Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 28#Category:War criminals

: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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:People from Bethlehem to :Category:Palestinians from Bethlehem and :Category:People from Bethlehem

:* Propose splitting :Category:People from Nazareth to :Category:Israelis from Nazareth and :Category:People from Nazareth

:Nominator's rationale: See below.

I noticed that since Jesus is listed under the category People from Bethlehem, he's technically listed under People from the State of Palestine, Palestinian people, and under Arab people. This is factually incorrect, as Jesus was not an Arab- nor was he from the State of Palestine. He is also apparently listed as an Israeli due to being a part of category People from Nazareth- which he was not.

I suggest that the two categories (and maybe a fair bit of other towns in the region) be given the splits :Category:Palestinians from Bethlehem and :Category:Israelis from Nazareth, and the parent categories that refer to Israel and Palestine be removed from the broader "People from Bethlehem/Nazareth" categories. I also noticed that funnily enough, Jerusalem has the same problem, except that everyone from there is apparently listed as both Palestinian and Israeli due to the city being claimed by both entities, so I suppose this split would apply to pretty much every city in Israel and Palestine.

Is there any objections to me doing this? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:Oppose; this isn't how you categorize people. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:Oppose per Omnis. Mason (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

:Oppose this isn't how it's worked in other splits. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

::@Dr vulpes @Omnis Scientia @Smasongarrison What should be the solution for the incorrect categorization of several individuals as "Israeli" and "Palestinian" instead? Removing the parent categories? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

::* Just parent cities according to the current national boundaries. Every city in the world has the same problem, so it is not a problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Cities have changed hands many times in history due to border changes. These two cities are in the parent categories of the modern nations whose borders they are currently in. This isn't unique to Israel and Palestine. It is best to leave it as it is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Most cities have changed hands between numerous states over the years. My own hometown in Greece started out as an Ottoman settlement and was under Bulgarian administration in World War II. That does not mean we should divide its residents as Ottoman, Bulgarian, and Greek.Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Categories are organized both under a historic and a geographic logic. That's an ambiguity you have to live with. There's no way around it as any "cure" is worse than the situation it attempts to fix. There's a defining link between Nazareth and Israel, as between Bethlehem and the State of Palestine. There's also a defining link between Jesus and both cities. Nothing is wrong. Place Clichy (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Police operations in Pakistan to :Category:Law enforcement operations in Pakistan

:Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge I agree. War Wounded (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)use

----

: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 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Bobsledders by city or town to :Category:Bobsledders by populated place

:Nominator's rationale: parent is Sportspeople by sport and populated place Mason (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just delete, since there is only one city in the whole world with a separate bobsledders subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Delete the whole tree. It gives no navigational help whatsoever. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 11:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Tennis players by club}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Tennis players in Sweden by club}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Ullevi TK players}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete whole tree; it only has one country which has one club which has one player. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete No navigational value. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 11:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rowers by city or town to :Category:Rowers by populated place

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rowers by city or town in Australia to :Category:Rowers by populated place in Australia

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rowers by city or town in Russia to :Category:Rowers by populated place in Russia

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rowers by city or town in New Zealand to :Category:Rowers by populated place in New Zealand

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rowers by city or town in Italy to :Category:Rowers by populated place in Italy

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rowers by city or town in Greece to :Category:Rowers by populated place in Greece

:Nominator's rationale: parent is Sportspeople by sport and populated place, norm is to rename c/t to populated place Mason (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 to :Category:Senior sport competitors. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Masters cyclists to :Category:Senior sport competitors and :Category:Cyclists

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two people in this category Mason (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, but to :Category:Senior sport competitors only, after I added both articles to :Category:Italian cyclists. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic emigrants}}

:* Propose merging :Category:Ukrainian SSR emigrants to Canada to :Category:Soviet emigrants to Canada and :Category:Ukrainian emigrants to Canada

:* Propose merging :Category:Ukrainian SSR emigrants to France to :Category:Soviet emigrants to France and :Category:Ukrainian emigrants to France

:* Propose merging :Category:Ukrainian SSR emigrants to Germany to :Category:Soviet emigrants to Germany and :Category:Ukrainian emigrants to Germany

:* Propose merging :Category:Ukrainian SSR emigrants to Israel to :Category:Soviet emigrants to Israel and :Category:Ukrainian emigrants to Israel

:* Propose merging :Category:Ukrainian SSR emigrants to Mandatory Palestine to :Category:Soviet emigrants to Mandatory Palestine and :Category:Ukrainian emigrants to Mandatory Palestine

:* Propose merging :Category:Ukrainian SSR emigrants to the United States to :Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States and :Category:Ukrainian emigrants to the United States

:Nominator's rationale: Delete parent category; merge the remaining with parent categories. Historically, Ukrainian SSR emigrants would be referred to as Soviet emigrants - i.e. from the Soviet Union. Most of these have few biographies in them. Additionally, none of the other former constituent states of the USSR have similar categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Support per nom. The intersection between regime and nationality isn't defining for emigrants. Mason (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 to :Category:Portuguese expatriate sportspeople. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Portuguese expatriate cyclists to :Category:Portuguese expatriate sportspeople and :Category:Portuguese cyclists

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There no need to diffuse by sport. This is the only category with expatriate cyclists in it Mason (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:Portuguese expatriate sportspeople only, because the articles are already in :Category:Portuguese male cyclists. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 11:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Hotels in Entebbe to :Category:Hotels in Uganda and :Category:Entebbe

:* Propose merging :Category:Hotels in Gulu to :Category:Hotels in Uganda and :Category:Gulu

:Nominator's rationale: Merge for now, as each of these only contain 1 article. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge for Now with no objection to recreating later should the article count grow enough to avoid WP:NARROWCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 11:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:6th-century BC people by nationality and occupation to :Category:6th-century BC people by occupation

:* Propose merging :Category:5th-century BC people by nationality and occupation to :Category:5th-century BC people by occupation

:* Propose merging :Category:4th-century BC people by nationality and occupation to :Category:4th-century BC people by occupation

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories only has two categories in them, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 "Category:Scholars of Fooian literature". (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:English literature academics to :Category:Academics of English literature

:* Propose renaming :Category:Japanese literature academics to :Category:Academics of Japanese literature

:* Propose renaming :Category:Chinese literature academics to :Category:Academics of Chinese literature

:* Propose renaming :Category:German literature academics to :Category:Academics of German literature

:* Propose renaming :Category:Korean literature academics to :Category:Academics of Korean literature

:* Propose renaming :Category:Spanish literature academics to :Category:Academics of Spanish literature

:Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it clearer that this category is for scholars of English literature rather than english people who are scholars of literature. Alternative rename would be Category:Scholars of English literature, modeled off of :Category:Scholars of French literature. Mason (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::@Smasongarrison, I would say go by "Scholars of English literature" in part because :Category:Literary scholars is the parent category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

:::I'm equally fine with scholars. What do you think about the idea of renaming to make the distinction clearer? Mason (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

::::@Smasongarrison, I agree with the name change because, as you say, it removes the ambiguity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. The proposed name change makes it less ambiguous. Although just a hyphen would work (as in English-language literature academics, for example). Bedivere (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::If there weren't also nationalities involved, I agree that a hypen would be fine, but I think that it could get super clunky to have english english-language literature academics for example. Mason (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Scholars of English literature per the discussion above. Place Clichy (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Ewe-language literature to :Category:Ewe language

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here. Mason (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as it would remove :Category:Ewe-language literature from two important super-categories :Category:Literature by language and :Category:African literature. Pichpich (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Yes, it would remove them, but there's nothing in this category. There isn't even a page about Ewe-language literature. Mason (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Dual merge, also to :Category:African novels or to :Category:Ghanaian novels. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Dual merge per Marcocapelle, to :Category:Ghanaian novels; :Category:African novels is (mostly) a container category. Also, the author of the book is from Ghana so it makes sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Dual Merge for Now to :Category:Ghanaian novels. No objection to recreation later if the article counts grows substantially, per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:People related to Persian literature to :Category:Persian literature

:Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Mason (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Manually merge, i.e. purge all articles and just move the subcat, per WP:OCASSOC. Insofar it is defining, articles are already in :Category:Researchers of Persian literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Manually merge This is clearly WP:OCASSOC. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Shankar Lamichhane scholars to :Category:Literary scholars

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. The only member of the category doesn't even link to the author's page. Shankar Lamichhane Mason (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 12:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Motoori Norinaga}}

:Nominator's rationale: Category of a scholar with their book is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, the articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|City Councils in Atlantic County}}

:Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, recently created just to overcategorize one redirect. We don't really have a ton of articles about city councils in the United States -- we obviously have some for relatively major cities, but a lot of smaller cities don't have articles about their city councils at all, with the result that the category tree for them is relatively small: just 17 states actually have "[State] city councils" categories, none of which are subdivided by individual county at all (and none of which are large enough to even need that, because California is the only state in the entire country whose category has more than five articles in it) -- the other 33 states either have no cities whose city councils have their own separate articles at all, or have only one or two that have been left in the {{cl|City councils in the United States}} parent instead of being subbed out for state.
New Jersey, for the record, is one of the ones that doesn't have a state-level category at all, and the only other place in New Jersey with an article in the US-level category is Newark. So no prejudice against the creation of {{cl|New Jersey city councils}}, if desired, but there's no need to sift them all the way down to the individual county here. There's just no navigational benefit in obsessively filtering everything down into narrow one-entry microcategories. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete That redirect isn't even helpful since it just goes to the city article. - 05:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Antigua and Barbuda descent to :Category:British people of Antigua and Barbuda descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Antigua and Barbuda descent to :Category:English people of Antigua and Barbuda descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Barbadian descent to :Category:British people of Barbadian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Barbadian descent to :Category:English people of Barbadian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Chinese descent to :Category:British people of Chinese descent

{{Cot|more sibling categories}}

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent to :Category:British people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent to :Category:English people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Ghanaian descent to :Category:British people of Ghanaian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Ghanaian descent to :Category:English people of Ghanaian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Grenadian descent to :Category:British people of Grenadian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Grenadian descent to :Category:English people of Grenadian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Indian descent to :Category:British people of Indian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Jamaican descent to :Category:British people of Jamaican descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Jamaican descent to :Category:English people of Jamaican descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Nigerian descent to :Category:British people of Nigerian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Nigerian descent to :Category:English people of Nigerian descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Pakistani descent to :Category:British people of Pakistani descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent to :Category:British people of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent to :Category:English people of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Sierra Leonean descent to :Category:British people of Sierra Leonean descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Sierra Leonean descent to :Category:English people of Sierra Leonean descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of South African descent to :Category:British people of South African descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of South African descent to :Category:English people of South African descent

:* Propose merging :Category:British sportspeople of Trinidad and Tobago descent to :Category:British people of Trinidad and Tobago descent

:* Propose merging :Category:English sportspeople of Trinidad and Tobago descent to :Category:English people of Trinidad and Tobago descent

{{Cob}}

:Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between occupation and place of birth or ancestors' nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

::Comment. This is a much larger tree (:Category:Sportspeople by country of descent), and it isn't trivial because country of descent can allow people to compete for other countries, e.g. Grandfather rule Mason (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom and WP:EGRS/I. There are some specific intersections of sports and national origin, e.g. the contribution of Polish immigrant mine workers to early and mid 20th-century football teams in Northern France is much documented. However, such an intersection is not notable by default. A specific case must be made for each intersection. Sportspeople who compete for several national teams deserve to be categorized in each national sportspeople category, not an intersection of both. Place Clichy (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep -- many of these appear to be well populated, particularly English subcats of British ones. If there are small categories, they would be better merged to Africa; West Indies; etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

:* The rationale isn't related to size. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:Comment: without having checked, a few of these may well be notable as a topic, e.g British sportspeople of Pakistani descent is likely to have decent press coverage for cricketers (at least as much as the French-Polish example above). It's not something I'd be delving into but should be considered before a blanket merge. An administrative question is, if all are merged are these going to be checked for doublers? The page that brought me here, Aftab Habib, currently has British sportspeople of Pakistani descent which would be upmerged to British people of Pakistani descent (and to Sportspeople of Pakistani descent? Should be, but can't see it listed above...) but he already has a subcat of that: English people of Pakistani descent. Crowsus (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: I'd not normally relist a third time, but Crowsus raises an important point that should be addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• After the merge I can use AWB to fix all duplicate (British/English) category tags in articles. Please list this for manual work (after merging). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming: :Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture to :Category:Zombies in popular culture

:** Propose renaming: :Category:Fictional zombies and revenants to :Category:Fictional zombies

:*** Propose renaming: :Category:Zombie and revenant characters in video games to :Category:Zombie characters in video games

:** Propose renaming: :Category:Short stories about zombies and revenants to :Category:Short stories about zombies

:Nominator's rationale: These current names are unnecessarily long, let's make them shorter and more concise. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Isn't this a generalization and, hence, equivalent to "undead"? If so, it could be merged to :Category:Undead in popular culture. Also, I am puzzled by the separate fictional subcategory, isn't it all fictional? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• :First of all, :Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture is already a subcategory of :Category:Undead in popular culture. Second, :Category:Fictional zombies and revenants is about fictional characters who happen to be zombies. AHI-3000 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• :* For example, Jiangshi is unrelated to the Haitian-originated zombie tradition, but still belongs to undead. Of course you may argue that sub:Category:Jiangshi fiction should be re-parented to :Category:Undead in popular culture and otherwise the rename may go ahead as nominated. But maybe there is more non-zombie content in here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• :*:Jiangshi are commonly identified as vampires and sometimes zombies, hence why it's under both categories. Also most fictional zombies in modern pop culture have absolutely nothing to do with Haitian Vodou mythology anyways, it's basically just a general term for "undead reanimated corpse that isn't a mummy or vampire". AHI-3000 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• :*:* That is exactly my point, much of this is about undead in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• :*:*:Look, this nomination is very simply about renaming these zombie categories to shorter titles that remove the unnecessary "and revenants" part. This isn't about the definition of zombies vs undead in general. I don't know why you're arguing about removing references to zombies altogether, they are undeniably a distinct category of undead monsters. Nobody would be suggesting to merge :Category:Zombies into :Category:Undead. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• :: Another example is Jerusalem's Lot in the Short stories subcat, it is about Nosferatu, not zombies but apparently another class of undead. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::I have corrected that and moved it to the appropriate category about vampire short stories. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Alternative nomination

:Propose merging/renaming:

:* :Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture to :Category:Undead in popular culture

:** :Category:Fictional zombies and revenants to :Category:Fictional undead

:*** :Category:Zombie and revenant characters in video games to :Category:Undead characters in video games

:** :Category:Short stories about zombies and revenants to :Category:Short stories about undead

:I strongly oppose this alternate nomination. Zombies have their own tropes in fiction that are very distinct from the likes of ghosts and vampires. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom There is clearly specific zombie media, enough to merit a popular culture category for zombies. Anything not zombie-related should be upmerged to :Category:Undead in popular culture, or its subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Zxcvbnm}} Wait, you are supporting my original renaming proposal instead of Marco's alternate proposal, correct? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I am, there does not seem to be a need to mix up two types of undead in this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::{{ping|Marcocapelle}} Do you support or oppose this renaming I have suggested? This discussion is not about the definition of zombies vs other types of undead, this is about shortening the current titles to remove the unnecessary "and revenants" part. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

::* {{ping|AHI-3000}} "zombies" are the most specific, "zombies and revenants" is less specific. If the category is going to be renamed it will probably require manually moving lots of articles from "zombies" to "undead". I'd like to see a discussion about that before we continue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

:::* {{ping|Marcocapelle}} It doesn't have to be one thing or the other first. Whether or not we try to mandate a stricter definition of what constitutes a "zombie", we do not necessarily need the current category names to be this long. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

::::* That is what we do not agree upon, apparently. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would exclude revenants, the animated corpses of European folklore. And undead also covers mummies and vampires. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Dimadick}} Are revenants not a type of zombie? Otherwise we could split this into :Category:Fictional zombies and :Category:Fictional revenants. :Category:Zombies and :Category:Revenants are kept seperate instead of combined together. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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/merge.

• Rename :Category:Fair use media with non-commercial licenses to :Category:Non-free files with non-commercial licenses
• Merge :Category:Non-commercial use only images (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fair use media with non-commercial licenses to :Category:Non-free media with non-commercial licenses

:* Propose merging :Category:Non-commercial use only images to :Category:Fair use media with non-commercial licenses

:Nominator's rationale: There is a huge mess with a duplicative tree for :Category:Fair use images; non-free files can be used at Wikipedia only under a fair use claim. The new name would match subcategory :Category:Non-free media with non-commercial and no derivative works licenses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rename :Category:Fair use media with non-commercial licenses to :Category:Non-free files with non-commercial licenses (which is the nomination but replacing "media" with "files"), per the standard naming convention for non-free file tags/categories. Support merging :Category:Non-commercial use only images as nominated (i.e. into the newly renamed :Category:Non-free files with non-commercial licenses). HouseBlaster^talk 18:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 both. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Incest in legend to :Category:Incest in mythology

:Nominator's rationale: I don't think these are distinct enough Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• We do distinguish :Category:Legends versus :Category:Mythology though. The way I have always understood it, for what it is worth, is that mythology is related to religions (whether or not extinct), while legends are not. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• In any case, rename to :Category:Legendary victims of incest and :Category:Mythological victims of incest per WP:COPSEP, or delete as not sufficiently defining. About the latter, note that we do not have a :Category:Victims of incest either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• :@Marcocapelle I agree. Incest is too vague. Earlier I categorized a man who arranged a marriage between his daughter and brother in the category but I don’t think that fits.
• :i think victims of incest is too subjective too because we’d need a perpetrators category too, and particularly in mythology it’s rather common for examples where it isn’t even treated as a negative such as Izanagi and Izanagi or examples where it’s treated as a crime against nature but the power dynamic is glossed over or both people are portrayed as equal accomplices.
• :Is incestor a word? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::Oppose use of the word "victim". What about :Category:Mythology about incest, etc instead. Mason (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::* Ok fair, victims is not always the best word, but the category is still about mythological people and otherwise it would have been "myths about". On another note, what do you think of the alternative to delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::*:Hmmmm, given that we don't have a incest category for people, it seem slike we should either delete both, or change the scope. Mason (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete both as we don't have a incest category for people. --Yorkporter (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Tagged :Category:Incest in mythology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 15:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Male veterinarians to :Category:Veterinarians

:Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender and occupation Mason (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just delete, the articles have already been diffused by continent and/or nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep so long as there also is :Category:Women veterinarians. Per consensus on gender categories. Either that or eliminate both. Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:* There isn't any consensus on having men and women categories in tandem. WP:OCEGRS is leading and consequently we have far more subcategories in :Category:Women by occupation than in :Category:Men by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Delete per Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: soft rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Articles using Template:Background color with invalid color combination to :Category:Pages using Template:Background color with invalid color combination

:Nominator's rationale: Also populated with templates. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 01:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 18:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Archaeological museums in Kyiv to :Category:Archaeological museums in Ukraine and :Category:Museums in Kyiv

:Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for a narrow intersection of characteristics with no growth potential. No other museums in the national category are located in Kyiv, and no other museums in the Kyiv category are archaeological, so we don't need an archaeological+Kyiv intersection for just one museum. This would be fine if there were several archaeological museums in Kyiv, but if there's just one then the parent categories that already existed are sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Sole member was Museum of Historical Treasures of Ukraine, emptied by the category creator {{u|Nbarchaeo}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:{{yo|Qwerfjkl}} I think we can close this as delete, given that it was emptied by the creator and lack of opposition in a week. HouseBlaster^talk 17:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: disperse. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:University controversies to :Category:Academic controversies

:Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Not very overlapping, I would say. The articles are more about life at university rather than about academic disputes. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Most of them are already in more specific child categories of academic controversies, such as :Category:Academic freedom controversies Mason (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• :* You are right, most of them are in :Category:Academic scandals. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think this tree could use some cleanup since I'm not quite sure where :Category:Academic controversies, :Category:Academic scandals, and :Category:University controversies begin and end, parent/child relationships notwithstanding. The university category conceptually makes sense though; I'm more concerned by the scandal one. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep The category for academic controversies is more of a parent category, and is too wide anyway. Categories are there to speed things up, not to slow things down? The category does the job, and does it well, and neatly. Universities are only one part of academic life. The category is for the workings of universities, not perhaps wider academic squabbles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.37.191 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Does anyone have a suggestion for a more specific name because to me University isn't intuitive, what about controversies at colleges? Mason (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Disperse. There are only two articles left that weren't already deeper down in :Category:Academic controversies. I think these two can be added to :Category:Academic controversies or :Category:Academic scandals too. Then :Category:Academic controversies can be reparented to :Category:Education controversies and :Category:University controversies can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: {{ping| Marcocapelle|p=,}} what are the two articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• {{ping|Qwerfjkl}} it's the two articles that are now left in the nominated category. By the way, I did not receive your ping, probably you can't relist and ping simultanously. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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. Not very strong consensus on which merge target to use, but there was clear consensus to merge. Merging to :Category:Fictional countries. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional principalities to :Category:Fictional governments

:Nominator's rationale: Falls under WP:NARROWCAT as an unnecessarily precise category. With only 3 non-redirect members after 13 years as a category I do not think it needs to be this specific. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

::Maybe better merge to :Category:Fictional countries. Goustien (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Either way would work, so I am not opposed to that either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:Fictional countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Support merge to either. i'm indifferent to the target Mason (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Fictional kingdoms, which is more specific than :Category:Fictional countries, per actual content. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::People seem to support mostly :Category:Fictional countries, but :Category:Fictional kingdoms is more specific without losing accuracy. I can live if the former is chosen over the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::* Ultimately it could become fictional monarchies, combining fictional empires, kingdoms and principalities. But that is probably for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:::* Principalities, kingdoms, and emirates (and empires?) are different kinds of monarchies, so I would favor a new category :Category:Fictional monarchies as the container, not :Category:Fictional kingdoms. Goustien (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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/keep.

• Manual merge :Category:Women shooting survivors
• Keep :Category:Women lynching victims in the United States (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Women shooting survivors to :Category:Shooting survivors

:* Propose merging :Category:Women lynching victims in the United States to :Category:Lynching victims in the United States

:Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection between crime victim survivor and gender is a meaningful intersection per WP:OCEGRS Mason (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Women Lynching Victims Category/Neutral on Other The Lynching in the United States describes a very racial and gendered cultural context for the crimes. (Note that the article is ghastly before you click on that link.) Based on that, women are enough of an exception that it's likely defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Manually merge :Category:Women shooting survivors, - manually because some articles are already in a nationality subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep women lynching victims, Neutral on other category. The reality and image of lynching in the US is gendered and racialized, centering on Black men. A lot of people don't even realize Black women and girls were victims. A quick Google search comes up with results discussing Black women's experience of lynching, so it is a notable intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Keep categories, or rename by replacing "women" with "female". Female is an adjective, women is a noun. Plus "female" is inclusive of both girls and women. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 most of the categories. Arguments against were weak, and in some cases misunderstood the nomination. Keep :Category:LGBT people by gender identity. No consensus on :Category:LGBT people by gender identity - there was a valid argument for keeping this one. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

::*Propose merging:

:* {{clc|People by gender}} to :Category:People and :Category:Gender

:* {{clc|Professional wrestlers by gender}} to :Category:Professional wrestlers

:* {{clc|Deities by gender}} to :Category:Deities and :Category:Gender and religion

:* {{clc|Prostitution by gender}} to :Category:Prostitution and :Category:Gendered occupations

:* {{clc|Prostitutes by gender}} to :Category:Prostitutes

:* {{clc|Pansexual people by gender}} to :Category:Pansexual people

:* {{clc|Bisexual people by gender}} to :Category:Bisexual people

:* {{clc|American professional wrestlers by gender}} to :Category:American professional wrestlers

:* {{clc|LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:LGBT people

:* {{clc|LGBT people by gender identity and nationality}} to :Category:LGBT people by nationality

:* {{clc|LGBT people by gender identity and occupation}} to :Category:LGBT people by occupation

:* {{clc|American LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:American LGBT people and :Category:Gender in the United States

:* {{clc|Australian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Australian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Australia

:* {{clc|Belgian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Belgian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Belgium

:* {{clc|Bolivian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Bolivian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Bolivia

:* {{clc|Bosnia and Herzegovina LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Bosnia and Herzegovina

:* {{clc|Brazilian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Brazilian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Brazil

:* {{clc|British LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:British LGBT people and :Category:Gender in the United Kingdom

:* {{clc|Canadian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Canadian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Canada

:* {{clc|Chinese LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Chinese LGBT people and :Category:Gender in China

:* {{clc|Colombian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Colombian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Colombia

:* {{clc|Danish LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Danish LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Denmark

:* {{clc|Dutch LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Dutch LGBT people and :Category:Gender in the Netherlands

:* {{clc|English LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:English LGBT people

:* {{clc|Fijian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Fijian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Fiji

:* {{clc|Filipino LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Filipino LGBT people and :Category:Gender in the Philippines

:* {{clc|Finnish LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Finnish LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Finland

:* {{clc|French LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:French LGBT people and :Category:Gender in France

:* {{clc|German LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:German LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Germany

:* {{clc|Greek LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Greek LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Greece

:* {{clc|Hong Kong LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Hong Kong LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Hong Kong

:* {{clc|Hungarian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Hungarian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Hungary

:* {{clc|Icelandic LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Icelandic LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Iceland

:* {{clc|Indian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Indian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in India

:* {{clc|Indonesian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Indonesian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Indonesia

:* {{clc|Iranian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Iranian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Iran

:* {{clc|Irish LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Irish LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Ireland

:* {{clc|Israeli LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Israeli LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Israel

:* {{clc|Italian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Italian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Italy

:* {{clc|Jamaican LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Jamaican LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Jamaica

:* {{clc|Japanese LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Japanese LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Japan

:* {{clc|Kenyan LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Kenyan LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Kenya

:* {{clc|Maltese LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Maltese LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Malta

:* {{clc|Mexican LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Mexican LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Mexico

:* {{clc|New Zealand LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:New Zealand LGBT people and :Category:Gender in New Zealand

:* {{clc|Nigerian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Nigerian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Nigeria

:* {{clc|LGBT people from Northern Ireland by gender identity}} to :Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland

:* {{clc|Norwegian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Norwegian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Norway

:* {{clc|Polish LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Polish LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Poland

:* {{clc|Portuguese LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Portuguese LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Portugal

:* {{clc|Puerto Rican LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Puerto Rican LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Puerto Rico

:* {{clc|Romanian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Romanian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Romania

:* {{clc|Russian LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Russian LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Russia

:* {{clc|Scottish LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Scottish LGBT people

:* {{clc|Singaporean LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Singaporean LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Singapore

:* {{clc|Slovak LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Slovak LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Slovakia

:* {{clc|South African LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:South African LGBT people and :Category:Gender in South Africa

:* {{clc|Spanish LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Spanish LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Spain

:* {{clc|Swedish LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Swedish LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Sweden

:* {{clc|Swiss LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Swiss LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Switzerland

:* {{clc|Taiwanese LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Taiwanese LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Taiwan

:* {{clc|Thai LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Thai LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Thailand

:* {{clc|Trinidad and Tobago LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Trinidad and Tobago LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Trinidad and Tobago

:* {{clc|Venezuelan LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Venezuelan LGBT people and :Category:Gender in Venezuela

:* {{clc|Welsh LGBT people by gender identity}} to :Category:Welsh LGBT people

:Nominator's rationale: There are only a limited number of gender identities, so we don't need any category levels by gender. In most of the non-LGBT-related categories with more than 2 pages, the non-binary identities are already in the corresponding non-binary subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge all Per WP:NARROWCAT besides :Category:People by gender, which seems like it is fine. Sorting by this is not helpful as the amount of categories that can fit are heavily limited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why would we put non-binary people in the gender in nation category? We don't do that for women or men, at least not directly. This feels like we're falling into Wikipedia:EGRS territory. Mason (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• : Gender in usually has child categories for at least Men in and Women in . 'Non-binary' relates very much to gender. Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge in principle, per nom, except the top category seems useful enough to keep and parent :Category:People seems a too broad merge target. Admittedly I have not checked the nomination in detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

: Further comment: I most particularly support merging the "by gender identity" categories because of the content of these. While Transgender is clearly an LGBT identity it is less clearly a gender identity, because you have transgender men (whose gender identity is man) and transgender women (whose gender identity is woman). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Object in the cases of wrestlers and deities. It do not think female wrestlers usually compete against men. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Peterkingiron}} the intention is not to merge men and women together, the intention is to remove an intermediatr container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. A useful simplification. Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

::No objection to removing unnecessary container layers. However in the case I mentioned we ought not to merge men and women where they operate in separate realms of activity. I would add that I am reluctant to comment on LGBT issues, but we should be wary of allowing too many categories where sexual distinctions are blurred at the fringes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any benefit to the project from the proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Merge per nom, except for the top category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the principle behind some of the proposed changes, but as proposed, they would create several incocnsistencies within the larger LGBT category structure.
• :Conditional support for the categories that are "[Nationality] people by gender identity", but if doing that, the corresponding "[Nationality] LGBT people by sexual orientation]" category level should also be removed, and the various LGBTQ+ identities are sorted together at the start of the "[Nationality] LGBT people" category (similar to :Category:LGBT people by nationality and occupation).
• :Strongly oppose merging :Category:LGBT people by gender identity into :Category:LGBT people, because that skips an existing category level. I see no guideline-based argument in the above discussion to justify doing that. Would support merging it into its parent, :Category:LGBT people by identity, but :Category:LGBT people by sexual orientation should then also be merged and the identities sorted together. Same goes for :Category:LGBT people by gender identity and occupation; it should be merged into its parent, :Category:LGBT people by identity and occupation, not skip a level up.
• :Support merging :Category:LGBT people by gender identity and nationality, :Category:Pansexual people by gender and :Category:Bisexual people by gender as proposed.
• :Oppose merging :Category:People by gender; that is much too broad.
• :No comment on categories related to wrestling or prosititution.--Trystan (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Sámi peoples to :Category:Sámi

:Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it is not a set category of peoples, but it is a topic category. After the rename, :Category:Sámi peoples can possibly be re-created for articles like Inari Sámi people. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

::Oppose: This category is connected on multiple language Wikipedia versions to categories that are specifically about Sámi peoples and the Wikidata item is connected many times over to articles about Sámi peoples. Renaming it will create an utter mess everywhere else besides the English Wikipedia. Create a new category called Category:Sámi, move what needs to go there from this category, and leave this one be. - Yupik (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

::* That is an ok compromise solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• {{Re|Marcocapelle|Yupik}} I would in principle support splitting content between :Category:Sámi as a parent topic category and :Category:Sámi peoples for individual groups such as Inari Sámi people, but in practice I don't find any other such article. Other articles such as Lule Sámi or Northern Sámi are about the languages, and dedicated categories such as {{Cl|Lule Sámi people}} are for individual people, not the peoples as ethnic groups, and are already parented to {{Cl|Sámi people}} and the four national Sámi in categories. Place Clichy (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Skolts, Sámi Americans, Forest Sami are some more, and if someone gets around to translating them, there are articles for the rest on fiwiki, nowiki, etc. I think the categories should also make a clearer difference between when they are for people and when they are for languages, with an overarching category for the entire people and their culture. So Category:Lule Sámi, with subcats Category:Lule Sámi language, Category:Lule Sámi people, Category:Lule Sámi history, etc. And the same for each group. IMO the Category:Sámi peoples should be named Category:Sámi people if it is going to be a category for individual people; in the plural, it sounds like it is referring to groups of Sámi people. But if we decide to do that, I ask that you leave it up to people who know these topics thoroughly and can fix the categorization on Wikidata and other language Wikipedias and do not just randomly create, merge, rename, and delete categories. There is already precedent with the Category:Sápmi and its titular article for this particular reason. - Yupik (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• :: {{Cl|Sámi people}} is already the category for individual people. Place Clichy (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::True, not sure how I misread what you had written. Thanks! - Yupik (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Photo archives to :Category:?

:Nominator's rationale: From what I gather, "photo archive" is used to refer to two mostly distinct (though sometimes overlapping) concepts: (A) archives of photographs maintained for historical preservation/research purposes by GLAM institutions, and (B) archives of images made available for licensing by stock photography agencies. Most of the articles in the category and subcats appear to be of the type (A), though there are several of (B) mixed in. It would be preferable to rename the category to make the scope clearer, but I'm not sure on the name. The photo archive page was previously a jumbled mess that I attempted cleaning up just now, so it's a poor guide. Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Why does it matter? This is Wikipedia, not Commons, so the content here is a set of encyclopedia articles describing individual archives, not content collections from those archives (which would have different licensing status). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Because categories are supposed to serve as a navigational aid by grouping topics according to their defining characteristics, not just what people may call them, especially if the term is ambiguous. (A) and (B) are different concepts, so they need to be dismabiguated, not jumbled together. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

::* Then oppose, because they're both photo archives. Their licensing model isn't any sufficient reason to split them. Nor are these two groups clearly disjoint: historical photographs by GLAM institutions are increasingly offered for commercial sale (including many that are PD). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

::**I was thinking less in terms of licensing models than their main purpose and target group (one mainly serving researchers and public education; the other serving publishers and content users). But yes, there's overlap. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• The main distinction that I notice when scrolling through the articles is between photo archives (a minority of articles) versus institutes which among many other things also have photo collections (the majority of articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

:* But that's a regular feature of our categorisation. Many of our entries for 'museums' will also be 'art galleries', but not all of them. Yet this doesn't mean that we have to break a simple categorisation as museums, by moving some out arbitrarily to 'museums with art galleries'. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, on the asis that photo archives are photo archives, whether they hold an electronic archive, a physical archive, or both. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep -- I do notr see the point in splitting, which seems to be what the nom wants. The content includes institutions whose collections are not entirely of photos, but does that matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 to :Category:Fictional characters from the future. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional characters from the 6th millennium to :Category:Fiction set in the 6th millennium

:Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, all on Doctor Who characters. Last nomination was withdrawn because DW is not exclusively set in the 6th millennium. Also, we don't have an established category by millennium or century, or for characters from the future. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose False premise. We have an established category by century. See :Category:Fictional characters by century and its subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Do you think it is worthwile to populate centuries or millenia that don't exist yet, such as :Category:Fictional characters from the 4th millennium? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::I managed to find a 4th entry! Probably withdraw now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Also, I have completed extending :Category:Fictional characters by century to the future. How about :Category:Fictional characters from the future to include all the future centuries and other characters from works set in the future? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:* :Category:Fictional characters from the future sounds like a good idea and the nominated category can be merged into it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Also open to :Category:Fictional characters from the future. Once you get this far into the future, 6th millenium and 6,000th millenium are pretty much the same: the distant future. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional United States government personnel to :Category:Fictional American civil servants

:Nominator's rationale: Closest to real-world counterpart is :Category:American civil servants; see also below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

::I'm not sure about this. Would "civil servants" be inclusive of :Category:Fictional American military personnel? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Oppose, I don't think any renaming is necessary. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• See discussion below. In line with that, this category should be renamed to :Category:Fictional American people in government occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional government employees to :Category:Fictional civil servants

:Nominator's rationale: Closest to real-world counterpart is :Category:Civil servants. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

::I'm not sure about this. Would "civil servants" be inclusive of :Category:Fictional military personnel? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Oppose, I don't think any renaming is necessary. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is presumably a downmerge proposal. I am not sure either. The closest real-world category is :Category:Government occupations which ought to split to :Category:People in government occupations. In line with that, the nominated category should become :Category:Fictional people in government occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Modern Latin-language writers}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete, the subcategories are already connected to each other in :Category:Writers in Latin by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. My question is: how does that differentiate this category from its sister categories as a subcategory of "Writers in Latin by period": "Old Latin-language writers", "Classical Latin-language writers", "Late Antique Latin-language writers", "Medieval Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers?" Most of these also contain subcategories of writers by century; the only difference I can see is that none of the 60 persons in "Modern's" three subcategories are listed individually (there's probably some overlap, but still plenty of individuals). And I'm not sure why that is, but is it really distinguishing from "Classical Latin-language writers", which has over a hundred entries in subcategories, and only two individual entries (plus a list)? Or are all of these categories next on the chopping block? They seem like logical divisions for anyone researching the history of Latin-language writing. So I fail to see the advantage to anyone of deleting this category, besides saving Wikipedia 419 bytes (less than half of 1 Kb) of memory. P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:* The difference is that ancient and medieval often contain people for whom it is not clear in which century they lived. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:*:But in many cases they are—and writers by century are still grouped as subcategories of writers by period. If the only reason for deleting the latest category in a series of categories is that we know which century each person should be sorted into (and bearing in mind that a large number of individuals belong to more than one century, so there's no bright-line rule to be extracted from that), then the category should be kept. I don't believe that the sole justification for having these categories is that there are a few persons whose exact century isn't known. P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Weak keep. There is some novelty in Latin-Language writers from the modern era given that Latin is a very dead language. Mason (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep to contrast with medieval. For some reason neither seems to cover 16th and 17th centuries, though there were books in the language in that period, such as Newton's Principia. The alternative would be to abolish both by merging into a by century category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• {{ping|Qwerfjkl}} (as nominator) it would be completely understandable to me if you'd close this as keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: dual merge to :Category:People from colonial Virginia and :Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:People of colonial West Virginia to :Category:Virginia colonial people :Category:People from colonial Virginia

:Nominator's rationale: West Virginia was never a colony but a part of the Colony of Virginia Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle per nom, but dual merge also to :Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. Besides I guess it would be helpful for clarification to nominate the target to :Category:People from the Colony of Virginia, and maybe do that for the other colonies too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• :@Marcocapelle, I suppose you mean the name of the category per the recent discussion in speedy rename. I think it was decided that it would be "People from colonial *state name*" for all. Should I nominate those for renaming?
• :I agree, the dual merge is a better idea as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• :* Perhaps start nominating Virginia and Massachusetts first because these appear to be the most ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merging; no strong opinion on renaming, as I didn't participate in or know of the other discussions. Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia in colonial times, people who lived within its boundaries is a valid a categorization—and it does not equate to "pre-statehood", which covers an entirely different scope. Only a small number of persons occupied what is now West Virginia prior to 1776–1783, and those people tend to be celebrated in West Virginia history. This is very different from the group that began settling the country en masse around 1795, and continuing to statehood in 1863. But it's also very different from people living in colonial Virginia east of the mountains—a large number, quite relevant to the history of modern Virginia, but not so much to West Virginia. They would swamp the entries for West Virginia, which would be difficult to identify as a group, just as they would if merged into a category containing say, Civil War generals who weren't born until half a century after the Revolution. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Dual Merge to :Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia to address P Aculeius feedback above to maintain categorization of the geographic area. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :That's the exact opposite of what I said—why would we put the pioneers of 1750–1776 in the same category with Civil War general Albert Gallatin Jenkins? That doesn't make any sense! P Aculeius (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :: Rationale is updated; didn't mean to misrepresent your perspective which I must have read too quickly. Sorry about that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::I appreciate that, but I still don't think lumping all West Virginians prior to 1863 is a good idea, when currently we have a category for only the early ones, matching the time period of other American colonists by state or future state. It'll be much harder to spot them in the midst of a much broader category. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::* But they will still be in :Category:Virginia colonial people where they properly belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::*:And completely swamped and lost amid people who bear absolutely no relation to the subject of this article. There are eighteen times as many individuals listed under Virginia—451 compared with 24—along with nine subcategories. Readers will have absolutely no hope of finding colonial-era pioneers of West Virginia if they're mixed in with all of the other Virginians. There might conceivably be value in having the West Virginia pioneers of colonial times added to the list of Virginians, but eliminating their own category creates an insuperable hurdle to those studying West Virginia history. This proposal is tantamount to saying that, "prior to 1863, West Virginia history is only valid as a subtopic of Virginia history". Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia until 1863, the region had its own history stretching back more than a century prior to statehood, and that's just as valid and encyclopedic a topic. There's no good reason for relegating it to the status of a subtopic of some other place. P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::*::@P Aculeius, they were Virginians during the colonial times. West Virginia was not even a thought until during the American Civil War. They would never have thought of themselves as such. Additionally, as everyone has been explaining to you, pre-statehood West Virginia keeps them seperate just like :Category:People of pre-statehood Kentucky. Additionally, there is :Category:West Virginia pioneers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::*:::You probably wouldn't say that if you had studied West Virginia history—there were several proposals for a separate state over several decades, some of them before 1800! And it certainly wasn't the Civil War that made people in the west consider themselves separate from eastern Virginia. West Virginia had little of the industrialization, manufacture, trade, or large-scale agriculture that made Virginia prosperous—and it still doesn't! Was it the best or wisest course? That's a matter of opinion. But it happened, and the people who settled in what is now West Virginia before the Revolution are a vital part of West Virginia history, though barely a footnote in Virginia history.
• :::*:::Unlike "colonial", which specifically refers to the period up to the Revolution, "pioneers" doesn't refer to a specific time period, and could include people from many decades after the Revolution. There is absolutely no advantage to anyone in lumping these categories together—this isn't about me not understanding what other people are saying. It's about you refusing to acknowledge the validity of a category of considerable importance to West Virginia history, by making the excuse "they were all Virginians before 1863".
• :::*:::The comparison to Kentucky is unhelpful: Kentucky became a state in 1792, less than ten years after the end of the Revolution, so there's not a huge difference between Kentuckians of the colonial era and pre-statehood Kentuckians. In West Virginia, that period spans eighty years—nearly three generations—and a considerable chunk of the nation's history. But I also point out that there are only three individuals in the "pre-statehood Kentucky" category, compared with 24 individuals under colonial-era West Virginia.
• :::*:::So I ask again, what advantage does anybody gain from not being able to find a list of colonial-era people from what is now West Virginia, as opposed to having to hunt page by page through over 450 Virginians for the handful who settled in what is now West Virginia? If you're going to eliminate a category that has a useful purpose, there ought to be a really good reason for it—"West Virginia wasn't a state until 1863!" seems like a pretty weak rationale for doing so! P Aculeius (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::I think the majority opinion is Dual merge with :Category:Virginia colonial people and :Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. @Smasongarrison, pinging for your view since you took part in a previous discussion about this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:::I support a manual duel merging; I would prefer the WV category to be "from" instead of "of" People of pre-statehood West Virginia. I'm fairly familiar with the pre-statehood history of west Virginia; one of my ancestors (Frederick Ice) settled the area in the 18th century (which would put him in the :Category:West Virginia pioneers). If we do a manual merge to :Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia, @P Aculeius, the information isn't lost. Mason (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::::@Mason, agreed about the name change regarding the categories of :Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states by state. Will do it after this Cfd (and a few related ones) close before I do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::::It's lost in a sea of people who lived up to 1863—more than 80 years after the Revolution. The category as it stands now is limited to people from 1783 or earlier, but after merging nearly everyone in the category would be after that. Good luck searching for the colonial-era ones in that group! P Aculeius (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::What do you mean by "The category as it stands now is limited to people from 1783 or earlier, but after merging nearly everyone in the category would be after that"? The category would still be limited to pre 1783 people. You can always find people who are in both categories using the search function. {{code|incategory:"People of pre-statehood West Virginia" incategory:"Virginia colonial people"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A%22People+of+pre-statehood+West+Virginia%22+incategory%3A%22Virginia+colonial+people%22&ns0=1&ns10=1&ns14=1] Mason (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::West Virginia became a state in 1863, not 1783. If you merge "people of colonial West Virginia" with "people of pre-statehood West Virginia", the category will include not just people from before the Revolutionary War, but everyone up to the Civil War. "People of colonial West Virginia" will cease to be a category, and will be mixed in with other people who lived decades afterward and had nothing to do with those of the colonial period. If you merge it with "people of colonial Virginia", then the 24 people currently listed will be mixed in with 451 entries in a larger category, and essentially disappear.

::::::In the first instance, readers will not be able to hone in on people associated with what is now West Virginia and exclude those who lived after the colonial period; in the second they will not be able to locate colonists who lived in what is now West Virginia due to being dispersed throughout a much larger category. The purpose of categorization is to make similar or related topics easier to find, not harder; merging the category into either proposed target—or both of them—offers no benefit to readers. It seems to constitute nothing more than a value judgment that the topic is not worthy of inclusion, or that there is no purpose in researching people who were in or associated with what is now West Virginia prior to the Revolution. I do not understand that logic. P Aculeius (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::: That's true, the scope would be for a larger timespan. (I'm fine with that because West Virginia wasn't defined in the colonial period, but P Aculeius' point is accurate.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::@Qwerfjkl, I think the consensus is very much in favor of dual merge. There is only one naysayer in this particular case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:::I think it can do with a bit more discussion, unless I'm misreading this. Just because I've relisted something doesn't mean I'm not fairly sure how it's going to be closed. Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::::@Qwerfjkl, fair enough. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Note: the target category is now called :Category:People from colonial Virginia per Cfd here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:*Propose renaming :Category:Labour Party of Albania to :Category:Party of Labour of Albania

:*Propose renaming :Category:Candidate members of the Politburo of the Labour Party of Albania to :Category:Candidate members of the Politburo of the Party of Labour of Albania

:*Propose renaming :Category:Labour Party of Albania politicians to :Category:Party of Labour of Albania politicians

:*Propose renaming :Category:Members of the Politburo of the Labour Party of Albania to :Category:Members of the Politburo of the Party of Labour of Albania

:*Propose renaming :Category:Portraits of Labour Party of Albania politicians to :Category:Portraits of Party of Labour of Albania politicians

:Nominator's rationale: C2D per Party of Labour of Albania. Charles Essie (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Patrons of the arts by nationality and medium to :Category:Patrons of the arts by nationality

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This isn't helpful for navigation to have only one category in here Mason (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed, plus patrons tend not to be easily categorized by medium. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:20th-century establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic to :Category:Establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

:* Propose renaming :Category:20th-century establishments in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic to :Category:Establishments in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

:* Propose renaming :Category:20th-century establishments in the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic to :Category:Establishments in the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic

:Nominator's rationale: There isn't a category called Establishments in the FOOian republic, this one should be renamed because this republic lasted less than a century Mason (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:20th-century establishments in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic to :Category:Establishments in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic

:Nominator's rationale: Only one century. No need to break it down by century Mason (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just delete, all content is already in :Category:Establishments in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:20th-century establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic to :Category:Establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is only one century for the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic Mason (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just delete, the content is already in :Category:Establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:20th-century establishments in the Soviet Union to :Category:Establishments in the Soviet Union

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is only one century for the soviet union Mason (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Manually merge, much of the content is already in a more specific branch of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Steel companies of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic to :Category:Steel companies of Moldova and :Category:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

:Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one steel company in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. If kept, should be broadened to Companies of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic Mason (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:People of colonial Florida to :Category:People from Spanish Florida and :Category:People of pre-statehood Florida

:Nominator's rationale: Contains one page and three categories which are already present in the other two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I added 5 more articles. If the category is kept, the subcategories should be removed from the proposed target, per WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• :@Smasongarrison and @Fayenatic london, pinging for your opinion on this one. It is quite complicted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: there were also French colonies in Florida (French Florida), so I'm not sure the target is right. Place Clichy (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :@Place Clichy, people of colonial Florida is a tricky one to categorize because it did change hands a few times. I get why Spanish Florida has its own category; Spain had the longest hold on the place before the U.S. got it. Because "pre-statehood" and "colonial" have the same subcategories and (before the recent addition) only one page, I think the merge "pre-statehood" works best for French and British colonial people of Florida. Either that or move the French colonists to the "colonial" category.
• :@Marcocapelle, what do you think? Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :: I did not move French people to the colonial subcat because there was no French colony in Florida. They are sort of pre-colonial, and therefore part of pre-statehood. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::@Marcocapelle. That's fair enough. I was just reading on this because ([http://www.keyshistory.org/FL-Fla-Fr.html here]) because I wasn't aware the French got there before the Spanish. You're right, it was never officially a colony of the French like it was for the British and the Spanish. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :::: Articles for Jean Ribault, René Goulaine de Laudonnière, Dominique de Gourgues, Jacques Le Moyne, Saturiwa are very much defined in relation to colonial Florida in introduction, although the 1560s French attempts were ultimately "unsuccessful". There is also West Florida, an area which changed hands (and borders) several times between the French, the Spanish, the British and the Americans between the 1760s and the 1820s, and I note that {{oldid2|1000100649|Category:Governors of West Florida}} (mostly British governors) is a child of :Category:People of colonial Florida, so the latter is not exclusively Spanish. Florida is the earliest place settled by Europeans in Northern America and has a rich colonial and pre-statehood history. It may be interesting to have categories for colonial Florida with focus on the geographical area rather than the European power. In my understanding pre-statehood refers to the period where these areas where part of the U.S. as territories but not yet a state (so 1821 to 1845 in the case of the present-day State of Florida, and 1810 to 1812, 1817 or 1819 for the parts of West Florida that are now in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama). Place Clichy (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::Comment: I was hoping that this category would magically fix itself, because I agree that this one is hard. I don't have a good solution, but I'm not as familiar with the history of colonial florida. Mason (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• The question really boils down to: what are the pre-statehood categories meant for? That is currently not very clear and I am not ruling out Place Clichy's interpretation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment -- The nom will not do, as Florida had a succession of colonial masters. :Category:People of pre-statehood Florida will make a useful container, but it should have more subcategories: :Category:People from British Florida; :Category:People from French Florida. It may well be that in the French period it was not a separate colony, but that is perhaps a matter of how the area was administered. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::@Marcocapelle, I think @Peterkingiron's solution is a good one for this case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::* I am not sure how exactly this answers the question whether :Category:People of colonial Florida should cease to exist. User:Peterkingiron starts by saying that the nom will not do and that would suggest a keep vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just Delete This category doesn't make sense because colonies named "Florida" extended into modern Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. And, people are defined by the actual country's colony they were part of, not just ones with similar names. But, in practice, this is pretty simple: I just added the loose biography articles to :Category:People of British Florida and the subcats are already well parented. At this point, it make sense to just delete. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• :@RevelationDirect, thanks for creating this category but it should be named :Category:People from British Florida per Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::@Omnis Scientia It was actually a pre-existing category that I just populated; thanks for adding some parent categories. The fact that it was poorly parented and couldn't be found was probably part of the issue. (No strong opinion on the naming format but note that we have :Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies as well as :Category:British Honduras people.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

----

: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: purge. No consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Constables}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, a mix of a court position, a military position and a law enforcement position. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and the Constable article covers this. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe purge Constable (Texas) and Constables in the United States. The function of constable in Normandy, England and France was not a shared name, it was the same office. Place Clichy (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :If the scope is narrowed, it would be clearer if it was renamed to :Category:Constables in Europe or the like. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• :: Then I would prefer :Category:Constables (military). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• ::: (answered after relisting) The main article is Constable, though. Place Clichy (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment -- This is not strictly a shared name case, as all the offices using the name share a common medieval origin. I would however suggest purging the people. Le Strange was constable of certain castles, but that was his title as castellan. Otherwise we have a mixture of town constables and police officers, who are not notable for holding that office. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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. No consensus whether it warrants listification. The contents are: Barnum effect, Ben Franklin effect, Berkson's paradox, G.I. Joe fallacy, Google effect, IKEA effect, Perky effect, Semmelweis reflex, Streisand effect, Stroop effect, Von Restorff effect, Zeigarnik effect. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:Convert :Category:Eponyms in psychology to article Eponyms in psychology

:Nominator's rationale: I don't think that being an eponym is a defining feature. It might make an interesting list, but I don't think it warrants a category Mason (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:Eponyms. There is currently only one article in the category so there isn't much to listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• :It can be expanded, and I will attempt to do so now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• ::I'm not sure that all the pages you included count. Here's the description from the parent category. "An eponym is a person, place, or thing after whom or after which something is named, or believed to be named. Since many medical conditions, sports moves, bridge and chess techniques, buildings, prizes, and other things have been named after people, these are not included in this category, as categorization on the basis of having been named for a person is considered to be overcategorization based on trivial aspects of the article. This category is for the process or phenomenon of naming things after people. Feel free to add other items to the appropriate lists under the category :Category:Lists of eponyms." Mason (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Convert Belongs in a list. I have broader WP:SHAREDNAME concerns about other parts of this category tree as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, too trivial for a category. I am not sure about a list either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: keep. There should be a broader discussion about the larger tree of :Category:Science fantasy. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Science fantasy characters}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Science fantasy video game characters}}

:Nominator's rationale: "Science fantasy" is an ill-defined genre, even scholars admit it. It veers into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT to place characters here and the current category members bear that out. (Even George Lucas said that Star Wars should be considered fantasy). There is nothing wrong with the original scheme of placing characters in both science fiction and fantasy if they qualify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

::Strong oppose. Plenty of works of fiction can be described as science fantasy, and I'm sure they can be verified by reliable sources too. Also see :Category:Science fantasy franchises and :Category:Science fantasy by medium. Characters from any such science fantasy media can be described as science fantasy characters. It's more accurate to call them such if they don't fit neatly into fantasy or sci-fi character categories. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

:::You created those categories too. The fact is that you apparently believe science fantasy is a set genre when it is demonstrably anything but. The [https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/science_fantasy entry] in the Science Fiction encyclopedia states that "In the Terminology of sf readers, and more especially publishers, this term has never been clearly defined" and that "Twenty-first century texts are rarely described as Science Fantasy". The more that I think about it, :Category:Science fantasy and everything that's a subcategory of it should probably be deleted for this reason, but I'll wait until this gets deleted or not before attempting that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

::::I didn't make up the concept of the science fantasy genre, and I only gathered preexisting subcategories together. :Category:American animated science fantasy television series has more than a few examples of science fantasy works. I don't know if others will disagree with science fantasy being a distinct subgenre that is covered by external sources. AHI-3000 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::Just a note that that category was made by a user who was since indefinitely blocked for disruption. My argument isnt that it doesn't exist as a genre or that the science fantasy page ought to be deleted, just that categorizing things as it is too messy. Even reliable sources disagree. Here is [https://www.eurogamer.net/anthem-is-a-science-fantasy-like-star-wars one example] where the video game Anthem is called science fantasy. Except that [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/bioware-are-canceling-their-anthem-overhaul-to-focus-on-mass-effect-and-dragon-age this] equally reliable source calls it a "sci-fi adventure". It's like this across the board. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, there is a whole tree of :Category:Science fantasy, it may be helpful to have a broader discussion at a WikiProject talk page to see if the entire tree ought to be deleted or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

:Oppose per AHI-3000's explanation. A relatively well-defined subgenre. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Keep We shouldn't delete this unless the entire :Category:Science fantasy tree is deleted simultaneously. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: purge. No consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|People with narcissistic personality disorder}}

:Nominator's rationale: This is an inappropriate categorization. Yes, categorizing by disability WP:DISABILITYCAT can be appropriate when that disability is a defining characteristic. But that particular condition NPD is predominantly given as a label during criminal investigation. So it cannot define the person's in that it is only a judicial tool in the context of their trial. Also it is only defined as a set of (really negative) personality traits, yet it is almost always an offense of living person biography to just say that person A has negative personality trait B, C, D, E, F. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

::What about other :Category:People with personality disorders subcategories, such as :Category:People with antisocial personality disorder? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

:::The nomination applies much less to Borderline personality disorder (more studied as a mental disorder and not a personality trait, diagnosed outside of jail settings, and even having an advocacy movement). That's why I find a blanket nomination is inappropriate. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete I expected to iVote keep ... until I clicked on the articles. What defines these articles is criminal indictment/prosecution, not these after the fact claims during the criminal cases. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Oppose per WP:DISABILITYCAT. As I pointed out on a recent discussion, psychological disabilities are still disabilities. Your assumption that having a personality disorder diagnosis is an inherently negative thing is reflects the stigma surrounding personality disorders. I would support purging the articles of people who their personality disorder is not a defining feature (and only came up when there was a criminal trial), which seems to be a genuine issue. Regardless, this condition is in the DSM and is not the same as the trait of narcissism. However, I do think that we can delete both :Category:People with passive-aggressive personality disorder‎ and :Category:People with sadistic personality disorder as neither of those categories reflect an actual diagnosis (neither were officially included as diagnoses, but only as proposed disorders that might be added). Mason (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Disabilities are a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Oppose for these same reasons AHI-3000 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Question for opposers if the category is kept, who will populate it? I checked several articles and none seemed defining, while some failed verification. Are there any examples where it is a defining feature? Unless there are several individuals who are defined by this trait, I will support deletion. (t · c) buidhe 06:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• :So I haven't looked for examples yet, but at the very least, I think purging is the correct approach here rather than deletion outright. It may very well end with the category being empty, but in that case if in the future, someone does find the :WP:DISABILITYCAT. criteria, the category can be remade. Mason (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• ::I'm not really a fan of categories where the majority of the items that would seem to be included just looking at the title do not actually belong in the category. Very few editors understand categorization rules and most categories that are set up like this end up filled with non-defining entries, that become a cleanup headache. I support OCAWARD's handling of this situation. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete It seems highly likely that this category will continue to fill with articles of people who editors think are narcissists in the colloquial sense, regardless of whether they were diagnosed as such, even if it gets purged now. It should be deleted as unhelpful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: manual rename to :Category:United Airlines Flight 93 deaths (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Deaths in Somerset County, Pennsylvania to :Category:Somerset County, Pennsylvania

:Nominator's rationale: Death by location in not defining, and we don't have deaths by county Mason (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

::And in this case, all the deaths are related to 9/11, which are already connected to the county. So deletion might be better.Mason (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:United Airlines Flight 93 deaths, having biographies in a topic category is not desirable (WP:COPSEP). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• :FYI. :Category:United Airlines Flight 93 and :Category:United Airlines Flight 93 victims both already exist. Mason (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Rename per Marcocapelle. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Remain: Actually not all the deaths are related to 9/11 (such as John du Pont and Nicholas (Smisko)), so it's suggested that this category be kept as it is. Howard61313 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

:* Rather purge John du Pont and Nicholas (Smisko), deaths categories are usefully diffused by type of death, not by location. Location of death either overlaps with where people live, or is an entirely random and trivial location. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rename & Purge to :Category:United Airlines Flight 93 deaths, per Marcocapelle. - 02:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)
• Delete Considering the two articles mentioned by Marcocapelle, and because the other articles are the four terrorists who died aboard United Airlines Flight 93, and are already in the associated category, as is :Category:United Airlines Flight 93 victims. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::Rename and purge per Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Ignore my last relisiting comment, not sure what I was thinking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|War criminals}}

:Nominator's rationale: I apologize for the lengthy explanation, but I noticed that another editor placed the article for David Funchess in :Category:War criminals. The justification for this decision is understandable, as during his time on death row for separate crimes, Funchess confessed to intentionally killing unarmed civilians, including children, during the Vietnam War. However, despite his confessions, he was never indicted, tried, or convicted of war crimes, or any crimes related to his service in Vietnam.

:Upon clicking on the category and investigating, I saw that this category was deleted once in 2007, with some justification for its deletion being that there is already a category for :Category:People convicted of war crimes (which would theoretically encapsulate war criminals better than this category, which I believe could easily be misapplied). There is also a category for :Category:People indicted for war crimes. It just seems that those categories are better at getting the point across than this one, without being nearly as subjective and inconsistent in application. I agree with the previous consensus from 2007. Another user re-added this category in 2019, citing "faulty reasonsing IMO," but I do not think the consensus reached in 2007 was wrong.

:(I guess my complaints here might also cover :Category:Female war criminals for the same reasons.) Afddiary (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. It may be useful to check manually if any of the content belongs in the tree of :Category:People indicted for war crimes and is not there yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

:Keep as an appropriate subcategory for :Category:Criminals by crime. There are categories for other un-convicted criminals, so I don't see any reason to single out "war criminals". Other categories are better at getting the point across, but :Category:War criminals is appropriate for, say, the identified perpetrators of a massacre who were never tried. Lightiggy (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

:* In this case we already have a category for unconvicted war criminals, namely :Category:People indicted for war crimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

:*:Yes, but what about ones who were not tried? What about men like self-confessed Paul Aussaresses and Jacques Massu, who have confessed and been conclusively proven to be war criminals, but were never tried for them (Aussaresses was instead prosecuted for making excuses for torturing detainees in Algeria). Lightiggy (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

::@Lightiggy, my issue with the category as it is, though, is that it is so unevenly applied.

::I looked at some pages for other war criminals, particularly those involved in the Nazi regime and the Rwandan genocide, and several of them were convicted of war crimes but did not have any war crime-related categories on their pages, even if their article leads or bodies said they WERE convicted of war crimes.

::Others were convicted of crimes against humanity, which are similar but legally distinct from war crimes - but their pages DID have the "War criminals" category.

::Then you have many people who are largely culturally and popularly considered war criminals, such as Henry Kissinger (see the "Domestic reactions" section of his page, as well as his Talk Page discussion pointing out 8 mainstream news sites that entertain the idea of him being a war criminal) - yet he was never convicted of a war crime and does not have any war criminal categories. Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter being that he was/is a war criminal, it wouldn't feel appropriate for me to apply that category to his page because it's subjective, and Wikipedia strives not to be subjective. There is not a consensus on whether or not he was/is a war criminal.

::Any debate over the appropriateness of applying that category would, in my opinion, be solved by resorting to using categories that are more difficult to subjectively misapply or abuse - like "People indicted for war crimes" or "People convicted of war crimes." Meanwhile, the category I proposed for deletion feels like it could be (and has been) applied so unevenly and subjectively - doubly so because the decision to remove it was due to a consensus, and the decision to bring it back was due to one single editor's choice 12 years later, with no discussion or consensus. Afddiary (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

::Also wanted to add this point - as someone who edits a lot of articles for people convicted of serious crimes, I've also noticed a trend towards removing categories that brand people with specific titles for the crimes they have committed, and instead focusing on what they have been convicted of committing. I actually view this as a positive change because it shifts away from applying categories unevenly and subjectively, or in a way that doesn't match the definitions of controversial, serious, or accusatory words as they should be applied on Wikipedia. (For example, I've noticed a lot of articles no longer using categories like :Category:American murderers, and instead opting for any of the many categories under the umbrella :Category:People convicted of murder - and I actually agree with this because I have seen categories similar to the former being misapplied in cases where the words "killing," "manslaughter," or "death" might be more appropriate than "murder". I wasn't one of the people spearheading that change, but I've watched it progress, and I see it largely as a positive. I think it would be a positive to apply this same logic to "War criminals" vs. "People convicted of war crimes.") Afddiary (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

::::Category:American murderers is still used when a confirmed murderer never stood trial. To me, the same logic applies to the war criminals category. Lightiggy (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep This seems to be a more defining trait than mere thieves or murderers. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

::Keep per Lightiggy and Dimadick. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would generally support deletion for the reasons expressed by the nom. The issue is that there is a disjoint between the popular understanding and legal definition of war crimes. Articles about "War crimes in X conflict" or "by X state" actually also contain content about non-tried war crimes, not to mention crimes against humanity and genocide, because many people would assume that any type of atrocity is a "war crime". (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• :That is a large part of my problem with the category. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a disjoint between the popular understanding and legal definition of war crimes, and having a category like :Category:War criminals just seems like it contributes to that problem when people apply it so subjectively.
• :I just ran into the article for Claus Schilling, where his short description and infobox state that he was a war criminal convicted of war crimes, but his categories do not reflect that – and neither does the rest of the text in the body of his article.
• :There are dozens (if not hundreds) of similar articles I've encountered on Wikipedia, and I don't think attempting to apply the category to all of them would solve the problem.
• :I also just think that on principle, it should not be acceptable for a consensus to be made on the deletion of a category after plenty of discussion, while one individual editor can make a decision 12 years later that all of them were wrong and the category should be re-added. Afddiary (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::Delete per nom. I especially agree with Afddiary's comment right above mine. "I also just think that on principle, it should not be acceptable for a consensus to be made on the deletion of a category after plenty of discussion, while one individual editor can make a decision 12 years later that all of them were wrong and the category should be re-added."

::I also worry that @Lightiggy's isn't really listening/engaging with the concerns being raised as they're making child categories while this nomination is onging. (:Category:Perpetrators of American Civil War prisoner of war massacres was made yesterday) Mason (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:::"Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories."

:::Could we add that? Another objection from me to deleting this category is that it's a good branch-off point for subcategories

:::Lightiggy (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging {{Cl|Kosovo people}} to {{Cl|Kosovan people}}

:* Propose merging {{Cl|Lists of Kosovo people}} to {{Cl|Lists of Kosovan people}}

: Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, newly created. Place Clichy (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

::Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, it seems that the whole tree needs to be renamed to "Kosovar" people, per article title Kosovars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• : I believe that Kosovar is mostly used by and for the Albanians, whereas Kosovan is more inclusive. Kosovo and Kosovars mention both demonyms. Place Clichy (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• :* This is confusing. Then "from Kosovo" may be a better alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• :*:I'd suggest starting an RfC at Talk:Kosovo about demonymy. The most recent discussion of this issue is at Talk:Kosovo/Archive 33#Standardize demonym/adjectival to Kosovar. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge somehow. Kosovar will be appropriate. It will probably apply to all the people of Kosovo, but rejected by Serbs in towns who hope vainly to remain part of Serbia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Peterkingiron is right, let's merge now and possibly rename later. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 :Category:Ministers of State of Palau. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Foreign ministers of Palau to :Category:State ministers of Palau

:Nominator's rationale: [https://www.palaugov.pw/executive-branch/ministries/state/ Official name]. Sahaib (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, based on the link, :Category:Ministers of State of Palau seems to be more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• :Rename to :Category:Ministers of State of Palau per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• {{Reply|Marcocapelle}} ok Sahaib (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 to :Category:Lists of fictional characters by species. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Lists of fictional life forms to :Category:Lists of fictional characters by species

:Nominator's rationale: Seems like a duplicate now? Like there's essentially no difference between these two categories, now that the parent category has been merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge but legendary creatures does not belong here regardless whether the merge goes ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge but some members actually belong in :Category:Lists of fictional species. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Suicide bombers in India to :Category:Suicide bombers

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there is only a redirect in this category, which isn't helpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:16th-century men by occupation and nationality to :Category:16th-century men by nationality

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. It's not helpful for navigation to only have a single category in here. Mason (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:16th-century Irish men by occupation to :Category:16th-century Irish men

:* Propose merging :Category:17th-century Irish men by occupation to :Category:17th-century Irish men

:* Propose merging :Category:18th-century Irish men by occupation to :Category:18th-century Irish men

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. It's not helpful for navigation because there are only a handful of categories in here AND nothing else in the parent category. Mason (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:School-themed television series by decade to :Category:School television series by decade

:Nominator's rationale: :Category:School-themed television series will be speedy renamed to :Category:Television series set in schools to align with other subcategories of :Category:Fiction about schools. However, the extension of that naming convention to this category is ambiguous due to a misplaced modifier. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::Support per nom. Mason (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|11th century in the Arctic}}

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is not helpful for navigation when there is only two categories in it. Only category is already in the proper merge target (11th century in Europe‎) Mason (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, even if there is more than an "only" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Both categories are already categorized under :Category:11th century. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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 16:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|14th century in the Arctic}}

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is not helpful for navigation when there is only one category in it. Only category is already in the proper merge target (14th century in Europe‎) Mason (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

----

: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.