Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 11#Fictional people by descent

: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) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Afghan women cricketers to :Category:Afghan cricketers

:Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 person in the category, and given that the Afghanistan women's national cricket team no longer exists (and they only played a handful of matches ever), it's unlikely that there are other notable Afghan women cricketers who could be added to this category (I did not find any other existing articles for Afghan women cricketers). Roya Samim was previously in {{cl|Afghan cricketers}} (which is the category where all men's cricketers are) and so should be upmerged back there. No need to split by gender when there's only 1 woman in the women's category. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Tentative support. I think they'd also need to be added to :Category:Women cricketers Mason (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Keep per Place Clichy Mason (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Mild keep. This is arguably part of a coherent structure of categories, which would allow it to be kept even if small per WP:SMALLCAT. Also, WP:CATGENDER explicitly indicates that sportspeople categories are split by gender when their sport is. Arguably, it is more defining for Samin to have played women's cricket than just cricket, as I guess that cricket is not mixed in Afghanistan. I agree that potential for expansion is low. Place Clichy (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• : WP:CATGENDER never seems to have had a consensus to demand sportpeople to categorise this way, this probably needs a wider discussion at WT:SPORTS since tonnes of single-gender sports don't categorise everyone by gender. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• :: Tonnes? I can only think of 3 major sports that don't discriminate participants: sailing, horse-riding and chess. In terms of categories, we sometimes have a root apparently non-gendered category which is in fact the male category, with a female ghetto subcategory. I don't really call that single-gender. I am all in favour of non-gendered categories for non-gendered occupations. I agree that separation is not very useful here, hence only the mild keep. Place Clichy (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::: There are tonnes of single gender sports (i.e. they have separate men's and women's teams) where the players aren't categorised by gender. I don't see any reason, or any actual consensus, that this should be done for all sports with separate men's and women's teams. WP:CATGENDER looks to have been created without any discussion/consensus, a wider discussion on this at WT:SPORTS would be a sensible outcome. But keeping a category with 1 person that can never have any more people, as the team has been disbanded, is ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, the category seems to be of established :Category:Women cricketers by nationality tree and helpful for intra navigation and also per above. Respublik (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:* A category with one person is not helpful for any navigation at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Clichy. Even one is interesting, and her gender will not be obvious to most from her name. You can expect a team to be revived at some point I think - heaven knows, there are enough refugess. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 14 November 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 as uncontested for weeks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging and rename merge :Category:Naturalised subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain with :Category:Naturalised citizens of the United Kingdom and rename to :Category:Naturalised British subjects

:Nominator's rationale: merge and then rename to Naturalized British subjects because these two categories are overlapping where regime doesn't make a difference Mason (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Cautious support. This also has the advantage that the idea of "citizenship" wasn't embraced in Britain until the 1940s. I also like the -z-, which is fine in British spelling as well as standard in American. However, there is surely the problem that the parent category is :Category:Naturalized citizens by country, and "British" doesn't supply a country. GB was a country and the UK is one. What I would not want to see is the next step of moving to a UK category, when the UK only dates from 1801 but in Wikipedia categories has a nasty way of moving back in time, sonetimes as far as the Middle Ages. Moonraker (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Ahhh, that's an excellent point. I hadn't really considered the parent country category. Hmmmm, I was basing the name off of the child category :Category:Naturalized British subjects in Canada‎ but you're right that that would probably have some annoyingly messy downstream category consequences. Mason (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Merge and rename as nom. Re Wikipedia categories moving back in time, Wikipedia categories are organized both historically and geographically, and there's not really a way around it. If that gives us the occasional anachronism, so be it. The Stuarts are part of British history, and the Hohenstaufens part of German history. Place Clichy (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::But anachronisms distort facts, and they also multiply. Surely if they can be avoided by treading carefully they are best avoided. Moonraker (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::: Change to Oppose (after relisting). Read too quickly and confused this with the UK. Sure, subject is more appropriate for the 18th-century KGB and citizen is indeed anachronistic. (Something inside me doubts that we really have sources for an actual "naturalisation" for these people, though, and maybe that is anachronistic too). Place Clichy (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This one is fine as it is and is consistent with the other categories in the tree. Certainly do not use "Naturalized". We always use the "s" form for British topics on Wikipedia as far more common in modern British English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just delete, it is an unlikely characteristic to be published about, especially for people in the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• : I also support deletion as 2nd-best option in the spirit of consensus, because of the small number of people for which this would actually be defining. For a very large majority of cases, emigrant/immigrant categories are usually defining enough for people who change countries, and how sources would most often describe them. Only in very special cases like the Handel's Naturalisation Act 1727 for George Frideric Handel do we have specific information on naturalisation. Hence this is defining for Handel, but maybe only for him, and we don't need to keep a category for that. Place Clichy (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:01, 11 November 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:Radojević-Mirković noble family. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Radojević noble family}}

:Nominator's rationale: 1 person in family, no interlanguage category link Mason (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I am most likely the only remaining editor still creating (probably working in general) articles on the subject of Bosnia's medieval history, including these BIO's. At this point categories Radojević and Mirković (below) really make good candidate for deletion, but they are both "cats with potential" and I created them because I have planned to create additional BIO's and article on related subjects in the first place. For these reasons I suggest deletion of one of them and rename of the remaining one into Radojević-Mirković noble family.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• :I'd support a merge of the two families into Radojević-Mirković noble family Mason (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Radojević-Mirković noble family per Santasa99 (see also #Category:Mirković noble family). HouseBlaster^talk 06:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• I strike my vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 12 November 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:Radojević-Mirković noble family. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Mirković noble family}}

:Nominator's rationale: 1 person in family, no interlanguage category link Mason (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - see Radojević above .--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Radojević-Mirković noble family per Santasa99 in above discussion (see #Category:Radojević noble family). HouseBlaster^talk 06:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• I strike my vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 12 November 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:Psychological television series. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Psychological drama television and other works to :Category:Psychological drama works

:Nominator's rationale: "television and other works" seems like a very bizarre categorization, why not just say "works"? Di (they-them) (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Alt rename to :Category:Psychological television series since all entries are television series. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support rename to :Category:Psychological television series as more descriptive than the proposed rename. However, weak support the original rename to :Category:Psychological drama works. HouseBlaster^talk 05:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support alt rename to {{clc|Category:Psychological television series}}. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:07, 19 November 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:Politicians, :Category:Heads of state, and :Category:Heads of government; respectively. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Politicians' topics}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Heads of state topics}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Heads of government topics}}

:Nominator's rationale: I added the politicians category, but I really don't know what the purpose of isolating all these political categories is. Mason (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

::Oppose. There are many topics related to politicians, heads of state, or government that are not actually politicians, heads of state, or government. When I look for politicians, I expect finding politicians, not political hostesses for instance. I think it is better to separate topics related to politicians from politicians themselves.

::When I run a PetScan query to check for politicians, there are many entries as indicated that are not politicians which can constitute a headache when checking for potential entries of new categories. Check also the page List of current heads of state and government. You won't find included in the list itself books about current heads of state, houses of current heads of state, wives of current heads of state, etc.

::I wouldn't oppose renaming it to :Category:Political topics though. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Upmerge rather than delete, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Can you clarfiy where to upmerge to @Marcocapelle? Because the page creator @Thinker78 had removed the parent category of :Category:Politicians as "these entries are not politicians" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Politicians%27_topics&curid=75203730&diff=1183263529&oldid=1183232032]. Mason (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• :* To the original parents :Category:Politicians, :Category:Heads of state and :Category:Heads of government respectively. Even if we would keep :Category:Politicians' topics (which I do not advocate) it should still be under :Category:Politicians. The creation of these categories does not solve something, it just results in more effort in navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• :*:I disagree. It was precisely to try to solve a problem that I created the category. Check the thread at Category talk:Political families of the United States#Political families are not politicians. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• :*::I don't think your solution solves the problem we were discussing in that thread Mason (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:Comment. Per WP:CATDEF, {{tq2|The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. [...] For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them. }} What are the defining characteristics of "Awards honoring politicians"? Are they politicians or awards? They are "something that is conferred or bestowed especially on the basis of merit or need"{{cite web|title=award|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/award|website=Merriam Webster}} for politicians. They are not politicians, politicians is not a defining characteristic of said awards, they are a recognition for politicians, a defining characteristic is that they are a politician-related item or topic. What are the defining characteristics of chiefs of staff? Are they all politicians? Or is more accurate to define them with another characteristic that encompasses the whole category's entries?

:Per WP:EPONYMOUS,

:{{tq2|The article New York City is in Category:Populated places established in 1624, but this category is not necessarily relevant to the content of Category:New York City, so it should not be used on the eponymous category.}}

:Per WP:CATMAIN,

:{{tq2|If eponymous categories are categorized separately from their articles, it will be helpful to make links between the category page containing the articles and the category page containing the eponymous categories. The template {{tlx|Related category}} can be used for this. An example of this set-up is the linked categories :Category:American politicians and :Category:Wikipedia categories named after American politicians.}} Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Per WP:PARENTCAT,

::{{tq2|Categorization should not be made by the type of an article. A biographical article about a specific person, for example, does not belong in :Category:Biography (genre).}}

::In the case at hand, :Category:Awards honoring politicians‎ or :Category:Political families of the United States, for example, do not belong in :Category:Politicians, because the awards or families may be a topic about politicians, but are not necessarily politicians and as such should not be categorized under [Category:Politicians]. That's a reason why I created the :Category:Politicians' topics. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

::* I disagree completely with the reference to WP:PARENTCAT. Biography is a type of article, an award isn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:[Category:Awards honoring politicians] is a type of article related to politicians, therefore it is categorized under Politicians, which shouldn't be the case because awards are not politicians. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:* That is not what WP:PARENTCAT is about. That is about adding articles to the right category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:*:I concur with Marocapelle's interpretation. I think that Thinker78 is misunderstanding some of the core concepts related to categories. Mason (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:*::Or maybe I have a different interpretation than yours more according to the spirit of the guideline and not an overly restrictive deletionist interpretation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:*:::I don't think it's a matter of differential interpretation or a difference in philosophy, I think that you really are missing something fundamental if you're unable to recognize the difference between articles and categories. Mason (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:*::::@Smasongarrison I think you should keep it collegial. Basically asserting you have the ultimate knowledge of the guideline over me and because I don't agree with you I am being "unable to recognize" stuff is inappropriate. As I indicated, this is simply a matter of different interpretations and categorical philosophies. Therefore, again, I request that you refrain from direct inappropriate accusations that "I am unable to recognize differences". Instead, try refuting my explanations, properly. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:*:::::Hi Thinker78, I've been trying as has Marco in explaining to you what the disconnect is with your interpretation are. I am trying to do so collegially...I didn't say that you were incompetent. I said "I think that you really are missing something fundamental if you're unable to recognize the difference between articles and categories" I am raising the question as I think you might be missing something key to how categories work. I don't know what "it" is but I really don't know how to teach you about some really core tenants about categorization. I'm not trying to lord over you or argue that my "deletionist" interpretation is correct. But I don't know where to start if you're reading that defining applies to categories the same as it does for articles. Mason (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:*::::::Now you added the word "incompetent". I didn't say anything about "incompetent" but for some reason you now are saying you didn't say I am incompetent. Why don't you watch more the things you say instead? Because you are starting being rude. Again, you have your interpretation of things, I have mine, and other editors have theirs. This discussion is not about "teaching" or majorities. This discussion is about finding WP:CONSENSUS. Thinker78 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:*:::::::This discussion has been derailed. I think it's time for a close. Thinker78 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Upmerge to politicians etc. It is a defining factor for political families or political awards that they are considered in regards to politicians. For items that have a heritage relationship to a parent category that is not strict diffusion, we can use special sort keys, among other means to clarify the heritage relationship. A category chain like Countries in Europe > Italy > Cities in Italy > Rome does not make Rome a country in Europe. Place Clichy (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• :@Place Clichy Can you check Category talk:Political families of the United States#Political families are not politicians? I appreciate your insights as it is directly related to the present question. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• :: Respectfully, I think that all I have to say on this topic is summarized in my comment above. Place Clichy (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Per WP:CAT#TREE,

:{{tq2|Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic). For example, :Category:France contains articles relating to the topic France.}}

:{{tq2|Set categories are named after a class (usually in the plural). For example, :Category:Cities in France contains articles whose subjects are cities in France. }}

::Category:Politicians therefore is a set category, whose subjects are politicians. That's why I created :Category:Politicians' topics and the other two, to contain articles relating to Politicians but that are not politicians in the first one, and the relevant ones in the last. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: In any case, entries related to politicians but which are not politicians (for example Political families of the United State or awards to politicians) would be more fitting to :Category:Politics than to [Category:Politicians]. Illustrating this, there is :Category:Freemasonry and :Category:Freemasons. Thinker78 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|People of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war}}

:Nominator's rationale: Not really a defining category: What even would the scope of "People of x conflict" be? It's seems to be very vague Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• The category is obviously meant for people who are notable especially because of this war. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:: And how would one define {{tq|notable especially because of this war}}? I mean Netanyahu is definitely a notable participant in this conflict, but is he {{tq|notable especially because}} of it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

::* I don't think he belongs in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be a bit early, but we can reasonably expect that some people will get noticeable notoriety specifically linked to this war (not Netanyahu or Blinken or Guterres or Haniyeh or Nasrallah). Especially, hostages tend to get notoriety from hostage taking. As of 4 November, {{oldid2|1182578020|Inbal Rabin-Lieberman}} and {{oldid2|1183327483|Vivian Silver}} at least clearly qualify, as well as the 30 articles already in {{Cl|People killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war}}. Place Clichy (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. We already have a fairly robust parent category (:Category:21st-century people by conflict), so this category is not unprecedented. Certainly we can argue whether certain people should be included in the category, and we could include a more specific definition on the category page if people think that would be an improvement. ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:51, 11 November 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:Museums in the United States by populated place. There is concern that an established category scheme containing the nominated category is actually unnecessary. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Museums in Maine by populated place}}

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. It contains just one category and is unlikely to grow. There are similar categories for other states but many are also exceedingly small and likely to get nominated for deletion as well. User:Namiba 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:Museums in the United States by populated place. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

::That is a container category.--User:Namiba 15:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

::* The nominated category is also a container category so that is fine. If not kept, it should be merged indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• The category is arguably part of a large established tree: :Category:Museums in the United States by state or territory and populated place. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

::It may be large but not well-established. A significant number of said categories contain fewer than 3 categories.--User:Namiba 15:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

::* Then it may be helpful to nominate them too. I am not opposing. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:48, 11 November 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East to :Category:Indigenous peoples in the Arctic :Category:Indigenous peoples of Russia

:Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

::Strongly oppose.

::This is something different. These are related but distinct subjects..

::First: It is a russian legal concept referred to in Art. 69 of the russsian constitution as well as in a number of russian legal acts and regulations, including the Federal Act on Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of 1999. So it is not a loose description as "Indigenous Peoples in the Artic is.

::SecondThis category includes 44 small indigenous peoples living in certain regions of russia, not in other countries of the Arctic (not even in other regions of russia);

::Third, Only some of these 44 peoples inhabit the Arctic. The Nivkh people of Sakhalin or the Shor people of Kemerovo oblast are in fact thousands of kilometres south of the Arctic circle.

::When russia finally disintegrates (which I hope) making russian legislation obsolete, it will be fine to delete this category, but until that day (may it come soon!!), it needs to be kept. Johannes Rohr (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Mild support for merge per nom. I think that this category should be listified per @Johannes Rohr. Mason (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

::::Merge is clearly not an option, as many of these peoples don't live in the Arctic, in my estimate, most don't. They mostly live in places where it gets quite cold in the Winter, but still, these places are for the most part not in the Arctic rim. Johannes Rohr (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::Sure it’s an option, if the articles are moved to :Category:Indigenous peoples of Russia as well as the appropriate subcategories of :Category:Indigenous peoples by region.  —Michael Z. 18:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::The Category:Indigenous Peoples of Russia is not appropriate, at least in its current state. It contains peoples which could be considered indigenous by international standards but which are are neither considered within russia nor commonly consider themselves indigenous, such as the Bashkir people or the Udmurts. (Self identification may change over time, but for now it just isn't there, the only exception are the Crimean Tatars, whose homeland is currently illegally controlled by russia and who self-identify as an indigenous people of Ukraine.) Currently I see a growing self-identification of "captive nations" instead.

::::::Second, the "small numbered" peoples are quite distinct from the former group because they have much more "indigenous" ways of life, most markedly year-round nomadism. And this distinction has been made since Tzarist times, it has not been invented by Soviet bureaucrats.

::::::So if there is agreement, that e.g. the Komi people, the Chuvash or the Bashkirs should be in this category, we definitely need a separate subcategory for the "small-numbered" peoples, because of their very different ways of life, legal status, histories, types of political goals and aspirations and so on. The easiest is to keep the current categories. Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Is the argument that other articles in the category are about other subjects (“in its current state”)? Or are you saying the articles in this category are not about Indigenous peoples? I don’t quite understand, but I definitely don’t agree with any of that. Maybe try stating it in terms that refer to the guidelines andl/or to reliable sources about the subjects.

:::::::Are you saying the articles in this category are not about Indigenous peoples?  —Michael Z. 18:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Oh boy. I'm the one citing reliable sources here all the time, including Forsyth, Slezkine, Halemba/Donahoe and the Martinez-Cobo study. You have in turn not cited even a single source in support of your proposition.

::::::::The problem with the category: There is no binding definition of "indigenous peoples" (heck, there isn't even a definition of "peoples" in international law). The best we have is the 1981 Martinez-Cobo defintion from the famous [https://social.desa.un.org/publications/martinez-cobo-study study on discrimination on discrimination against indigenous peoples]. Therefore, there cannot be a definitive answer to the question if e.g. the Sakha should be considered indigenous. The most important criterion from the Martinez-Cobo working definion's 4 criteria is their self-identification. And of course, this self-identification may vary widely depending on whom you ask. However, among the Sakha or Udmurt, a self-identification as indigenous is quite rare, although it does exist.

::::::::By contrast, there are hard and binding criteria of which groups are considered "indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East", so that there is no ambiguity here. And again, this isn't just a legal category, but it is a reality in russia at many levels, I reality I have witnessed every day since first working with them in the mid 90s. If the English language Wikipedia is going to delete this category, it is will be deleting part of the russian reality. You may not like it, but it is there. Johannes Rohr (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:::As a point of fact, these peoples do not only live in Russia. Some of their native territories include Aleutian Islands in USA, China, and Scandinavian states. (This official demographic designation, however, only has validity in Russia.) —Michael Z. 15:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

::Support. Indeed this category does represent a Russian Federation official designation, but that list of nations is a political concept of a state, only carries weight in Russia, and membership is not a defining characteristic of the subject nations. The official list itself is already covered and its membership delineated in the list article Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East, so we’re not losing any information by merging the contents.  —Michael Z. 14:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Obviously, categorized articles should be merged with appropriate categories, some of which may be Arctic or not Arctic.  —Michael Z. 15:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

:::I agree, that this is a designation that was imposed on them by the state, however, this common designation has shaped their history and continues to shape their present. I've been working with organisations of indigenous peoples of the russian North for decades, and they today defintely regard themselves a common family. A Shor from Kemerovo region, an Itelmen from Kamchatka and a Sámi from Kola Peninsula have to some degree a shared identity causing them i.a. to act together and form common organisations (such as an [https://icipr.international/ indigenous anti-war committee] I word with. Look at their ethnic mix. Their ancestral lands are thousands of kilometres apart from each other. And yet they have common cause.

:::What binds them together, though, is not only that they are subject to the same legislation, but also that they have a common history and today even a common identity, common organisations. This category is the historic successor of not only what used to be called "small peoples of the Soviet North", but even in Tsarist times they were understood to be a distinct category, as we can see in the Speransky reforms, which sought to create institutions especially for them, distinct from other peoples in Russia's Asian colonies, such as the Sakha, Buryat or Tuvans.

:::There is quite a body of literature on their common history, with Yuri Slezkines "[https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801481789/arctic-mirrors/#bookTabs=1 Arctic Mirror. Russia and the Small Peoples of the North]" and James Forsyth's "[https://www.amazon.de/-/en/James-Forsyth/dp/0521477719 History of the Peoples of Siberia. Russia's North Eastern Colony] being among the more prominent ones. Especially Slezkine puts quite some effort into showing how they have been regarded and treated by russia as a distict category for centuries. So, deleting this would be myopic and ahistorical. Johannes Rohr (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

::::I don’t see evidence that the membership in that organization or the subjects of those works precisely correspond to the membership of this official list, currently or at some period on the past. :Category:Indigenous peoples of Russia is certainly an encyclopedic grouping, and we can also consider cross groupings by region, but this list is not that.  —Michael Z. 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::What do you mean "I don't see evidence"? Where have you looked and failed to find the expected evidence? You have to invest more that 60 seconds. Since I know every single member the committee personally, some of them I have known for 30 years, I could give you a bio of each of them and explain to you how belonging to this category of peoples shaped their biographies. Both the now government controlled umbrella organisation RAIPON as well as independent networks such as Aborigen Forum, the [https://batani.org Batani Foundation] or [http://www.csipn.ru CSIPN] include exclusively members who either are included in this category or seek inclusion (the latter being the Izvatas or Izhma Komi). Indigenous activists belonging to Nenets people will typically belong to the same networks as, say Nivkh, Even, Khanty, Shor or Teleut activists, but they will have zero if any communality with, say Sakha, Kalmyk, Buryat or Komi activists, even though the latter would also be considered indigenous by international standards. In fact, such contacts are starting only now, where russia's disintegration becomes a more concrete possibility and there is a need to develop joint strategies for a post-russia future. But up to very recently, most of my peers from indigenous peoples in russia had very little contact, the though that the Komi, Sakha or Buryat could also be considered indigenous didn't even cross their minds..

:::::And again, separating the "small numbered" peoples from all the other nations inhabiting the russian North, Siberia and the Far East isn't something that has been invented by the Soviet Union, it has centuries of tradition, one reason being that those "small numbered" peoples pursue indeed much more "indigenous" subsistence strategies, such as year-round reindeer nomadism. This is something extremely rare among other peoples of the russian arctic but quite common among the small numbered indigenous peoples, two thirds of which depend on subsistence activities such as fishing, hunting and reindeer husbandry for their survival. So, size has for centuries served as a proxy for "indigeneity" in russia. See Donahoe, Brian, et al. "Size and Place in the Construction of Indigeneity in the Russian Federation." Current anthropology 49.6 (2008): 993-1020 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/593014. Johannes Rohr (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Category:Indigenous peoples seeking inclusion on the Unified List of Indigenous Minority Peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of Russia is not a defining characteristic either.  —Michael Z. 23:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::* If size has for centuries served as a proxy for "indigeneity", then "small-numbered" is redundant and :Category:Indigenous peoples of Russia suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::*:It does not, because this would be mixing peoples who do not commonly self-identify nor are considered indigenous such as the Bashkirs or Udmurts with others who unambiguously do. There is a problem caused by the conflicting concepts of indigenousness within and outside russia. Again, for that I would refer you to the Article above by Halemba/Donahoe and to Yuri Slezkine's "Arctic Mirrors". This is an issue on which much ink has been spilled and which does not fit into neat boxes. The current categorisation is not ideal, but it is far better than the alternative. Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::*::Neither Bashkirs nor Udmurts are in this list nor in this category. You have not clearly explained what they have to do with this. If your point is that they do not belong in some category, that is not for this discussion.  —Michael Z. 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::*:::"Udmurt people", "Bashkir people", "Chuvash people", "Kalmyk peopes" are all subcategories of :Category:Indigenous peoples of Russia, and there may be arguments for or against considering them as such. That's not my area of expertise and I don't have a fixed opinion on that.

::::::*:::However, try to propose the deletion of :ru:Категория:Коренные народы Севера and you will get only disbelief, because this is such a deeply entrenched concept which, again, is far more than a legal status, it is something that shapes identities, institutions, networks. I'm sorry for having to be blunt, but this proposal can only come from someone who really isn't familiar with the subject matter. Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Michael, with all due respect: Have you ever had any interaction with indigenous peoples from russia? If you had, you would know how defining this distinction is. The Izhma komi have for decades participated in the movement for indigenous rights, while the rest of the Komi people have not. The Izhma komi are reindeer herders, much like the neighbouring Tundra Nenets. That's what shapes their indigenous identity and that's why they consider themselves indigenous and of the mainstream Komi very few people do.

:::::::Again, this issue does not lend itself to an easy solution, and I admit that the current categorization has its problems. Still, it reflects long established russian realities, like it or not. Johannes Rohr (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::::With all due respect, you have not made any clear arguments relating to the guidelines nor based on clear statements in reliable sources. With respect, bragging about your personal experience doesn’t carry water or contribute to the discussion.  —Michael Z. 18:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::You seem to have completely ignored the references I provided. Again, Yuri Slezkine's "Artic Mirrors" alone shows in detail, how since the 16th century Muskovy and later Imperial Russia always treated the "smail numbered" indigenous peoples as a separate category. If you just ignore what historians and anthropologists have to say about this issue, there is little more I can do. Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::Slezkine says that although the exact composition of his subject peoples has changed over history, what defines the group is they are non-settled hunter-gatherer peoples. Perhaps they all belong in the category :Category:Hunter-gatherers of the Arctic. Perhaps there is even a category to be added for :Category:Hunter-gatherers of the Russian Arctic or :Category:Hunter-gatherers of the Eurasian Arctic. This would have the advantage of being based on defining characteristics and not on a list created and maintained by Soviet and Russian political authorities. Perhaps it would even include the peoples that aspire to be added to the list, which you mentioned.  —Michael Z. 23:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources cited by Johannes Rohr, seems to be reasonably defining and less subjective than the alternative. I'm not a fan of the Russian government either but I believe that the wiki should not disregard the effects of legislation of some countries just because we don't like them. (t · c) buidhe 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge and listify. On one hand we sort {{Cl|Indigenous peoples}} by geography, e.g. {{Cl|Indigenous peoples of Russia}}. On the other hand, there is a specific status in the Russian Federation and its predecessors, and article Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East is the best way to cover that. WP:CLNT is worth reading in this case. The list of peoples awarded this status in Russia does not change very often, and a category is, unfortunately, prone to wrong additions, removals and omissions. The topic article is better here. Place Clichy (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:45, 11 November 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:Canadian expatriates in the United States. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Canadian expatriate film directors in the United States to :Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States

:Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. User:Namiba 20:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support, but also upmerge to Canadian film directors Mason (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:::They're already in the appropriate Canadian film director sub-categories.--User:Namiba 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

::::Excellent! Mason (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose until there is more clarity on why this occupation and this nationality has been nominated on its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

::As mentioned in the nomination, I find this to be a trivial intersection of nationality, occupation, and location.--User:Namiba 12:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• {{ping|Namiba}} you did not address my objection. Why would Canadian be trivial and Vietnamese not? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

::I didn't say anything about the Vietnamese category one way or another. Feel free to nominate that for deletion as well.--User:Namiba 15:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

::* I am withdrawing my oppose as I note the others have a different format, e.g. :Category:American film directors of Vietnamese descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 13 November 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. After two relists, the proposal hasn't gained any traction, although I wouldn't quite call it a consensus in opposition. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Emus to :Category:Emu

:Nominator's rationale: Topic category for a single species. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not convinced that the number of species represented is relevant. There are multiple subspecies listed, as well as other emu-related topics. Similar categories are also plural: category:chickens (all one species), or category:elephants (two or three species), for example. And this mirrors common usage in English: we would ordinarily say "I want to know about emus", not "I want to know about emu". One might say, "I want to know about the emu", but that's less common than the first formulation—and we wouldn't have "category:the emu". Presumably this category includes all emus—whether individually or collectively—not one emu, not a substance (such as meat) called "emu" (although that would probably also fit if there were such an article). So it makes more sense at this title than at the proposed one. P Aculeius (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW, both emu and emus are valid plurals. And "I want to know about emu." is an acceptable sentence. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

:::I checked our entry on Wiktionary, and it only provided "emus" as the plural. However, granted that bird names can often be either singular or plural, this usage may also be acceptable. Even so, "I want to know about emu" would be confusing, since it could be understood to refer to a singular thing, or a substance, such as emu meat. For this reason, the current title is still better, since it unambiguously shows that the topic is plural—it refers to all emus collectively, and can contain any number of articles or subcategories related to emus. P Aculeius (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Grutness may well be right, but who knows that in the Northern Hemisphere? Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 17 November 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 Sorry, this discussion has gone in too many different directions, with too many overlapping proposals, to come to an actionable consensus. No prejudice against more focused renominations. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional humans to :Category:Fictional human characters

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality to :Category:Fictional human characters by ethnicity or nationality

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by country subdivision to :Category:Fictional human characters by country subdivision

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by populated place to :Category:Fictional human characters by populated place

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by continent to :Category:Fictional human characters by continent added 26 October

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by region to :Category:Fictional human characters by region added 26 October

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by ethnicity to :Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity (added 21 November)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by nationality to :Category:Fictional characters by nationality (added 21 November)

:* Propose keeping :Category:Animated human characters

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional human races

:Nominator's rationale: rename, better alignment of category names in this tree. If this agreed, the subcategories can follow later (speedily?). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

::Keep Nearly every other subcategory of :Category:Fictional characters by species uses the current convention. Nor is it helpful to narrow down the geographic and demographic categories to humans only, when many non-human characters have a well-defined ethnicity or real-world place of origin. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Agree with LaundryPizza03. There's a lot of non-human characters who have a real-life ethnicity/nationality or come from a real-world geographic location. I think instead we should make a new super-category called :Category:Fictional characters by location. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

::::EDIT: I just created :Category:Fictional characters by location. I think this new category is a better place to contain these subcategories. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. We have long-standing convention of categorizing characters in the realm of fiction, and people in non-fiction. There is a recent surge in imho poorly-designed Fictional people... categories. People are made of flesh and blood, characters are not. Harry Potter is a character, not a person. Place Clichy (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• I added two more sibling categories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• {{ping|LaundryPizza03}} almost none of the nominated categories follows "characters", in fact I am introducing "characters" by this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Right, and I am arguing that would be inconsistent with non-human species such as :Category:Fictional cattle and :Category:Fictional demons and devils. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - :Category:Fictional humans and :Category:Animated human characters. These are essentially Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Miscellaneous categories. Oppose renaming the rest for similar reasons. If no consensus to delete, then use "people" instead of "humans". "Fictional characters" being a broader term/inclusion criteria. - jc37 15:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Jc37}} I am not sure why you propose deletion of :Category:Fictional humans. The consequence of deletion of the parent category is that e.g. :Category:Fictional people by country subdivision and :Category:Fictional people by populated place will no longer be siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• :: Easy enough to upmerge those to :Category:Fictional characters by location (which itself could be renamed to "people", if wanted).- jc37 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• :::Yes I agree with jc37, that is what I was thinking. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Alt proposal

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional humans to :Category:Fictional people

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality to :Category:Fictional people by ethnicity or nationality

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional people by country subdivision

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional people by populated place

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional people by continent

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional people by region

:* Propose renaming :Category:Animated human characters to :Category:Animated fictional people

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional human races

• {{ping|LaundryPizza03|AHI-3000|Place Clichy}} the above alternative is what I think has the most support (but not Place Clichy's) and is internally consistent. I am mostly in favour of consistency here, the exact format comes second. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::I could weakly support most of that, but :Category:Animated human characters should really be deleted, or at least upmerged/diffused into :Category:Animated characters. - jc37 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Keep all pages, don't rename anything. I just want this over with already. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Support I guess this is okay. The "humans" category names can be kept as redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete :Category:Fictional humans and :Category:Animated human characters per WP:NONDEF. Usually, if a character is human, that's not defining, as it is to be expected. Upmerge :Category:Fictional human races to :Category:Fictional species and races as it appears to be an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. It contains such thing as "muggle", which are just regular humans. Upmerge :Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality to :Category:Fictional characters by attribute as WP:OVERLAPCAT. The other stuff seems fine to Keep for now, though this is a bit of a trainwreck due to how different the categories are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Alt 2 proposal

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional humans

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by ethnicity to :Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity (added 21 November)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by nationality to :Category:Fictional characters by nationality (added 21 November)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality between the 2 above categories, per decision at {{section link|WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 7|Category:People by ethnicity or nationality}}

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by country subdivision to :Category:Fictional characters by country subdivision

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by populated place to :Category:Fictional characters by populated place

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by continent to :Category:Fictional characters by continent added 26 October

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by region to :Category:Fictional characters by region added 26 October

:* Propose keeping :Category:Animated human characters

:* Propose keeping :Category:Fictional human races

: Alt 2 rationale: fictional characters are presumed to be human unless it is necessary to precise otherwise (see e.g. the long-standing category structure at {{Cl|Fictional characters by attribute}} and its many child categories including {{Cl|Fictional characters by behavior|by behavior}}, {{Cl|Fictional characters by occupation|by occupation}}, {{Cl|Fictional characters by rank or title|by rank or title}}, {{Cl|Fictional characters based on real people|based on real people}} etc. Also, they are fictional characters, not people, because people are made of flesh and blood and characters are not, and there is always a possible plot twist where a character you think is human turns out to be something else. Harry Potter is a character, not a person. This is an attempt to summarize consensus and avoid a train wreck, hence keeping as is some categories for now, maybe deferring them to a later more specific discussion.

: {{Re|Marcocapelle|LaundryPizza03|AHI-3000|Qwerfjkl|Jc37|Zxcvbnm}} ping participants for opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support this proposal. It's a logical renaming without causing too much disruption. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

::BTW shouldn't this discussion be relisted? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• (as nom) this alternative leads to more consistency too, ultimately I am in favor of all alternatives over the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 21 November 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Proposed renaming :Category:Murugan temples in Tamil Nadu to :Category:Kartikeya temples in Tamil Nadu
• Proposed renaming :Category:Murugan temples in Karnataka to :Category:Kartikeya temples in Karnataka
• Proposed renaming :Category:Murugan temples in Kerala to :Category:Kartikeya temples in Kerala
• Proposed renaming :Category:Murugan temples in Sri Lanka to :Category:Kartikeya temples in Sri Lanka
• WP:CONSISTENCY with parent cat :Category:Kartikeya temples and article Kartikeya--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Inclined to oppose, based on the articles in these categories it seems that the name "Murugan" is mostly used in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka while "Subrahmanya" is mostly used in Karnataka and Kerala. I would support a rename to "Subrahmanya" for the latter two. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

: Marcocapelle, Hindu deities are known by different names in different regional languages. The prominient name in the language can be used in that language wikipedia; for example Tamil (Tamil Nadu) wikipedia calls him Murugan; Malayalam (Kerala) and Kannada (Karnataka) calls him Subrahmanya; however the articles should be consistent. Also in Sri Lanka, should we use Kandaswamy or Murugan, both names are popular names. If we go by the logic proposed above, :Category:Shiva temples in Kerala needs to be renamed Mahadeva temples in Kerala; :Category:Shiva temples in Maharashtra needs to be renamed Shankara temples in Maharashtra; :Category:Shiva temples in West Bengal to Category:Shiba temples in West Bengal; which are the prominent names of the deity in the region; however that will just add confusion to a non-expert reader. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

:* Fair enough to rename them too. There is more confusion when Wikipedia uses a name in a region when in real life that name is not used in that region. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:: Marcocapelle, Kartikeya is a pan-Indian name, he is known as this name in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Sri Lanka; however Murugan is the primary name in Tamil language (Tamil Nadu, Lanka) and Subrahmanya the primary name in Kerala, Karnataka; Kartik in Bengal, Odisha, Tripura (East India).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Redtigerxyz}} yes that was my understanding too, i.e. the name Kartikeya is not the primary name in these regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 11 November 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 Place Clichy's argument about lack of definingless has gone unrefuted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Aden emigrants to England to :Category:Yemeni emigrants to England

:* Propose merging :Category:Aden emigrants to Scotland to :Category:Yemeni emigrants to Scotland

:* Propose merging :Category:Aden emigrants to the United Kingdom to :Category:Yemeni emigrants to the United Kingdom

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Aden is a city in yemen Mason (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, no need to diffuse emigrants by populated place. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Merge all 3 to :Category:Yemeni emigrants to the United Kingdom. England and Scotland are also irrelevant for the migration status of these 21st-century British people. Place Clichy (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:* Support merge all 3 as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. When these people emigrated, Aden was a separate colony of the British Empire and not part of the wider area of Yemen (not that Yemen existed as a country at that time). Comments like "Aden is a city in yemen" and "no need to diffuse emigrants by populated place" therefore show a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• : The category is part of :Category:People from Aden, the city. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• : "{{tq|When these people emigrated, Aden was a separate colony...}}" That's just not true. That article says: "{{tq|Aden Colony [...] was a Crown Colony of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1963. On 18 January 1963, Aden Colony was reconstituted as the State of Aden [...] within the new Federation of South Arabia.}}" For people whose article mentions a physical move to the UK, it is 1965 ({{oldid2|1180029459|Keith Vaz}}), 1966 or 1967 ({{oldid2|1173191920|Rizwan Khan}}), 1969 or 1970 ({{oldid2|1168022259|Claude Moraes}}). Their background is actually described as respectively Goan, Punjabi-Pakistani-Gujarati, and Indian. The fourth article, that of {{oldid2|1179358960|Anna Grear}}, presents her as just British and makes no mention whatsoever of an Aden or Yemeni identity besides the POB. So I very well understand, thank you, that Aden emigrant is not a defining characteristic for any of these people, and rather trivial. Place Clichy (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• :* Delete all per Place Clichy. If kept, rename to State of Aden, reparent and purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 11 November 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) HouseBlaster^talk 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings by Henri Biva to :Category:Henri Biva

:Nominator's rationale: Overcategorized. Only two pages in the parent category Mason (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Per WP:OCEPON, the convention is that we keep this category and delete the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Gotcha, I think my nom might have been unclear because the painting category only has one page and the parent category only has one additional page, for a total of two pages between the two categories. Mason (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have tagged :Category:Henri Biva for deletion per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete both. There isn't enough content here to warrant either category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete both. The two articles are already linked together and neither category aids navigation. --Trialpears (talk) 17:48, 25 November 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:English expatriates in Italy and :Category:People from Taormina. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:English expatriates in Taormina, Sicily to :Category:English expatriates in Italy

:Nominator's rationale: not defining Mason (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Dual merge, also to :Category:People from Taormina. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Do not merge to :Category:People from Taormina; these people may have lived in Taormina, but they didn't come from there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:* We don't exclusively use "people from" categories for people who were born there. They lived long enough in Taormina in order for them to be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

::*Generally we do try to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Merge target(s)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep As some of the articles explain, there was a distinct, mostly gay, "colony" of Brits there around 100 years ago. Defining enough. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• I voted dual merge before. Keeping would be my second choice, rather than a single merge and moving the articles away from Taormina. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 17 November 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: witgdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional hybrid martial artists to :Category:Fictional martial artists by type

:Nominator's rationale: merge, by lack of a real people equivalent. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment There does seem to be a "real equivalent", :Category:Hybrid martial arts. It seems like a "legit" category to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:* There is at least not a :Category:Hybrid martial artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:*:That's because they're split by combat style, such as :Category:Jeet Kune Do practitioners. Most of the ones in :Category:Fictional hybrid martial artists are as well.

:*:You may wish to argue that the type of martial art is irrelevant, and that every single subcategory should be merged into :Category:Fictional martial artists. But, I cannot see a particular reason to support merging based on this particular rationale. That's because based on the current categorization scheme, :Category:Hybrid martial artists could certainly exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 12 November 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:Mali templates and :Category:Africa history templates. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Azawad templates to :Category:Mali templates and :Category:Africa history templates

:Nominator's rationale: merge, as the subcategory is going to be merged/deleted, there is only one template left here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:00, 15 November 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 martial artists by type. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional practitioners of martial arts weapons to :Category:Fictional martial artists by type

:Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. There is also no real people equivalent. I am not sure of the target, i.e. not sure if these are "types". If not, merge directly to :Category:Fictional martial artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is totally redundant and pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :support per nom. I think it can be upmerged to :Category:Fictional martial artists Mason (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Without a category for fictional users of weapons, I guess this is fine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 13 November 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: reverse merge. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Taxa named by Paul Graham Wilson}}

:Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate of Category:Taxa named by Paul G. Wilson  Junglenut |Talk  01:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

::Reverse merge from :Category:Taxa named by Paul G. Wilson. The main article is titled Paul Graham Wilson. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:::support reverse merge per LaundryPizza Mason (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:::Yes, thats a better idea  Junglenut |Talk  21:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: I have tagged :Category:Taxa named by Paul G. Wilson to allow for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 17:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:Reverse Merge - well, obviously we can't have duplicate categories, so we must merge either forwards or reverse. The reverse one seems better to me as to the editors above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support reverse merge - it makes sense to align the names of the category and the main article.  Junglenut |Talk  21:30, 11 November 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/delete/merge. There is a lot going on here. Broadly, there is consensus to rename {{tq|Category:Fictional Fooian-Barian people}} to {{tq|Category:Fictional Fooian characters of Barian descent}}, delete:

• :Category:Fictional African-Canadian people
• :Category:Fictional Chinese Canadian people
• :Category:Fictional Indian-Canadian people
• :Category:Fictional Korean-Canadian people
• :Category:Fictional Vietnamese-Canadian people
• :Category:Fictional British Canadian people
• :Category:Fictional French-Canadian people
• :Category:Fictional European-Canadian people

... and merge :Category:Fictional Middle Eastern American people to the renamed :Category:Fictional American characters of Asian descent. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 20:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional people by ethnic or national origin by :Category:Fictional people by descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin by :Category:Fictional American people by descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Asian-American people by :Category:Fictional American people of Asian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Chinese American people by :Category:Fictional American people of Chinese descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Chinese-American superheroes to :Category:American superheroes of Chinese descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Indian-American people by :Category:Fictional American people of Indian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Japanese American people by :Category:Fictional American people of Japanese descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Japanese-American superheroes by :Category:American superheroes of Japanese descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Korean American people by :Category:Fictional American people of Korean descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Middle Eastern American people to :Category:Fictional American people by Middle Eastern descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Arab-American people of :Category:Fictional American people of Arab descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Iranian-American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Iranian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Pakistani American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Pakistani descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Thai American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Thai descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Vietnamese-American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Vietnamese descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Chilean-American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Chilean descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Cuban-American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Cuban descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Dominican American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Dominican descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Mexican-American people to :Category:Fictional American people of Mexican descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Australian people by ethnic or national origin to :Category:Fictional Australian people by descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Indian-Australian people to :Category:Fictional Australian people of Indian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional British people by ethnic or national origin by :Category:Fictional British people by descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional English people by ethnic or national origin to :Category:Fictional English people by descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional British Asian people to :Category:Fictional British people of Asian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Indian-British people to :Category:Fictional British people of Indian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional British Pakistani people to :Category:Fictional British people of Pakistani descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Canadian people by ethnic or national origin to :Category:Fictional Canadian people by descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional African-Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of African descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Asian-Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of Asian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Chinese Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of Chinese descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Indian-Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of Indian descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Korean-Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of Korean descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Vietnamese-Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of Vietnamese descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional European-Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of European descent

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional British Canadian people to :Category:Fictional Canadian people of British descent

:Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent and per parent categories like :Category:American people of Chinese descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle but I would prefer to use characters instead of people, per parent {{Cl|Fictional characters}} etc. E. g. Harry Potter is a character, not a person. Place Clichy (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Yeah but elsewhere we have a discussion about that that looks pretty stale. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:*: Stale discussions elsewhere are not a reason to stall on a small local improvement. {{smiley}} Place Clichy (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:*There were two related categories that were separately discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:Fictional Scottish_people by ethnic or national origin. Could they be included in this rename proposal? No action has been taken on them yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

::* No, the proposed action and rationale for those two is entirely different. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support in principle, but I also think that characters is a better term than people per Place Clichy Mason (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support In absence of agreement over the use of people vs. characters, we can care less what happens afterward. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Suggest deleting several categories that are not useful for navigation:
• Merge :Category:Fictional Middle Eastern American people to :Category:Fictional Asian-American people (or :Category:Fictional American people of Asian descent), useless layer for just :Category:Fictional Arab-American people and : Category:Fictional Iranian-American people
• Delete :Category:Fictional African-Canadian people. Sole content is two redirects (Tyler Nguyen-Baker, Aaron Z. (Turning Red)) and the target article does not say anything about them being African of Black Canadians.
• Delete :Category:Fictional Chinese Canadian people: only redirects to animated series animal characters whose article does not say anything about ethnicity. (My wild guess is that the creator of these redirects associates the voice actor playing the animal part with racial stereotypes.)
• Delete :Category:Fictional Indian-Canadian people. Just a redirect (Priya Mangal) for the same animated series as above.
• Delete :Category:Fictional Korean-Canadian people. Two redirects (Abby Park, Tae Young (Turning Red)) to the same animated series as above.
• Delete :Category:Fictional Vietnamese-Canadian people. One redirect (Tyler Nguyen-Baker) to the same animated series as above.
• Delete :Category:Fictional British Canadian people. One redirect (Stacy Frick) for to same animated series as above.
• Delete :Category:Fictional French-Canadian people. One redirect (Robaire (Turning Red)) for the same animated series as above. Tag added today.
• Delete :Category:Fictional European-Canadian people as useless intermediate layer for just :Category:Fictional British Canadian people and :Category:Fictional French-Canadian people.
• {{Re|Marcocapelle|Liz|Smasongarrison|LaundryPizza03}} ping for opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Support deletes/merge per place clichy Mason (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Delete as proposed by Place Clichy. My previous !vote still stands on the remainder. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• (as nom) delete the categories as proposed by Place Clichy. When starting the nomination I was hesitant to include both rename and delete proposals (with the risk of a trainwreck) but if there is consensus for it, then by all means. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 16 November 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:People of Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:People of the District of Columbia in the American Civil War to :Category:People of Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War

:Nominator's rationale: overlapping category. it's unclear to me how these are different Mason (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 12 November 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Expatriates from the British Empire to :Category:Expatriates from former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:Immigrants to the British Empire to :Category:Immigrants to former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:Emigrants from the British Empire to :Category:Emigrants from former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:Emigrants from the British Empire to the United States to :Category:Emigrants from former British colonies and protectorates to the United States

:* Propose renaming :Category:American emigrants to the British Empire to :Category:American emigrants to former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:British emigrants to the British Empire to :Category:British emigrants to former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:Canadian emigrants to the British Empire to :Category:Canadian emigrants to former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:Chinese emigrants to the British Empire to :Category:Chinese emigrants to former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:Dutch emigrants to the British Empire to :Category:Dutch emigrants to former British colonies and protectorates

:* Propose renaming :Category:French emigrants to the British Empire to :Category:French emigrants to former British colonies and protectorates

:Nominator's rationale: Being an expatriates/emigrants/immigrants from a former empire, like the British Empire, isn't defining. People don't identify as being British Empire people. They identify as being people from former British colonies and protectorates. I think we should either delete this category, or rename/containerize it to make it clearer that it's for expatriates/emigrants/immigrants. I'm modeling the rename after :Category: People from former British colonies and protectorates. Mason (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. First, these categories are not about the present day, they are about an empire which existed for a few hundred years . That's why "People don't identify as being British Empire people", but they most certainly did, it was a huge factor in their lives and they could travel freely within the empire. Second, the British protectorates were not part of the empire, and their people did not have British subject status – they were foreign and could (and often did) control their own borders. Even now, people born in an Indian princely state have a different status in the United Kingdom from those born in British India. My view is leave well alone. Moonraker (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:Do you have an alternative name? Or thoughts on containerizing? I've struck part of the nom because my intent wasn't to make a past/present distinction. I didn't mean to convey that being in the British empire didn't matter. What I was trying to convey was that no one just identified as being in the british empire. They identified as being from somewhere within the empire. I'm trying to avoid folks being classified as just :Category:Emigrants from the British Empire, rather than :Category:Emigrants from the British India I'm very open to suggestions on what the name is, but right now what I'm trying to avoid is having lots of folks isolated as emmigrants/immigrants/expatriates in the British Empire category as opposed to the child categories (specific colonies etc). Mason (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

::No, for me the present categories fit well into the wider scheme. Surely by your reasoning, the parent :Category:People from the British Empire also needs renaming. To say just "from former British colonies" would deal with my point about the protectorates, but there were always parts of the empire which were not colonies, such as the Dominions after self-government and British India under East India Company rule. I think it's fine as it is. Moonraker (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Gotcha -- that's really helpful for me. What are your thoughts about containerizing to address the problem of folks being classified as just :Category:Emigrants from the British Empire? Mason (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

::::Mason, I don't know what containerizing means here, but if you like the idea of all the biographies being in one of the sub-categories, it's surely a matter of moving them (and creating any missing sub-categories which are needed). Moonraker (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Rename and containerize. If not renamed, Delete. It is preferable to focus on migration to each specific colony, as that would be what matters most for people, and how they would be referred. What is defining for Camille Malfroy is to be among {{C|French emigrants to New Zealand}} (a fact prominently featured in the article, and a category already there), rather than if the Dominion status or the Statute of Westminster existed at the time he moved. Place Clichy (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::{{U|Place Clichy}}, With the present name, there is no problem with the Dominions or the Statute of Westminster. My points above were that the protectorates were outside the empire and that there was much more to it than the colonies. Do you have any thoughts on why you think it's a better name? Moonraker (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::: It's a better name because it allows containerization, i.e. the categories would no longer contain individual people but only sub-categories for emigrants to and from such and such territory. The core issue is that categories are only useful for defining characteristics, even more so for people. Mere technicalities, like expert debate as to which degree protectorates, LoN mandates etc., are a bit irrelevant to the biography of most people in these categories, that would usually just be usually defined as British officer, American patriot, Jamaican planter, New Zealand dentist etc. Place Clichy (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::::Thanks {{U|Place Clichy}}, for explaining the issue. In theory, {{U|Moonraker}}, it is just "a matter of moving them (and creating any missing sub-categories which are needed)." but, making that the official plan is helpful as it can discourage certain categorizations, especially when some of the "missing sub-categories" might have been deleted as non-defining. What I'm trying to prevent is a cycle of the same non-defining categories being recreated (because they're missing) and then deleted. Mason (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 15:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, most articles are about people who emigrated from British colonies that later merged to Canada and Australia. For the former we can create "from British North America" subcategories, for the latter I do not have a solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:* And even for Canada my suggestion does not help a lot. :Category:Emigrants from British North America to the United States already exists and any others would remain very small. At least I could move some 20 articles from :Category:Emigrants from the British Empire to the United States to :Category:Emigrants from British North America to the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 11 November 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: Alt rename There is a clear consensus both that the alt rename is preferable to a merge, and that a merge is preferable to the status quo. In the abstract, the consensus that a rename is preferable to the status quo is less clear because several participants didn't comment after the alt was proposed, but unless we have a Condorcet paradox on our hands then that translates to a consensus to rename. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

: Propose merging

• :Category:British Australian to :Category:Australia–United Kingdom relations
• :Category:Croatian Australian to :Category:Australia–Croatia relations
• :Category:Cypriot Australian to :Category:Australia–Cyprus relations
• :Category:Danish Australian to :Category:Australia–Denmark relations
• :Category:Dutch Australian to :Category:Australia–Netherlands relations
• :Category:French Australian to :Category:Australia–France relations
• :Category:German Australian to :Category:Australia–Germany relations
• :Category:Greek Australian to :Category:Australia–Greece relations
• :Category:Icelandic Australian to :Category:Australia–Iceland relations
• :Category:Irish Australian to :Category:Australia–Ireland relations
• :Category:Italian Australian to :Category:Australia–Italy relations
• :Category:Norwegian Australian to :Category:Australia–Norway relations
• :Category:Polish Australian to :Category:Australia–Poland relations
• :Category:Portuguese Australian to :Category:Australia–Portugal relations
• :Category:Serbian Australian to :Category:Australia–Serbia relations
• :Category:Swedish Australian to :Category:Australia–Sweden relations
• :Category:South African Australian to :Category:Australia–South Africa relations
• :Category:Egyptian Australian to :Category:Australia–Egypt relations
• :Category:Lebanese Australian to :Category:Australia–Lebanon relations
• :Category:Iranian Australian to :Category:Australia–Iran relations
• :Category:Iraqi Australian to :Category:Australia–Iraq relations
• :Category:Argentine Australian to :Category:Argentina–Australia relations

: Propose manual merge to the foreign relations tree

• :Category:European Australian
• :Category:English Australian
• :Category:Scottish Australian
• :Category:Welsh Australian
• :Category:African Australian
• :Category:Arab Australian
• :Category:Asian-Australian society
• :Category:Assyrian Australian
• :Category:Caribbean Australian
• :Category:Coptic Australian
• :Category:Mandaean Australians
• :Category:Oceanian Australian
• :Category:Polynesian Australian

:Nominator's rationale: merge, a seemingly uncontroversial C2C nomination at speedy resulted in a very long discussion. My take-away from that discussion is that this sort of categories is entirely unnecessary or undesirable especially in Australia, so we can better upmerge them to the foreign relations parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

{{cot|copy of speedy discussion}}

• :Category:European Australian to :Category:European diaspora in Australia, per C2B/C2C as the standard consensual name for diaspora categories including parent {{Cl|European diaspora in Oceania}}, consistently adopted in CFDs (1, 2, 3, 4...) and also because categories named after adjectives are ambiguous per WP:COPSEP. Place Clichy (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Category:British Australian to :Category:British diaspora in Australia
• :Category:English Australian to :Category:English diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Scottish Australian to :Category:Scottish diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Welsh Australian to :Category:Welsh diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Croatian Australian to :Category:Croatian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Cypriot Australian to :Category:Cypriot diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Danish Australian to :Category:Danish diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Dutch Australian to :Category:Dutch diaspora in Australia
• :Category:French Australian to :Category:French diaspora in Australia
• :Category:German Australian to :Category:German diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Greek Australian to :Category:Greek diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Icelandic Australian to :Category:Icelandic diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Irish Australian to :Category:Irish diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Italian Australian to :Category:Italian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Norwegian Australian to :Category:Norwegian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Polish Australian to :Category:Polish diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Portuguese Australian to :Category:Portuguese diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Serbian Australian to :Category:Serbian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Swedish Australian to :Category:Swedish diaspora in Australia
• :Category:African Australian to :Category:African diaspora in Australia
• :Category:South African Australian to :Category:South African diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Asian-Australian society to :Category:Asian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Arab Australian to :Category:Arab diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Egyptian Australian to :Category:Egyptian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Lebanese Australian to :Category:Lebanese diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Assyrian Australian to :Category:Assyrian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Caribbean Australian to :Category:Caribbean diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Coptic Australian to :Category:Coptic diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Iranian Australian to :Category:Iranian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Iraqi Australian to :Category:Iraqi diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Argentine Australian to :Category:Argentine diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Mandaean Australians to :Category:Mandaean diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Oceanian Australian to :Category:Oceanian diaspora in Australia
• :Category:Polynesian Australian to :Category:Polynesian diaspora in Australia
• :Oppose. In the context of Australia this perspective does not make sense. We consider them to be Australian I think calling it "diaspora" is kind of insinuating that these people aren't "real" Australians. It seems to me to be against Australia's multicultural values.
• :Also, I believe that Australian Wikipedia have decided on a standard already, as seen by the amount you would have to change. AverageFraud (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::It also appears that the categories are already organised as :Category:British Australian -> :Category:Australian people of British descent. This seems like a waste of time. AverageFraud (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::I do feel like you should have consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia AverageFraud (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• :@HiLo48 and @Neegzistuojaand @JML1148 . Would love to hear your thoughts on this. AverageFraud (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::Also, @StormcrowMithrandir AverageFraud (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• : For the thirty or so entries beginning with ":Category:British Australian to :Category:British diaspora in Australia", I don't like either option! Unlike the home of Wikipedia, the USA, here in Australia we rarely describe somebody as British Australian, or any of those other double barrelled labels. (I NEVER do!) People are just Australians, often of diverse ancestry, so diverse and mixed that it would be silly to try list all the elements. I have at least four known ancestries. My wife has two, both different from mine. Think of the children! Those "diaspora" entries just seem obscure and a bit pompous. Most of the people I know who are of at least partly British ancestry have never talked to me about being part of a diaspora. Same for all those other ancestries. Can I suggest just getting rid of these categories completely? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::You know I would actually agree with this. Most Australians are just referred to as Australians. Maybe Indigenous Australians/First Nations Australians as separate makes sense. Asian Australians seems to be in use because of Australia's proximity to Asia. Although it could be seen as controversial that white Australians are considered as just Australians, it is how the term is commonly used. I think that WikiProject Australia would have to figure this out. We might need to have a look at immigration and immigrants. AverageFraud (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::: {{Re|AverageFraud|HiLo48}} I am sorry that the creator of these categories (that's not me) did not consult WikiProject Australia before creating them. I'm just trying, like you, to clean up this mess as much as I can. These "double-barrelled labels" have many problems: as you rightly put it that's most of the time not the way people actually define themselves, also it's generally wrong to call categories using adjectives, and it is ambiguous if these categories are about people individually or groups seen collectively. There are many reasons why we try to keep topic categories and categories for people separate, which are summarised in guideline WP:SEPARATE.
• ::: In my opinion, the worst outcome would be to leave things as they stand now. To alleviate your concerns about the suggested renaming, let me stress that:
• :::# These categories aren't labels for people. In most cases, categories for people are in the format of :Category:Australian people of Greek descent (using an example other that British for clarity). In some cases, some users also create categories for immigrants and expatriates when descent is not appropriate.
• :::# In most cases, people do not need ancestry categories at all. In fact, our categorization guidelines suggest to use only them when it brings relevance to someone's biography (e.g. having British ancestry rarely sets someone apart from other Australians, per guideline WP:EGRS), when reliable sources consistently and constantly define that person by these characteristics (per guideline WP:DEFINE), and when that ancestry is no further than the grand-parents (per guideline WP:COPHERITAGE). Despite this, editors just seem to need to add them by the dozen, which saddens me. ({{diff||1122611812|1122611699|Why do this, really?}}) But again, these people categories are not affected by the present nomination.
• :::# Topic categories for all the stuff that's German etc. in Australia are in fact near-empty containers, which only serve a technical role, however useful. E.g. {{Cl|Italian Australian}}, which I suggest to rename to {{Cl|Italian diaspora in Australia}}, contains no more (and no less) than articles Italian Australians and List of Italian-Australian communities and children :Category:Australian people of Italian descent, :Category:Italian expatriates in Australia, :Category:Italian-Australian culture, and :Category:Italian-Australian history, which is typical. Mere deletion and scattering this content would probably not be an improvement.
• :::# Many sibling categories already use the diaspora format without problem or opposition, which I believe makes it eligible for speedy renaming per WP:C2C: {{Cl|Estonian diaspora in Australia}}, {{Cl|Finnish diaspora in Australia}}, {{Cl|Russian diaspora in Australia}}, {{Cl|Ukrainian diaspora in Australia}}.
• ::: So I kindly ask you to withdraw you opposition to this renaming, which I believe constitutes an improvement, small as it is, and is eligible by our criteria for the speedy renaming of categories. You are of course welcome to still oppose, in which case the immediate result is that we'll be left with the categories as they stand now. Until, some day, someone, maybe me, has the energy to put them through a full discussion at WP:CFD, but that could end with a frustrating no consensus result. Place Clichy (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::::Diaspora says "The word is used in reference to people who identify with a specific geographic location, but currently reside elsewhere." What on earth does "identify with" mean? I'm Australian. I have ancestors from France, Denmark, Scotland, and England, but that was many generations ago. I have never visited those places in my over 70 years of being on this planet. Am I identifying with them? Who are we to declare whether someone identifies with a country they don't live in? A lot of Americans do, because they declare themselves to be Italian-American, or Asian-American, but as I said above, Australians don't. Then there is the multiple ancestry thing. Am I in all four of the diasporas of the countries I have ancestors from? That would seem a bit silly. This is all so unclear. So, what will the rules be for assigning people to diasporas? HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::::Maybe instead of diaspora we use the phrase "ethnic or national descent", this phrasing makes it clear that it is about ancestry. For example "Australians of Asian ethnic or national descent" or Australians of European ethnic or national descent". This makes sense to me as a compromise, as like this is still a encyclopaedia. Diaspora seems to imply that they aren't really Australians. This way makes it clear that they are considered Australians first and foremost. AverageFraud (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::I like your final two sentences. I'm not sure about ethnic or national. Both words have multiple meanings. The only related question on the Australian census asks about ancestry, not ethnicity or nationality. Ancestry is the word I would prefer to see used. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::So, "Australians of Greek ancestry" as opposed to "Greek diaspora in Australia" or "Greek Australian". This makes sense to me. We can follow the ABS's Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) to help with the organisation. AverageFraud (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::: Good point. In fact, categories for people are already at :Category:Australian people of Greek descent and the like, which is how it should be. The categories listed below are just a very minor technical point, really. In a way, you could call each of them "all stuff that has a link to Greece (or Iraq, or Poland...) in Australia besides people" and have very few things directly in them (for Greek stuff, one main article and 3 child categories, for {{C|Australian people of Greek descent|people}}, {{C|Greek expatriates in Australia|expatriates}}, and {{C|Greek-Australian culture|culture}}). They are already parented to parent categories which use diaspora, e.g. {{C|Greek diaspora}}/{{C|Greek diaspora by country}}, whose aim is to bridge categories with similar feature around the world. I don't honestly find that diaspora is insulting or diminishing, especially since articles for people should never be placed directly in a diaspora category, and most people should not be placed in descent categories for all their ancestries anyway. However, the current names are just really really bad, because they don't apply to Australian culture as you so rightly explain it and because they are adjectives. That's why I invite you, again, to withdraw your opposition and allow this technical renaming to proceed. Place Clichy (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::::Why not "Greek Australian society" as opposed to diaspora. That would be a more accurate description. Diaspora seems like the wrong word here. AverageFraud (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::::: This seems to be an acceptable compromise. Would that be just for the Greek category? For the British/E/I/S/W as well? All the below list? Maybe you find that diaspora does not appropriately describe the Australian majority culture, but it does apply to e.g. the Iraqis or Mandaeans. Place Clichy (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Okay, I know that we have just been arguing about semantics. I don't want to argue anymore about how I feel. Can you find a minimum of three sources that confirm that diaspora is used in the Australian context. If you do I will withdraw my opposition. Seems like a simple request. If you can find a list of diasporas in Australia from a high quality source, that would also benefit us when deciding which categories to keep. I'm sorry that it took this long, for me to think of an appropriate solution. AverageFraud (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::::: {{Re|AverageFraud}} "{{tq|Who are we to declare whether someone identifies with a country they don't live in? [...] So, what will the rules be for assigning people to diasporas?}}" No article, no person should be assigned to such a diaspora category. Think of it as a Greek restaurant or a Greek cultural club with a flag displayed on the facade (or Thai, or Peruvian...). That should be in a Greek stuff in Autralia category. People who don't carry a flag with them => they just shouldn't be in that category. It's not for them. But we need to rename them (the categories) anyway. For now. Place Clichy (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::Wrong ping. AverageFraud (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• : {{ping|Place Clichy}} if I were you I'd go to full CfD and propose a split of :Category:European Australian and all of its subcategories to "culture" and "descent" separately. They can still both be parented to a Australia–other country relations. Or even more simple, propose an upmerge of every subcategory to Australia–other country relations. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• :: I intend to do something like that shortly, when I find the practical way to do it (I'm not good at CFDs with many categories). I still believe that there is a consistent set of topic Fooian diaspora in Bar categories, but it is really not in a good state right now. Mostly the work of long-gone and blocked accounts, or even worse, based on topic articles often of little quality and unreliable sources. Place Clichy (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• :::Sounds good to me. AverageFraud (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Strongly oppose. Needlessly long-winded and verbose. The current nomenclature eg 'Chinese Australians', etc is idiomatic, simple, concise and in common usage.StormcrowMithrandir 09:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

{{cob}}

: {{ping|Place Clichy|StormcrowMithrandir|AverageFraud|HiLo48}} pinging contributors of speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

::Merge per nom. It's a solution, not one I like but it works. AverageFraud (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. There may be cases in which a Fooian diaspora in Australia or Fooian-Australian society category may be useful, but in general these do not have a lot of content at this level. Especially, categories named after adjectives in the Fooian Barian format are never useful and always ambiguous. Place Clichy (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. This is an absurd proposal as the two things refer to entirely different concepts. One is the diplomatic relations between one country and another. The other is citizens of Australia with ethnic heritage from another. Chinese-Australians are something entirely different to Australia-China relations and to merge these types of articles is appallingly misleading, not to mention unnecessary when the existing structure is useful and reflects useful, clear concepts.StormcrowMithrandir 00:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• : I think there's a mistake. The category for citizens of Australia of e.g. Chinese heritage is {{Cl|Australian people of Chinese descent}}, and won't change (and BTW it is already a child of {{Cl|Australia–China relations}}). This reaction demonstrates, once again, that the purpose and scope of these "Fooian Barian" categories is the opposite of clear. That's in great part because naming categories with adjectives never works. Place Clichy (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

::* Exactly, throughout the country–country relations tree, "diaspora" categories are part of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::I don't see any reason as to why we need to rename the categories. The term "diaspora" is often used to describe any group of people who live outside of their homeland. However, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a diaspora. Some people use the term "diaspora" to promote a sense of nationalism and exclusion among a particular group of people. For example, some people might use the term "Chinese diaspora" to refer to all people of Chinese descent who live outside of China, regardless of their citizenship or nationality. This can lead to the exclusion of people who identify with other cultures or who have integrated into their host countries. For example in the case of the category "Chinese Australian", I believe that this is a more specific and descriptive term than "Chinese diaspora in Australia". It clearly identifies the category as being about people who are both Chinese and Australian. It also avoids the potential pitfalls of using the term "diaspora". In the case of Chinese people in Australia, the term "Chinese diaspora" can erase some of the differences between Chinese people from different backgrounds. For example, Chinese people in Australia may come from different parts of China, have different religions, and speak different dialects of Chinese. However, when they live together in Australia, they may develop a shared sense of identity as "Chinese Australians." This shared identity can sometimes lead people to overlook the differences between them. I used Chinese as an example because I think that it made my point clearer. AverageFraud (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

::: I disagree that diaspora means {{tq|people who live outside of their homeland}}. I think diaspora refers to people in their homeland, in relations to a heritage (among many different heritages, as people usually have several), and when they claim it only. For content relative to present-day Australia or Australians independently of any heritage (Chinese or British or Peruvian), then they wouldn't be in any of these categories anyway. The nomination here is to merge these useless intermediate categories up one level, not rename them. Of course, there is also the alternative to rename the categories to the format of {{Cl|Asian-Australian society}}, which does not use the word diaspora but avoid most ambiguity problems of the current categories named after adjectives. Place Clichy (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

::::Okay I'll accept that. AverageFraud (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Propose alternative following the above discussion:
• Propose renaming {{Cl|African Australian}} to {{Cl|African-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Arab Australian}} to {{Cl|Arab-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Argentine Australian}} to {{Cl|Argentine-Australian society}}
• Propose keeping {{Cl|Asian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Assyrian Australian}} to {{Cl|Assyrian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|British Australian}} to {{Cl|British-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Caribbean Australian}} to {{Cl|Caribbean-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Coptic Australian}} to {{Cl|Coptic-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Croatian Australian}} to {{Cl|Croatian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Cypriot Australian}} to {{Cl|Cypriot-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Danish Australian}} to {{Cl|Danish-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Dutch Australian}} to {{Cl|Dutch-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Egyptian Australian}} to {{Cl|Egyptian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|English Australian}} to {{Cl|English-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|European Australian}} to {{Cl|European-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|French Australian}} to {{Cl|French-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|German Australian}} to {{Cl|German-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Greek Australian}} to {{Cl|Greek-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Icelandic Australian}} to {{Cl|Icelandic-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Iranian Australian}} to {{Cl|Iranian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Iraqi Australian}} to {{Cl|Iraqi-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Irish Australian}} to {{Cl|Irish-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Italian Australian}} to {{Cl|Italian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Lebanese Australian}} to {{Cl|Lebanese-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Mandaean Australians}} to {{Cl|Mandaean-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Norwegian Australian}} to {{Cl|Norwegian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Oceanian Australian}} to {{Cl|Oceanian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Polish Australian}} to {{Cl|Polish-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Polynesian Australian}} to {{Cl|Polynesian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Portuguese Australian}} to {{Cl|Portuguese-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Scottish Australian}} to {{Cl|Scottish-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Serbian Australian}} to {{Cl|Serbian-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|South African Australian}} to {{Cl|South African-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Swedish Australian}} to {{Cl|Swedish-Australian society}}
• Propose renaming {{Cl|Welsh Australian}} to {{Cl|Welsh-Australian society}}

: This format makes it clear that it is for topics relative to a heritage group seen collectively (such as culture, organizations, restaurants, history etc.) and not for individual people, who are in children categories such as {{Cl|Australian people of Argentine descent}}. This alone is an improvement from the current ambiguous names. {{Ping|Marcocapelle|AverageFraud|HiLo48|StormcrowMithrandir|Qwerfjkl}} would you prefer this alternative? Place Clichy (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

::Yes I prefer this alternative. AverageFraud (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

::I definitely prefer it to what you previously proposed for the categories but the articles themselves should most certainly not be renamed.StormcrowMithrandir 00:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

::Oppose since the descent categories were renamed from "X Australians", I think this is inconsistent with that. I would suggest instead, "X culture in Australia", eg. "African culture in Australia". (t · c) buidhe 06:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:::I think that you are mistaken, there already exists a category called Australians of X descent. This proposal will be the category above that one.

:::So Chinese-Australian society -> Australians of Chinese descent. The article names won't be changed, so the article Chinese Australians will be in the category Australians of Chinese descent. And the category Australians of Chinese descent will be in the category Chinese-Australian society.

:::I think society covers more broadly than culture or diaspora. AverageFraud (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

::::Society is a broader term that encompasses all aspects of human life, including social, political, economic, and cultural aspects. It refers to a group of people who live together in a particular place and share a common way of life.

::::Culture is a narrower term that refers to the shared values, beliefs, and practices of a particular group of people. It is often expressed through art, music, language, and food

::::Diaspora refers to a group of people who have left their homeland and settled in other parts of the world. They may maintain some ties to their homeland, but they also develop their own unique culture and identity.

::::For example, Chinese Australians, the term "society" is often used to emphasize the group's integration into Australian society. It suggests that Chinese Australians are not just a distinct cultural group, but also an active and integral part of Australian society. AverageFraud (talk) 21:06, 19 November 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Sangnyeong Choe clan to :Category:Saknyeong Choe clan

:Nominator's rationale: I think that this is a typo, as the single-page member in the English page is listed as belonging to the "Saknyeong Choe clan". (Alternative is delete the category, until there's a criteria mass of people like the interlanguage linked categories) Mason (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when it can contain at least a handful of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:51, 11 November 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:Films directed by David Zucker. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Films directed by David Zucker (director) to :Category:Films directed by David Zucker

:Nominator's rationale: C2D (David Zucker. Trivialist (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, there is also David W. Zucker, a television producer. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Rename This David Zucker receives far more pageviews than David W. Zucker does, and D.W. Zucker does not have a similar category. Also, the disambiguator is different than in the category below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Rename per non. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:47, 21 November 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:Films with screenplays by David Zucker. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Films with screenplays by David Zucker (filmmaker) to :Category:Films with screenplays by David Zucker

:Nominator's rationale: C2D (David Zucker. Trivialist (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, there is also David W. Zucker, a television producer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Rename This David Zucker receives far more pageviews than David W. Zucker does, and D.W. Zucker does not have a similar category. Also, the disambiguator is different than in the category below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 21 November 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:Indigenous clans of the Pacific Northwest Coast. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Clans and Houses of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast to :Category:Indigenous clans of the Pacific Northwest Coast

:Nominator's rationale: this alternative name is shorter, but I might be missing some nuance Mason (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• At least it should be "clans" instead of "clan". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:*Fixed. Good catch! Mason (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• I had waited to react until possibly some sort of objection would be raised. Since there isn't any reaction, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 11 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Obsolete writing systems to :Category:Extinct writing systems

:Nominator's rationale: Match sister category, :Category:Extinct languages. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

{{cot|copy of speedy discussion}}

• :Category:Obsolete writing systems to :Category:Extinct writing systems – C2C: :Category:Extinct languages. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Support. Mason (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Oppose WP:C2C doesn't seem to apply so I think this should go through normal WP:CFD process. :Category:Extinct languages is in a different category tree from :Category:Obsolete writing systems. :Category:Obsolete writing systems is in :Category:Writing systems (which has no other "Obsolete" or "Extinct" categories) and :Category:Former entities (which doesn't appear to have an "established naming convention.") Referencer12 (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• ::Agree with this, should have discussion toobigtokale (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

{{cob}}

: {{ping|Smasongarrison|Referencer12|Toobigtokale}} pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - From what I can tell, the commonly used word for these is "Obsolescence", with "Obsolete" being used as well. So, using "Obsolete" in this form, would seem to be appropriate. - jc37 11:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• :{{Reply to|Jc37}} In linguistics, it is convention to use the adjective "extinct" to describe a language/writing system that is no longer in use. How did you come to the conclusion that obsolescence/obsolete is more commonly used (sorry if this question comes off as rude, I am just curious how you came to this conclusion)? – Treetoes023 (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• :: Hi Treetoes023 - So first, there is a difference between a language and a writing system. Second, you may want to read the intro to Extinct languages, which talks about the difference between "extinct" and "dead" - both of which are defined by speakers of a spoken language.
• ::As for why I said what I did above, it was based upon search results. I also found "defunct" and "no longer in use". But more predominantly, I found "undeciphered". So anyway, I'm in doubt that there is a "standard convention" for this. - jc37 17:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per above, plus some, like Old Hungarian script may have some revivalist uses to the present. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 11 November 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Wives and girlfriends of association football players}}

:Nominator's rationale: If notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, surely this association is not WP:DEFINING. --woodensuperman 14:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

::Delete per several discussions related to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_4#Category:Footballers'_wives_and_girlfriends, including one comment from that category itself (which was a container for several football-family sports, including both association and gridiron football). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• See also previous discussion ending in no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable, see WAGs, and {{cat|Spouses by occupation of partner}} which shows such categories are well established. GiantSnowman 19:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Keep as per same rationale. OGBC1992 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. A gaggle of names in a category, with no indication of who they are specifically relatedd to, sounds like a list, at best. We have :Category:Wives by occupation of partner, but it seems to me that that's just a collection of "wives of nobility", which has had performers' families, and sports wives/girlfriends added to it. Bad idea. Having a category that has a criteria of the occupation of their partner? Clear WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. - jc37 12:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, I checked a number of articles and it was not a defining characteristic for any of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - this category is an absolute train wreck, it says at the top that it should only be added where being the wife or girlfriend of a footballer is a defining characteristic of the person, yet it includes the likes of Becky G (famous for being a singer), Pamela Anderson (world-famous as an actor, it was honestly news to me that she once dated a footballer for less than two years) and Steph Houghton (famous for being a footballer herself and in all honesty is a better known footballer than her husband!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Further comment - out of interest, why does :Category:Wives by occupation of partner only contain the wives/girlfriends of noblemen, footballers, rugby players, and the Beatles? Why is Pamela Anderson categorised as a wife/girlfriend of a footballer based on a brief relationship which most people won't even know happened but not categorised as a wife/girlfriend of a musician based on her relationship with Tommy Lee which was so well-known that they literally made a TV drama about it......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• :I think this is exactly why these categories should not exist. Being married to someone is not a defining characteristic. People should never be categorised by other people or by their association with other people. WP:OCASSOC. --woodensuperman 12:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per GiantSnowman. StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• The concept of WAG is notable but individual WAGs included in en.wp are nearly always notable on their own, not because they are a WAG. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OCASSOC. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep and trim as usual. Members must be individually notable, and it must be defining for them, but should not be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :But this is the point, it is not defining for any of them. --woodensuperman 12:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete for a small number of these people, being a WAG could be a defining characteristic. For 90+% of the people there, it isn't, so they should never be added to the category. All this category does is create repeated arguments and work because people add tonnes of inappropriate people to it. For example female footballers like Lisa Boattin who are also in relationship with other female footballers- how on earth is this a defining category for them? Everything I said when nominating this the last time is still true, yet people still insist this category should exist and keep disrupting articles. WP:OCASSOC is clear, and for almost everyone in the category, this is not a defining characteristic of their life, and is pushing towards sexism (defining women only by their marriages). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the delete comments, delete per above. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete there isn't any applicable commonality between various wives or spouses of football players for there to be a need for such a category. The categorization of boyfriends/girlfriends is ridiculous per above as non-defining. Respublik (talk) 12:28, 20 November 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 Uncontested for three weeks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Heptalenes to :Category:Benzodihydroheptalenes

:Nominator's rationale: Except for Heptalene itself, these compounds are not heptalenes; instead, they contain a fused cycloheptatriene (as tropone), 1,3-cycloheptadiene, and benzene component. The name is conjectural; I'm not sure if there is a more established name for this class of drugs.

File:Chemical structure of heptalene.png|Heptalene, the parent compound

File:Colchicin.svg|Colchicine; the other two compounds have a similar structure

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:Of course, Heptalene will likely be dropped from the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:36, 11 November 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 Uncontested for more than a month. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Harvard College faculty to :Category:Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences faculty

:Nominator's rationale: Harvard College faculty is an older name for Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences. "FAS is the only faculty responsible for both undergraduate and graduate education. FAS administers the courses offered at Harvard College, the Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), and the Harvard Division of Continuing Education." Mason (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 21:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 11 November 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:Sámi organisations. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Sámi associations to :Category:Sámi organisations

:Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::I have no issue with them being merged, but perhaps it would be better to rename the category as well to Category:Sámi associations and organizations? - Yupik (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::* The convention is just "organizations", this category is part of the tree of :Category:Indigenous organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• OK, but also merge Wikdata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8700788 to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8700846. – Fayenatic London 17:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• :The concepts in those wd items are two different things though in Inari Saami, Northern Saami, Finnish, etc. Not sure about Norwegian and Swedish. So I don't think they should necessarily be merged in wd. - Yupik (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• :: {{ping|Yupik}} does :se:Kategoriija:Sámesearvvit mean "services" as opposed to "organisations"? Even so, its parent :se:Kategoriija:Searvvit ja organišuvnnat combines those two things and is linked to :en:Category:Organizations, and it seems unlikely that anyone would create separate "Sámi organisations" categories in se & smn Wikipedias, so I can't see how it would be helpful for navigation to keep the two wd items separate. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• :::No, it means "associations", "searvi" in the singular. I likely created that combo cat back when I first started because I didn't know what to do with the difference or where to link things. I should fix it eventually. The same word in smn (in the singular) would be "servi", as in Anarâškielâ servi (The Inari Saami Language Association). It's not a big deal though; if they get merged in wd, they can always be unmerged if someone categorizes them separately somewhere outside of enwp. - Yupik (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support per nom. Mason (talk) 22:27, 12 November 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 to delete, therefore purge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Fictional characters with obesity

:Nominator's rationale: Do we actually need a category like this? I don't know if we need to list every article about fictional fatties. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional characters often aren't diagnosed as obese. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support delete (or possibly purge is someone makes a compelling argument that this is defining category.)Mason (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:* updated to keep/purge per LaundryPizza03Mason (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I have listed the current members under a new subheading at Obesity in the United States#See also. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Obesity is often a defining characteristic for these characters, and they are often portrayed stereotypically in the media; see also Social_stigma_of_obesity#In_the_media. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Good point. How about purge and add some clear description to the category? Mason (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Purge per Mason. Defining characteristic, just not in the way the category is currently used. HouseBlaster^talk 13:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Fictional overweight characters. Saying that a character has obesity or not falls under original research most of the time, but we can visibly see that they are overweight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think there's enough characters to maintain this as a viable category when the ones not specifically diagnosed with obesity are removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Oppose rename. I think that would broaden the scope of the category too much. I think that we should stick with obesity as the term because it fits nicely within the parent category of :Category:Works about obesity Mason (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::I do not think it does. Sometimes we must talk differently about fictional characters than real people. Obesity is a real-world medical term, but few of these fictional works specifically call characters "obese". We are conflating medical ailments from the real world with any sort of bulky fictional character, that is strictly original research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::* {{tq|we can visibly see that they are overweight}} implies at least as much original research as obesity. Obesity can be diagnosed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• ::::All right, I can agree with that and have changed my !vote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• If purging means removing every character without diagnosis then I'll happily support that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 11 November 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:Mass media in Ark-La-Tex. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Elite Radio Group to :Category:Mass media in Ark-La-Tex

:Nominator's rationale: A two-station radio group in which both stations are in the same market —and in which the company has no article — seems like a bit of a stretch to warrant a separate category. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:30, 19 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Sultanate of Deli}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::support in principle. But let's make sure that we don't accidentally isolate the child category and lone page member. Mason (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::* Yes, I checked that. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:excellent! Mason (talk) 21:25, 11 November 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 LGBT characters. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 23:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional LGBT characters by gender or sex to :Category:Fictional LGBT characters by gender identity

:Option A: rename and purge, aligning with parent category :Category:LGBT people by gender identity and move :Category:Fictional intersex characters to :Category:Fictional LGBT characters since that is not a gender identity.

: Option B: merge to :Category:Fictional LGBT characters because the category contains rather unrelated subcategories.

:- Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

::I support either solution, but have a mild preference for B. Mason (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Mild preference for Option B. Place Clichy (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Rename & purge or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option B It is simply overcategorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option B Unnecessary sub-level that overlaps with the top. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:09, 13 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:People of the Chincha Islands War by nationality to :Category:People of the Chincha Islands War

:Nominator's rationale: only one subcategory, upmerge to help navigation Mason (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 11 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional blade fighters to :Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional blunt weapon users to :Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional flexible weapons practitioners to :Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners

:Nominator's rationale: All of these fall under WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is no particular need to separate bladed, blunt and flexible weapons, this is overcategorization at its finest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support. I don't think that type of melee weapon is defining. Mason (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, we do not have this distinction for real people either. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 11 November 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 melee weapons practitioners. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Fictional chainsaw fighters}}

:Nominator's rationale: Created by blocked sock account. I was not even aware a "chainsaw fighter" was a thing. Using a chainsaw yes, but that is not defining in the slightest, therefore I suggest deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support in principle. It might be worth looking through the pages to see if any could be added to :Category:Chainsaws Mason (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::Actually, I could see justification for :Category:Chainsaws in popular culture, if we include The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

::Merge to :Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners, as these characters seem to all use chainsaws as weapons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:49, 13 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Fictional Olympic competitors}}

:Nominator's rationale: Created by sock account. WP:NONDEF applies, these characters are not defined by being an Olympic athlete. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Support in principle. It might be worth looking through the pages to see if any could be added to :Category:Olympic Games in fiction. Mason (talk) 15:35, 11 November 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:European untitled nobility

:* Propose merging :Category:Austrian untitled nobility to :Category:Austrian nobility

:* Propose merging :Category:French untitled nobility to :Category:French nobility

:* Propose merging :Category:German untitled nobility to :Category:German nobility

:* Propose merging :Category:Italian untitled nobility to :Category:Italian nobility

:* Propose splitting :Category:Russian untitled nobility to :Category:Russian nobility and :Category:Nobility from the Russian Empire

:* Propose merging :Category:Untitled nobility from the Russian Empire to :Category:Nobility from the Russian Empire

:* Propose merging :Category:Spanish untitled nobility to :Category:Spanish nobility

:* Propose merging :Category:Swedish untitled nobility to :Category:Swedish nobility

:Nominator's rationale: delete/merge/split per WP:OCMISC. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• :Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Untitled nobility is a natural subgroup of the nobility, in some cases with a specific set of rights or organisation. It is not a miscellenous group created specifically for categorisation on Wikipedia, which is what WP:OCMISC aims to stop. Andejons (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:* Then I'd like to see reliable sources for the rights of this specific type of nobility, apart from rights of nobility in general. Admittedly Google is not the most reliable search engine, but when I search there I find nothing but wikis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::You can look up the organisation of Swedish nobility, where untitled nobility during some periods voted as two separate classes. Anyway, the main point is that this is not the type of categories OCMISC is about. (Also, the ideal would be to rename e.g. :Category:German nobles by title so that untitled nobles can be categorised next to titled nobles.)

::Andejons (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::* Hypothetically we might split the Swedish category to knights and esquires, the two classes, except that they are not defining characteristic at all, nor is "untitled" defining. The people in the Swedish category are described as nobility at best. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

::::"Untitled" defines the type of nobility to an adequate degree. However, if it is the word that is the problem, another solution would be to rename to e.g. "Spanish nobles", to separate people from the general topic.

::::Andejons (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• {{ping|Andejons}} in principle I would not object to "nobles", except in practice there aren't nobles by nationality categories while on the other hand the nobility categories are full of biographies. I think this particular objection may well be food for a separate nomination, but it should not be an obstruction to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The titled/untitled distinction is important and defining. Either delete the categories or leave them, but don't merge them. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 26 November 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: Forward merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Military personnel of the Napoleonic Wars from the Russian Empire to :Category:Russian military personnel of the Napoleonic Wars

:Nominator's rationale: overlapping category Mason (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Rather reverse merge, as Russian Empire people will contain many non-Russian people too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Merge as nom per the reasoning above. Place Clichy (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Merge which way?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Forward merge Regardless of whether Russia and the Russian Empire are the same, most entries in :Category:Military personnel of the Russian Empire by war use "Russian military personnel of X". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 19 November 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. --Trialpears (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:People from Van Nuys to :Category:People from Van Nuys, Los Angeles

::* Propose renaming :Category:Van Nuys to :Category:Van Nuys, Los Angeles

:Nominator's rationale: Making it consistant with the names of similar categories which deal with people from neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California: i.e.: People from Echo Park, Los Angeles, People from Studio City, Los Angeles, etc., etc. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

: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 Despite the large number of comments they made here, Thinker78 has failed to convince anyone else of their position. On deleting vs. merging, the one person to specifically analyze merge vs. delete preferred deletion, and nobody else cared. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Hatnote|Note to closer: There are other concurrent discussions all pertaining to :Category:Politicians by cause of death in which similar or the same arguments are being made.}}

:* Propose merging :Category:Killings of politicians to :Category:Politicians by cause of death

:Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

::* Oppose. Category:Politicians by cause of death is a container category and there are politicians who were killed but neither assassinated nor executed. According to a PetScan analysis there could be 2000 entries. Taking out inaccurate topics just by halving, maybe 1000. Regards,

::Thinker78 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::I was taking a look again. Cause of death of politicians could be

::#health issue,

::#old age,

::#{{tick}}animal attack,

::#{{nayg}}insect or similar attack,

::#{{tick}}accident,

::#{{tick}}natural phenomena,

::#{{tick}}suicide,

::#{{Yeag}}homicide (killings).

::The reason I created category as killings not homicide as its parent category is because I did not find online "homicide of politicians" nearly as much as common as "killings of politicians" but killings and homicide in this context seems to be a synonym. I can't find politicians victims of homicide with Ngram either. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:::I think that I'm missing something here, because right now there's no need to isolate the killings categories from other notable causes of death. Mason (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 02:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just delete, :Category:Politicians by cause of death suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It seems currently as mostly unneeded containerization. The singular article in this category could be recategorized, or have category built for him (and others in similar circumstances, which should number a few more). Allowing for a container cat level removal. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Non-targeted killings of politicians, taking into account the previous points in this thread. Also, my intention when creating this category was to include politicians who were victims of homicide but were not assassinated, executed, among other categories. Regards,

::Thinker78 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

::Comment. I am working on the category as we speak, making some cleanup about the petscan query, which resulted downsizing possible entries to about 140. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:::I am having issues finding pages because the intersection Homicide and Politicians in a PetScan query is not being useful because it brings too many unrelated pages. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

:Comment. I am adding entries to [Category:Politicians by cause of death] of deaths in addition and other than homicides. Thinker78 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

::Request:I'd encourage you ({{ping|Thinker78}}) to slow down on creating more categories like this, until these discussions are resolved. Many of the same concerns keep popping up in your new categories as well. Mason (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::I agree, I will stop creating categories under [Category:Politicians by cause of death] until these discussions are resolved. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Comment. Per WP:CATDEF, reliable sources [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=%22Killings+of+politicians%22&btnG= commonly and consistently] refer to killings of politicians. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

::* These sources mainly refer to assassinations, even when they use the word killings. You could have a point when you would propose to merge or rename all "assassinated" categories to "murdered" because sources are not carefully making that distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

::*:At first I was trying to create the :Category:Politicians victims of homicide but then I saw that [Category:Killings of politicians] was having ngram entries so I decided for the latter. My effort started after finding out that Roy McGann was not assassinated but died after taking part in a shootout with rivals. My idea was to categorize politicians who were victims of homicide but did not fit in the available categories at the time, namely, assassinated, executed, duels. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete. While it is interesting to have categories for violent deaths of politicians, trying to differentiate between killing, murders, assassinations, manslaughter, shootings etc. is just not efficient, because sources and editors won't follow with enough consistency. Place Clichy (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• :There are many categories, specially those that encompass ancient times of obscure subjects, that neither sources nor editors follow up on with consistency. Unless there is a guideline about that, I think that shouldn't be a reason to delete categories because there are niche subjects that would suffer as a result. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 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 numbers and strength of arguments weigh in favor of deletion. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|George Platt Lynes}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Cot|copy of speedy discussion}}

• :Category:George Platt Lynes to :Category:20th-century American photographers – C2F. Mason (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose speedy There are also 4 files in the category outside the eponymous article, and thus C2F doesn't apply. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Cob}}

: {{ping|Smasongarrison|Armbrust}} courtesy ping to contributors of speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Rename to :Category:Images by George Platt Lynes, remove George Platt Lynes from the category & add it instead to the category description. I had orignially intended to add an article about the documentary about Lynes, {{ill|Hidden Master: The Legacy of George Platt Lynes|qid=Q119632644|short=y}} (2023). However, the film has not yet been in general release & has been only screened at film festivals. Once it has been released, I expect to see reviews & coverage that would establish its notability.

::There is a need for a category for the images because it would otherwise be difficult for readers to find the fair use images by Lynes. Due to the restrictions of fair use, these images are not displayed or addressed by the article. Thus, this is not a {{tq|category that covers exactly the same topic}} & WP:OCEPON does not apply because it is a content category (see WP:PROJCATS). I therefore strongly oppose the outright deletion because of this structural need, but would support the renaming. Peaceray (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::If {{u|Marcocapelle}} would agree to the renaming, I would boldy make the move without a redirect. Peaceray (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::* That does not make sense either. :Category:Non-free biographical images is diffused by year, not by photographer. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::*:How do you propose that we find non-free images by Lynes on enwiki then? Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::*:* They should pop up in "what links here" at the page of George Platt Lynes. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Really? Do you seriously think that the typical user would know to do that to find non-free images on enwiki? Do you honestly do that for yourself? Peaceray (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• :Support per nom Mason (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Non-free files are typically sorted by subject or work, not by author. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 19 November 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: selectively merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional characters who can morph animal or plant forms to :Category:Fictional shapeshifters

:Nominator's rationale: Clear WP:OVERLAPCAT with the category proposed as a target. The difference between animal/plant or human shapeshifters is trivial at best - what is most important is simply that they can change forms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• If kept, split to :Category:Fictional characters who can morph animal forms and :Category:Fictional characters who can morph plant forms if they can specifically morph to either of the two. Characters who can morph to both and any forms should be moved to :Category:Fictional shapeshifters anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Marcocapelle}} There is already a :Category:Fictional therianthropes for that first one, so it's not necessary. The amount of fictional characters who can solely become plants is very small (perhaps nonexistent? Unsure) so a separate plant morpher category would fall under WP:SMALLCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :* You are right, a :Category:Fictional characters who can morph plant forms is actually very unlikely. Then support merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge Rundown, based on article contents:
• :Aku (Samurai Jack): Redirect to an article which describes the character as a shapeshifter, but provides no further detail
• :Jolen: Can transform into plants, and is already in :Category:Fictional characters with plant abilities.
• :Jon Snow (character): Article doesn't mention shapeshifting.
• :Bran Stark: Can transform into animals and plants.
• :Rickon Stark: Article doesn't mention shapeshifting.
• :Robb Stark: Article doesn't mention shapeshifting.
• :Frank Zhang: In the target section of the redirect, he is described as transforming into an animal, but it is unclear if he can transform into other things.
• :All others: Can transform into animals. Recommend placing into :Category:Fictional therianthropes while the rest are merged or purged.
• I will remove all the ones that don't mention shapeshifting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Per Laundry's suggestion, selectively merge any pages in this category concerning characters who exclusively shapeshift into animals under :Category:Fictional therianthropes, then merge any remaining pages about shapeshifters who can turn into plants or other non-animal forms under :Category:Fictional shapeshifters. AHI-3000 (talk) 08:01, 2 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. The only opposition centered on why the converse would be a defining category. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Soviet people of Russian descent}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete, this has no added value since the majority of Soviet people was of Russian ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:*Keep: The non-Russian peoples played a significant role. Under the surface of the official Soviet identity ethnic identities were very important. Discrimination against non-Russian peoples included at least ethnic cleansing, maybe also genocide (see e.g. Holodomor). Rsk6400 (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Yes, but this category isn't about non-Russian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Just as useless as German people of Prussian descent. Place Clichy (talk) 19:35, 15 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Fictional equestrians}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF - it simply doesn't seem defining that any character listed in this category is a horse rider. I'm not going to say "ah, John Marston, the famous equestrian" - what's defining is that he is a cowboy. A textbook example of overcategorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, these aren't fictional sportspeople. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete unless we can find some examples to categorize. There certainly are examples, like George Sherston in Memoirs of a Fox-hunting Man and Alec Ramsay (just created redirect) in The Black Stallion, but I don't know of any with articles. I agree that cowboys and cavalryman both ride horses (so do knights), but aren't really part of equestrian fiction. Jahaza (talk) 20:23, 16 November 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. There is no consensus on whether Sailor Venus should belong in the target category, but that can be resolved independently of the CfD. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional volleyball players to :Category:Fictional sportspeople

:Nominator's rationale: Created by blocked sock. This is a WP:SMALLCAT and is members should be merged into the male or female subcategories of :Category:Fictional sportspeople, although I find it dubious whether it is defining for Sailor Venus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge and purge per nom. Sailor Venus surely does not belong in fictional sportspeople. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: not really a strong opinion here, just found it amusing to find this nomination sandwiched where it is: "fictional mermaids and mermen", "fictional harpies", "fictional volleyball players", "fictional centaurs", "fictional fauns". I'm inclined to agree with including volleyball players among other groups of fantastic beasts. No strong opinion about Sailor Venus, not having watched the anime, although the article suggests that inclusion in the category may be justified: if playing volleyball is one of a character's defining characteristics, then categorization as a fictional volleyball player makes sense. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 11 November 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 12:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional fauns to :Category:Fictional human–animal hybrids

:Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. There is only one non-redirect article in the category and it is currently too small to be necessary. Tumnus can probably be dual merged into :Category:Fauns in popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Lean oppose. The size of the category makes this a better case than it was for harpies or centaurs, but I still think that specificity is good, and the category has potential for expansion. I can't see any advantage to wading through dozens of entries for other fictional creatures looking for the few that are fauns—and the fact that there are currently two only makes that case stronger. I know about Mr. Tumnus, but I'd never have found the other one in the category it's being lumped in with under this proposal. Even though the category is currently small, it's very helpful to be able to find the exact kind of being you're looking for, and I see no advantages to the merge. It's much more likely that readers will be searching for one or two specific types of creatures, than for a broad list of all fictional hybrids. P Aculeius (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge with no opposition to recreate if necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. HouseBlaster^talk 13:15, 29 November 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) HouseBlaster^talk 23:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Laroche family to :Category:Dessalines family

:Nominator's rationale: small cat; only one member of the family (I added a redirect for his daughter). Merge into the larger political family he's related to. Mason (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• How are these families related? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• :Fair question. So Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche's uncle is Cincinnatus Leconte, who was the great-grandson of Jean-Jacques Dessalines. And as I spell this out, it's not actually clear to me if Laroche is related to the Dessalines... 🤷 Mason (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Just delete per nom's further explanation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Merge or delete? Mason, do you support deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 05:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::support deletion Mason (talk) 21:06, 11 November 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:Luxembourgian expatriates. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Luxembourgian expatriates by occupation to :Category:Luxembourgian expatriates

:Nominator's rationale: one category in here, not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Similar cats exist for expatriates of other nations. There is an established category tree precedent. The creation of other sub-categories would be reasonable and could be easily populated. The nominator has made several poorly thought through nominations recently that has not considered category expansion and the way that topics intersect with larger established category trees.4meter4 (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :I considered exactly what you spelled out, but felt that that present state of the category with only one subcategory, the navigation costs were not worth the benefits. Mason (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support for now, it is not a large established tree at all, very few countries have a category like this. This vote is without prejudice to recreation of the category when a few more occupation subcategories are created that are reasonably well populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per nom, without prejudice for recreation. At this step it is a useless layer. Place Clichy (talk) 22:46, 15 November 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. Category currently contains 4 subcategories. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Ballets by topic to :Category:Ballets

:Nominator's rationale: Only one category, that doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. It’s part of several larger category trees. Other stage works and/or narrative genres such as plays, operas, musicals, films, books, etc are sorted by topic. Additionally, there are many ballets (most of them) not sorted by topic as of yet so there is definitely room for expansion of sub cats. The answer here is to start creating more categories and populate them, not merge.4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support for now, this just makes navigation unnecessarily complicated. This is without prejudice to recreation of the category when a few more topic subcategories are created and well populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep – That category is a de facto container category, it currently contains no articles. Up-merging would pollute that category. Otherwise, what 4meter4 said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:* While the parent is the facto a container category, it will still be a container category after the merge, because the nominated category also contains no articles. So this is not a valid reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::@Marcocapell. That isn't accurate. A merge removes the cat from the :Category:Works by topic tree, so it is a necessary container category with two parent articles in different cat structures. Additionally, I created several sub-cats prior to Michael Bednarek's post here. So it was a relevant container category at the time Michael made his comment. 4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::* It would not remove the content from the :Category:Works by topic tree because e.g. :Category:Ballets about war is still part of :Category:Works about warfare. I note that this discussion has become moot though. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::*:And even though @4meter4 has assumed otherwise. I did look to ensure that the category wouldn't have been isolated. Mason (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Update.:@{{u|Marcocapelle}} and {{u|Mason}} I have now created several more sub cats so the reasoning behind this nom is no longer relevant. I know there are more ballets with articles that would fit under these topics. It's just a matter of hunting them down and further populating the cats. Ballet articles in general lack good categorization as both WP:WikiProject Dance and WP:WikiProject Ballet have been inactive for a long time and did not have many participants to begin with. This is a problem that should have been solved through editing and should never have been brought here.4meter4 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :I appreciate your efforts. However, I disagree that it shouldn't have been brought here. Had it not been brought here, the category would have never been populated. Mason (talk) 21:10, 11 November 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 :Category:Politicians killed in duels, merge :Category:Politicians' accidental deaths to :Category:Accidental deaths, and merge :Category:Politicians' deaths due to natural disasters to :Category:Deaths due to natural disasters. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Hatnote|Note to closer: There are other concurrent discussions all pertaining to :Category:Politicians by cause of death in which similar or the same arguments are being made.}}

:* Propose merging :Category:Politicians killed in duels to :Category:Duelling fatalities

:* Propose merging :Category:Politicians' accidental deaths to :Category:Accidental deaths

:* Propose merging :Category:Politicians' deaths due to natural disasters to :Category:Deaths due to natural disasters

:Nominator's rationale: This death has the same problem as the rest of the politician death categories [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_9#Category:Politicians'_deaths_due_to_animal_attacks], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_29#Category:Killings_of_politicians]. The intersection is not defining Mason (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• keep the duels category; as that has RS and is a notable intersection. Merge the rest per nom.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• :what does RS mean in the context? @4meter4 Mason (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge at least the accidental deaths and natural disasters, per nom and 4meter4. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overly strict interpretation of guideline. 1. Per Guideline: "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." 2. Although WP:COPDEF states, "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics", at the same time it states, "not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization". Dying in a certain way is certainly something that warrants categorization if there are a number of minimum entries. It is one of the most crucial events in a person's life. 3. Per WP:PARENTCAT, "an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible".

  Examples of defining characteristics in the categories at hand,

1. Burr–Hamilton duel -notable death in duel
2. Death and state funeral of Lech and Maria Kaczyński -notable accidental death
3. Beatriz de la Cueva -notable death in natural disaster

:Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 20:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::No one is disputing that the manner of death is defining. The question is about whether the intersection adds something unique. Like why is it important to know that someone who is a politician died in an accident (A*B), more than that they were a politician and that they died in a accident (A) + (B). Mason (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::See my PARENTCAT entry in my previous comment. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::::I don't see how Parent category is relevant here. The question is whether the intersection is meaningful. None of those examples address anything about how the notability of the death manner interacts with the fact that the person is a politician. There needs to be added value. Mason (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::You want the categories to be merged to a less specific parent category. That's how PARENTCAT is relevant here. As I stated previously, I do believe the intersection is meaningful enough. I don't see how you come to your conclusion that "none of those examples address anything about how the notability of the death manner interacts with the fact that the person is a politician". I have the opposite impression. I guess each mind is its own world.

:::::Burr and Hamilton were both politicians and their duel was due to their political differences. Lech Kaczynski was a politician, president of Poland at the time of his death in a very notable air crash. Beatriz de la Cueva was a Guatemalan politician who was named governor who died in a very notable natural disaster that is taught in elementary school in Guatemala. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::For me, I've been convinced by the dueling example, as was able to find many similar examples. So I appreciate that.

::::::However, I don't see how a death in a plane crash for a politician is uniquely distinctive. Would any equally sudden death (like via a heart attack) have a different impact on politics?

::::::I don't think so for either the aircrash or the natural disaster. I can see it for an assassination like Shinzo Abe, or a suicide. But I really don't see how an alternative, albeit less exciting death would have a different impact for a politician who died in an airplane crash. It's disruptive because the politician is dead, not because of the nature of their death.

::::::I don't think that parent category is a useful argument here, because you're effectively arguing that the category exists therefore we should use it. But the question is whether the category should exist. If we applied it like you're wanting, it would be impossible to delete a category. Mason (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I think it is reasonable to categorize politicians by cause of death, reagardless if it was in line of duty or not. For that there is the :Category:Line of duty deaths. I think that per WP:CATDEF reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to causes of death of politicians, unless for privacy reasons or lack of knowledge among other reasons they don't.

:::::::Also, local politicians who don't have the recognition of say Abraham Lincoln are likely to have much less information about them. But this doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same categorization principle of globally notable personalities. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to keep the duels one and merge the other two; because a politician engaged in a duel feels more defining than other manners of death, and would likely have more impact or repurcussions than a natural disaster. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 18:06, 19 November 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) Mason (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Murals by topic to :Category:Murals

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as this only has one category in it that doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::I created this cat fairly recently, other cats can be created for it easily enough. All of the other murals are either undiffused in :Category:Murals by city or :Category:Murals by country, having a topic container is necessary for parity with the parent cat on paintings and is pretty par for the course for artwork cats. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::Ok, that makes sense. I think that if you added some very common subjects, modeled off of other categories like: "Category:Paintings by subject", that would be sufficient and helpful in encouraging others to contribute. Mason (talk) 03:29, 11 November 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:Health-related conspiracy theories. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Medical-related conspiracy theories to :Category:Medicine-related conspiracy theories

:Nominator's rationale: Ungrammatical name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not seeing a grammatical error here. Additionally the proposed change is problematic; at least in terms of US English. In America, medicine is typically understood to mean drugs specifically whereas “medical” is a broader term that can refer to medical practices/treatments not involving drugs. I don’t think the proposed change would accurately reflect the category content; at least not in relation to US English.4meter4 (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps circumvent med entirely and rename to :Category:Healthcare-related conspiracy theories. Just a suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::I’m not sure that would work either as some of these conspiracy theories are not about the treatment of disease but the origin of disease. (Such as China manufactured Covid-19 as a biological weapon; or HIV was a man made virus, etc.) None of that is “healthcare” related but it is “medical” related.4meter4 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:::Comment. How about Health-related conspiracy theories? Mason (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

::::That would work.4meter4 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

::::* That is a quick consensus then. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support alt rename to :Category:Health-related conspiracy theories, or, as an alt-alt, :Category:Healthcare-related conspiracy theories. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 18:04, 19 November 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:Australian jurists. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:People in Australian law to :Category:Australian legal professionals

:Nominator's rationale: rename to make it clearer that people in the category are Australian nationals. (alternatively this could be merged to Australian people by occupation) Mason (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, Australia is the only country with a category like this and it does not seem worthwhile to build a whole tree on this concept (considering that Australia is one of the better covered countries in en.wp). If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Australian jurists, due to overlapping scope and to match other subcategories of :Category:Jurists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Australian jurists, per LaundryPizza03. It is unlikely that legal amateurs will get notoriety in significant numbers to make a difference between the two notions. Place Clichy (talk) 07:46, 21 November 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:I-Kiribati expatriates. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:I-Kiribati expatriates by occupation to :Category:I-Kiribati expatriates

:Nominator's rationale: only one category in here, that doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 22:48, 15 November 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.