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 to Category:Fictional butlers. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Butlers in fiction to Category:Fictional butlers

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for now, I suppose that Category:Butlers in fiction is meant for fictional depiction of real-existing butlers, but apparently we do not have any articles about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Butlers in fiction is for all fictional depictions of butlers, real or not, except articles who depict a specific fictional butlers. They are in Category:Fictional butlers. J 1982 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Per above. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Standardise at Judiciary of; with specific modifications as noted below. Timrollpickering (Talk) 08:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the naming for categories of the judiciary of a specific country be standardized. Currently, some are named "Judiciary of ___", and others "Judicial system of ___" (as well as a few that conform to neither pattern).

• Category:Judiciary of Afghanistan
• Category:Judiciary of Albania
• Category:Judiciary of Argentina

• Category:Judicial system of China
• Category:Judicial system of Greece
• Category:Judicial system of Japan

1. Category:Judicial branch of Israel
2. Category:Judicial branch of the Singapore Government
3. Category:Judicial branch of the United States government
4. Category:Judiciaries of the United Kingdom
5. Category:Courts of Lithuania
6. Category:Mexican Judicial Branch of Government
7. Category:Solomon Islands court system
8. Category:Federal courts of Switzerland

I personally don't have a strong preference for either structure. I am tagging the categories now. I have tagged all of the categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Judiciary" for brevity with no objection to another option that reaches concensus to standardize the naming. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There have been several CFD discussions on this over several years and sundry jurisdictions. Attempts to apply constitutional norms of the 3 branches of government (legislature/executive/judiciary) have foundered when demands have been presented to the effect of "show me where the constitution of Foo says that there are 3 branches of government". In many cases they are implicit, such as in the Irish constitution or unwritten such as the UK "constitution". It's further complicated that in the Anglo-centric world, "courts" (as in the different hierarchies from Supreme to High to Circuit to District) is often synonymous with the judges themselves making it difficult to distinguish the person (the judge) from his office (in the court building) when both may be covered by the term"judiciary". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferably Judiciary (but judicial system would also be acceptable) - The concept of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government arises from (I think) 18th century constitutional theorists. Care needs to be taken in dealing with the exceptions at the end of the nom that their scope is not inadvertently altered by the rename. We need Category:Federal judiciary of the United States, and Switzerland (to distinguish federal from state/canton). Keep UK plural as at present because England and Wales; Scotland; and Northern Ireland each have their own judiciary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly standardize with a preference for Judiciary, per article title Judiciary. Peterkingiron's additional comments should be taken into consideration as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Standardize I prefer judiciary. Rathfelder (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Standardize at judiciary. "Judicial system" can sometimes be used a bit more informally, to encompass organs of the judicial function of the state beyond just the courts. bd2412 T 17:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. As per Fayenatic london Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historical domestic workers to Category:Domestic workers

Nominator's rationale: Undefined and unnecessary. We dont have any other historical occupational categories, as far as I can tell. Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Everyone is historical eventually. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete, the three articles currently in the category are in more specific categories by nationality and occupation. – Fayenatic London 07:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: do not merge. MER-C 11:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Servants to Category:Domestic workers

Nominator's rationale: As the article Domestic workers says: Servant is an older English word for "domestic worker" Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, while scanning the articles in this category, it appears that many articles would not belong in Category:Domestic workers. They are for example court servants or personal servants. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Arent personal servants still domestic workers? Most of the articles about domestic workers are about personal servants? Rathfelder (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A domestic worker is someone working in the household. A personal servant not necessarily so. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A lot of the content is about domestic servants, but not all servants are/were domestics. Herod's chamberlain Blastus probably had a higher status. The category included indentured servants, who were certainly not necessarily domestics We do not have "civil servants" in the category, but they are "servants". It is an archaic use (who still used in legal textbooks), but every employee is a servant of his employer/master. The nom's objective might be achieved by manually reclassifying much of the content to Category:Domestic servants. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Renamed by Ish ishwar (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Queen to Category:Queen (shogi)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ASTONISH magnet for incorrect categorization. This doesn't even have an article at Queen (shogi) (disambiguation is consistent with Category:Kisei (shogi)/Kisei (shogi)). The category for the band was renamed in 2006 at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 21#Queen category and there was clear consensus against a rename back at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 28#Category:Queen (band). On Commons the band is at Commons:Category:Queen (musical group) and Commons:Category:Queen is a DAB as a result of Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Queen (which I nominated). I suggest that this category is moved and Category:Queen become a DAB page here listing the shogi, Category:Queens and Category:Queen (band). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense to me. I just used an unused category since it was there. Keeping a category disambig rather than simply deleting the page would make it clear to other folks like me that the category should remain empty for whatever reason. Let's just do it. – ishwar  (speak) 18:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ish ishwar: can I tag it for speedy renaming under WP:C2E? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ok, you can do whatever you think is best. I already created Category:Queen (shogi) (as i find all the bureaucratic wikipedia stuff needlessly timeconsuming). Can you turn the old category into a disambig page? (i would have to search for the right template stuff myself...) – ishwar  (speak) 18:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Non-profit breweries to Category:Non-profit corporations

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one brewery. This is not an exceptionally common model for structuring breweries -- they're usually incorporated as commercial companies rather than non-profit organizations -- so there really isn't a strong prospect of future growth here, if the category's existed for four years but this is still the only item in it. The entry is already appropriately subcategorized for its status as a brewery, so a double upmerge in that direction is not necessary -- but the article would legitimately still belong in Category:Non-profit corporations. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Leaning Toward Delete We actually have the beers by Belgian monks at Category:Trappist breweries in Belgium but I dont think what's defining there is their non-profit status. Open to other viewpoints though. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those breweries are generally intended to make a profit to benefit the monastery (which may be a non-profit organization). DexDor ^(talk) 20:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: standardize to in. MER-C 09:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the naming for categories of the culture of a specific city be standardized. Currently, some are named "Culture in ___", and others "Culture of ___" (as well as Category:Havana culture, which conforms to neither standard).

• Category:Culture in Addis Ababa
• Category:Culture in Amman
• Category:Culture in Asunción

• Category:Culture of Batumi
• Category:Culture of Cairo
• Category:Culture of Cebu City

• Category:Havana culture

I personally don't have a strong preference for either convention. I am tagging the categories now. I have tagged all of the categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - slight preference for 'in' (cf 'based in' used prolifically elsewhere). England uses 'in': Category:Culture by city in England. Countries use 'Fooian': Category:English culture. Oculi (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Even though I think there's a subtle difference between 'of' and 'in' in this context, the fact is that all these categories have the same type of content regardless of the preposition used. I also have a slight preference for 'in'. Pichpich (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly standardize with no preference for 'of' or 'in'. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - concur that 'in' is probably preferable. Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Memorials to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME and the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category

No conceptual objection to this category, but it consists of 4 articles with nothing to do with the prominent Indian politician Syama Prasad Mukherjee except for being named after him . The power station, stadium, zoo and swimming pool complex would have been built anyway and have little clear connection to Mr. Mukherjee. (No objection to recreating the category if we ever get up to 5 or so articles of actual monuments and memorials and no objection to creating a list article now.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it would be a different issue when the category would have contained e.g. statues erected with the purpose to commemorate Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, but that is apparently not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SHAREDNAME. It may be appropriate to listify the articles in the biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Monuments and memorials to William Tryon

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME and the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category

No conceptual objection to this category, but it consists of 3 articles with nothing to do with the prominent British colonial governor William Tryon except for being named after him . The Canadian town, American town and park (which is actually named after a fort named after him) have little clear connection to Mr. Tryon. (No objection to recreating the category if we ever get up to 5 or so articles of actual monuments and memorials and no objection to creating a list article now.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it would be a different issue when the category would have contained e.g. statues erected with the purpose to commemorate William Tyron, but that is apparently not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SHAREDNAME. It may be appropriate to listify the articles in the biography. This case is worse than the one above as two of the articles are no places perhaps named for him. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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