The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: combine to Category:Songs in Hindi (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hindi songs to Category:Hindi-language songs

Nominator's rationale: I can't see how these categories are different. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge, probably the latter for brevity, because Hindi does not require -language. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Defer I think we need to agree first on whether Hindi can follow the example of Latin in not needing "-language" for categorisation purposes. Technically Marcocapelle is right, but the category trees are currently a bit of a mess, so there is also an argument to be made for Johnbod's suggestion to rename them all Fooian-language works/songs/texts, or for my Alt 1 proposal to rename them all Works/songs/texts in Fooian. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Latin-language songs; you have been invited to participate. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename both to Category:Songs in Hindi, per WP:PRECISION, so we don't have to wrestle with disambiguating due to Hindi (disambiguation). - jc37 19:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Meanwhile another discussion ended in a similar format as "songs in Hindi" so let's follow that precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename both to Category:Songs in Hindi per the precedent set by Category:Songs in Latin, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Latin-language songs. (Marcocapelle alluded to this, and all three of us agreed to setting that precedent). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American librarians of Native descent to Category:Native American librarians

Nominator's rationale: It is the only occupation category in Category:American people of Native American descent. I had already had made a related category that I thought was more consistent Category: Native American librarians. An admin reverted it [1] . So, I'm now proposing a merge , as I think the original is WP:OCEGRS, among other things.

If the community wants to keep it, then I propose that it be rename it to match the style of other similar categories Category:American librarians of Native American descent. Mason (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Does Native Hawaiian belong under Native American? If not, Lessa Kananiʻopua Pelayo-Lozada should be purged. Otherwise it seems fine to delete/merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm not sure. Part of me suspects now that you've mentioned it, that that could be why the original category was "Native descent". It seems to me that Native Hawaii and Native American are both children of Category:Indigenous peoples in the United States. Mason (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comments - Well, looking at Wikipedia:Category_names#Descent and Wikipedia:Category_names#Occupation and Wikipedia:Category_names#Nationality_and_occupation, I think what we are looking at here is: Category:Nationality occupation of ancestry descent. So the question is: Should we be categorising as a triple intersection? I'm not sure. But I'm looking at Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by occupation, and am seeing a similar issue. Looking at Category:People of indigenous peoples descent and I think that's probably where we should be headed in a rename/merge. However, that would probably require renaming the entire tree of: Category:Native American people by occupation. So for now... - jc37 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  How would this lead to us needing to rename "Category:Native American people by occupation"? Native Americans are a meaningful group with their own governments, and nations. Mason (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  From "Native American X", to some form/naming construction of "Indigenous people" - jc37 05:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dual Merge to Category:Native American librarians and (selectively) to the appropriate subcat(s) of: Category:American people of indigenous peoples descent, per my comments above. - jc37 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The latter will not be necessary. Lessa Kananiʻopua Pelayo-Lozada is the only one who does not belong in Category:Native American librarians and she is already in Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yeah, I'm struggling to see why we need to keep a triple intersection, if I'm understanding the triple intersection as being: American people + Librarians + people of indigenous peoples descent. But Native Americans aren't just: Americans + people of indigenous peoples descent, they're a defining category, denotating tribal membership of some flavor. Mason (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Burial sites of Italo-Norman families to Category:Burial sites of Norman families

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Burial sites of Portuguese noble families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Burial sites of Württembergian noble families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1st-century heads of government to Category:1st-century government officials
• Propose renaming Category:2nd-century heads of government to Category:2nd-century government officials
• Propose renaming Category:3rd-century heads of government to Category:3rd-century government officials
• Propose renaming Category:4th-century heads of government‎ to Category:4th-century government officials
• Propose renaming Category:6th-century heads of government‎ to Category:6th-century government officials
• Propose renaming Category:7th-century heads of government‎ to Category:7th-century government officials
• Propose renaming Category:9th-century heads of government‎ to Category:9th-century government officials

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, these were the highest-ranked government officials, but still the monarch was the head of government. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Per nom. Mason (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Neutral for now; questions to nom I would be in favour of this if it were not a change of scope. Letting go of "head of government" may be a good idea, because it is a bit difficult to apply the theoretical separation of head of state versus head of government in pre-modern times, especially in systems which did not limit the powers and responsibilities of the monarch through some sort of constitution. Applying terms such as "head of government" or "prime minister" may therefore be somewhat anachronistic. So I am not surprised that the nominated categories are all about China, because the title of Grand chancellor (China) has traditionally been understood and translated into English as "prime minister". (Incidentally, Category:Chinese chancellors is in Category:Chinese heads of government, while Category:Han dynasty prime ministers has just (rightly so) been speedied by nom Marcocapelle to Category:Han dynasty chancellors for consistency). Those are good reasons.

What I'm less sure about is how this will change the scope. Presumably it will now also include the Category:Six Ministries? So the imperial Chinese Ministers of Justice, Personnel, Revenue, Rites, War, and Works would also be included?

Finally, how do you want to re-parent this exactly? There is no Category:Government officials by century parent for it. Are you going to create it? It could also be an alternative solution to merging Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Government officials by nationality as I proposed the other day. Curious what you think, open to lots of options. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is not just Chinese people but also people from Korea who are in these categories. Yes, this will broaden the scope a lot. If renamed, the categories should be parented to Category:Government officials. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Then Support per nom. Thanks for the explanation! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "Foo under the Aq Qoyunlu" (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Families of the Aq Qoyunlu to Category:Families from the Aq Qoyunlu
• Propose renaming Category:Generals of the Aq Qoyunlu to Category:Generals from the Aq Qoyunlu
• Propose renaming Category:Officials of the Aq Qoyunlu to Category:Officials from the Aq Qoyunlu
• Propose renaming Category:Poets of the Aq Qoyunlu‎ to Category:Poets from the Aq Qoyunlu‎
• Propose renaming Category:Scholars of the Aq Qoyunlu to Category:Scholars from the Aq Qoyunlu
• Propose renaming Category:Historians of the Aq Qoyunlu to Category:Historians from the Aq Qoyunlu
• Propose renaming Category:People from the Aq Qoyunlu to ?? (added 19 August)

Nominator's rationale: rename, "from" has become the default for people from former countries. This was opposed at speedy. I do not quite understand the rationale for opposing, how would the fact that Aq Qoyunlu was a tribal confederation make a difference for "from" versus "of"? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HistoryofIran and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Imo "from" gives more of an indication that these figures belonged to the tribal confederation of the Aq Qoyunlu, which they didn't. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment An alternative would be "in" as that's what is typically used for countries (former or otherwise) as opposed to nationalities. The distinction is that

  • "in" is for categories "by country" which is for places one "is" in; or
  • "from" is for nationality, which is where someone comes from.

  Mason (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Is this a case where "under" would be more appropriate, like Category:People under the Buyid dynasty, which was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_30#Category:People_of_the_Buyid_dynasty? – Fayenatic London 22:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That is also a good possibility. The name Aq Qoyunlu is used for the territory as well as for the ruling people of that territory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Under" sounds good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It appears necessary to keep the word "the". The nominator may have dropped this in error. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I will change it to "the". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Humorous hoaxes in science to Category:Hoaxes in science

Nominator's rationale: The title of this category seems to go against WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. All hoaxes may be "humorous" to the person perpetrating the hoax, and not humorous to the people on the receiving end. Declaring that a hoax is "humorous" is purely subjective. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. The articles rather have in common that the creators wanted it be recognized as a hoax (i.e. never intended as a fraudulous hoax), but that is a too complex criterion to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Humor is subjective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We have the whole Category:Humour, hence WP:SUBJECTIVECAT is hardly applicable. I would expect that major categories would be among defining characteristics for categorization. - Altenmann >talk 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. There are malicious, fraudulent hoaxes (Trixolan, Mechanical Turk, etc.) and there are good-humored ones, samples of professional humor, and there are stupid ones, such as Mars hoax.
  • And by the way, in vast majority case "humorous" is not subjective (well, subjective for people without sense of humor, but we don't say that color is subjective just because there are color-blind people nor because in some professions experts recognize hundreds of coloks of red, but we don't call color "fuchsia" subjective just because 96% pf people will not tell it from color "tango"). - Altenmann >talk 16:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Non-malicious" would be a more accurate description than "humorous". But we almost never categorize articles by what their subjects are not. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  One may have the opinion that all hoaxes are malicious on some level, simply by nature of them being an attempt to deceive, even if they didn't necessarily cause provable harm to people. One might find hoaxes not humorous when they are the ones being affected in a negative way. Simply saying that "if you don't find hoaxes funny, you must not have a sense of humor" doesn't hold water. What people find funny varies and is subjective. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom, Marco and RevelationDirect. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge/Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Humourous in this case is a comparative adjective. And so yes, in this usage, it is subjective. - jc37 07:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Xerox Fellows

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V, WP:OVERLAPCAT & (presumably) WP:OCAWARD

There is really not much here: we don't have a main article on Xerox Fellow or anything similar, the Xerox article makes no mention of a "fellow" program, and the only article in the category (James G. Mitchell) has one unsourced sentence in the career section that mentions in passing he was a fellow while at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Mr. Mitchell is already in Category:Scientists at PARC (company) for any reader interested interested in navigating by that topic. Normally I listify recipients of awards and honours before I ever bring them to CFD, but that's not possible here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Industry and corporate fellows

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC, WP:OCAWARD, & WP:NONDEFINING

This category is not a parent category like Category:Corporate fellows but instead groups loose biography articles if the person ever received an industry or corporate fellowship. Any industry or corporate fellowship, whether the particular honour was defining or not. This category was created by a single purpose account who spent a total of 21 minutes editing Wikipedia, which makes me a little jealous since I'm still not that efficient with creating cats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. It could be acceptable as a container category but there are currently no subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking of converting this to a container cat but Category:Corporate fellows already fills that role. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.