Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 14
September 16 >

September 15[edit]

Category:Haitian Roman Catholics by occupation[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small cat that will encourage people to create WP:OCNARROW categories at the intersection of religion, nationality, and occupation Mason (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Architecture-firm-stub[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Template of unclear necessity. It just sorts pages it's used on directly into Category:Architect stubs rather than a dedicated "Architecture firm stubs" subcategory -- but {{architect-stub}} itself says it's for "an architect or architectural firm", and many (although not all) of the country-specific "Country-architect-stub" templates also contain "architect or firm of architects" language (and even the ones that don't could easily be made to), meaning that this is very little-used because very nearly all potential uses are already in one of the subcategories anyway, and thus adding this template alongside one of those adds nothing but unnecesary parent-and-child duplicate categorization.
If there's consensus that there's actual value in making stub categories separate architecture firms from individual architects more effectively than they do right now, then I'm certainly willing to withdraw this -- but if nobody is willing to actually undertake a project of creating a separate Category:Architecture firm stubs subcategory and going through all the existing architect stub categories to add all the firms to that, then there's no real point in keeping this if the country-architect-stub templates already say they're covering both sides of that coin as it is. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it isn't used on any articles, it wasn't discussed at the stub sorting project, and we already have a {{architecture-org-stub}} which should suffice for now. Her Pegship (?) 23:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Enslaved workers at the University of Virginia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:Enslaved workers at the University of Virginia

Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of slavery in the United States[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: Alt rename * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "victims of slavery" is awkward phrasing and not used elsewhere as far as I can tell. The primary parent is Category:Slavery memorials. I am open to alternative names other than the one proposed here. User:Namiba 20:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose doesn't matter that you may think it "awkward" it is accurate and distinct from memorial to to the abolition of slavery or abolitionists or memorials for specific enslaved people. These memorialise victims of a crime against humanity. "Victims of slavery" has been used by the UN (see The Permanent Memorial to Honour the Victims of Slaveryand the Transatlantic Slave Trade at the United Nations) and London's Mayor's Office plans for the city's "memorial for the victims of the transatlantic slave trade". MassiveEartha (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposed rename.--User:Namiba 16:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings damaged by the 2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake[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: soft rename and purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge per precedent, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_20#Category:Buildings_and_structures_damaged_by_earthquakes and per WP:C2C, Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by earthquakes. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian abolitionists[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: containerise. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize, as such it is not a defining intersection since maybe 99% of notable abolitionists were Christians, but it can stay as a container category, holding the Quakers subcategory in particular. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, especially if you nominate Baptist abolitionists‎, Congregationalist abolitionists‎, Methodist abolitionists‎, and Presbyterian abolitionists‎ for deletion as well.--User:Namiba 17:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only keeping the Quaker subcategory is quite a bit different than the current nomination, but I am not opposed to it per se. Let's see what other editors think. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think that keeping the Quaker category is good as that's a unique intersection. Mason (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cemeteries in Brighton, Boston[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All of these categories have only a few articles.User:Namiba 16:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added finished the full nomination after the previous comment.--User:Namiba 17:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thank you for continuing the clean-up of this user's "contributions". Eric talk 01:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neighbourhoods in Tambaram[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 15:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tambaram itself is a neighbourhood. Gjs238 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deleting: Tambaram is NOT a neighbourhood, it is a city. Please refer to Please refer to Section 1 of the Tambaram City Municipal Corporation Act, 2022. The Section 1 of the Act states the following:
(1) This Act may be called the Tambaram City Municipal Corporation Act, 2022.
(2) It extends to the city of Tambaram.
(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 3rd day of November 2021.
Please note that the "It extends to the city of Tambaram." is used in the same way Central Acts use, "It extends to the whole of India" and State Acts use, "It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu."
Additionally, I think the Category would also be useful in identifying and correcting pages with outdated or erroneous information. There are many Wikipedia Articles on neighbourhoods and localities, which inaccurately states they are part of Chennai. The Category could help editors fix those pages as well.
The official map could be of use to identify all the neighbourhoods and localities, which would be included in this category. I have already identified these pages: Anakaputhur, Pallavaram, Pammal, Sembakkam Chitlapakkam, Madambakkam, Perungaluthur, Peerkangaranai and Tiruneermalai, which would belong to this category. Wiki6995 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1990s Soviet and Russian fighter aircraft[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content: all articles are about Russian aircraft. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1920s Soviet and Russian fighter aircraft[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content: all articles are about Soviet aircraft. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel

Category:14th-century Russian princes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:14th-century Russian princes

Category:Unofficial Presidents of the Philippines[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@HueMan1 and Nederlandse Leeuw: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Social class by region[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:Social class by region

Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Yugoslavia[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Emptied after consensus to split ancestor category: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants  —Michael Z. 03:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. –Vipz (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, you could have tagged this CSD C1. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent, echoing Liz' comment. NLeeuw (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Canada[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Emptied after consensus to split parent category: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants  —Michael Z. 03:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soviet and Russian military aircraft[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: Split * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Russia is not the Soviet Union. Military aircraft are defined as originating in one or the other. Soviet military aircraft were also designed and built in Ukraine, so this category and many of its children elevate Russia to a privileged status while denigrating Ukraine as beneath inclusion.  —Michael Z. 03:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Government of the Ghaznavid Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 23#Category:Government of the Ghaznavid Empire

Category:Soviet and Russian patrol aircraft[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 It's not clear what the distinction between renaming and splitting is; at the time of close the category only contains "YYYY Soviet patrol aircraft" categories so there's nothing to split. This discussion does not bar the creation of Category:Russian patrol aircraft if content to populate it is found. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CATSPECIFIC: They were all Soviet. NLeeuw (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : There are Russian patrol aircraft - ie. the maritime patrol variants of the Ilyushin Il-114 - although they haven't entered service. In addition the Border Guards version of the Technoavia SM92 Finist probably counts as a Russian patrol aircraft as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is also new to me, but aircraft are categorised according to country of origin + "decade of first flight". So it doesn't matter which aircraft still fly 1 or 12 decades later, nor if it flies in the country of origin or in Liechtenstein, because those data are considered WP:NONDEFINING. So Ilyushin Il-114 (first flight: 29 March 1990, so over 1.5 years before the Soviet Union ended and the Russian Federation began) is "Soviet", not "Russian".
It may be that the border guards version of a civilian utility aircraft may be considered a patrol aircraft, but that cannot be WP:DEFINING for the whole series, can it? So it's not currently categorised as such either. If that version gets its own standalone article, I would agree with you. NLeeuw (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When there’s an article about the Il-114MP, or whatever version originated in Russia, it should be categorized as such. But that a Russian variant exists is not a defining characteristic of the Il-114.  —Michael Z. 19:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and add any aircraft that have been in use after the Soviet Union ceases to exist to Category:Aircraft manufactured in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are categorised as: "Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer". So it doesn't matter when and where a particular type of aircraft is still "in use" later. NLeeuw (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split per nom and Nigel Ish. No reason why Russian and Soviet should be merged while Ukraine and Kazakhstan are separate -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider split proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 02:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. a) Country of origin is a defining attribute, countries of employment is not, for good reason. For example, the Douglas DC-3 has been used in at least a score of sovereign states, but adding those 20 categories would not be helpful to readers, and obscure the defining fact that it’s a US plane. b) Russia is not the Soviet Union but one of twelve successor states. There were Soviet aircraft that were designed in and continue to be manufactured in Ukraine. However stupid a category like Category:Soviet and Russian and Ukrainian military cargo aircraft would be, this one is worse because it reflects a colonial POV, elevating the Russian Federation to special status while discounting Ukraine as insignificant.  —Michael Z. 02:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Celtic legendary creatures[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 26#Category:Indo-European legendary creatures. Some of the items in this tree may genuinely be properly associated with Celtic mythology, such as the Aos Sí. But most are not specifically "Celtic", or a blend of various cultural traditions in the British Isles, Scandinavia, mainland Europe or other parts of the the world. For instance, Wild man, White Lady, Black dog (folklore), are all hardly exclusively "Celtic". The Loch Ness Monster has nothing to do with "Celtic" mythology at all; its first purported sightings date from the 1870s and the only thing "Celtic" about it is the fact that the word "loch" is Scottish Gaelic. It's just one of many modern Category:Cryptids that has no demonstrable roots in ancient Celtic mythology (pre-500 CE).
Therefore, we may Upmerge by default all items and subcategories to Category:European legendary creatures, unless they can be shown to be specifically "Celtic" and Manually upmerged to Category:Celtic mythology. It's quite possible that items such as Wild man and White Lady are too universal for global human culture to be limited to just "Europe" either, so those may be Manually upmerged to ancestor Category:Legendary creatures in general. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: pinging nominator of previous discussion for follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - These are all part of the Category:Legendary creatures by culture tree. XfD is not cleanup- if you think Nessie should be (re-)moved, then do that. But I'm not seeing how this cat isn't a clear member of Category:European legendary creatures. - jc37 15:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I am suggesting a manual merge. This split needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. I've given a few examples, not an exhaustive list. I'm not denying that the Loch Ness Monster is European. I just don't see how it's "Celtic". NLeeuw (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:European legendary creatures and Category:Legendary creatures. What makes a legendary creature Celtic when it is characterized as Scottish or Welsh or Irish? Maybe a legendary creature could be regarded as Celtic when it is known in at least two countries, e.g. Ireland and Scotland, but that would still be an example of WP:SYNTH. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not Synth, if the references support it. - jc37 18:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happens mostly is that a name of a legendary creature is clarified to be an e.g. Scottish-Gaelic name, possibly with a certain meaning. So then a new Category:Celtic-language names of legendary creatures might be created as a subcategory of Category:Celtic languages. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said, it depends on the reference. And it's not necessarily the name. Just because you or I mighty see a similarity between dragon, wyvern, wyrm, and drake, does not mean that they are the same creature in various folklore. And indeed, some scholars differ in opinion on this. But you are doing a grave disservice to our readers if you group legends by continent, when the legends themselves are not by continent at all. Legends are regional. And so while certain concepts may move around and travel with people - like the concept of a sky-god - that does not necessarily mean that the sky-god of scandinavia is the same as the sky-god of greece or is the same as the sky-god of the gaels or celts. To make that determination without sources with be synth. In everything, we need to lean on the sources (which, I know, can be challenging at times when they may not have been added yet : ) - jc37 12:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
      Not sure what you're getting at, but that sounds really WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if it is a good idea to begin with, but it is the only feasible alternative that I see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. NLeeuw (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 02:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Objects in museum collections[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 the first one to Category:Collection of the Smithsonian Institution, Delete Category:Artworks in the collection of the National Museum of Women in the Arts, rename the others as nominated. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The construction "Paintings in the collection of Foo" in category names was dropped in favour of "Paintings in Foo" in this CfD of 4 June – "the collection of" was considered to be unnecessary verbiage. Here I propose to do the same for other types of object in museums, for consistency's sake. Most subcategories of Category:Sculptures by collection and Category:Photographs by collection already follow the proposed style. Ham II (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I suppose Jewellery → Jewelry is per WP:STRONGNAT? Parent Category:Individual items of jewellery and grandparent Category:Jewellery, but other parent Category:Jewelry industry in the United States and sibling Category:Jewelry in the Metropolitan Museum of Art are also U.S.-based, so it makes sense. (And as agreed earlier, the "held by" formula shouldn't be used by other works of art in museums which are usually on display and not just locked away in some depot for optimal conservation, unlike manuscripts). NLeeuw (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's per WP:STRONGNAT, yes, given that the parent category has Artifacts not Artefacts, and I previously applied a similar rationale for Category:Jewelry in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where a sibling category has Arms and armor and not Arms and armour. Merriam-webster.com gives "armour", "artefact" and "jewellery" as "chiefly British" spellings. As "chiefly" doesn't mean "exclusively", I don't know whether there's a WP:COMMONALITY case to be made for those spellings in category names, but I've chosen to follow the precedent set by other categories for objects in those same American museums. Ham II (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me. :) NLeeuw (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, some problems here, once you scratch the surface! Firstly, museums hold "objects" not "artifacts" (however spelled), so oppose the main Smithsonian one. Also their Goose Lake meteorite is not man-made, so cannot be called an "artifact" at all. Likewise the United States Exploring Expedition brought back large collections of plants, geological samples. All four sculptures making up Category:Artworks in the collection of the National Museum of Women in the Arts are NOT in their collection, they were lent for a year in 2015 as part of a "project" and have presumably now returned. That cat should just be deleted. So far, the rest seem ok. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This nom is about applying the style "Foo in the Bar Museum" as standard, so I've largely avoided rethinking the "Foo" part of these categories. The scope of the first Smithsonian category is troublesome, because how is it any different from that of its parent category Category:Collection of the Smithsonian Institution? I would support upmerging the "Artifacts" cat into its parent for the "Collection". We can't and shouldn't do the same thing for the works lent to the National Museum of Women in the Arts, so I would support deleting that one. Ham II (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Standardization for standardization's sake often leads to trouble. Do we have other "Artifacts in the Foo Museum" cats? If so, we almost certainly shouldn't. Support upmerging that one. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 02:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking out the first two categories is not mandatory but it will surely help getting this discussion closed sooner. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will close this in due course, i.e. after I or anyone else closes all the discussions preceding it. Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Medal "For Strengthening of Brotherhood in Arms" (Ministry of Defence of the Russia)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Ministry of Defence of the Russia" isn't proper grammar. I'm not sure what the actual award is supposed to be called in English, so this might not be the totally correct destination, but the current title is definitely not where it should stay. HappyWith (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This medal is not awarded by the Russian Federation but awarded by the Russian Ministry of Defense. However, I'm in favor of revising the 'title' if it needs to be revised. Blinashin (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 01:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American people of Québécois descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge the entire tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the articles here describe their subject as Québécois but usually as French-Canadian. Category:People of Québécois descent is also highly questionable but can be let for another day. User:Namiba 14:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling French-Canadian emigrants and their descendants Québécois is an anachronism. Québécois identity is a relatively recent development and only really began with the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s.--User:Namiba 15:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because, if we are to be attuned to history, the sources do not describe emigrants from Quebec to the United States as Quebecois. They are overwhelmingly described and self-identify as French-Canadian.--User:Namiba 17:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do we attune Wikipedia categorization? Would you sleep better if we used the word Quebecker instead of Québécois? Gjs238 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the mocking tone of your comment. I am far from the only person to point out this issue. While I'd prefer to rename as proposed, I think a satisfactory alternative would be to use Quebec instead of Québécois. See Category:Anglophone Quebec people and Category:Pre-Confederation Quebec people.--User:Namiba 18:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 01:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I have come around on this in the past two weeks. In the end, the root category, Category:People of Québécois descent, and all its subcategories combined, contains only 36 people.
  • Support all per above. I have tagged the three other categories just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename as suggested.--User:Namiba 13:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_15&oldid=1177066833"