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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former Al-Qaeda leaders to Category:Al-Qaeda leaders

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we should have former+job categories. In the case of these guys, it seems most of them were "retired" from their jobs at Al Qaeda thanks to a well-placed hellfire missile or some other form of termination. In any case, I don't think we should separate them out - keep them in the parent, whether alive, dead, or in prison - if they were an Al-Qaeda leader they should all be together. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's important to see who is still active and who isn't. We do the same with organized crime members and people on the FBI most wanted list. Stefanomione (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not like Category:Former_gang_members, where the people are notable for having been part of, and then leaving, a gang. The bulk of guys in this category are only "former" because they're dead. As such, we don't need the category, as we don't distinguish between living/dead in most categories. I just found Category:FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives, where all members of the top 10 list, presently or not, are in the category, which is reasonable. I will nominate Category:Former_FBI_Most_Wanted_Terrorists for deletion under the same rationale.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merg Division of living and dead people in this manner is not good for categories. A category like Category:People who defected from Al-Queda might work, but that is not what this category is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- WE do not normally allow a present/former split for categories. There are only a few exceptions, including some cases peopulated and depopulated by templates. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 19:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Propose merging Category:Swedish people of Bosniak descent to Category:Swedish people of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent

Nominator's rationale: Duplication of an existing category JMHamo (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn... JMHamo (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "Bosniak" ≠ "Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "Bosnian". "Bosniaks" generally refers to an ethnic group, often referred to as "Bosnian Muslims". Bosniaks constitute one of the ethnicities that are present in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The nominated category refers to an ethnicity; the target category refers to a nationality. Both have independent trees: Category:People of Bosniak descent and Category:People of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent. There will be overlap between the two, but they are not identical. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Good Olfactory. --Esc2003 (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Symbols of Dionysus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Being a symbol of Dionysus is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of things like ivy and wine. The Ampelos article is in another Dionysus category. DexDor (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Great for a list/article, bad for a category as not defining. Many things are "symbols" of something else - a god, a religion, a city, a country, but that is almost never defining for the object itself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not defining to the articles in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Washington County, Maryland employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This scheme seems bizarre. The sole contents is well categorized elsewhere, but I don't think we have elsewhere a scheme of "Employees by county that they work in". Delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:County officials in Maryland into which this content could potentially be put.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Categorizing people by what county employed them is not a good scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Employees to Category:Employee relations

Nominator's rationale: As is, this category seems to suggest it will contain employees, but it doesn't - rather it contains articles about employee relations, so rename to be more clear. The other option is to delete and merge up, since the bulk of articles about "Employment" also deal with "Employees", for obvious reasons. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename As per nom.--Penbat (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to reflct contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Artists by publisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Artists by record label, all contents are already there. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former Facebook employees to Category:Facebook employees

Nominator's rationale: We don't usually do "former" categories. If someone is notable for having been a facebook employee, that notability remains even if they leave the company. Otherwise, we'll have to track every time an exec leaves a company and update their categories accordingly. Merge up and delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per squazillions of precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge We avoid "former" categories in all except a few specific cases, that are justified for reasons that do not exist here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge presnet/former split is not allowed for categories normally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Woman entertainers to Category:Women by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Another mid-level gendered container category. The parent contains a broad variety of different types of entertainer, most of which are not separated by gender. I don't see any need for this container; upmerge to Category:Women by occupation is sufficient. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: The category was not tagged with Template:Cfr. Accordingly, the category has been tagged and  Relisted at 2014 MAR 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional cowboys to Category:Fictional cowboys and cowgirls

Nominator's rationale: Not all of them are 'boys'. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than having two categories. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category: Fictional cowfolk ? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No article/dictionary/theasurus exists on the English Wikipedia that is both more appropriate or concise while ephasising the keypoint then the word "cowboy" unfortunately. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename at times inclusivity trumps brevity. People are not even agreed that females engaged in this can be called "cowboys", and the term "cowgirl", especially in recent fiction, has seemed to be the preferred one, so we should reflect that here. No one ever calls Jessie from toy story anything but a "cowgirl".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. As noted, this was never tagged, and it was nominated only two months before. Further renominations should wait. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional swordsmen to Category:Fictional swords practitioners

Nominator's rationale: Consistant with other Category:Fictional martial artists practitioners. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose this was just discussed a month ago, I don't think there's such a problem with this category. Swords practitioners is just bulky, and the majority of other categories are Category:Swordsmen, after the article. Keep, don't rename. Also, please tag the category when you nominate it - if you use twinkle it makes it easier.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category: Fictional swash bucklers ? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - This will likely be relisted, since it apparently wasn't tagged, but regardless, we shouldn't be categorising people (much less fictional characters) by items that can be removed from the character. And that definitely includes weapons. And anyone wanting to claim that a character carrying a sword should be considered a martial artist should do some research. First, it's not defining to merely be carrying a sword in medeval (or even classical) fiction. Also, the martial art of the use of a sword varies. Fencing being one broad term. And as I look over the cat, there is no way to tell just by looking, which sword-related martial art each character supposedly is a practitioner of. And this without talking about fictional martial arts (some of which are being developed into real martial arts, like Jedi saber usage). This is just a too-broad hodge-podge of stuff. Oh, and how does one define a sword, for that matter? : ) - Delete this and any other category based upon some item a person make carry or have taken away. jc37 18:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long as the article is at swordsmanship, swordsman is the standard name. If people feel that is no longer the common name (an argument which I see few advancing), than they should take it up in an attempt to rename the article, and then try to apply the rename to the categories. Commonname trumps any desire for gender inclusiveness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I see several issues with that. The first is that while apparently anyone carrying a sword may be called a "swordsman", not all "swordsmen" practice "swordsmanship". Second there are characters who carry blades, which through WP:OR are being called "swords". is a lightsaber a sword? why or why not? do we have references? what about the katar? The need for references here and the lack thereof, is telling.

  And finally, in the intro to the article you mentioned it says this: "Swordsmanship refers to the skills of a swordsman, a person versed in the art of the sword. The term is modern, and as such was mainly used to refer to smallsword fencing, but by extension it can also be applied to any martial art involving the use of a sword."

  So "be extension" this category is far too broad, the members are included for non-defining (see WP:CAT) reasons. And finally there is a rather large difference between carrying a object (a sword) and having a skill (knowing a style of swordsmanship, like fencing). We do not and should not categorise ANYONE based upon some object they carry, ever. - jc37 18:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  what exactly makes you think this is intended to cover anyone who carries a sword? I'd be fine purging it of people like Frodo, who carried a sword but never demonstrated real skill. As long as we limit it to people skilled in swordsmanship I see no problems. There may be an equivalent knifemanship cat for people skilled at close fighting with daggers but I can't think of any.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes me think that? Several reasons, including how the category is currently being used (as even you note).

  And I've already established that swordsmanship as a term is too broad for categorisation.

  To use another example, swordmanship as a performance art would not necessarily be considered a martial art, yet would fall under this category. For example, belly dancers and blade dancing immediately come to mind (See this, and this, and this, for just a few examples). It's an art with a martial weapon, should such fictional characters be included? As I said, the term is just simply too broad for categorisation.

  And as far as knifesmanship this comes back around to the problems of defining what a sword is. if it's any blade with a hilt then even knives are included. And if you want to say it needs to be X in length, good luck on the references, as they vary going back to antiquity.

  I suppose I could support a rename to Category:Fictional fencers for now (per the long history of the term fencing, and even due to the swordsmanship article itself), pruning the members, and upmerging the subcats.

  This, though, with a want to see in the future a group nom on the parent Category:Fictional martial artists and its subcats changed from X-ists to X practitioners or practitioners of X, or the like. - jc37 17:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Endling to Category:Endlings

Nominator's rationale: Since this is a set category, it should be plural. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Category was named based upon the parent article's name as opposed to... I don't know... logic? Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 10. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Organized crime people to Category:People associated with organized crime
• Propose renaming Category:Astronomy people to Category:People associated with astronomy

Nominator's rationale: While the proposed rename is longer, it is more in line with other categories in the parent category Category:People by association ("People associated with Foo", not "Fooian people"). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose People associated with organized crime that makes it excessively broad. If you're shaken down in a protection racket, you are now associated with organized crime. If you were in a restaurant during a mob hit, you are now associated with organized crime. If you sang in a stageshow in a Busy Seagal casino, you are now associated with organized crime. If you were a member of the Teamsters during the mobbed up period, you are now associated with organized crime. If you son was accidentally killed by a carbomb in a drug war, you are now associated with organized crime. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep and add Keep Category:Organized crime people for the members of organized crime; add as its parent category Category:People associated with organized crime where people like writers about organized crime and victims of organized crime can be placed; they should not (as is currently true) be in the same category as the criminals Hmains (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indian Women administrators to Category:Indian women in politics, Category:Indian Administrative Service officers

Nominator's rationale: This is a rather vague category. The sole member is a Chief Information Commissioner, but we don't have a gender neutral category for that anyway. Better just to upmerge the contents. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Per nom. This is a split too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian women in crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't have a broader Category:Women criminals category tree into which this can be added. Women and men commit different crimes in different places for different reasons, but I don't think we need a broad-based "women + crime" grouping. Subcategories like Category:Female murderers can be created if gender+particular crime is notable, but this grouping of nationality+gender+committed a crime isn't. Delete per WP:EGRS. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember the context in which I created the category. Agree per Obiwankenobi. AshLin (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, this ought to be Category:Indian women convicted of crime. However, I am not sure we need it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Six-man football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one "topic" category here; the rest is just schools which presumably play this sport. Delete as not defining of the schools, and not needed for one article. Note: the child Category:Schools that play six man football is up for deletion as well. Given the effort that went into this we should give the creator a chance to listify. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Until we get other articles on the topic itself (like when it becomes pro or something, I don't know, we lack the articles now thought).John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is being used as a performacne by performer category for schools that play it. This is not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find it hard to believe that school districts are defined by the sports played at their schools. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Women in the Iraq War and Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Female hostages in Iraq to Category:Women in the Iraq War and Category:Hostages

Nominator's rationale: I don't see a need for a gendered category here, nor is there a broader "Female hostages by country" tree into which this can fit - we don't even divide "Hostages" by gender. As such, this should be deleted. Note the parent is up for deletion as well, for a different reason - if the parent is kept, this one should be selectively upmerged to Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Women in the Iraq War. Stefanomione (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note: women in the Iraq war was not nominated, it was a merge target - I just made this more clear.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Category:Female hostages in Iraq to Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq. Stefanomione (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. This really seems to reflect the media attention to one person, but there is no reason to split hostages by gender, and if we want to do that, we need to do it throughout the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Foreign hostages in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Foreign hostages in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We already have a Category:Hostages by nationality category; I'm not convinced we need this one. For one, it underlines a rather strong bias - there have been thousands of Iraqis taken hostage and killed, but the only category we have is for foreign hostages. If kept, it would be better to create a tree of "Hostages by country where held" or something, and not separate the "foreign" from the "local" hostages. Ultimately, however, I don't think it's needed - better to just classify these people correctly in the Category:Hostages by nationality tree and leave it at that. This works much better as a list, since in any case the bulk of the hostages may not qualify for an article themselves. See Missing_white_woman_syndrome for further elaboration of this phenomena (e.g. focus on victims from a particular place/race/gender), which we should avoid per NPOV, even if sources are more prevalent for "western" hostages. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With each hostage-taking, the political impact/price is/was considerable, sometimes it influences/d legislation in the "host-country". Stefanomione (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even though I created one of these categories, I believe the nominator has presented the case very well and I have no other opinion but to agree with him. The categories are also redundant to the already existing categorisation system of Category:Hostages by nationality, so perhaps there is no need for these categories. Mar4d (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is best to categorize just by nationality and location, not by a mix of the two. What if we had an Iraq-born, still holding Iraqi citizenship member of the US military taken hostage in Iraq? Would they belong in this category or not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- all three are reasonably well populated. I think they all relate to the captives of insurgents (or plain criminals). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Albany, Minnesota to Category:People from Stearns County, Minnesota

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 14:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Second cities of provinces in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This could easily spawn category proliferation - 3rd largest city in the province, 4th, etc. There's no real need for the category in the first place. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another problem with this category is that it is not a permanent characteristic. Cities population changes, so do we include every city that ever was a second-most populous city in a province, or do we only include the current one. The answer is, we should have lists that can tell how long this has been the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A thoroughly unnecessary category. If it should exist at all, it should be a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wales under-17 international footballers to Category:Wales youth international footballers
• Propose merging Category:Wales under-18 international footballers to Category:Wales youth international footballers
• Propose merging Category:Wales under-19 international footballers to Category:Wales youth international footballers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only top youth international levels should have their own category. – Michael (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per past consensus at TFD, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 12#Category:Croatia under-16 international footballers and others. GiantSnowman 10:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per GiantSnowman JMHamo (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Turkey youth international footballers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Turkey under-17 international footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Turkey under-19 international footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only top youth international levels should have their own category. – Michael (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Turkey youth international footballers per past consensus at TFD, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 12#Category:Croatia under-16 international footballers and others. GiantSnowman 10:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per GiantSnowman... JMHamo (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per precedent. If notable at all, it is likely to be because they later played professionally. The age split is not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. If the categorisation is unsuitable it should be renominated for deletion, but for now there is no consensus for that and no opposition to a scheme-conforming rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Comics written by Harvey Kurtzman to Category:Comics by Harvey Kurtzman

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should follow the convention of Category:Comics by writer. It's also completely redundant to the target category, and there is no other category that begins with "Comics written". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are issues with the Category:Comics by writer category itself: the note at the top of it clearly states "This category should only contain sub-categories for writers who have both written and drawn the material for "solo" comics or comic books."—so it shouldn't include categories for works by those who only wrote them.
• On top of that, Kurtzman didn't "write" in any traditional sense—he didn't produce scripts. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Orations of Cicero to Category:Speeches of Cicero

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The convention of Category:Speeches by writer is to use "speeches" instead of "orations". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- As a Classical author, Cicero's works have long had an English name, "orations". We should stick to that. However that is no reason why any parent should be renamed, since speeches is the more common term. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Communist Romania to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania
• Category:People in Communist Romania to Category:People in the Socialist Republic of Romania
• Category:People executed by Communist Romania to Category:People executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania
• Category:Communist Romania rehabilitations to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania rehabilitations
• Category:Former subdivisions of Communist Romania to Category:Former subdivisions of the Socialist Republic of Romania
• Category:Communist Romanian regions to Category:Administrative divisions of the Socialist Republic of Romania

Nominator's rationale Opposed speedy. The main article of the categories is Socialist Republic of Romania, Communist Romania redirects to it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom to match the WP article name and the official name of the county at the time. No reason why these categories should be named anything else. Hmains (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Yes, it wasn't known as "Socialist Republic of Romania" for the entire time it was a communist state, but the approach we take with practically every other similar example is to just adopt in categories the name that is used by the article that refers to the state, even if it didn't apply to the entire time. This rename would be consistent with that practice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- The communist regime in Roumania subsisted for 42 years, for 18 years of which the republic had a different name. We should follow the main article. However, if annual or decade categories for 1947-1965 are using the older name People's Republic, they should not be changed, reamining as child-categories of a Roumania category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, but restrict contents to those killed after a judicial process. those killed outside judicial processes belong in Category:People killed by Nazi Germany and its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People executed by Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete category and subcategories and merge all back to parent cats. I think that this is a case of terrible terminology. If you were to take a look at "execution" on Wikipedia, it redirects to capital punishment. "Execution" is commonplace in English for a legal process. These people were not executed, they were murdered. Particularly take a look at the subcategories for the various concentration camps, where we know full well that people were not "executed" but murdered. We already have appropriate categories of Category:People killed by Nazi Germany and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps to cover the problems in the English language.Hoops gza (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Upon looking at this some more, it seems that another viable solution would be to rename some of the "executed" subcategories as "killed", and then delete "People executed by Nazi Germany" and merge the rest back to the parent cats.Hoops gza (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Surely, though, there were people who were executed by Nazi Germany. If it holds nothing else, it should hold articles about people who were sentenced to death by German courts and executed 1933–45. I agree though that many of those included in the categories were essentially extrajudicial killings, so some cleanup is warranted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a defining attribute to the individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts. This is a defining characteristic....William 13:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There were certainly people who were executed by the Nazis after a trial. see White Rose for example, plus many people who participated in plots to kill Hitler. Certainly worth taking a look and perhaps recategorizing or purging some of these articles, but the category on a whole seems sound.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this category tree more deeply, I think the problem is once you get to the concentration camps. I don't think that most people who were killed in the concentration camps could be justifiably termed an 'execution', in that it wasn't a capital punishment for a crime as decided by the state. So I do think that whole tree of Category:People executed in Nazi concentration camps should be renamed Category:People killed in Nazi concentration camps by nationality, but that's another nomination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you have cases like this Noor_Inayat_Khan, who was technically a spy, arrested, and executed - but she was executed at a concentration camp. It all gets a bit messy. We should probably take this offline, and have a longer conversation at wikiproject Military History or something on the proper category structure for capturing "people killed in WWII" - e.g. by whom, where, and why.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Executed means people were killed by a government. If we start by saying that it can't apply to Nazi Germany, where will it stop? Will we change the names of categories for people executed in France during the Reign of Terror? There have been lots of executions through history that were done by methods people currently do not approve of. We should avoid revisionism, and keep a straight forward use of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The term has a broad range of meanings. In fact, it is probably one of the broadest terms in the English language. In the sense of death, it means to put to death through a legal sentence. Now please tell me where the legal sentence was in the camps. The point is that "executed" is a term which is poor in its description and is misleading.Hoops gza (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as part of two series: Category:Executions by country and Category:Executed people by century, both of which are well populated. There is no valid argument to exclude Germany or any given German period or government from these two category series or for excluding the rough/non-legal process by which these people were executed by a government. Different governments do their killings/executions in different ways. Nothing new here. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This category is an appropriate one for those who suffered execution after a judicial process, for example Dietrich Boenhoffer. Those who were herded into concentration camps to be worked on starvation wages until they dropped dead or who were killed in the gas chambers or by non-judicial murder squads should be in deparate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Fictional American people by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: If you look at the contents of the category, the subcategories are all ethnic groups and the nationality of all of the individuals is American which is in the category name. As precedent, there already exists Category:Fictional British people by ethnicity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close This was just discussed a month ago (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_1#Category:Fictional_Americans_by_ethnicity), and this nomination came simply too soon after that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But it makes no sense. There are categories of "X people by ethnic or nationality" but not "national origin". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Being of Irish origin is a "national origin" issue, it is not an ethnicity issue. If we required demonstraction that these categories refered to ethnicity, we would have to have fewer categories on some people. This mainly applies to real people like Erika Harold, who clearly has the listed ancestries, but her ethnicity is a different issue. In the fictional people categories, the main problem is that people like Charlie Brown have been categorized in ways that are not supported by the works he appears in at all. To explain this, my national origin s English, Polish, German, Dutch, Scottish, French, Welsh, Irish and Native American descent (and maybe even African-American descent, some of my supposedly "Cherokee" ancestors might be the last), however I think my brother hit on something when he wrote "Utah Ethnic Mormon" as his ethnicity on a standardized test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close -- We should not keep discussing what we have just agreed, even whetre there are dissenters. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]

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