just because there is an article doesn't mean there should be an identically-named category).
Therefore,
Category:Arab world cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted or Merged,
Category:Arab cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted (and it almost already was before this CfD was reopened), and
Category:Arabs cannot have a geographic focus because Ethnicity transcends geography and should be Purged. Repurposing
Category:Arab people for individuals is an additional option we can use to fix the issues here (because it is a redirect, we practically don't need a CfS to do it, as I suggested earlier, although formally agreeing to repurpose it for that purpose may be a good idea). Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
11:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic londonCategory:Arab is for the ethnic group overall. Why? Isn't
Category:Arabs already fulfilling that exact role?
Category:Arabs's description says: The main article for this category is Arabs. That main article in turn says: The Arabs are an ethnic group (...). Importantly,
Arab redirects to
Arabs. So
Category:Arab is redundant. It does not have a main article, and describing the ethnic group overall is already done by
Category:Arabs and
Arabs.
@
Fayenatic london I agree that biographies of individuals should be kept separate from ethnic groups. That's why I proposed to re-purpose
Category:Arab people for biographies of individuals: I think
Category:Arab people should be split off for individuals, and
Category:Arabs kept for the ethnic group known as Arabs in general, and we still have no need for
Category:Arab. This is in line with how we categorise elsewhere. Your example of Category:Cheyenne (ethnic group) and
Category:Cheyenne people is actually a good one. What you do not seem to realise (unless I'm wrong, which is possible) is that "
Cheyenne" can be both singular and plural (although "Cheyennes" is also a correct plural according to
wikt:Cheyenne), whereas "Arab" is always singular and "Arabs" is always plural. So we can't leave out the "s" after "Arabs" for the ethnic group category. Maybe that is the confusion here?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
10:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
We discussed that above, on 7 July. That's not a split, it would be a rename, although a few non-bio articles may need recategorising. –
FayenaticLondon10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: that's not what I said… I meant, either list all of the combination that I listed; or ONLY list 1 category for renaming, viz.
Category:Arab to
Category:Arabs (ethnic group). Your new nomination does not propose to use
Category:Arabs for either the ethnic group or for biographies. I suppose it could be a disambiguation for "Arabs (ethnic group)" and "Arab people", but it goes against the previous CFD rationale not to follow the article name
Arabs for either category. –
FayenaticLondon17:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london Ok, well thanks for your correction. I appreciate your knowledge and expertise at CfD, I've learnt a lot from you in the past several months, even when we didn't always agree. Hope to work together again after your wikibreak, should you like to enjoy one. Have a good day in any case.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
07:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose This proposal and many others have made it very clear that Nederlandse Leeuw has no idea what they're talking about. Going to ping the "Arab world" WikiProject so more knowlegable editors step in and put a stop to this madness. Right now, the discussions seem to be driven by 3 editors of presumably European descent with cursory knowledge of the region in question.
Al-Andalusi (
talk)
21:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
WikiProject participation would be welcome. As it happens, I have visited 8 countries in the Arab world, and Brussels and Spain too for that matter, but that has little bearing on anyone's competence to discuss category names according to Wikipedia policies and precedents. –
FayenaticLondon04:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
What Fayenatic said. We're already past the point where we want to delete this category, this CfD is gonna be closed soon and be replaced by the new CfR, so voting here now is pointless.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
05:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. We have Arabs, which we need, but we don't need Arab - I even find myself quite confused with a logic behind this. Ethnicity is subjective feature of person's deepest feeling of identity and belonging, so, all matters ethnicity will always be an obstacle rather than solution and encyclopaedia should not meddle into peoples' personal sense of belonging, identity and so on. We have objective parameters like nationality, language and culture, those are relatively measurable things that are registered in various formal and informal ways in public domain, not personal. Then, there is an issue with this Arab cat being a rather unexpectedly small for a category which is supposed to be defining for a member of a large ethnic group (or group itself?). Do we have "German", "Slav", etc categories?
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1809
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.
Keep generally as part of a larger series. I do not think the 1809 foundation is correct, though, as I cannot source that anywhere, and the one source I've found says 1887. I'm not sure which is correct but I'm happy upmerging that category.
SportingFlyerT·C13:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Aidan721: what do you mean by the established series begins in 1880?
Most series grow as we develop the 'pedia, and in 7 years at CFD I have never before seen a CFD decide that a category series cannot be expanded because new entries are available some years after mot of categs were created.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There's currently 7 categories for 7 articles. This is ridiculous overcategorization. We don't need a category for every single year. I find it very unlikely that more 4 more GAA clubs for each of the 7 years are going to appear in the near future. Beginning at 1880, there are consistently 5+ articles per year on average. This end of the tree is not aiding navigation. –
Aidan721 (
talk)
15:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Query Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
16:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Berber dynasties
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
Berber languages, the
Iranian languages and the
Kurdish languages are all language families. E.g. the
Category:Berber dynasties has the category description: "Dynasties of the
Berbers", which article in turn says Their main connections are identified by their usage of Berber languages, many of them mutually unintelligible. You can call that "ethnicity" if you like, but it is just "language family" by another name. And we've already established that language family is
WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. The "Turkic" AfD recently confirmed that.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know enough about the Berbers, but I still don't think Kurds are identified through language. The test I'm using is to replace the adjective with either Serbian/Croatian or Serbo-Croatian just because the way the language group is named makes it obvious you're talking about language or ethnicity - if it's Serbo-Croatian and not either Serbian or Croatian, then you can't keep it, but I think Kurds are equivalent to Serbian or Croatian whereas Turkic is clearly Serbo-Croatian.
SportingFlyerT·C09:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I buy your premise, because I consider Serbo-Croatian to be a pluricentric but single language (see Declaration on the Common Language by linguists). On the other hand, the article
Kurdish languages (plural title) identifies the following languages/dialects (depending on one's point of view):
Keep dynasties, delete states, dynasties can be rooted in ethnicity, states can't. These ethnicities are attributed for real, unlike "meta-ethnicities" like Germanic or Turkic.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The
Berber languages and the
Iranian languages are language families (see my reply to SportingFlyer above for a longer explanation). Whether the
Kurdish languages are a "language family" or a group dialects that are closely related enough to be considered a single "language" turns out to be a matter of dispute (as I found out later yesterday). I'm prepared to withdraw the Kurdish items from this bundle if this is considered to be a significant issue, because my current rationale relies on them being considered a language family (and I'd rather not change the rationale in the middle of a discussion). This would probably satisfy the objections raised by you, SportingFlyer, and Srnec. For the Kurdish cases, I will just have to do better preparation and perhaps a different rationale in a future nom.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
09:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Update I withdrew
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries, which resulted in no consensus, with the recommendation to re-nominate the items individually if I would like to. I have re-nominated
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries (2nd nomination) individually as a result. The rationale remains the same, but it does mean
List of Kurdish dynasties and countries and
Kurdish emirates are not nominated for deletion anymore (at least for now). Therefore, I'm also withdrawing all Kurdish categories from this nomination for now. This also follows from some of the objections made in this CfD against deleting the Kurdish cats. This was partially based on the argument that "Kurdish" either represents an ethnicity, or that the
Kurdish languages are a single language rather than a language family (there is scholarly disagreement about this, and I don't think a CfD is the right place to "settle" that matter, if at all possible). So now, only the "Berber dynasties" and "Iranian Muslim dynasties" are under consideration in this CfD. I thank you for your feedback.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
21:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Why do you think that Berber and Iranian are not here used in an ethnic sense? Certainly historically the ethnicity of a ruling house is not necessarily unimportant. (Although a glance at Cat:Berber dynasties suggests it is populated with crud... "Numidia" isn't a dynasty and the ancient Egyptian dynasties are not "Berber" except possibly in a linguistic sense.)
Srnec (
talk)
01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the idea that all groups today known as "Berbers"/"Amazigh" constitute a single "ethnic" group is a distinctly modern idea.
Names of the Berber people says as much: Historically, Berbers did not refer to themselves as Berbers/Amazigh but had their own terms to refer to themselves. For example, the Kabyles use the term "Leqbayel" to refer to their own people, while the Chaouis identified themselves as "Ishawiyen" instead of Berber/Amazigh.[12] (...) Although Amazigh as a term had been used throughout history, its use as a claim on collective indigenous North African identity is more recent. Many scholars suggest that the 1945 poem “Kker a mmis umazigh” (“Rise up Son of Amazigh”) by Mohand Idir Aït Amrane to be its first use as a cultural claim.[32] That means all pre-20th-century dynasties are out, most definitely Numidia (as you two already agreed, and have carried out), the ancient Egyptian ones (as Srnec already pointed out), the medieval
Mauro-Roman Kingdom, the Almohads, the Almoravids, etc. I'm not sure that leaves many.
Secondly, the point I already made above to SportingFlyer still stands: the
Category:Berber dynasties has the category description: "Dynasties of the
Berbers", which article in turn says Their main connections are identified by their usage of Berber languages, many of them mutually unintelligible. You can call that "ethnicity" if you like, but it is just "language family" by another name. It is only in hindsight, after Berbers/Amazigh are being claimed to be an "ethnic" group in the 20th century, primarily on the basis of related but often mutually unintelligible languages (which is kind of the definition of a "language family"), that ancient and medieval dynasties are retro-actively being reframed and rebranded as "Berber". If that isn't
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH (as well as
imagined community +
invented tradition), I'm not sure I know what is. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
14:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The dispute has descended into a meta-dispute about the definition of the
Berber peoples. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
00:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdraw all My nomination has evidently failed. I tried to rescue it by withdrawing some of the nominees, but we are no closer to reaching consensus. I should go back to the drawing table to reconsider how these categories can best be organised. Sorry for the confusion and frustration it caused. I'll try better next time. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:13th-century rulers of Monaco
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.
If that is the case, shouldn't we just consider them as
warlords who controlled a certain area by force of arms, but without any political legitimacy (as evidenced by a title like Foo of Monaco)?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This does not seem like an appropriate category because very few shootings are explicitly categorized as "defensive gun use". Most of the articles in this category are cases where someone shot someone and claimed self-defense, and either was not charged or was charged but acquitted; but none of that really represents a reliable source saying that "defensive gun use" occurred. Rather, the use of this category to characterize the listed shootings seems to be
original research and, in many cases, potentially
POV-pushing. If there were a clear definition of "defensive gun use" I would support just removing those that don't meet that definition, but it's a subjective term and so any category will be subjective too. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)05:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Definition is murky and I agree that there is potential for OR and POV-pushing. More importantly, the link between members of the category is tenuous.
Pichpich (
talk)
18:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sure, the category could potentially be controversial, but it's an important category, I'd say. I'm sure many people find it useful for research.
Silent-Rains (
talk)
04:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Silent-Rains: Could you explain your understanding of what should actually be included in this category? Right now it includes cases such as the
killing of Tamir Rice (shooting an unarmed 12-year-old on the mistaken belief that he was armed), the
shooting of Jacob Blake (probably a
BLP violation; no conclusion that Blake was threatening anyone), the
killing of Alvin Cole (was shot while fleeing, did not point gun at anyone), and the
Ash Street shootout (an article I wrote which explicitly notes that it was never determined who fired the first shot). --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)11:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Perhaps we could refine the scope of the category to specify that articles must demonstrate, through
WP:RS, that the shooting was genuinely intended as a defensive action in response to a reasonably perceived threat. Cases where the justifiability of the defense claim is highly questionable (again, based on
WP:RS) or undetermined could then be excluded. It should also be noted that the category includes not only instances where defensive gun use was claimed, but also topics which discuss defensive gun use. I don't think deletion is the appropriate option here.
Someone who's wrong on the internet (
talk)
01:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If the intent is for the category to include false claims of defensive gun use, then as a BLP matter it must be renamed. We cannot have "Defensive gun use" at the end of an article like
Shooting of Jacob Blake when there is no evidence that there was anything to defend against. Still, I favor deletion. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning Delete per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT,
WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and
WP:OPINIONCAT. Anyone can claim they only use their gun(s) "defensively", but at the end of the day, it is not defensive protective gear like medieval armour or a bullet-proof vest or a helmet etc. No amount of shots fired can "defend" a gun user against an incoming bullet. Guns are weapons which cannot by themselves "defend" the user, except by shooting first, threatening to shoot first, or retaliating, or threatening to retaliate. That's it. They are weapons for offence/attack, and can only be used "defensively" according to the adage
The best defense is a good offense, which is itself quite contentious, and often not true in practice.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
16:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Philosophers of Judaism
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.
Per
SEP the philosophy of religion deals with religion in general, not specific ones. There also doesn't seem to be anything for "Philosophy of Judaism" as distinct from "Jewish philosophy" outside of polemical sources, the terms most seem to be used interchangeably.
- car chasm (
talk)
16:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree. By the way, "Judaic scholars" appear to be practitioners of Judaic/
Jewish studies: an academic discipline centered on the study of Jews and Judaism. It combines everything from history, women's studies etc. to religious studies. So 'Judaic' refers to the field of study, not the scholar's personal religion.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Then again, jc37 makes a good
WP:OCEGRS point about whether it is relevant to categorise philosophers of Judaism (as a religion) by their personal religion/ethnicity? If yes, can we expect Christian philosophers of Judaism, French philosophers of Judaism etc. in the future, or is this actually a road we don't really want to go down?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Same here. I am against ethnicization (including confessional labeling) of bio/blp in combination with occupation like in Judaic/Christian/Muslim/, however, French, Israeli, etc philosophers of Judaism/Islam/religion, where this explicitly implies nationhood/nation-state, should be OK. Also, I think that Category:Christian theologians, Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. and so on, are deeply flawed. Who are Muslim scholars of Islam? Are they simply Islamic clerics, or is this include academics whose personal religiosity is somehow relevant, how we measure person is religious enough, or is this also implies Muslim(s) as an ethnicity (like Jew(s)), where, then, we can encounter an "atheist-Muslim"; how we know (what source can tell us for fact how person feels, or should we seek primary as a personal admonition), and even if we know how is that relevant?
౪ Santa ౪99°09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - It seems that every time we bump into a category that uses an
WP:EGRS-related word as an adjective, we run into this same issue. Does the adjective refer to the the topic or the person? It's almost always unclear, so the name typically needs to be adjusted. I don't think this situation is any different.
WP:PRECISION would seem to be the order of the day. - jc3722:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:OCEGRS is not relevant here because studying one's own religious beliefs is completely different from an outsider's perspective. That applies to all religions alike. In Christianity there is even a separate word for it (theologians) that occasionally is used in Islam and Judaism as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women astronauts
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.
On the other hand, there is a long-standing lack of consensus (since 2013) about whether "women" or "female" should be preferred for categorisation purposes (I personally prefer "female" for grammatical reasons, but that's not important). No changes from one to the other should be made just for the sake of conformity. It might trigger an endless
WP:C2C war without really improving anything. That said, the article space always prevails over the category space, so again: undo that not-uncontroversial RM/TQ first, then I might support this nom per
WP:C2D. Until then, I'm not taking any sides. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
22:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Commodity exchanges in Egypt
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Croat scientists from Bosnia and Herzegovina
Category:Buildings developed by the Related Companies
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Educational structures in the Philippines
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Educational structures in" is unique name scheme. Some members are not universities or colleges, then just deleting this category
Estopedist1 (
talk)
05:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:High-speed rail in Latvia
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 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.