Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13
March 15 >

March 14[edit]

Category:Family of Steven Spielberg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Steven Spielberg family. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories of Category:Jewish-American families are "(X) family," with some having a parenthetical like "(show business)". I'd argue that Steven Spielberg blots out the sun on this name, but if anyone is bothered that, say, classical pianist Robin Spielberg isn't in here, then maybe Category:Spielberg family (show business) or Category:Steven Spielberg family might be better. Mike Selinker (talk) 23:59, 14 March 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:Rulers of Bithynia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: combine respectively. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Best general description of all people in the cat and its main article List of rulers of Bithynia (where List of kings of Bithynia redirects). I've spent a lot of time today trying to figure this out. Although a lot of literature suggests that Zipoetes I of Bithynia was the first to assume the title of basileus ("king") in 297 BCE, I've found that not to be true. In literature and primary sources, the hereditary guys in power in ancient Bithynia are referred to as "prince", "chieftain", "ruler", "king", "eparch", "basileus", or something to do with "kratein", "archein" or "arkhe"; lots of different ways of saying that it was a monarchy or kingdom. The article Kingdom of Bithynia goes for the latter, obviously, although List of rulers of Bithynia is in Category:Lists of monarchs, so it's difficult to make a WP:C2B or WP:C2D argument. In the end, "dynasts" is entirely WP:OR, "rulers" is not WP:PRECISE enough, and I don't care whether it becomes "kings" or "monarchs", as long as we fix the current situation to something better. (I went for "monarch" rather than "king" because it is the lowest common denominator of all terms mentioned, but a case can be made for labelling them all "kings" anyway). Whatever the outcome, it may also determine the future title of Kingdom of Bithynia and List of rulers of Bithynia. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dynasts is a common term in secondary scholarship for the rulers of small states in Hellenistic Asia Minor, who don't have clear titles, like the early Bithynian rulers, but it is a small category and always will be, so it should go. Merge to Category:Monarchs of Bithynia, since, as you say, it's not totally clear that the early ones were "basileis / kings." (The article should remain Kingdom of Bithynia, because that's the common name, even if it's not strictly accurate for the earliest period). Furius (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation and for your support. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:08, 14 March 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:Egalitarian communitities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misspelled and emptied. All previous transclusions given new cat, Category:Egalitarian communities. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 20:53, 14 March 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:Land reform in Estonia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Land reform and 2 others. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1-2 entry. Very few potential to grow. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 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:Emigrants from Portuguese India to Briitsh Ceylon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only used in one article and horribly misspelled Roundish ⋆tc) 20:13, 14 March 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:Transracial activists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. ★Trekker (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somehow, maybe to Category:Transracial people instead, dependent on the outcome of the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — none of the members WP:V self-identifies as "transracial", this is somebody else's characterization. South Korean is not a "race". A person of color identifying as "black" is not a change of "race". Heck, a white person who pigments their skin does not become a different "race". This is just a superficial pile of garbage.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 14 March 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:Transracial people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. ★Trekker (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, preferably we should not have biographies in topic categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — none of the members WP:V self-identifies as "transracial", this is somebody else's characterization. South Korean is not a "race". A person of color identifying as "black" is not a change of "race". Heck, a white person who pigments their skin does not become a different "race". This is just a superficial pile of garbage.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per William Allen Simpson, and transracial appears to be a too controversial term that we should not apply to biographies unless they explicitly identify as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and William. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:32, 17 March 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:Fictional females[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Nagsb (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Women in art, Category:Women by occupation.
Per recent:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:American Girl was new to me. Clearly doesn't belong in the category, especially as it includes "eight- to fourteen-year-old boys".
  2. Category:Disney Princess characters are all women. None of them are prepubescent. Most of them "live happily ever after" with a husband obtained during her adventure.
  3. Category:My Little Pony characters clearly doesn't belong in the category, especially as these are equine of various kinds, and includes a significant number of males (and bearded males).
  4. Category:Sailor Soldiers was new to me. None of them are prepubescent. A quick glance at the articles says they are late teens and college aged, originally based upon the author's college wardrobe. For some odd reason they have 2-years-old sized eyes in 6-years-old faces, but are busty, wasp waisted, with extremely short skirts. The taller one has a longer skirt and longer hair that somehow indicates she is a a tough or delinquent girl.
  5. Category:Magical girl characters should be women, but inexplicably include teenage males. None of them are prepubescent. Most of the articles are rather on the busty side, althought that could just be the preference of the predominent editors. "Magical girl" and "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" are well worn tropes, but they aren't necessarily young.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Woman" is defined by adulthood rather than puberty, and this usually means aged over 18.
  1. Category:American Girl's product line is predominantly female. The clue is in the name, and this is confirmed by List of American Girl characters#Contemporary characters. Note that WP:SUBCAT permits "a few exceptions".
  2. Disney Princesses start at 14 years of age (Snow White), and the mode is 16. Screenrant says it's "alarming that most of Disney's female leads get married and have to rule kingdoms while they're still minors. It can be scandalous to learn that these characters were getting married as young as 14 years old".
  3. List of mainline My Little Pony ponies lists 87 as female and only 26 male, so the predominance is clear. The present categorisation in Fictional females therefore seems justified, but would be lost if renaming to Fictional women.
  4. Sailor Soldiers' main article Sailor Moon says it's about the adventures of a schoolgirl, and she is depicted in school uniform. The plot summary in List of Sailor Moon chapters begins with "A lazy 14-year-old girl named Usagi Tsukino…". Even though she and the other main characters have alternate military identities, they are girls.
  5. Category:Magical girl characters is under Category:Fictional females by genre rather than by franchise. The magical girl genre is "centered around young girls who possess magical abilities". Magical boys are categorised within the genre category as a late addition to the genre. Within the Fictional females category is Category:Magical girl characters, which is currently a mixed bag but I think mostly girls (with 1 boy and some women), and more clearly girls in the subcat Category:Magical girl characters in anime and manga.
All these categories belong in Fictional females, but would be excluded if this whole hierarchy from the top down is renamed to Fictional women. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are plural "Women" categories, not singular. The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as "women's rights" to denote female humans regardless of age.
    1. Then American Girl should be excluded on both age and sex. Likewise, My Little Pony ponies. These are Category:Fictional children. Isn't there a guideline against sexing children?
    2. Sometimes I'm surprised at legal differences across the pond. We call them "young women". (A classic book is Little Women.) There are still several states with no lower limit on the age of consent, where statutory rape can be voided by marriage. The Little Mermaid was 15 in the Danish original. Original Pocahontas was 10-12 on her first marriage and 16 on her second marriage; changed to 18 in the film because a thirty year-old Smith falls in love with a child would be "sleazy". But half his age is just standard Hollywood casting. All are marriagable women at the time.
    3. Japanse school uniforms do not have bare midriffs and skirts are not above the knee. There are no pastel skirts or garish colored plaid pants. Originally based upon the author's fashion forward college wardrobe. That original characters were down-aged from age "18 in Season 1 of the anime" to 14 is just more infantilizing of women.
Etc. If you insist that these are children, despite wearing skimpy sexualized clothing usually associated with adults, then I'd certainly agree they should be excluded to Category:Fictional children.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checked a Sailor series on Netflix. Unwatchable. Utterly racist and sexist. They didn't just down-age the characters, they down-aged their voices. Actors in falsetto as children, perhaps age 4-6 matching age 4-6 faces, despite the fair skinned title characters have tits and asses, with wavy northern european color (blond, brunette, reddish) hair and blue eyes. Bad guys are voiced as adults, with darker skin, hair, and eyes. So split those mentioned above (other than Disney princesses) to Category:Fictional children subcategories as appropriate.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe split to Fictional women, to contain Fictional women by occupation, Fictional Jewish women, Fictional first ladies etc. That would then belong fully within Category:Women in art. But I consider that Fictional females is a valid subcat already, as most of the content is women. – Fayenatic London 09:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Women in fiction" sounds as a topic category, while this is primarily a set category for fictional characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you're right, I stand corrected. I suppose the whole argument is about age then. I'll leave this CfR here because I don't really have anything to add about that semantic discussion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It would remove from the category characters who are female but not human. Dimadick (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "creatures". But we have articles on female humanoid aliens (Supergirl (Kara Zor-El), Gamora, Deathbird, etc.), fictional goddesses (Enchantress, Sif, Valkyrie, etc.), fictional female demons (Purgatori, Lady Demon, etc.), fictional female angels (Angela), and female anthropomorphic characters (Daisy Duck, Lola Bunny, etc.). The proposal would remove all of them from the relevant categories. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the rename would have the consequence that female humanoid characters (humanoid aliens, goddesses, angels) are removed I would oppose too, but I think these can just as well stay in a Women category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Dimadick and User:Fayenatic london, who are absolutely correct. Having the appearance of being female or having female characteristics, does not make the character a human woman. In addition, to address another concern from above, splitting between "woman" and "girl" is a subjective determination at best. And really would just be WP:OR. I think it's fair to say that most fiction does not discuss questions of "age of consent", or of when childhood ends and adulthood begins. Noting that this is not consistent even in US states or countries of the world in real life, much less in fiction. See also Child#Biological,_legal_and_social_definitions. I respect the nominator's well-meant intentions, but in this case, this is just a bad idea. - jc37 02:23, 15 April 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:Lithuanian pacifists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:European pacifists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 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:Compilations of biographies about artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Biographical dictionaries of artists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If I understand correctly, these fit the definition of biographical dictionary. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not how RS describe them, and I think would be highly misleading for the reader as they are mostly historical, and stop at eg 400 years ago, and sometimes cover only a generation or two. Many of them cover only 100-200 artists, or fewer, and rely heavily on the personal experiences of the author, who knew the artists concerned. Only one, the Benezit Dictionary of Artists is what I would call a biographical dictionary and has been kept updated. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, The Lives of the Artists (Bellori) only contains 12 biographies. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 14 March 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.

Biographies by subject[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename the ones that haven't been done yet, including Category:Biographies by subject to Category:Biographical books by topic and Category:Biographies (books) by subject to Category:Biographical books by subject. I am closing this despite being involved, because it has progressed in an non-standard manner, probably making it confusing for others, even though there is no remaining disagreement. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories named "books about…" were collected in a new Category:Books about individual people, which was then renamed to Category:Biographies (books) by subject at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_13#Biographical_works. There is already a longstanding Category:Biographies by subject which now contains mainly sub-cats by occupation. I propose to move those occupational categories to a new category named accordingly; to move Biographies about LGBT people up to the parent; and remove Biographies about African-American people as it is already in American biographies. The new category by subject (meaning by person) can then be merged into the old one. – Fayenatic London 12:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the first. In its current state, Category:Biographies by subject is not diffused by subject at all, the proposed "by occupation" describes much better how it is organized (with few exceptions as mentioned by nom). Neutral about the third, I guess topic and occupation are both fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: for the second category, I just wonder, shouldn't we better stay aligned with Category:Biographies (books)? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I do not think it is necessary to disambiguate the whole of the biographies hierarchy like that, e.g. "Category:American biographies (books)". I admit that I just removed films & plays categories from Category:Biographies about actors, necessitating the new parent Category:Biographical works about actors, but I haven't seen any other cases of non-book media within the biographies tree. In any case, can we merge these for now, and consider possible renaming separately? – Fayenatic London 22:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: then maybe I misunderstand, but to me it seems with your second nomination you are proposing a rename, rather than a merge. Category:Biographies by subject will supposedly first be emptied (which I totally agree with) and then be populated with everything that is currently in Category:Biographies (books) by subject. That is practically speaking a rename of the latter to the former, no? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of CFD bot processing, you are right, it would be easy to nominate and process the first and second lines as renames, with only a little cleanup afterwards. I had assumed that Category:Biographies by subject was intended to mean "by person" rather than "by topic", and had been diffused to subcats later, in which case I thought it would be better to leave the old page history at its present name. However, now I think my assumption was wrong – the page was put into a "by topic" parent straight away. So it should be moved to "by occupation". That means your new category can be renamed or kept instead of merged. I would not object to keeping it at its current name Category:Biographies (books) by subject, and making a new disambiguation page at Category:Biographies by subject. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Then let's keep the second category for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • While we are discussing these categories anyway, I am also completely fine with changing the clunky "biographies (books)" and "biographies" (if meant as books) to "biographical books" as suggested by WAS. This applies both to the first- and second-nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added that one to the nomination. Note: I still don't think it would be necessary to rename all the subcats, e.g. by country. – Fayenatic London 10:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's the value of doing the split par exempli gratia. There are quite a few topics in the parent. My preference would be to split the parent further, moving more topics into "by topic" and more occupations into "by occupation".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't every biographical dictionary have a topic? What would you leave in the parent category? – Fayenatic London 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having given the parent a once over looking for more by occupation, I see a lot of by country. Also, some in by topic that belong by country. There are several more that belong in by topic such as religion and women. Hard to tell what the non-english ones cover.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've purged the rest of by topic articles, there's only 1 remaining. So now I agree with you. Upmerge away! I'll update my earlier alternatives.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think royalty and nobility are commonly categorised as occupations because that is useful and close enough. The same usually goes for religious figures. But the remaining sub-cats by ethnicity, sexuality and political tendency (anarchism) are non-occupational topics, so in this case it may be justified to keep the separate intermediate "by topic" category.
  • Merging "books about X" and "biographies about X" is beyond the scope of this nomination, but in some cases "books" may include novels and speculative works as opposed to bios. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've marked the "upmerge" as done, my next line has the rename/move "to save history'". Please do that!
  2. Marcocapelle is wrong, anarchist is not an occupation, any more than "libertarian" or "democratic socialist". Emma Goldman made her living as a writer. She was jailed for distributing pamphlets about birth control and being against the draft (which for some people was anarchy), but we have more accurate terms today (feminist, conscientious objector).
  3. To that end, we need more topics, not fewer. Seeing Noam Chomsky in the anarchists subcategory, when he is a self-described libertarian socialist, tells me there are probably many that could be better categorized.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done the move. This CFD is progressing in a rather irregular manner, but it is doing so by consensus, and at least the closer won't have to bother about the parts that we are finishing here.
As for the category "by topic" (now including anarchists again), should it still be "Biographies by topic" as you proposed above, or "Biographical books by topic" to match the renaming of the parent? – Fayenatic London 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's a good idea, these are all books, we hadn't nominated that at the beginning. Personally, this interplay of discussion arriving gradually at consensus is really great, instead of mere !vote counting.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:30, 23 March 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:Sex worker organisations in Finland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge 1st and 3rd, rename 2nd to Category:Sex worker organisations based in the Netherlands. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. The Red Thread (De Rode Draad) is not exactly a trade union, but it is not unreasonable to put it there anyway, it comes close enough and is more specific than business organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree with the description of these organisations as trade unions (or labour unions), and would be inclined to say they are trade unions by definition, although currently they are categorised differently. Category:Sex worker organizations is currently in Category:Workers' rights organizations, which in turn is a child of Category:Labor-related organizations and a sibling of Category:Trade unions. The categories also refer to each other, but Category:Workers' rights organizations states a distinction: Workers' rights organizations are organizations, other than trade unions, which promote workers' rights. Examples include legal rights organizations that sue to enforce labor laws, and human rights organizations that work to expose violations of workers' rights. By contrast, Category:Trade unions states: Trade or labor unions are unions formed around professional, occupational, trade, and labor activities. I reckon that means the organisations listed under List of sex worker organizations#Supportive are not trade unions, because they are not (primarily) run by (former) sex workers, but they are definitely workers' rights organisations. Pretty much all sex worker organisations primarily run by (former) sex workers are de facto both trade unions and workers' rights organisations, because they are engaged in the trade but also advocate workers' rights because of all the legal restrictions their trade faces in pretty much all jurisdictions. It seems to me that this calls for categorisation on a base-by-case basis. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question about the Netherlands: As List of sex worker organizations#International and Prostitution in the Netherlands#International organisations indicate, several sex worker organisations which operate internationally are based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, including the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe, TAMPEP (which for some reason is "hosted from Helsinki", so might also be added to Category:Sex worker organisations in Finland), and La Strada International Association. If the category was called Category:Sex worker organisations based in the Netherlands, these three would definitely belong in it, and it would no longer be a WP:SMALLCAT. Isn't it better to rename the second cat rather than merging it? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency we should then rename all subcats. However, when all subcats would be nominated I would advocate merging instead of renaming because the whole tree is very small. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. WP:SMALLCAT doesn't say when a category is too small, nor do I know whether there are guidelines on when categories are recommended to be split up into subcategories for size reasons. Personally I would think the threshold to be somewhere about 5 items at least (which means all current subcats except the UK and US would be merged into the parent), but are there conventions about this? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:43, 14 March 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:Members of the International Law Commission[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 20:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I might be missing some subtlety here but the two categories appear to have the same scope. This is confirmed by looking at List of members of the International Law Commission which lists people that belong to either category. It's not clear if the right title should be Category:Members of the International Law Commission or Category:International Law Commission officials although the latter seems more coherent with the parent category Category:United Nations General Assembly officials. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. They should be merged, but the name should be "members" of the ILC. See https://legal.un.org/ilc/ilcmembe.shtml. TantPersis (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, mere membership of something is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Possibly chairs of the commission is defining, but in this case I doubt that too. There is a list, which is perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a mere membership of something, though. The United Nations International Law Commission is the main body responsible for the codification of international law. Being elected as member is arguably the second most prestigious (perhaps, important) position an international lawyer can be elected to, after the International Court of Justice. As I mentioned, there are two Wikipedia categories: members and officials. I did not see the "officials" category (which is not the technical name) and therefore created the "members" one. It was a mistake, had I seen the pre-existing category, I would have simply proposed to rename it to "members". They should now be merged under the name "members". TantPersis (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly any article mentions it at the start of the article as one of the major achievements and mostly it just appears as a single line just mentioning the fact. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Reverse merge -- ILC is a body of legal experts, elected by the UN General Assembly every 5 years, tasked with harmonising law internationally. It appears to hold an annual session, which has since 2000 been held in two parts, each at least 4-7 weeks long. The correct name appears to be "members". It is clearly a part-time position, but highly prestigious. It probably does not receive a great deal of attention, since much of its work will go on in the background. There are currently 34 members at a time (worldwide), once fewer. If we need an officials category, it should be limited to staff supporting the work of the Commission members. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The biography articles don't treat this as defining. More a reflection of their prestige than the source. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both — tagged latter — nearly identical content, per Marcocapelle and RevelationDirect.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second category just tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (reverse merge). It is a tremendously prestigious body, composed of members (not officials). TantPersis (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the body is prestigious does not necessarily imply that it is defining for individual people. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the United Nations: the body is basically composed of its individual members, which are elected in highly competitive elections at the UN. It is a career-defining election for most individuals. TantPersis (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not apparant at all. For example the article Kamil Idris expands much more on his directorship of WIPO than on his membership of the ILC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per WP:NONDEF. --Skovl (talk) 08:29, 28 March 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:Blues festivals in Estonia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 24#Category:Blues festivals in Estonia

Category:Jurchen rulers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Jurchen chieftains. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Tungus rulers, its former parent category. It is a redundant layer between "Rulers" and its subcats. Possibly fails WP:OCEGRS, because the Jurchen are a people, not a state. Its "main article" is List of Jurchen chieftains, an WP:UNSOURCED article full of WP:OR, arbitarily lumping various allegedly Jurchen 'chieftains' in various Chinese and Mongol dynasties together. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:43, 14 March 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:Jek (Quba)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the pages are now interlinked, so that navigation will still be possible without the categories. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 19 March 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:Balakhani[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete/rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small municipality in Baku with little potential for growth. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Balakhani have a completely different architecture and line of development. And it is wrong to combine this category with Baku. Balakhany has its own architectural monuments. Here you can find architecture from the Middle Ages to the 19th century. In addition, over the past 5 years, large-scale construction work has been carried out in the village and historical monuments have been restored. The number of jobs in the city increased and, as a result, the population increased. I don't think it's right to combine these categories. --Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first as not needed; rename the second to Category:Monuments and memorials in Balaxanı (with a redirect at Category:Monuments and memorials in Balakhani), following parent hierarchy and article name Balaxanı. – Fayenatic London 15:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Rename per Fayenatic london
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:07, 23 March 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:Estonian merchants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Merchants. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 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:Gamergaters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I saw this added to Milo Y's article last night. Per WP:OPINIONCAT, people should not be categorized based on their stance on a singular, niche issue. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if applicable people can be put in far right categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of Milo, I think we're talking about the "activist" part of WP:OPINIONCAT. It's not just an opinion; he was was a prominent advocate for "the cause", and it's a big part of his early notability. That said, no it doesn't seem like we should be categorizing anyone as a "Gamergater". I see the category creator also created Category:Gamergate (harassment campaign) and Category:Targets of Gamergate. There are enough people and organizations involved enough to have extended coverage in their articles to justify a single category on the topic, I think. Perhaps we could just put everyone from "Gamergaters" and "Targets" into the main category (or, if there turn out to be too many people, "People associated with Gamergate"). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated Category:Targets of Gamergate for deletion as well. No opinion on the general category at the moment. Zaathras (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Categories have to be clear cut without ambiguity and supported by sourced content in the subject's article. It's not clear to me how individuals would be characterized as "Gamergaters" in an online harassment incident that involved thousands of anonymous social media accounts and lasted for nearly a year. For the two individuals in this category right now, it's clearly a minor incident in their lives that happened 9 years ago. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:04, 23 March 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:Renamed localities in Russia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining per WP:CATDEFINING, and Category:Country name changes was recently deleted. Name changes are common if you go back far, these categories are missing lots of entries but should be deleted rather than expanded and created for 100+ other countries. Name changes are much better suited for lists like List of renamed cities and towns in Russia and others in Category:City name changes which can give the former name and year of change. Category:City name changes in Ukraine includes two lists but they are already in name change categories with other lists so no merge is needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three Oblast categories were created after the original nomination. I have added them to the nomination. This was done after the 19:55 post by Marcocapelle. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 14 March 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.

Wikipedians interested in association football teams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - only one or two teams in each. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:17, 14 March 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:Machinima based on Second Life[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Machinima works and 1 other. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:58, 14 March 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:Sportspeople of African descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Category naming does not provide for by region encapsulating by country. These "regional" categories are also a proxy for race.
Summary: Continuing removals after categories were emptied by 16 (and counting) previous discussions.
Followup to:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Mzajac, and Place Clichy: recent participants.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' place of living. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent of previous discussions. Regional/continental intersections at that level are a bad idea, and likely to be used only as a privacy for race. Place Clichy (talk) 09:01, 14 March 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:Non-inheriting heirs presumptive[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems too broad, as most monarchies have had an heir presumptive who did not inherit the throne. Especially in earlier times where the monarch faced a low life expectancy, it was quite common for a childless monarch to come to the throne and wait years for an heir apparent to be born. It is much more unusual for an heir apparent to not accede to the throne. Векочел (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have other extremely broad categories: Category:Daughters of kings, for instance. Is a category being large itself grounds for deletion?
TypistMonkey (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NONDEFINING — Do not categorize by every fact. Many heirs died before inheriting. Some of these are spurious: both "non-inheriting" and "pretender".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Strange category with a strange selection of articles. Place Clichy (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge to limit its scope to the heirs apparent or presumptive of kings. Heirs-apparent of nobles either should not appear at all or be in a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 19 March 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 leaders of China[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OR.
Note that the cat was CfD'd twice before, in 2006 and 2013, but because of the word "women"; I nominate it for the word "leaders", which is vague, arbitrary and can mean whatever you want it to mean. This cat is just a catch-all that doesn't have a proper scope. The cat itself gives the following description:
This is a list (it's not, it's a cat) of notable (says who?) women who led (what are we to understand as "leading", exactly?) China (note that this includes Taiwan; 1 of the 2 subcats is Category:Women state councillors of China, which is only about Taiwan) as its official or de facto leader ("leader" in what sense? de facto according to whom?) or has played a prominent role (extreeeeemely vague) in its national politics (more vagueness), throughout China's history (that is tantamount to WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I think this is simply too arbitrary, subjective and original research. I would suggest a manual delete, dividing the items across better-defined existing categories such as Category:Chinese empresses (create Category:Chinese empresses regnant?), Category:Chinese imperial consorts, Category:Regents of China (create Category:Female regents of China?) etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:24, 14 March 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:Rulers of Finland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge&purge/delete respectively, as per Marcocapelle. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of monarchs and heads of state of Finland.
Category:Women rulers of Finland states This category includes the women who ruled over Finland in their own right. The proper term for that is "queen regnant". All three women are explicitly called that in their lead sections.
Semantic point: although neither "king of Finland" nor "queen of Finland" was ever a dynastic title (the Swedish and Russian monarchs preferred "(Grand) Duke of Finland"), except during the brief Kingdom of Finland (1918), the main article makes the point that these monarchs reigned over Finland rather than that they were titulary kings/queens of Finland. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:34, 14 March 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 rulers of Egypt[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: apart from 1 cat, Category:Queens of Egypt, there is only 1 item, Shajar al-Durr, who strictly speaking was a Sultanah rather than a "queen". But that's not enough for her own category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:25, 14 March 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:Rulers of Cyrenaica[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 24#Category:Rulers of Cyrenaica

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_14&oldid=1157911894"