Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 6 July 8 >

July 7[edit]

Category:New Christians (conversos)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:Conversos

Nominator's rationale: This category should have been left as Category:New Christians, because now as its stands it is mistakenly a "parent category" of Category:Conversos when in fact it should be up-merged into Category:Conversos since it contains the exact same content matter. Someone screwed up originally, see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Category:New Christians, but now there is no choice but to merge the two categories, or to recreate Category:New Christians. IZAK (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn following lengthy discussion. Thanks for your participation. IZAK (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, if recreation of Category:New Christians is a reasonable option, then what is so terribly wrong about Category:New Christians (conversos)? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cateyed, BrownHairedGirl, DexDor, and Peterkingiron: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow simple logic. Anything with the word "Converso" in it means just that, both limited and expanded, WP cannot decide on "degrees of religiosity". The term New Christian is cleaner and clearer. Adding (Conversos) to it does not clarify, it is arbitrary. IZAK (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, how can Category:Conversos be a sub-category of Category:New Christians (conversos)? IZAK (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see the arbitrariness of it, what do you mean with "degrees of religiosity"? Conversos are the people who converted, New Christians are conversos including their descendants, so it is perfectly reasonable that conversos are a subcategory of New Christians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Marcocapelle: What you say is only true from a Christian POV, while from a Judaic POV it is not so. They were first forced by the Alhambra Decree of 1492 to become Christians, hence they are known in Hebrew as Anusim "forced ones". Those Jews that accepted Christianity OUTWARDLY but at the same time stuck to their Judaism INWARDLY were known by the pejorative as Marranos ("pigs" in Spanish) for most of the last 500 years. Then a few decades ago another more neutral name calls them Conversos to make them more respectable than being called "pigs", and now comes along a Christian POV that says the Conversos aka Marranos aka Anusim are actually "New Christians". One cannot impose a Christian POV on a Jewish POV or vice versa. IZAK (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. @IZAK links to the original discussion at WP:CFD 2019 March 10#Category:New Christians, but sadly seems not to have read it.
As noted at the previous CFD, the unqualified term "New Christians" is highly ambiguous, so we can't use that. Hence the disambiguator.
The crucial passage there is the comment from Cateyed: There is a difference between a Converso and a New Christian. Converso is only the person who converts, while New Christians are their descendants up to the third generation. Torquemada for example was a New Christian but not a Converso.
I accepted that explanation, which means that the two things are not the same, so we need both categories. IZAK, please clarify: do you accept Cateyed's explanation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I ask again that you please clarify: do you accept Cateyed's explanation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Because he cannot make up a new religious categorization in violation of WP:MADEUP and WP:NOR. IZAK (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl:That now you folks have decided when Conversos "stop" being Conversos and qualify as "New Christians". Is it after one generation, or two, three, ten or twenty? See what I mean? IZAK (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IZAK, you seem determined to have a row here ... but you would have a better much chance of understanding the issues here if you dropped the false premise that editors have been making things up. AGF that we have been following the relevant articles, and try reading them yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I am not having a "row" I just cannot see where to end the career of a Converso. At which generation they become "New Christians"? I do appreciate all the work others have done, but right now there is a lot of overlap between Converso, Marrano, Anusim, and Crypto-Jews. It is not as clear as you assume. IZAK (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually simple, @IZAK. Conversos are those who converted; New Christians are their descendants. Other labels may also be applicable to some of those people, but those other labels are not what is being captured in this category.
It's quite clear from your earlier posts that you got all worked up about this before you understood that a) "New Christian" was actually a legal status in Spain, and b) the reason we have Category:New Christians (conversos) is because the term "New Christian" is ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: and @Oculi: I thought about our debate and have come to realize the core problem behind it. I am coming at this topic from a Judaic POV, meaning how Category:Jews and Judaism views and would "categorize" the subjects, meaning the Conversos. From the point of view of classical Judaism and Jewish history, the victims of the Inquisition were "Anusim" meaning in Hebrew those Spanish and Iberian Jews who were forced to accept or adopt Christianity but remained INWARDLY loyal to their Judaism in one degree or another. The Christian world always referred to them as Marranos which means "pigs" in Spanish and that's how they were known to many Jews as well. Then in recent years, the term Marrano=pig became politically incorrect and regarded as a pejorative, so "Converso" basically meaning "one who converts" from one faith to another in Spanish. Then along comes the Christian POV that says there are things like an Old Christian and a New Christian and from the Christian POV all Conversos/Marranos/Anusim are New Christians. So it's a standoff. Do we go with a Jewish POV or with a Christian POV. On WP we do both, just as with the the subject of the Bible. Out of respect to Jews and Judaism the Torah is called the Hebrew Bible on WP, and not like it's called by Christians "Old Testament" since there is no such thing in Judaism as a "New Testament". Judaism does not accept Jesus in any way, while for Christians it's what makes a Christian .There are more examples like this. IZAK (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I think you are still missing the core point, and making very heavy going of it too.
These categories are not about Judaism. They are about the legal categorisations applied by a repressive Christian state to former Jews and former muslims, and their descendants. (You seem to repeatedly ignore the muslim side of the equation).
Other categories may apply too, but this pair of categories is about the categorisations applied by the state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: And this is where we differ because classically Jews and Judaism do NOT accept the so-called "state" when it comes to the point of the state imposing another faith on Jews. This was and is the tragedy of that era for Jews, that in 1492 they were forced to choose between being allowed to remain in Spain if they accepted Christianity as per the Alhambra Decree of 1492 ("After the decree was passed, Spain's entire Jewish population was given only four months to either convert to Christianity or leave the country") and only revoked in 1968! and if not they were expelled see Expulsion of Jews from Spain. IZAK (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I am not ignoring Muslims, I already mentioned them. According to your own logic you must allow Category:New Christians to be its own category again, then just as someone saw fit to create Category:New Christians (conversos) they should also at the same time have created Category:New Christians (Moriscos) and made that a parent category of Category:Moriscos that as you see exists, see also Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain & Expulsion of the Moriscos and then Category:New Christians would rightly be, according to you the parent category of both Category:New Christians (conversos) and Category:New Christians (Moriscos). So why wasn't that done? IZAK (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: You cite an extreme example. Torquemada is a "self-hating Jew" of sorts. Some antisemites often have a taint of Jewish blood to fuel their self hate. But this is not true for the run of the mill Conversos. They did not hate their Judaism, they tried to practice it and treasured it in secret on the inside, often at great self-sacrifice for many generations. IZAK (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • IZAK, spare us the ramblings on the nature of judaism under oppression. It's not the issue here.
      Instead, go read Old Christian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: Come now, I am not "rambling", rather, I am pointing out an important key point, or principle if you may, that there is a fundamental difference between Philo-Semitism and Jew hatred aka Antisemitism that can be found in all circles, even among Conversos. The vast majority of them were lovers of Judaism, after all that is what made them Conversos in the first place and that is why they were persecuted, regardless of what degree of Christianity, old or new, they practiced on the outside. Unlike Torquemada who was a fanatical Jew hater, even though he allegedly had some Jewish roots, and to the degree he was "Jewish" -- among Jews and others that is known known as a manifestation of self-hatred Self-hating Jews, simply a label for Jews who also happen to be antisemitic at the same time. It happens in a small minority of cases. Nothing for you to go ballistic about. Just follow the thread of my thought. So again, my question is, at what generation do Conversos stop their connection to Judaism entirely? I would say that after 500 years they qualify as Christians, but the folks in Category:New Christians (conversos) could still qualify as pure Conversos as they lived closer to that earlier time. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @IZAK, I am not going ballistic. I am calmly asking you yet again to discuss the actual issue at hand, and stop meandering down byways.
          You continue to entirely miss the point of this discussion. This is not about Philo-Semitism or Jew hatred or Antisemitism or Self-hating Jews or about anyone's true religious allegiances. All of that stuff is fascinating, and all of it relates to a brutal period of repression, but it is not what we are discussing here.
          Category:New Christians (conversos) exists because: people in Spain and Portugal had who were descended from Conversos had the legal status of status of "New Christian". This status applied to them regardless of whether they had become devout and sincere Catholics, or whether they secretly remained entire Jewish or Muslim in their faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term New Christian included the descendants of Jews and Muslims who underwent forced conversion in Portugal and Spain.This included both the Moriscos and the Marranos. The legal distinction between New Christians and the so-called Old Christians was abolished in 1772. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 19:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 19:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Melchor Cano
  2. Alfonso de Valdés
  3. Juan Alfonso de Baena
  4. Lope Conchillos y Quintana
  5. Pedro Arias Dávila
  6. De la Caballeria
  7. Juan Huarte de San Juan
  8. Luis de León
  9. Francisco Maldonado da Silva
  10. Marina de la Caballería
  11. Fernando de Rojas
  12. Hernando de Talavera

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: Just give me a chance and I will go through that list as well. It takes time, but I hope to get to it soon. IZAK (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle merge -- I have not devoted as much effort to this as IZAK, but if there is a distinction, it needs to be clearly expressed in a headnote. Firstly these are explicitly Spanish/Portuguese categories (including their colonies). "New Christians" as an unqualified title would be liable to pick up modern converts to Christianity. In Portugal (and perhaps also Spain), there was a period when such people were under suspicion as closet Jews, who had not really converted. As such they remained a group who were not fully assimilated into Catholic society. This means that the category is capable of including the descendants of converts, as well as those who were born as Jews. I have no strong view as to which should be the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But don't exeggerate this. While other categories may apply too, that is not a necessity. For example, Tomás de Torquemada is a New Christian but not a Crypto-Jew. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2019 (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:American cattlewomen[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: do not merge as nominated; no consensus for merging to alternative suggested target, nor for deletion. Note: one comment below indicates that this category had only one article; it currently has six. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gender neutrality. Tobias Epos (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a made up word that has not been adopted and sounds more like heroes out of comic books similar to "catwoman". Can do better than that.--TMCk (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the main article ranch, the terms "ranchers", "cattlemen", or "stockgrowers" are used for both the owners of a ranch and for the employees operating it. The average vaquero/buckaroo never owned the cattle which he/she herded. Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, what is the difference between this category and Category:Ranchers? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cattle owners but Support Merge to Category:American ranchers. More specific category. That said, "cattlemen" and "cattlewomen" are real words that have been around for decades. Montanabw(talk) 04:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Cattlewomen is not only a real word, but there are organizations for them: Oregon Cattlewomen, Wyoming Cattlewomen, and Texas Cattlewomen. That's just a sample; there are more. Also, the difference between the word cattlemen and ranchers is that cattlemen just apply to those that own or tend cattle. Ranchers applies to those own cattle, sheep, and less often, some other animals like elk, bison, emu, alpacas, ostrich, etc. p.s. Let me also add that people can own cattle but it doesn't mean they are ranch owners. You can raise cattle on other places. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. It could also be horses, like the huge and historic King Ranch in Texas. The King Ranch King Ranch dawnleelynn(talk) 18:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "I do not see a reason for gender-specific categories here." is not an argument. Besides, I gave examples of women named cattle organizations in my oppose statement, as well as saying there were more of them that I didn't name. I see merging this category as violating women's equality. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the fact that they have their own associations does not matter?dawnleelynn(talk) 17:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So what is the long delay about? I believe a case has been made for keeping this category as it is. Again though, it can be said that WP:DEFINING supports keeping a category per "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for.". Moving this category to an "owners" category is not defining. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cattlemen and cattlewomen have seperate organizations and seperate histories. Cattlemen and cattlewomen are owners of large herds of cattle. Ranchers are owners of larger tracks of land used to raise some type of stock animals. There is overlap, but they are not the same and gender is here defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2019 (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:American cattlemen[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: do not merge as nominated, nor to Pastoralists; do not rename the Australian category; no consensus about other suggestions. There does not even seem to be agreement about what the terms cattleman & rancher mean. There is some support for dispersing the contents where appropriate to ranchers by state or to cowboys. If this is done and the remaining contents have little in common apart from being associated with the cattle industry, then it would be appropriate to hold a further discussion about where the remainder belong within Category:American food industry businesspeople. – Fayenatic London 20:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gender neutrality. Tobias Epos (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Cattle owners" is not the same as cattlemen. Someone having a pet cattle would fall in the same category.--TMCk (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative nomination, except Australian stockmen: Australian ranches are known as cattle stations or sheep stations. TSventon (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Ranchers" are owners of stock and/or a ranch, "cattlemen" are people who work with cattle, "stockmen" are those who work with stock. Yes, a cattle magnate can sometimes be called a cattleman in the USA, but that is not the usual meaning of the word, any more than a labourer in a business operation is called a businessman. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to Ranch "People who own or operate a ranch are called ranchers, cattlemen, or stockgrowers" which is consistent with the proposal. Category:Cattlemen seems to contain mostly ranchers (and magnates): this is true of the 6 American cattlemen beginning with B I noted above, the 5 Canadian cattlemen and the 2 Mexican cattlemen. Oddly, most of the Uruguayan cattlemen are politicians, often with few mentions of cattle. Australian stockmen is another special case. The majority of articles in the Cattlemen tree are American and Category:Cowboys should contain most of the workers. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think TSventon has a reasonable point about finding the correct word for ranchers in Latin America, but that said, I also think they can be cross-listed under the parent category "Ranchers". Or, if preferred "Stockgrowers", though I don't know if that word is used much outside the USA. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Justlettersandnumbers, Montanabw in the discussion on the category cowboy in April 2015 it was proposed to move cowboy biographies into the cattlemen category, but this was rejected to keep "cattleman/cattle baron" separate from cowboy. TSventon (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support main nom -- dubious about some of the additional ones. We should be using appropriate national terms for national categories. Ranch is largely an American term and should not be applied to counties where it is an alien term. Keep Australian and seek an appropriate Spanish term for the Mexicans and Uruguayans. Gaucho is the equivalent of cowboy; there must be an equivalent for owners. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with using appropriate national terms. Rancher is used in several Canadian articles and Category:Canadian ranchers. One of the two Mexicans is described as a ranchero in their Spanish wiki article and according to Etymonline ranch derives from Spanish American rancho. Estanciero from estancia could be used for parts of South America, or translated to rancher. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The relevant entry considers rancho to be a loan word from Old French.: "ranch (n.)1808, "country house," from American Spanish rancho "small farm, group of farm huts," from Spanish rancho "mess-room," originally, "group of people who eat together," from ranchear "to lodge or station," from Old French ranger "install in position," from rang "row, line," from Frankish *hring or some other Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *hringaz "circle, ring, something curved," from nasalized form of PIE root *sker- (2) "to turn, bend." ... "Sense of "large stock-farm and herding establishment" is from 1831. Of houses, "single-story, split-level" (adj.) from 1950; as a noun from 1960. Ranch-house attested from 1862." Dimadick (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Australian ranchers The term in Australia is stockmen, as per WP:ENGVAR regardless of the animal involved as per Stockman (Australia) and Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame.. ranchers is not used in the Australian context except as a salad dressing. Gnangarra 12:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per Justlettersandnumbers, and strongly oppose Category:Australian ranchers, cattlemen/stockmen can be either the owner of cattle or a farm/ranch/station hand, a rancher (or in Australia a grazier/pastoralist) owns the outfit. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Cavalryman V31, did you see my comment under Justlettersandnumbers vote? Could you explain if you disagree with my comment? TSventon (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did not read it clearly and did not take into account Category:Cowboys which will catch the rest, my amended position is:
Oppose:
Support:
Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support Merge' into Category:Ranchers. Keep and Merge generic listings into Category:Ranchers, it is a better term, also encompasses those who raise sheep and in some cases, horses. Ranchers can also be the foreman or manager of a ranch, not just the owner. A "cattleman" or a "cowman" is not a word for a stock handler in the USA, that is a "cowboy." "Cattlemen" in the USA definitely implies owners of beef cattle. ("Cowman" is more often used to describe Dairy farmers)
  • Definitely also support merge to Category:American ranchers or more specific categories if applicable. Ditto for SOME other nationalities, though Cavalryman V31 is correct that Australians do call themselves "Stockmen" instead of Ranchers... so we are kind of stuck with that one, but I see no reason it cannot be a "child" category of the general category "Ranchers." Or rename the whole category "Ranchers and Stockgrowers" if the goal here is to seek generic, non-gendered terms (that are both "real words"). Montanabw(talk) 04:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Australian stockmen is an outlier in Category:Cattlemen as it relates to Australia rather than the Americas, covers sheep as well as cattle and workers as well as owners. I therefore suggest that any changes to Australian stockmen (apart from merging the cattlemen and ranchers categories, if agreed) should be discussed in a separate AfD. TSventon (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, many of these articles are not people, so both American cattlemen and Cattle owners would need sorted a bit. Second, I've looked at many of the articles and it seems like a good deal of these people have or had involvement with cattle but were not owners of cattle or ranches. Some like Black cowboys, Max L. Bowler, Alpheus Michael Bowman, R. H. Boyd, David Branscum, Paul Dennert, and Frank Eaton. They do not belong in any ranchers categories.
And third, cattlemen are an organized entity in the real world: National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Oahu Cattlemen's Association Paniolo Hall of Fame, United States Cattlemen's Association, American Cattlemen, Alabama Cattlemen's Association, National Cattlemen's Foundation, Arkansas Cattlemen's Association, and North Carolina Cattlemen's Association. Also, I added some cattlewomen organizations in the other CfD, to make it clear that there are orgs for both and they don't need merged. And also regarding ranches I added some content there as well. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal[edit]
No I think maintain all national categories with their respective terminology (Category:Australian pastoralists, Category:American ranchers etc) as subordinate categories of Category:Pastoralists. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I think we could distribute all biographical articles into national categories. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Someone besides me please read Pastoralism. In no way do the other categories fall under it. They are completely different types of agriculture and also take place in different parts of the world. Ranching in the US does not fall under it. Please read: "Pastoralism occurs in uncultivated areas. Pastoralists produce food in the world's harshest environments. Several hundred million people are pastoralists, mostly in Africa and Asia. Settlement programs often serve the needs of the state in reducing the autonomy and livelihoods of pastoral people. The violent herder–farmer conflicts in Nigeria, Mali, Sudan, Ethiopia and other countries in the Sahel and Horn of Africa regions have been exacerbated by climate change, land degradation, and population growth. However, recently it has been shown that pastoralism supports human existence in harsh environments and often represents a sustainable approach to land use." How does livestock ranching fall under this? Answer: it does not. Further proof is in the article. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Beef. It's what's for dinner! "National Cattlemen's Beef Association is a trade association and lobbying group for beef producers in the United States." What does it take to see that the American Cattlemen category deserves its own category or some type of cattlemen category? Just because someone made a nomination does not mean something needs to be done. This organization is one of the largest lobbying organizations in the country. They went up against Oprah Winfrey. Many know the slogan I quoted. Look at the companies it represents in the article: major players. Its finances, etc... dawnleelynn(talk) 20:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please read also pastoral farming which gives an alternate definition for pastoralist that is consistent with these categories. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment There are a lot of these categories and sub-categories. It needs to be clearer. Pastoralism is listed as the main article for the category Category:Pastoralists which is already down as a sub-category under Ranching categories. As for the article Pastoral farming, it mentions the U.S. but it only really focuses on the locations Argentina, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. It is page under the category Category:Agriculture by type. I can't find it used as a main article in any other agriculture categories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Dawnleelynn:, the aim of this discussion is to make these categories clearer. Category:Ranchers, and Category:Cowboys are relatively clear as they have leading articles. How is Category:Cattlemen differentiated from them, or how should it be? It has no lead article and Cattlemen redirects to Ranch which states that "People who own or operate a ranch are called ranchers, cattlemen, or stockgrowers." TSventon (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because these are extremely US specific words being forced on the rest of the worldwide Wikipedia community, and because "Cattle owners" isn't a term used by real people in any part of the world, and so fails WP:COMMONNAME and because the word currently used isn't a synonym for the proposed wording.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Anyone can create a simple redirect, and I would not base a decision on a category merge on it. Also, I could find no policy that states a category must have a "main article" but I would be willing to create one.
  • Also, as far the meanings of cattlemen and rancher, the article Rancher is incorrect according to the dictionaries Dictionary.com and TheFreeDictionary and others. They are not the same thing at all. See [1] and [2].
  • There are even books and magazines about cattlemen: Cox, James. Historical and Biographical Record of the Cattle Industry and the Cattlemen of Texas and Adjacent Territory St. Louis: Woodward & Tiernan Printing Company, 1895
  • Rancher (disambiguation) does not mention cattlemen
  • Charles Goodnight: American cattlemen "He became a cattleman in 1856, then a Texas Ranger (1861?) and an Indian fighter, and finally a rancher and cattle driver" This encyclopedia entry shows that the two are different things. He became both. He is addressed as both in his article. Charles Goodnight
  • Joseph Geiting McCoy - He never was a rancher or owned a ranch. Also see Joseph McCoy.
We know which information is more accurate; the sources. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Dawnleelynn:, I wasn't saying that a category needs a main article, only that having a main article helps editors understand what the category is for. Nor was I saying that the word "Cattleman" does not exist. However, the definition of cattleman you linked to has two meanings 1 someone who works with cattle and 2 a large scale cattle rancher. I believe that meaning 1 is covered by Category:Cowboys and meaning 2 by Category:Ranchers. TSventon (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment And the definition of rancher that I linked is "a person who owns or works on a ranch." Potentially, it could fall under rancher or meaning 2 of cattleman. But you have to use discernment to see which fits. In this case, I believe the category American cattleman and its potential is large enough to justify itself under meaning 1 of the Cattleman definition. I believe I have made a case that the American cattlemen category is large enough to stand on its own and does not need to be merged into another category and also does not need renamed. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment' I am actually writing about the beginning of cattle and horses in a sandbox article right now. I am rethinking some of it due to this CfD. I actually write about rodeo and livestock most of the time. At least this is an area that I know something about. And I was not trying to justify that the word cattleman exists. I was pointing out that cattlemen as a term is broadly used and is an industry that justifies its own category. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • also Oppose alternate suggestion of Category:Australian pastoralists which could be moved to Category:Ranchers. the only time Ranch is used in Australia is as a Salad Dressing Gnangarra 06:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In an effort to simply things, and a remembrance from other CfDs, the argument from WP:DEFINING could be applied here: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for." In paging through many of the articles, it does appear that the notability of most of these biographical articles is based on them being a cattleman. The sources also support this. It also appears that some cleanup work is needed on this category. There are several articles where the subject does not appear to have anything to do with cattle. The articles that are tagged with both the cattleman and the rancher tag also need verified. A subject could be a cattleman and a rancher, but some cattleman could not be ranchers. The two categories are not mutually exclusive. There are many cattleman articles where the subject is not the owner of anything (cows or ranches). dawnleelynn(talk) 17:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing any "Category:Australian something" as an add-on to North American dialect words. As I've read through the comments above, I found I "just know" what each word means (in Australian English), but had trouble stating precise definitions relating to ownership, scale of operations, land tenure, time period, geography, livestock type (beef, dairy, sheep). "Rancher" and "cowboy" are foreign words from America. A pastoralist is a grazier (but dairy farming is different) or squatter (never a rancher in EN-AU), but a Drover (Australian) isn't (but could be at a different time in their life). None of these are a farmer or agriculturalist. I am not qualified to comment on whether the American terms overlap or not. --Scott Davis Talk 13:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the delay with this proposal? I believe the move to an "owner" category has been shown as not defining but the existing category defining per WP:DEFINING regarding notability as quoted previously. Also established is the use of the term as defining in articles and show to be separate from rancher. Lastly, many Australians have opposed changes to those categories and given solid evidence as to why. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:dawnleelynn, The delay in closing is probably due to the length and complexity of the discussion of the proposal, including two sets of alternative proposals. I think the only thing that has been agreed is that Australians oppose use of American terms for Australian articles. TSventon (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay thanks for your answer. I'm going to point out the notability point from WP:DEFINING again as it was not addressed. "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for." So, you can read the whole policy if you like. It is saying that the article should be, not just can be, but should be categorized by the reason for the person's notability. Well, the reason for the majority of the cattlemen and cattlewomen's notability is their their involvement with cattle; thus the categories American cattlemen (and women) are categorizing the reason for their nobility. Perhaps with ranching, of which many articles do not even mention this term? Can we also consider that the Rancher category is also notable due to being the reason for those subject's notability? So the notability for a category can possibly settle this issue. If you want to also categorize some or all of these articles under "Rancher" as well, that is not an issue either. I actually think some are already categorized under both; and clarification is needed in some articles. All of which I am wiling to do once this CfD is settled. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fear this discussion is nearly invisible as it dropped off the list of the previous 21 days discussions some weeks ago. I have not contested defining characteristics or notability as if a category was not a defining characteristic or notable then it would be a candidate for deletion, rather than renaming or merger as discussed here. I have asked an admin via their talk page if they can close the discussion so hopefully they will be able to help. TSventon (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for the delayed response. I have seen many discussions I have been involved in drop off the previous 21 says discussions and just drag out endlessly unless someone comments. I gather I have not provided the level of clarity I myself have to this discussion. If the end result is no category remains called "American cattlemen" then I assumed that meant removal of a notable category (regardless of the method used to obtain the result). Perhaps this is not so, as you mentioned in your last comment that you only understood that to be the case when deletion was the method. Regardless, I wanted to acknowledge that, even if the discussion is closed with no changes taken. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My previous comment was possibly unclear. Suggestions in this discussion that "American cattlemen" should be renamed or merged would result in the disappearance of a category named "American cattlemen". However the arguments for renaming or merger were not based on definingness or notability; the original proposal, for example, was based on gender neutrality. I think "American cattlemen" and "American ranchers" are closely related so it was reasonable to discuss merger. If a category was non notable or non defining then deletion would probably be more appropriate than merger. TSventon (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cattlemen and cattlewomen have seperate organizations and seperate histories. Cattlemen and cattlewomen are owners of large herds of cattle. Ranchers are owners of larger tracks of land used to raise some type of stock animals. There is overlap, but they are not the same and gender is here defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinions Oppose main nomination as cattle owners isn't commonly used anywhere. Oppose merge to pastoralists as they seem to be distinct enough to warrant separate categories. Migrate towards rancher with exceptions for already gender neutral Category:Australian stockmen, since both terms are close enough to effecivley use one category, although there may be slight differences in their connotations, looking at dawnleelynn's example of where the rancher category would be inappropriate all should either not be categorized as cattlemen either or have another appropriate category (Black cowboys in Category:Cowboys). There being a trade group using the term cattlemen isn't a good reason to use it when there are other good alternatives and MOS:GNL issues. --Trialpears (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2019 (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:Circus proprietors[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. MER-C 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, they're the same thing. No real preference as to which one gets subsumed by the other. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection BUT it would seem senisble to merge the smaller, newer 'Owners' into the older, larger 'Proprietors' S a g a C i t y (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and rename the nominated page over the target page to preserve the page history. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 8 July 2019 (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:Chulalongkorn family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Children of Chulalongkorn. This is the older category, but "Children of Chulalongkorn" is the more natural name. This was originally merged from Category:King Chulalongkorn's daughters and Category:King Chulalongkorn's sons in 2012 as a result of This CfD. Back then ... family was chosen over Children of... because the latter wasn't used elsewhere, but there is now a tree structure under Category:Children by person. Paul_012 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: BrownHairedGirl has kindly taken care of the duplication issue, and the category now contains only the children subcat and a handful of siblings. I would still argue for deletion on the grounds that (1) This is a contrived unnatural grouping, as no reliable sources mention a "Chulalongkorn family" (as opposed to, say Chulalongkorn's family). Oculi's below comparison to Category:Houses descended from the Chakri dynasty isn't valid because all of those are actual named royal houses/families, while there is no family named "Chulalongkorn". (2) Chulalongkorn's father King Mongkut had 82 children. If being one of them is to be considered a defining characteristic, it would be by virtue of being a child of Mongkut, not being a (half) sibling of Chulalongkorn. (3) The original scope of this category exactly matches that of Category:Children of Chulalongkorn, and thus its original purpose has been completely superseded. I'd argue against expansion to include wives, siblings, etc., for the aforementioned reasons. His 150-plus wives, if they need to be categorised as such, would better be in a category of their own, and these can be under a container Category:Chulalongkorn. This would be comparable to other cases e.g. Henry VIII, where we have a container Category:Henry VIII of England and subcats Category:Wives of Henry VIII of England and Category:Children of King Henry VIII (the naming could be more consistent though). --Paul_012 (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, there was a problem of duplicate categorisation, contrary to WP:SUBCAT. So in these edits I have removed from Category:Chulalongkorn family all the articles which were already in Category:Children of Chulalongkorn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that's probably a better case for creating Category:Children of Mongkut and moving those remaining members there. As I mentioned in the 2012 CfD, "Chulalongkorn family" (including or excluding his siblings) is not a grouping employed by any reliable source. And there's already an existing family category that reflects actual usage, which is Category:Chakri dynasty.
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:Articles containing Mara-language text[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete C2A. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Typo in language name in {{lang}} database. Now fixed at Category:Articles containing Marra-language text —hike395 (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2019 (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:Profession user templates[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. MER-C 11:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming to make the category just a little bit more broad to include user templates like Template:User job, which do not refer to any particular profession. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:02, 7 July 2019 (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:Award winners[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. This discussion is no bar to an early re-nomination along with appropriate sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Significant variations in terminology inside this category. But might as well start with the container category at least. Arguably preferable per WP:NPOV. "Winning" would entail something implicitely desirable. A desirability which all camps may not agree on. Anyway, recipients seems more of a catch-all scope (not all awards are necessarly "won"). PPEMES (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The variation within this category includes many award-specific categories called "recipients", "awardees", "honorees", "laureates", "medalists" etc. In some cases it is not clear which is the most applicable word, e.g. Category:TOYP Awardees contains List of recipients of Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World, but the heading in that list is "Honorees" – three different words used! There are also 50+ "[Nationality] award winners] sub-categories, which would need to be renamed to match; perhaps those should be tagged and listed now, to increase participation in this discussion. Then there are 20+ in Category:Award winners by subject, many of which could perhaps stay as "winners" where this word is used consistently in their award-specific subcats. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. An umbrella term is of course needed. In this regard, award winners does not sound that bad, and has worked for a long time (If it ain't broke, don't fix it) as is used consistently in a large chunk of the category tree. However, I am concerned by a number of nominations by the current nominator, both in the article realm and the category realm, where we could see attempts to redefine what we consider an award or not without a clear purpose being stated. I would favour a grouped nomination and a comprehensive statement for the rationale behind these efforts. Place Clichy (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind exemplifying what you mean? PPEMES (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, for actual "winners" we have Category:Competition winners so for the nominated category it makes sense to use of the more general term "recipients". However, this rename should be accompanied/followed by the nomination of the relevant subcategories, otherwise the change remains pointless. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support -- However, this is a container for categories that offend against WP:OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, and very many of these have been kept after discussions here. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be overcategorisation, can it? Then shouldn't the rules change? PPEMES (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The container category is not a matter of overcategorisation, but Peterkingiron probably has a point about many of its subcategories. Only after possibly deleting all subcategories the container category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting question. In other words, why wouldn't we merge the two categories? I can't see an objection right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are all awards necessarly orders, decorations, and medals? I wouldn't say so. PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it should be the other way around, or double-linked. PPEMES (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems the wrong way round. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I swapped them back. (Added after relisting.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:02, 7 July 2019 (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:Pakistani school principals and headteachers[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. The discussion has not mentioned that Category:School principals and headteachers is mainly sub-categorised explicitly by country rather than nationality. "Bishops" was mentioned as a comparable case, but bishops are categorised both by nationality and by diocese => country where they work, so that example fails to make the case against having both. The discussion tends towards having one category rather than both, but fails to achieve sufficient consensus either for the original nomination, or for a reverse merge that would be against the convention within the parent category. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Makes it clear that that it is the location of the school which is in issue. Several of the articles are about people who dont appear to be Pakistani citizens. Rathfelder (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we do not categorize by citizenship anyway (since that is usually unverifiable). The fact that people live and work in Pakistan makes them qualify as Pakistani. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How does that work? There is a rather large flow of Immigration to Pakistan, and several people who live in the country are not Pakistanis at all. "Based on the United Nations report World Population Policies 2005, the total immigrant population in Pakistan was estimated to be 3,254,000, representing 2.1% of the national population, and ranked 13th in the world.[1][2] According to the United Nations report International Migration Profiles 2002, the population of immigrants in Pakistan was 1,098,110 in 1990 and 1,412,560 in 2000.[3] The Express Tribune reported in January 2012 that there were 5 million illegal immigrants in Pakistan. Around 2 million were Bangladeshis, 2.5 million were Afghans and the other 0.5 million were from various other areas such as Myanmar, Iraq and Africa.[4]" Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "World Population Policies 2005", United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, March 2006. ISBN 978-92-1-151420-9.
  2. ^ "International Migration 2006", United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. United Nations Publication, No. E.06.XIII.6, March 2006.
  3. ^ "International Migration Profiles 2002 - Pakistan". Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. October 2002. Retrieved 13 February 2010.
  4. ^ "Five million illegal immigrants residing in Pakistan". Express Tribune. 16 January 2012. Retrieved 26 December 2016. ISLAMABAD: Around five million illegal immigrants have been residing in different cities of Pakistan for more than three decades. The illegal immigrants, around two million Bangladeshis, 2.5 million Afghanis and 0.5 million other nationals including Africans, Iranians, Iraqis and Myanmars, are currently living in Quetta, Peshawar, Lahore, Islamabad, Rawalpindi and other cities, an official said on Monday. Regarding steps taken to control the flow of illegal immigration in the country, the official said that the Anti-Trafficking Units at Provincial Police Headquarters have been established to combat internal human trafficking while Inter Agency Task Force (IATF) has also been established.
      • Immigrants is easily verifiable hence categorizable. But that does not tell about citizenship. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that people live and work in a country does not qualify them as citizens. How can you suggest that? Rathfelder (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have not suggested so. What I said is that Wikipedia nationality categories are broader than based on citizenship because citizenship is usually not verifiable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is anybody supposed to know this? It's the first I've heard about it. And I see plenty of articles categorised according to the supposed nationality of the subject, not their location. Rathfelder (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, probably reverse merge. I don't think the category system can cope with splitting Heads into citizens and non-citizens. Oculi (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we categorise heads of schools by the location of the school the issue of citizenship doesnt arise. Head teachers are quite mobile. Plenty of them operate in countries in which they were not born, but I dont think I have seen an article yet which says anything explicit about citizenship. Rathfelder (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge in agreement with Oculi. All nationality categories in Wikipedia contain a mixture of country of origin and country of living, the heads of school category is not any different in that respect and it does not need a separate treatment. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The heads of school category for Pakistan contains quite a lot of Irish nuns. Rathfelder (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know nothing about the citizenship of any of them but what the article tells me. Langan is described as an Irish Roman Catholic nun. It's not clear what that means. But if we say she is the head of a school in Pakistan that is unaffected by her citizenship. Pakistani school principals and headteachers can easily be taken to mean people of Pakistani ethnicity in other countries. If that is what we want it should be made clear that this is an ethnic category. There is clear information about nationality or citizenship in less than 5% of biographical articles as far as I can see, so I would be unhappy about categorisation based on supposition. Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly because this information is usually lacking we tolerate both people by country of origin and people by country of living in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont understand why a category which is at best misleading is better than one which is unambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way to solve the (broader) issue is to convert all nationality categories to country categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cant do that everywhere, but I think we should do it where the subjects are related to some sort of institution in a country. Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:01, 7 July 2019 (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:Transgender serial killers[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) DannyS712 (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two entries, which could be handled by simply ==See also== linking them, and the category also seems unusual as there is not e.g. a Category:African-American serial killers or Category:Hindu serial killers: it seems serial killers are otherwise only categorized by nationality and by whether they are male or female, which both entries in this category already are. -sche (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge - restrict this category to people who identified as transgender at the time of the crimes. If that leaves this category empty then delete. DexDor (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2019 (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:Government organisations of Saudi Arabia[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. MER-C 09:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard within Category:Government agencies by country. Both categories are well-populated, so I have brought this to a full discussion in case there is some distinction required here. – Fayenatic London 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - neatly avoiding the s/z imbroglio. Oculi (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: do ministries usually fall under the umbrella of government agencies? There are quite a few of them in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming "agencies" to "organisations" (i.e. a reverse merge) would, in general, improve the consistency of the organizations tree, but it is better to be left to a fresh discussion with more countries involved in the nomination. Having one outlier category right now would not be very helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any renaming away from agencies should be done as a group nom to avoid consistency issues. --Trialpears (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2019 (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:The Wack Pack[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Category:The Wack Pack

Category:Order of the Republic (Egypt)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#Category:Order of the Republic (Egypt)

Category:Civil awards and decorations of Andhra Pradesh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#Category:Civil awards and decorations of Andhra Pradesh

Category:Battle honours of the Royal Australian Navy[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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2019 (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:Dutch club cricket 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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Dutch club cricket teams is a sub of Category:Cricket teams in the Netherlands. "Dutch club cricket teams" is a confusing name and an unnecessary step. It should be deleted and its contents upmerged. gidonb (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_7&oldid=1165923754"