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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Modern Turkic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Autonomous Turkic states
• Propose deleting Category:Former Turkic states

Nominator's rationale: delete as non-defining and too subjective (how much % of the population needs to be of Turkic ethnicity in order to characterize a state as Turkic?). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment There is no "Turkic ethnicity". The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnolinguistic groups, consisting of groups who speak one of the Turkic languages. At least 35 documented languages, all descending from a Proto-Turkic language, that was probably spoken in the 1st millennium BC. Linguists have noted considerable similarities between the Turkic languages and the Mongolic languages, the Tungusic languages, the Koreanic languages, the Japonic languages, and the Uralic languages, probably indicating "extensive prehistoric language contact". Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - certainly Pan-Turkism is a thing, but as the nominator says this is hard to measure and probably not defining anyway. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - similar to Category:Arab world.GreyShark (dibra) 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Arab world is a common term. There is nothing like a Turkic world. Note that Turkic world redirects to List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as encyclopedically helpful. These are defined on the basis of their official language being a member of the Turkic family. Brandmeister^talk 13:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article referred to is Turkic languages. The consequence of this kind reasoning would be a rename to for example Category:Modern states with a Turkic official language. It is not that I would advocate that but it would at least be more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean towards keep -- Turkic identity has been a weak force, due to some of the countries concerned having been subsumed into Imperial Russia and then USSR in a period when the Ottoman Empire became weak, but that does not mean it is not significant, or at least may become so. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (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:Scandinavian Scotland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Viking Age in Scotland to Category:Scandinavian Scotland

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, it is unclear how to distinguish between the two categories. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge -- Both are about Category:Scandinavian rule in Scotland. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neither Marcocapelle, nor Peterkingiron seem to have read main article Scandinavian Scotland, which covers the entire period from the 8th to the 15th century. Orkney and Shetland were controlled by Norway until 1472, while the Viking Age had ended in the 11th century. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, but I can 't see how it helps the Scottish tree to have a break in the 11th century while Scandinavian rule lasted much longer here. Any break, whether in 1000 or in 1100, would be entirely arbitrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to @Peterkingiron: suggestion of Category:Scandinavian rule in Scotland. Who's to say when the Viking Age began or ended? Rule is quantifiable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See main article Viking Age, which states with sources that it began in 789 (the first known Viking raid) and ends with the death of Harald Hardrada in 1066. While Norse people, Normans, and various offshoots continued to play a role in European politics, Vikings did not survive the 11th century. "The assimilation of the nascent Scandinavian kingdoms into the cultural mainstream of European Christendom altered the aspirations of Scandinavian rulers and of Scandinavians able to travel overseas, and changed their relations with their neighbours. One of the primary sources of profit for the Vikings had been slave-taking. The medieval Church held that Christians should not own fellow Christians as slaves, so chattel slavery diminished as a practice throughout northern Europe. This took much of the economic incentive out of raiding, though sporadic slaving activity continued into the 11th century. Scandinavian predation in Christian lands around the North and Irish Seas diminished markedly.". Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can imagine that a distinction could be made between occasional Viking raids on the one hand (e.g. for getting slaves) and Norse permanent occupation and colonisation of territories on the other hand. However for Scotland specifically this distinction does not make too much sense, since parts of Schotland were subject to occupation and colonisation all the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed - to fit article Scandinavian Scotland.GreyShark (dibra) 16:56, 21 March 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: What exactly is supposed to be in this category? I have no idea how I would decide which should be included and what shouldn't be. Either we need some sort of guideline on what exactly this category means, or we need to bring out the deletehammer. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See main article Nothing. It is an important topic in philosophy. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if deletion is the best solution. However the category does require a lot of purging, since most of the current content is not about the concept "nothing". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge until there's... erm... only nothing left. (per Marcocapelle) Grutness...wha? 00:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So make sure there's nothing left by keeping nothing :-) A typical wiki solution for a wiki problem! Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question to purgers - How would anyone know what to purge or what to keep? This is why I ask what's supposed to be here. I would suggest putting a short inclusion guideline at the top of the category page, similar to Category:Nonexistent people. However, I have no idea what that inclusion guideline should say. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why we would need special instructions here, besides I doubt if instructions are being read anyway. The articles in the category should be about the concept "nothing", period. The article Abhava belongs here, for example, but Black doesn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We need special instructions because I am perfectly willing to clean up the category myself, but I have no idea how to do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:DEFINING, that should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not at all sufficient, because I have no idea what would define an article as nothing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the problem, we do not need to define what "nothing" is, that's what the article is for. We just have to establish whether the article is about "nothing". Empty set is a set that contains nothing (see section Philosophical issues) and Ex nihilo is (creation) out of nothing so these are obviously articles about "nothing". While false accusation and humorless are not about "nothing", they are just about something that is lacking a particular property, so these articles should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, would a rename by helpful? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To what? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nothingness? General Ization ^Talk 18:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How would that help? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only by making it more clear that the category refers to the state of nothingness (as a philosophical construct), not (necessarily) to the absence of anything (as, well, nothing). General Ization ^Talk 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of most of the included entries — the lack of something (e.g. "unemployment" as the lack of a job, "homelessness" as the lack of a home, "nudity" as the lack of clothing, etc.) is not inherently the same thing as nothingness, especially given that those are all things that can become unlacked as circumstances change — but I have yet to see anybody propose a clear and objective inclusion criterion that could be applied to sort out what would belong here from what wouldn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• While I started out without a clear view on this category, based on how things have gone, I'm now explicitly delete, unless someone proposes a clear inclusion criteria. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the nominator, you started this deletion discussion to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A category without any real defining purpose. Alternately, what do free food and nudity have in common? nothing. Aha! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbitrary and subjective. Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's hard to see how "nothing" is a defining feature, in anything but a subjective manner, of anything in the category besides nothing. Deli nk (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647) to Category:Butler–Ames family

Nominator's rationale: Categories have similar function. Jax 0677 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose All persons listed in Category:Butler–Ames family are not descendants of John Ames (1647), nor are all persons listed in Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647) members of the Butler-Ames family. While there is some overlap, it is not total. Merging would introduce a major, factual error into the encyclopedia. (The Butler-Ames family is a cadet branch of the larger Ames family and is related to Benjamin Butler through either blood or marriage. Meanwhile, Nathaniel Ames, Herman Ames, Marcus Ames, Joseph Sweetman Ames, etc., are from a senior branch of the Ames family that split almost 200 years before Butler's birth and bear absolutely zero relationship to him through blood, marriage, residential proximity, or maybe even awareness of his existence. Additionally, members categorized in Category:Butler–Ames family include persons who married into that family and are, therefore, unambiguously not "Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)".) Chetsford (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just to disclose, I edited Chetsford's comment above as it contained an html <small> tag that was unclosed and consequently bleeding into the "lists of fictional lifeforms" discussion after this one on the daylog. As I was not able to determine or guess where Chetsford intended to close the small tag, I removed it rather than adding a close tag — if you want it back, Chetsford, please remember to close it properly so it doesn't mess up the rest of the page. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat - sorry for my sloppy editing and thank you very much for correcting it! Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ames family per article Ames family. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We have deleted similar categories for royal descendants long ago. I think there was one for descendants of George III of England, but that descent was deemed NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussions e.g. George I and those listed here. People should be categorized by what they are notable for, not for who their relatives are/were. The article text should (where relevant) cover relationships more precisely than categories can. DexDor ^(talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @DexDor and Peterkingiron: please note that we routinely categorize families. A "descendants of" category name is a bad idea because it is based on a random starting point in the family tree (in that respect I agree with the delete votes) but no arguments are given against the alternative rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to categorize by family as the relationships should be covered in the text and the people should be in Category:18th-century American politicians etc. DexDor ^(talk) 19:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-defining. Arbitrary. Duplicates existing category. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge - I am completely indifferent between whether or not Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647) should be merged or deleted, but I do oppose its existence in its current form. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that people may happen to be direct descendants of one person in a family tree, and not of another one, is not in and of itself a WP:DEFINING characteristic above and beyond the fact that there's a common ancestor higher up the tree. My great-grandfather had more than one child, so some of my relatives are descended from my grandfather's brothers and sisters instead of from my grandfather, but that doesn't make us unrelated, and if we were in an encyclopedia it wouldn't make the descendants of my grandfather our own standalone notability node separately from the descendants of my grandfather's brother or sister — if it did, then every person in a family tree would always constitute their own new defining notability node, and the category would be nothing more than a telescoping recursion of subcategories for each individual person. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete -- We have frequently deleted such categories for people must more significant than John Ames. We similarly do not allow categories for all people sharing a surname, who may well have a common medieval ancestor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (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. This has been a difficult discussion to weigh. There is consensus that the current category is inappropriate, but no consensus that the suggested renamings would create a valid category, and no clear consensus to delete.
However, since nobody supports keeping the category as is, I judge that the least-worst close is to delete the category now, without prejudice to creating a new and better-named category which may include some or all of the 7 pages currently in the category (Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale, Robert de Brus, 2nd Lord of Annandale, Robert de Brus, 4th Lord of Annandale, Robert de Brus, 5th Lord of Annandale, Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale, William de Brus, 3rd Lord of Annandale, Robert the Bruce).
Pinging the particpants @PatGallacher, Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, Dimadick, and DrKay, who may want to take follow-up action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Barons de Brus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is unsourced and dubious. Although the Bruces were of Norman-French origin, the details are disputed, and it is unlikely that they held a French title several generations after settling in Scotland. An alternative would be to rename it to "Lords of Annandale", a title they did hold. PatGallacher (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (do not delete). The succession box is headed House of Bruce, which someone has inaccurately renamed to Clan Bruce. The Bruces were a noble lowland family, not a highland clan. Possibly Category:Bruce lords of Annandale. I too am dubious about the idea that they remained French nobles after settling in Scotland, but that is an issue of parenting the category, not of its existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We could be dealing with several issues at once here. I am not aware that there was ever a Barony of Bruce in the Scottish nobility or feudal structure, at the very least this idea is completely unsourced. A category "Bruce Lords of Annandale" is not necessarily illegitimate, but we do not normally create sub-cats of holders of a title from a specific family. "House of Bruce" v. "Clan Bruce" is a legitimate debate, but a separate issue. PatGallacher (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly rename to Category:Lords of Annandale without mentioning of the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This will require a change in scope. Per the article Lord of Annandale, the various holders of the title came from 6 different families: Brus, Comyn, Randolph, Dunbar, Douglas, and Stewart. The last holder of the title was John Stewart, Duke of Albany (d. 1536). Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsourced original research; so if it isn't moved to Lords of Annandale and expanded in scope to match, delete. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (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) 06:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Strigeidida has been synonymised to Diplostomida. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed, 16:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• @HNdlROdU: shouldn't the category be merged somewhere, instead of deleted? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If it needs to be merged, User:Marcocapelle, than it can be merged to Category:Diplostomida. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed, 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Note Category:Strigeidida was not tagged. I have tagged it for this relisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 10 April 2018 (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 to Category:Community organizations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Community-based organizations to Category:Neighborhood organizations Category:Neighborhood associations

Nominator's rationale: Substantial overlap. Hard to see any meaningful distinction. I'm agnostic about which should be kept. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the difference is that the vast majority of Category:Community-based organizations are not Category:Neighborhood organizations (whenever the community concerned is not confined to a neighbourhood), as can be seen by inspecting the 2 categories. Oculi (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Community organizations, to align with article title Community organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy with that proposal.Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I too would support a rename to Category:Community organizations (not a merge). Oculi (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• that sounds fine. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sorry, but "Community" is NOT necessarily synonomous or equivalent to "neighborhood," at all. saying that they are is often a Western-based, or middle-class based assumption for this usage.

Note: I am okay with the proposal above to rename, if others want that.--Sm8900 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the target for merging has just been speedily renamed to Category:Neighborhood associations. – Fayenatic London 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Marcocapelle. In my admittedly skewed experience, neighbourhood associations perform the opposite function of community organizations: they are typically populated by nonresident business owners whose sole interest is in ensuring that no community initiative hampers the ability of automobile drivers to drive right up to the doors of their businesses. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Community organizations, to align with article title Community organization per Marcocapelle. They are most certainly not the same thing as neighborhood assocations. Hmains (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2018 (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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 19#Category:People_associated_with_Russian_interference_in the 2016_United_States_elections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The only people known to be associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections are the dozen or so Russian individuals and groups that have been indicted by the justice department for allegedly interfering in the election. Anything else is pure speculation at this point. And per WP:OCASSOC and WP:RECENTISM. Coldcreation (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep category is properly populated; no reason at all to delete Hmains (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator has unique definitions of "association" and "speculation" that are not shared by the rest of the English-speaking community. If individual memberships are controversial, they have talk pages. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My definitions are mainstream. Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your definitions are mainstream that is not a valid reason for deletion of the whole category, but rather just removing such people with talkpage discussion. However reasons like WP:RECENTISM and WP:OCASSOC are valid. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but recommend that the an explanation of what is meant by "associated with" be added to the page to avoid future conflict. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of WP:OCASSOC is the fact that "associated with" can mean anything, an explanation will not help because it will remain unavoidably vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There are still plenty of "People associated with" categories, and providing a definition does not seem to be an insurmountable problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose as Category:Russians associated with interference in the 2016 United States elections hasn't been considered. However, this clearly isn't defining for Nigel Farage (especially from a UK perspective) so unless these categories can be tightened they should be deleted. In general people should be categorised for being an American politician, Russian diplomat or whatever - involvement in any particular event/controversy does not need categorization (article text/links is sufficent). DexDor ^(talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Associating" living people with a crime is against WP:BLPCRIME. ^Falling_Gravity 00:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What crime? What law has been broken? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The implication is that interfering in United States elections is perceived as treasonous, anti-American. Crime or not, associating someone (who may not be guilty) is borderline slanderous. By association, it is suggests the person has committed (or is accused of) a crime, without having been convicted of one. WP:BLPCRIME states it similarly. Coldcreation (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME is about people being accused of a crime without being convicted of one. Un-American is not criminal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treason is a crime. Arguably, being associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections could be considered treasonous. Congress passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition. Coldcreation (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person 'associated' with interfering in U.S. elections could also be charged with carrying out a massive fraud against the American government and conspiring to obstruct enforcement of federal laws. So WP:BLPCRIME does apply here. Coldcreation (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that treason applies here, as Russia is not an enemy country. But you have a good point. Given that people have been convicted of tax avoidance, money laundering, perjury etc, it does seem that a reader might infer that membership of the category means that someone is a rogue. Accordingly, I have struck my !vote Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 18 April 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles and one subcategory. Move the eponymous article Barlas to Category:Mongol peoples, Category:Turkic peoples of Asia and Category:History of Central Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Doubtful -- We cannot delete it without orphaning the sub-cat, a ruling dynasty. I agree it is small, but occasionally small cats do need to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Timurid monarchs subcat has plenty of parent categories, there is no orphaning taking place. The fact that Timur was from the Barlas tribe can better be described (and is described) in article space. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Massacres by ethnic group to Category:Massacres of ethnic groups
• Propose merging Category:Racial massacres to Category:Massacres of ethnic groups

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories are too closely related to keep them separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I support that. Not a good idea to rely on ambiguous prepositions for a distinction. Rathfelder (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If merged, I suggest that the sub-cat Category:Massacres of Ukrainians be added to the other parent Category:History by ethnic group, otherwise it will be removed from that hierarchy. The other two sub-cats are in other sub-cats of that one, e.g. Category:History of the Kurdish people, so do nothing t need a double merge. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how are these really distinguishable from things like Category:Anti-Armenian pogroms and the various genocide and similar categories? Is that distinction meaningful (I suppose you could have a pogrom that didn't result in a massacre, or a failed genocide that contained no deaths, in theory but they seem very closely related and ought, IMHO, to be grouped together somehow). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question, maybe Category:Pogroms ought to be merged as well. But let's first get the current nomination done. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly the same topic that should be treated at a grouped location. SFB 02:51, 18 April 2018 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Irregular units and formations to Category:Militias‎

Nominator's rationale: Very substantial overlap. Calling organisations "irregular" is not a very helpful definition. Militia seems to mean much the same - ie not fully integrated into the official armed forces, but working with them. Rathfelder (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose My understanding is that not all irregular military are militias. Mercenaries, for example, are irregular, but not a militia. Brandmeister^talk 13:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are mercenaries really irregular? What is the definition of irregular to begin with, in this context? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Irregular military every military of a country that is not part of its regular armed forces. So yes, mercenaries are irregular under that definition. Brandmeister^talk 13:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Bluntly, @Rathfelder, your nomination is nonsense, as you should known have within 30 seconds from starting to read irregular military. You did read irregular military before proposing such a big change, didn't you?
  A militia is one of many types of irregular unit, so this proposal amounts merging a set into its subset, like merging Category:Fruit to Category:Apples, or Category:United States to Category:Los Angeles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cannot be merged since guerrilla units are by definition irregular, yet often would never be considered militias.Kges1901 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose irregular forces and militias are not the same thing. Militia may in fact be regular and often part-time, but not irregular. The largely conscript home service Army in Australia during WWII was known as the Militia, but it was in no way irregular. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Peacemaker67, they are not the same thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Militias are formal organised groups acting in support of or organised by a state (might not be a recognised state), irregular groups will have a head but without the intention to form a state. Of course this is broadbrush and I'm sure you can find exceptions Lyndaship (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl, Kges1901, and Peacemaker67 — "irregular unit" and "militia" are by no means synonymical, so a merge would make categorisation less intuitive. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing intuitive about categorisation in this area. It is really difficult. The way the various terms are used varies enormously from place to place and time to time.The way the terms are used in the articles about individual units is very frequently not consistent with those used in the articles describing the terms. The article irregular military admits that official paramilitary forces do not fit the term irregular and that Paramilitary is a non-regular Armed Force with a claim to official status and that "Intense debates can build up over which of these terms to use when referring to a specific group". I think Category:Irregular military is the best top level category, but Category:Irregular units and formations is sparsely populated and not terribly helpful. Category:Militias would work better as a subcategory of Category:Irregular military. Rathfelder (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It may not be intuitive, but lack of intuitiveness does not in any way justify a plain daft nomination such as this. @Rathfelder:, I hope you will withdraw the nom and stop wasting editors' time with this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My proposal would put these articles in the Category:Irregular military. I cant see that a subcategory of Irregular units and formations adds anything to that.Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rathfelder: I assume that your latest comment refers to your new proposal, not to the nomination. If so, there may be some merit in that ... but I think it's unlikely to be adequately scrutinised, coming well down the page after editors flocked to oppose the daft nomination.

It would probably be more productive to wait until this CfD closes, and then discuss the concepts at WP:MILHIST. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did ask for assistance earlier Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&oldid=833425307#Categorisation_of_informal_military_organisations but I didn't get any response. Rathfelder (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a redlink. See WP:DIFF for guidance on how to post such links.

I see your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145#Categorisation_of_informal_military_organisations. It asks v broad, open questions which would take a lot of time to reply to, so I'm not surprised at the lack of response. When there was no reply after days, you should have followed up by asking some more specific questions which could have been answered without needing an write essay.

Your post gives no hint at your nomination here to place all irregular units and formations under militias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- They are not necessarily the same thing. Some militias were part-time soldiers in the service of a state. This applies to 18th century England, where they were (I think) infantry, in contrast with yeomanry who were cavalry. Perhaps some one will tell me I am completely wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Al Nasr SC players to Category:Al Nasr SC (Egypt) players

Nominator's rationale: The club's name on Wikipedia is "Al Nasr SC (Egypt)", so the category should be named the same Ben5218 (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2018 (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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Occupational diseases to Category:Occupational diseases and injuries

Nominator's rationale: We have both occupational disease and occupational injury, but there's no Category:Occupational injuries which could be categorized there due to WP:OVERLAPCAT. Brandmeister^talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose occupational diseases is a broader term that is more commonly used. Merging should occur in the opposite direction, or by making "-injuries" a subcategory of "-diseases" --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There are already subcats like Category:Overuse injuries‎. The distinction between injuries and disease in this area is not clear cut. Rathfelder (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2018 (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. Editors may of course use editorial discretion to recategorise any pages which are inappropriately categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Antarctica to Category:Antarctic organizations

Nominator's rationale: Most of them are not based in Antarctica at all. Rathfelder (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The category has been decently populated since last week so the rename is probably no longer needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Apart from the museums they are not based in Antarctica. They are concerned with Antarctica.Rathfelder (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete (as there's Category:Antarctic agencies). E.g. the British Antarctic Survey is based (i.e. headquartered) in Cambridge, UK. If not renamed/deleted then add text to make the scope clear and purge (then delete if empty). Note: List of organizations based in Antarctica appears to have a similar problem (perhaps that should be changed to something like List of organizations with a research base in Antarctica). DexDor ^(talk) 16:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and purge, Category:Antarctic agencies does not contain organizations based in Antarctica, as noted, so it needs to be purged. If kept, it will remain a small category but better small than creating an unnecessary deviation from the Organizations based in ___ format. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2018 (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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 19#Category:Santo_Daime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there are currently just two articles that link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it's a Notable religious movement, so has room for expansion for articles on practitioners, any Notable events they hold, any worship centers, etc. It's small at the moment but has a useful role in the category tree for religions. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article for its founder, so that's three articles, and we have a significant redlink for Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, a court battle in the USA. So three articles, plus room for growth. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a "significant" redlink? Are you planning to write this article? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No obligation on me to do so, but it's a redlink that in context makes total viable sense for a Notability-meeting article. As in it's not just something mentioned in passing that wouldn't meet Notability. So the cat has three articles and potential for more, and the cat itself is the name of a specific religion, so I don't see that it's condemned to eternally be a small cat. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is the standard way of collecting the sub-articles of the article Santo Daime. Oculi (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Non-commercial use only images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer that conflates files tagged for speedy deletion with legitimately used non-free files. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and convert this into a maintenance/hidden category to be populated by ((Non-free with NC)). Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:Southern-California-geo-stub
  

Nominator's rationale: The category Category:Southern California geography stubs (which should be kept) is intended as a parent for upmerged regional templates; this template is not needed. Pegship (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete template. As the category is a WP:container category, this template is not needed. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't this be at WP:TFD? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2018 (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.