Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 328: Line 328:
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Dual upmerge for now. There are only 4 churches in this entire tree, which is not helpful for navigation. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 00:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Dual upmerge for now. There are only 4 churches in this entire tree, which is not helpful for navigation. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 00:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support in principle''', per nom, but only one article needs to be moved manually to [[:Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings]], the other two articles are already in a subcategory by year. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 06:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support in principle''', per nom, but only one article needs to be moved manually to [[:Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings]], the other two articles are already in a subcategory by year. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 06:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' at least until CI becomes an available feature. [[Special:Contributions/46.229.243.187|46.229.243.187]] ([[User talk:46.229.243.187|talk]]) 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:11, 5 April 2024

< April 2
April 4 >

April 3

Category:Categories by state or territory of Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: Just a huge mess delete/merge these duplicate categories Mason (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete, a huge tree for only a few articles is not helpful at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architecture in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories/duplicate categories by the same user Mason (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories are currently empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Comment These are recently-created empty duplicates of existing Category:Asian architecture tree. The creator was probably inspired by my recent speedy-renaming of Category:African architecture to Category:Architecture of Africa (per C2D, which currently doesn't apply to other architecture-by-continent cats). I do favour the naming Architecture of in Fooland, but that should happen by renaming existing trees according to procedure, not creating duplicates. Let's delete the duplicates first before considering renaming its siblings. NLeeuw (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: For a future renaming of the whole tree, I think Architecture in Fooland may actually make more sense that "of", as it is almost universally applied in lower-level categories.
    NLeeuw (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm definitely not opposed to Architecture in FOO for a later CFD. (My goal is to just clean up the mess of the category creator) Mason (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good to know, glad you agree. NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents in Upper Kohistan District, Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. If not merged, the category needs to be renamed to reflect that this is Upper Kohistan District Mason (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime in Shangla, Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. If not merged, the category needs to be renamed to reflect that this is Shangla District Mason (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modernist architecture in Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: unhelpful categories made by the same disruptive user. Only have one page in them related to a current event. Mason (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian culture by state or territory

Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical categories. Mason (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories are currently empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, recently created empty duplicates of existing cats. NLeeuw (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist attractions in Taiwan by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful by the same disruptive category creator. Also the template the page creator used for Historic-Cultural Monuments only applies to California. OP keeps making categories and refuses to take feedback. Mason (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge, "buildings" alone is an unusual sort of category, and all of these contain only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buchenwald concentration camp medical personnel

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation when you only have one person in here Mason (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender genocide

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate categorization: other than the main article, none of these topics are defined by their association with the disputed concept of transgender genocide. Some articles may need upmerging. (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilian city councillors

Nominator's rationale: Juridically, it's called municipality, not city. See also subcategories/siblings at Category:Councillors in South America. --MikutoH talk! 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech saints

Nominator's rationale: WP:CROSSCAT. Not sure if this phenomenon has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the CFD archives. I'm nominating this to initiate a preliminary discussion on the wider Category:Christian saints by nationality tree, as I see several issues with the selection criteria in many parts of this tree, and this particular category exemplifies them well.
A. Objectivity and verifiability: Whoever is considered a "saint" or not is inherently subjective and WP:POV. If this is even the 'job' of Wikipedia to start with, the only way to objectively categorise saints is by the authority of a relevant religious organisation (in this case a church or denomination), which has officially canonised a person as a saint in verifiable publications (WP:V + WP:RS). Perhaps one person is canonised by multiple organisations, and perhaps lots of individuals in a community or society unofficially believe in a person's sainthood, but we may assume that the rest of the world, by default, does not accept anyone's sainthood, especially not of anyone in a religious denomination other than their own (if any). Certain denominations such as Calvinist churches even vehemently oppose the very idea of sainthood as blasphemous, and don't recognise the saints of any other church either. It's always a saint according to church X. I think we can all agree on that.
B. Relevance of nationality: "Nationality" seems irrelevant. Generally speaking, secular authorities like states and governments are not in the business of canonising saints. It might be that the feasts of certain saints are established as public holidays (say, Saint Patrick's Day in Ireland and some other jurisdictions), and that there is some official symbolism devoted to a saint, but it's not the Republic of Ireland's business to say who is a saint and who isn't. (Proclaiming "national heroes" maybe, but that's a separate issue). Similarly, it's not the Czech Republic's business to accord sainthood to, say, Jan Hus. There seems to be no particular connection between sainthood (a religious legal status) and nationality (a secular legal status). This is why I'm leaning towards regarding the whole saints by nationality tree an inappropriate WP:CROSSCAT.
C. Original research: Finally, even if nationality somehow were an appropriate attribute of a saint, a great number of these saints lived at a time when the present-day states did not exist yet. The Czech Republic wasn't founded until 1993, the Republic of Ireland not until 1922/1937/1949 (depending on one's view), the Netherlands not until 1581/1648/1813/1815 etc., so how could there be such a thing as medieval "Czech", "Dutch", "Irish" etc. saints? This seems obvious WP:OR, driven by modern nationalism to arbitrarily claim various elements of the past for a modern political entity. The catdesc of Category:Christian saints by nationality seems to confirm this: This category is for articles about saints by the country they were from or are associated with. That's a textbook example of WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. Given that the relevance of "nationality" is already shaky, this seems even more reason to get rid of this kind of WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
I don't rule out the possibility that this category tree may be legitimate and useful after all. But I think we should at least discuss why we should have it or not. I'm also not picking on Czech saints in particular, it's just a very good example to illustrate the issues I'm seeing across the tree. (E.g. with "French saints" I wouldn't be able to raise point C. very well, as France's statehood arguably goes much further back and could arguably capture most medieval saints.) I would love to hear your thoughts. This is a large tree, we shouldn't be making rash decisions. NLeeuw (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nederlandse Leeuw I don't have time for a full response now, but WP:CROSSCAT is about articles and refers to Wikipedia:Overcategorization for categories, so I suggest that arguments should be based on WP:OVERCAT, rather than WP:CROSSCAT. TSventon (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but you'll notice I've invoked many more specific guidelines in my rationale: WP:POV, WP:V, WP:RS (these 3 issues can be overcome within the Category:Saints by religion tree, but not, I think, in the Category:Saints by nationality tree), relevance (I think nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for saints, because sainthood is not established through secular law, but ecclesiastical law, and denominations such as the Catholic Church and Constantinople Patriarchate operate internationally), WP:OR, WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH, and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia categories exist to help readers navigate the encyclopedia and I think Category:Christian saints by nationality is justified on that basis.
    A. Objectivity and verifiability: I agree that you can argue there is a legitimate POV concern about Category:Christian saints.
    B. Relevance of nationality: Category:Christian saints is a large category, so it is useful for navigation to WP:DIFFUSE it. Nationality is an accepted basis for diffusing large categories, so I would suggest keeping national categories unless a better method can be found. Nationality is relevant as churches such as the Catholic Church and Constantinople Patriarchate are divided into national units, such as the Catholic Church in the Czech Republic and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. It is therefore not a WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Until the French Revolution, churches and secular governments in Europe were closely integrated and monarchs had an interest in who was canonised in their realms. Sometimes a saint would be canonised after being killed on behalf of a monarch. However sainthood should be a defining characterstic members of Category:Christian saints. If this is not the case for Jan Hus, he should not be in the category.
    C. Original research: This is an issue for Category:Czech people, rather than just Category:Czech saints. I would argue that both categories are useful for navigation and that nationality is just as WP:DEFINING for saints as for other human beings. Category:Czech people by century, for example goes back to Category:9th-century people from Bohemia. If the catdesc of Category:Christian saints by nationality says This category is for articles about saints by the country they were from or are associated with. then the words "associated with" could be removed. TSventon (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Medieval Roman Catholic dioceses in the Low Countries, Germany and France, with modern borders in red
    I agree with you that diffusing large categories is important for smooth navigation, but I agree with Marcocapelle below that Christian saints [should] only be diffused by century and no longer by nationality.
    I'm afraid the ecclesiastical organisation argument shoots itself in the foot. Church provinces coinciding with national borders is a very modern phenomenon, and not even the Catholic Church has enough adherents in every country to have a province for each of them. Take the example of the map on the right there, showing that in the Middle Ages the borders of archdioceses in the Low Countries almost completely ignored the country borders that exist today (because those country borders didn't exist at the time either).
    Evidently, Jan Hus was executed by the Catholic Church, which up until today regards him as a heretic and an enemy, whereas some but not all Orthodox and Lutheran denominations have canonised Hus as a saint. The sources provided - 64 and 65; two copies of the same 2011 interview with Christopher of Prague - state that Jan Hus has been canonised as a saint by the (Orthodox) Church of Greece, Church of Cyprus, and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. Only the last one is relevant if we are to decide whether Hus is a "Czech" saint or not, and according to the 2021 Czech Republic census, only 0.4% of the population is a member of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Czechoslovak Hussite Church bears his name and acknowledges him as their predecessor, but There is no veneration of saints as practiced in the Apostolic Churches, and they constituted only 0.2% of the Czech population in 2021. In fact, we might look at Religion in the Czech Republic as a whole and see that almost half of Czechs have no religion at all, fewer than 10% are Catholics (who officially regard Hus as a heretic), and the few who hold Hus in high regard don't even show up in the piechart. Besides, the two categories declaring Jan Hus a "Lutheran saint" are not backed up by sources at all. So, all religious denominations in Czechia today who recognise Hus as a saint combined barely represent the Czech population. Who are we Wikipedians to say that Hus is their "saint"? The Orthodox Greeks and Cypriots who nominally believe in his sainthood probably outnumber the Czechs who do. Nationality is just completely irrelevant here.
    If anything, we should have a Category:Saints in the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia as a child of Category:Eastern Orthodox saints. If we can't find enough to populate that category, then maybe we should listify them and make them a separate section in the main article Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia or something. Or, add Jan Hus to List of Eastern Orthodox saints with a source stating in which 3 orthodox churches he is currently recognised as a saint. Whatever we do, categorising as "Czech saints" is one of the worst options we could take here. NLeeuw (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A is not so much a problem because Christian churches have set procedures for sainthood attribution. For more clarity the category may be renamed from "saints" to "Christian saints" though. B is a problem not in itself but because of C. For that reason I would suggest Christian saints only to be diffused by century and no longer by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Babson Beavers

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard categorization scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline is that? Let'srun (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No formal guideline that I know of it, but it reflects the standard practice for scores of editors for more than a decade in topic areas covering hundreds of thousands of articles. What guideline is "lacks subjects"? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, this is not helpful for navigation between articles. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crafts deities

Nominator's rationale: Just plain better English. PepperBeast (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think what is meant here is wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities. PepperBeast (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories? NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft? NebY (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Words and phrases by language

Nominator's rationale: Many subcategories in it have the 'statute', like, ""This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase". However I checked a couple and see that people dont care and put there items that are just about subjects that have title in foreingn language, such as e.g. Goralenvolk, Gokenin, Gradonachalnik.
  • Shall we undertake a really massive cleanup (and put these cats on watchlist to prevent from "contamination", since it will most surely happen )
  • or change the 'statutes' to reflect the status quo? I do feet that catigories, like, category:Russian terms to describe Russian culture are of value.- Altenmann >talk 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. While we are at that, it will make sense to double-check the ledes for proper "XXX is a term for YYY" vs. "XXX is YYY". For example two articles about basically same concept but in different cultures introduced dirfferently:
    • Mazhory (from majors; roughly translates as "the superior ones"[1]) is a slang term used in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries for children of privileged people,
  • vs:
    • Princelings (Chinese: 太子党), also translated as the Party's Crown Princes, are the descendants of prominent and influential senior communist officials in the People's Republic of China.
- Altenmann >talk 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we drop the requirement that the categories only contain articles about words themselves, then they just wouldn't be useful. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A category containing every article that is a word in a specific language would be far too inclusive.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think WP:NOTDICTIONARY is applicable here. Besides, We have articles such as Yiddish words used in English. Shouldn't the list items with articles be in a matching category?- Altenmann >talk 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not necessarily, I don't think so. The article you mention already fulfills that exact purpose. Essentially my point is that if we drop the requirement in question then articles would be categorised purely based on their titles and not their scope, which I think is overcategorisation. It's not a very strong example of it, so I understand your concern, but I still think it's better if these categories of words and phrases only contain articles about words and phrases.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ETA: I think list articles, like Yiddish words used in English, are a much better idea actually. I would be completely fine with list articles like those instead of putting non-word articles in the words categories.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The instruction on these category pages isn't clear at all. We should either remove the requirement or delete the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: out of interest, what about it do you think is unclear?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words exist for the very purpose of referring to a concept or thing. It is not very well imaginable that we have articles about words that do not also discuss the meaning of the words. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair. Almost every article should have a definition of its title but most articles are much more than just the meaning and usage of the word. In that case, the header should read "articles about the usage of the word in language" or something else to that effect.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dummelaksen: let me rephrase this slightly: "articles mainly about the usage of the word in language". The question is how much % of the article should be about the usage of the word in language in order to qualify for the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        A good article should be about one thing and one thing only, i.e. an article should be about the word itself, or not about the word itself. So ideally, 100%. In reality a lot of articles in these categories aren't written well so are about the concept, but are inappropriately written like dictionary definitions.
        I've been very conservative thus far, and only removed articles that are clearly about concepts, but many of these articles should be rewritten to avoid WP:NOTDICT and WP:REFERSTO.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this category continue to exist? If so, how should it be organized? Specific proposals on the latter point would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magazine editors by nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Mason (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to diffuse by nationality with 1 (possibly 2 categories) Mason (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Giorgio Cini Foundation

Nominator's rationale: unhelpful for navigation to have the contents of the category are only vaguely related. a link would be suffient Mason (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food gods

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT PepperBeast (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging Category:Harvest deities to Category:Agricultural deities, but keep Category:Food deities instead of merging it, I think the Food gods/goddesses are related but not the exact same thing as Agricultural gods/goddesses. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods. PepperBeast (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Charairongba

Nominator's rationale: Totally unnecessary cat with just two entries PepperBeast (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian publication editors

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the only article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have formally warned the page creator, who has not been responsive to the wall of messages on their talk page. Mason (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages with own distinct writing systems

Nominator's rationale: Definition of "distinctive" seems to make this a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT PepperBeast (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei script

Nominator's rationale: Grab-bag of stuff defined by some use of a particular writing system... WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shumang Kumhei

Nominator's rationale: Tiny category of just two articles (that are mutually linked). PepperBeast (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei Brahmins

Nominator's rationale: Categories are identical PepperBeast (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular reason- it's just the one I spotted. PepperBeast (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to have this discussed in broader context. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Titular Meitei princes

Nominator's rationale: Confusing, at best. None of these people seems to be titled, or a Prince. They just seem to share a surname and are somehow related to royalty. PepperBeast (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei princesses

Nominator's rationale: Very small cat, overlapping. PepperBeast (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sanaleipak

Nominator's rationale: Grab-bag of unrelated items WP:SHAREDNAME PepperBeast (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei as a second or foreign language

Nominator's rationale: Definitely WP:NONDEF PepperBeast (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom Mason (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:OR as well. English is probably the second language of most continental Europeans, but we're not gonna put all ethnic groups in continential Europe in a category just because of that. NLeeuw (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei language in Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Just two articles. PepperBeast (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguistic groups of the constitutionally recognised official languages of India

Nominator's rationale: Rather convoluted thinking, and definitely WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phouoibi

Nominator's rationale: Tiny category of one eponymous article, one film, and one play. PepperBeast (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kangla

Nominator's rationale: Basically duplicates the disambiguation page of the same name. PepperBeast (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translations into Meitei

Nominator's rationale: Tiny category of only two pages. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medicine goddesses

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a lot of overlap/duplication. PepperBeast (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not sure about the semantics, but seems like medicine is a human activity or product, while health is said to be bestowed upon humans as a blessing by deities. NLeeuw (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abundance goddesses

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: Aborted. I think I've ballsed this up slightly and will re-list. (non-admin closure) PepperBeast (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a lot of overlap. PepperBeast (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maintenance deities

Nominator's rationale: Rather strange category. I couldn't really find much to support it as WP:CATV, and the articles included weren't much help. PepperBeast (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed The majority of pages in this category don't make much sense being here. Vishnu would be the only exception, but he may be better referred to as a god of preservation. Invokingvajras (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, what the hell does "Maintenance deities" even mean anyways? Also delete Category:Abundance deities too for the same reasons. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Never heard of them, and there don't seem to be RS for them either. Seems like some Wikipedia category maintenance is in order... NLeeuw (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-binary people by sexual orientation

Nominator's rationale: To be similar with Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Transgender bisexual people, for example, among others. --MikutoH talk! 02:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly delete as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support rename, and neutral on delete. But if we do delete we ought to manually merge the pages to the respective parents. Mason (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Company editors

Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this category and, by extension Category:Italian company editors and Category:Italian company editors by type because I can't find a definition on Wikipedia of what a "company editor" is and so I don't know who would or would not be included in this category. Categorization on Wikipedia is not supposed to be ambiguous and so I think either a definition should be included on a main space article or this category needs to be deleted or renamed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Aruba

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. There are only 4 churches in this entire tree, which is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_3&oldid=1217400007"