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 manually. ℯxplicit 03:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ukrainian population groups to Category:Ukrainian diaspora

Nominator's rationale: This used to contain a sub-category of ethnic groups e.g. Ruthenians, Rusyns, Lemkos, but they were merged to Category:Ethnic groups in Ukraine per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_25, and I can't see any separate purpose for this one now. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support The contents are mostly about Ukrainian diaspora groups, and some historic Ukrainian minorities in other European countries, such as Czechoslovakia. I am not certain whether the subcategory is about the diaspora, as it covers areas of influence of the Ukrainian language. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Dubious -- I am not sure that the the contents of "population groups" are diaspora, which I understand to be similar to expatriates. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but merge manually, if some articles don't belong in Category:Ukrainian diaspora they may be recategorized differently. If needed, I'm willing to volunteer. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with that outcome. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 13 June 2017 (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: convert to category disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Defunct roller coasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Archive_3#Status_fields_in_attraction_articles, the "Defunct" status has been deprecated and replaced with "Closed" and "Removed". Category:Closed roller coasters and Category:Removed roller coasters have been created, infobox templates have been modified to only use those new categories, and all articles previously in the "Defunct" category have been recategorized. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. This category is deprecated and no longer in use for reasons stated above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to cat-redirect, which should prevent inadvertent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with redirecting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2017 (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. I have added th sub-cats to the parent for now. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chhetri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise people by caste. Sitush (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: Certainly people shall not be categorized by caste. Discussed much earlier.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Khas people, of which they are a sub-group. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a problem with Category:Khas people, too. It is being used for very vague purposes and is a BLPCAT minefield. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:NONDEF, it's hardly ever mentioned in articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 15:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Shreepali Basnyat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise people by caste etc, which is what this cat is doing. Sitush (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• do not delete Why not?? There is category of Category:Shah dynasty where people are categorized. Similar is Shreepali Basnyat clan.

• See User:Sitush/Common#Castecats. As I said on your talk page, I think you are making a bit of a mess of things because you are unfamiliar with how various aspects of Wikipedia work. And in that vein, I point you also to WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Modern communities shall not be confused with old dynasties of historical values. A dynasty is certainly not a caste of people instead is a title held by the dynasty.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Chhetri, prior to its merger. This is a case of categorisation by shared surname, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it is being used for a shared surname. The Shreepali Basynat are a caste group that just happen to share the name Basnyat. Note: none of the current entries bear the name Shreepali. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Basnyat family. We have lots of family categories, there is no objection against such a category. But it should bear the correct name, per Basnyat family. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2017 (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 articles but not sub-cats. Note: there is also Category:Sportspeople from Southern California, which has not been nominated. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Southern California to Category:People from California

Nominator's rationale: /Delete from subcats which are all under the scheme of Category:People by county in California anyway. It's not helpful to diffuse a handful of biographies for persons who are from a huge region of a huge state. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• do not merge first, there are people articles who are directly in this category besides the subcats; second, this is an obvious subcat of Category:Southern California which has many subcats. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There are more than sufficient community and county categories for the region. We don't need even further breakdown....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a problem of using various levels of "from" categories for people. In the US, it's almost always State/County/city or town - so that those from a particular city are in that category, which is a sub cat of the county, which is a sub cat of the state. In modern times, people often live in several places and we categorize those of note. In the main this just seems to be a subgrouping of county categories for the counties that comprise Southern California (and including the Greater LA one, which for whatever reason is another subgrouping); why some folks are categorized here seems more because we don't know where more specifically than Southern California someone is from (which begs the question if you have no clue where someone's from, how can a biography be written? But alas, I digress). If this stays I should expect that any geographic area notable enough for its own article will end up having categories like this, whether we want that or not is really what's being discussed with this as a trial balloon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, not knowing where exactly people were born or raised is another symptom of a more fundamental problem with all "People from" categories, namely the fact where people are born or raised is hardly ever of encyclopedic value. The key thing is not where people were born or raised, but where they acquired notability. Most biographies who are directly in Category:People from Southern California are here because of birth or being raised and that is not very useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- Is there a robust definition of the extent of Southern California, as opposed to Northern California? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  answer see Southern California for the WP definition. Hmains (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: compare recent deletion of categories for years in Southern California, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_24#Years_in_Northern.2BSouthern_California. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, diffusing by two subcategories (with North and South California) is far from ideal from a navigational point of view and in this case we have more intuitive ways of diffusing already in place. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Post-Soviet states to Category:Aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: rename to have a clearer scope for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment aftermath is quite encompassing: perchance everything that happened everywhere after the dissolution is part of the aftermath - maybe even the election of the current US president. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The intention is to make it less encompassing: "Post-Soviet states" may contain everything in current former Soviet states, while aftermath of the dissolution it should at least be related to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The main article of the category is Post-Soviet states. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Armbrust. Brandmeister^talk 11:14, 1 May 2017 (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: reverse merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Characters in the Ramayana to Category:Characters mentioned in the Ramayana

Nominator's rationale: Means the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 08:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge Category:Characters mentioned in the Ramayana to Category:Characters in the Ramayana. The standard wording uses "in" rather than "mentioned" per Category:Characters in epic poems. Brandmeister^talk 09:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge For consistency with other epic poems. Note that we usually categorize characters who are depicted in a work, not merely mentioned. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• REverse merge -- These are the same thing. I agree with others as to the preferable target. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Boutte, Louisiana to Category:People from St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2 members. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category has 3 members.User:spatms User talk:spatms 18:22 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - 5 articles is the normal minimum. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2017 (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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Gunmen of the American Old West to Category:Gunslingers of the American Old West

Nominator's rationale: Two reasons: First, the category of about 140 names includes trick shooters as well as gun fighters (My original idea was to rename as gunfighters), 2) Some are women. Essentially, though a bit colloquial, the term means "someone who carries a gun and shoots well." That's the most encompassing title I can think of Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Montanabw: why not split the category into Category:Trick shooters of the American Old West and Category:Gunfighters of the American Old West? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a possibility, but first the rename to deal with the gender neutrality thing. For the split, the problem is sorting through 140 articles to figure out which was which -- also, some were both, retiring on their notoriety to the show biz circuit. Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support gender neutrality, if gunslingers is the best name for it so be it. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As the scope of the category seems to include both genders. The main article Gunfighter, specifies that the terms gunfighter and gunslinger are synonyms. Somewhat curiously, the article mentions that the term was used for 19th-century lawmen, outlaws, cowboys, exhibitionists, duelists, and hired guns (mercenaries). Wide scope. Not that several Old West figures did not have career changes. Wyatt Earp was a convicted horse thief, but was given several law enforcement positions. Grat Dalton was a member of the United States Marshals Service, but lost his job and became an outlaw. Dimadick (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2017 (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.