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. Timrollpickering 23:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Albums produced by Symbolyc One (S1) to Category:Albums produced by Symbolyc One

Nominator's rationale: Per Symbolyc One. Should be speedy rename but they were created independently. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both were created by me, separated by several months. The article title changed. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 31 August 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 Option A. Timrollpickering 23:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:German Resistance to Category:German resistance to Nazism
• Propose renaming Category:German Resistance members to Category:German resistance members

Nominator's rationale:

Option A: rename to Category:German resistance to Nazism in order to align with main article German resistance to Nazism.

Option B: rename to Category:German resistance which is more in line with sibling categories than option A.

In either case the proposal is to decapitalize the R since (at least in Germany) this is not the proper name of an organisation. Note that sibling categories vary in use of capital R, presumably it may differ by country. For now, both in case of option A and B the proposal is to rename Category:German Resistance members to Category:German resistance members, just decapitalizing it, but I might well support if someone has a better idea for it that aligns better with option A. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A. To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A -- This is obviously what it is about. However the resistance was even less organised than in France, so that the members' nom is appropriate, but perhaps Category:Germans resistant to Nazism (or resisting) would be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) I agree that a rename of Category:German Resistance members to Category:Germans resisting Nazism would be an improvement over the nominated rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 6 September 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. ℯxplicit 04:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Reactors (React media franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining property of the people in this category. wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is a defining characteristic for notable people such as Marlhy Murphy and Lia Marie Johnson, as they gained prominence in their field through React and/or React to That. It may be Non-defining for some of the people who were already notable, such as those featured in Youtubers React, but it is a defining characteristic for the two aforementioned people. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the association is mostly irrelevant, and not a defining one for many would-be members of the category. It seems like category spam and it's not one of the supported/recommended categorizations in Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_association Fbergo (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: shouldn't the content of this category be upmerged to Category:YouTubers? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think, not necessarily. And if someone is a notable YouTuber, appropriate subcategories of Category:YouTubers will have probably already been added. wumbolo ^^^ 16:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can see from the React (media franchise) article, they have a small number of channels and the contents of this category are lots of other people and channels, at least some of which have no proven link to React at all. I see no proof that people who have appeared on a React channel are widely called "Reactors" (although maybe they are on the channels themselves) and the very fact that the category name has to clarify what it even means makes me think that it is dubious. Maybe some of them did appear in some of React's videos. Who cares? We don't need a category that is half way to being Category:Anybody who ever did a cameo anywhere. If this was a category for people who were notably involved with React, such as regular show presenters or the like, then it might be defensible but there is no indication that this is the case. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:04, 15 September 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. Given the weak support for this rename and the opposition in the nomination directly below, I simply cannot see a valid consensus in renaming either. If a separate nomination is sought, I suggest making a batch nomination for better participation. ℯxplicit 04:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nepalese people to Category:Nepali people

Nominator's rationale: The national adjective and demonym for Nepal is "Nepali". Please see the Nepali Ministry for Foreign Affairs or the CIA Nationality Index. Same arguments as #Category:Nepalese Wikipedians below.  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, the article Nepalis exists since 2016 and the name of the article has not yet been subject of discussion. But this is an internal Wiki argument and may well be overturned by a discussion about usage in reliable sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Arguably we could do with a distinction between people from Nepal (who are extremely varied in ethnicity for such a small country) and people of Nepalese ethnic groups settled elsewhere - eg India, and Bhutan where they form a significant part of the population. I don't know if sources justify this, or which would be which. Both are commonly used in the region. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 1 September 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. See discussion directly above. ℯxplicit 04:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nepalese Wikipedians to Category:Nepali Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The national adjective and demonym for Nepal is "Nepali".  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and reverse merge Category:Nepali Wikipedians to Category:Nepalese Wikipedians. The article Nepal identifies "Nepalese" as the demonym, and I have heard and seen both "Nepali" and "Nepalese" used as valid alternatives, so to be convinced I would need a source showing "Nepalese" is incorrect. Absent such proof, I prefer "Nepalese" per Category:Nepalese people. Separately, Buaidh, you should know better by now than to unilaterally rename a moderately large and long-standing category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the Nepali Ministry for Foreign Affairs or the CIA Nationality Index.  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that's helpful but not quite definitive—the MFA website uses both "Nepali" and "Nepalese" in different places as does the U.S. Department of State. Again, I am fairly certain both "Nepali" and "Nepalese" are correct, so what would convince me is a source stating "Nepalese" is incorrect. Alternatively, if there is consensus to rename Category:Nepalese people to Category:Nepali people, I would have no objection. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a matter of what is incorrect, but rather what is preferred. "Kyrgyzstani", "Kyrgyz", "Kirgiz", and "Kirghiz" are all correct, but "Kyrgyzstani" is preferred.  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That only raises the question, "Preferred by whom?" In any case, I will defer to the outcome of the discussion above. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:04, 8 August 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) 13:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Singaporean Wikipedians to Category:Singapore Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The national adjective for Singapore is "Singapore". "Singaporean" is the national demonym.  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - "Singaporean" is the demonym but, per List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, both "Singapore" and "Singaporean" are valid adjectival forms. I prefer "Singaporean" per Category:Singaporean people. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the Singapore Government or the CIA Nationality Index.  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Following further research, it appears you are right and, although "Singaporean" is used, "Singapore" is the accepted national adjective. I have struck my opposition but am not comfortable supporting in light of the fact the article category is Category:Singaporean people and not Category:Singapore people. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If "The national adjective for Singapore is "Singapore". "Singaporean" is the national demonym.", but categories for people are supposed to be using the demonym, then this is exactly bass ackward. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 5 September 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) 13:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Taiwanese Wikipedians to Category:Taiwan Wikipedians
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese descent to Category:Taiwan ancestry Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: While both "Taiwan" and "Taiwanese" are used as national adjectives for Taiwan, the term "Taiwanese" is often used to denote the inhabitants of the island prior to the arrival of the government of the Republic of China in 1945. Therefore, "Taiwan" is the preferred national adjective.  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - While "Taiwan" is used as an adjective, it is not reasonable to think that a reader will be able to differentiate pre-/post-1945 based on such a small change. Nor is it appropriate to assume, as the proposed change does, that all Wikipedians who self-identified as being of Taiwanese descent were necessarily referring to post-1945 descent. The fact is that "Taiwanese" is the most common adjective used to denote people or things from Taiwan (pre-1945 and post-1945), and we should adhere to that practice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  While both terms are used, the CIA Nationality Index gives preference to "Taiwan".  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but the CIA is not necessarily the definitive source for national adjectives and demonyms. In this instance, I think the weight of issues favors "Taiwanese"—e.g. the fact that the article category is Category:Taiwanese people, that Taiwan Wikipedians could easily be confused with Category:Wikipedians in Taiwan, that "Taiwanese" is a more natural English adjective, etc. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Taiwanese is the usual demonym. If we need to distinguish pre-1947 inhabitants we can add "native" or "indigenous". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 6 September 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 1#Category:Social economists. ℯxplicit 04:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not have an article on Social economics except as a redirect to Socioeconomics and I think that neither of the articles would belong in Category:Socioeconomics. No need to merge, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Economists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could see a hypothetical biography subcategory under the Category:Socioeconomics tree, but this is under the Category:Social economy tree and I'm unclear on the inclusion criteria. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Social economics is not the same as socioeconomics. It is a field in its own right. See for example here. Sooner or later there should be an article on social economics.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: If you want to take a shot at creating a main article and find 5 biography articles that fit into that description, I'm more than happy to change my vote now or be open to recreating the category later. My only concern is with the category going before that main article that will establish that inclusion criteria within Wikpedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps with Rosiestep's assistance?--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on this link, it looks like social economics is a synonym of Behavioral economics. However neither of the two biographies in this category belongs in that area. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 11 August 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. Timrollpickering 14:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting the following:
  • Category:Singapore AFC Asian Cup squad navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore football manager history navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore football navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore football squad navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore football team navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore national football team navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore national sports teams navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore Premier League football club squad templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Singapore sports navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Tampines Rovers FC templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Years in Singaporean football navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I performed a cleanup of the category listing for templates related to football in Singapore. Many of these templates tend to be overcategorized, and there is no tangible benefit to distinguish between 'template' and 'navigational boxes' because there are so few of them and most of them are already navigation boxes, which just adds another redundant layer of sub-categorization. The categories with sub-categories listed here eventually lead to a sub-category with no entries and should also be deleted, while the redirects are the result of a rename I proceeded with in order to simplify the categorization name so they may be deleted too. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Some can go to G6. AquaDTRS, you can also nominate rename category request and merge category request in CfD/CfDS and no need to do this cleanup one by one manually Hhkohh (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll keep that in mind when cleaning up next time. Also, just for the record, I'm not allowed to G6 in the middle of a CfD for these categories right? -- AquaDTRS (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listed categories in CfD is unnecessary to tag G6 for me. Hhkohh (talk) 06:38, 31 August 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.