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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Republic of Macedonia to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Macedonia

Nominator's rationale: In line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 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: keep. ℯxplicit 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Women video bloggers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Störm has created this category, citing WP:DUPCAT. That the subjects are gendered is not germane to video blogging and of course, this opens up questions about gender performativity. I think this category should be deleted per WP:GENDERCAT. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - maybe remove not-diffusing tag. Otherwise, it is totally fine. Störm (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:OCEGRS, video blogging is unrelated to gender. The category should be upmerged to Category:Video bloggers though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Why do editors persist in making or supporting CfD nominations solely on the basis of unevidenced assertion, when anyone with online access to en.wp has online access to powerful research tools?

The evidence is very clear: gender in video blogging is a notable topic of scholarly research. It took me less than a minute to find in one crude search 349 hits on Gscholar and 9 on JSTOR. More sophisticated searches would throw up more.
So, contrary to Marcocapelle's assertion, the test at WP:OCEGRS is satisfied: a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) could indeed be written for such a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OCEGRS says A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. The fact that an encyclopedic article may be written about women video bloggers does not by itself imply a specific relation between gender and the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scholarly research is v clear that gender does have a specific relation to the topic. And see the detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gender is related to video blogging – it strongly correlates not just with the topic covered and mode of blogging, but also how the output is received by the audience. This is evident given even a cursory review of the industry (e.g.). SFB 19:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only do we have Brownhairedgirlf's evidence of enough study being done on the intersection of women and video blogging that someone could write a lead article that was something more than a list, but from a structural standpoint this category works. Video blogging is a mix of writing and performing, somewhat like acting but with the performer often being more in control of production than in most acting. Acting is clearly gender specific. The same is true of writing. So this overlap of the two is without question influenced in specific ways by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 28 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:Employer awards. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Best companies to work for awards to Category:Employer awards

Nominator's rationale: The current name is unwieldy, apparently being derived from one of the member pages. It could even be misread as "companies that work for awards". In other cases we hyphenate the compound modifier phrase, but this one is long, and "Best-companies-to-work-for awards" would look daft. I suggest Category:Employer awards (following one of the parents, Category:Employers) but would not oppose Category:Workplace awards. – Fayenatic London 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Category:Employer awards. "Workplace awards" would include a wider array of awards (everything from "Employee of the month" to "sportsperson of the year"). Grutness...wha? 23:15, 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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 13#Category:Groups_connected_to_the_Khazars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Groups connected to the Khazars to Category:Khazars

Nominator's rationale: selectively upmerge per WP:OCASSOC. This category is intentionally vague in whether these peoples and tribes are Khazars or not. If they are Khazars they belong in the parent category, but if there is too much doubt then they shouldn't be in the Khazars tree at all. For example, the Akatziri article says "the theory that they were ancestors of the Khazars is not backed up by any solid evidence". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "connected" is indeed vague, but the topic of Khazar connection is notable and significantly discussed. Which groups are to be listed in this category is a good question, but this doesn't mean it should be deleted.GreyShark (dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Better still rename to Category:Khazar peoples. The content seems to be ethnic groups that made up the medieval Khazar state. ( know we also have Category:Khazar people, but that should be for individual bio-articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I expect anyone not involved in this discussion would not understand the difference between Category:Khazars and Category:Khazar peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target refers to all things concerning the Khazar polity, not just its ethnic groups, which is the content of this cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Then perhaps Category:Khazar tribes may be better, in order to avoid the suggestion that it is the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the category lists various groups, vaguely linked to the Khazars - sometimes by conspiracy theories or by known forks. Wikipedia shouldn't present theories and forks as facts!GreyShark (dibra) 09:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Greyshark09: Do I understand correctly that you would prefer to delete the category? The intention of the nomination is roughly along the same lines, in the sense that selectively has been added very deliberately and I also gave an example of an article that should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger. Keep as is.GreyShark (dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Keeping the category as is means keeping a category based on conspiracy theories or known forks which you seem to object. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Selectively upmerge per nom (or delete). I dont understand User:Greyshark09's objection. DexDor ^(talk) 19:33, 1 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 (WP:NAC). --DexDor ^(talk) 20:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Ministry of Catering (Jordan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Catering ministers of Jordan

Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to exist any such ministry. The google seach did not reveal any such thing except wikipedia categories. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Should this include Category:Catering ministers of Jordan? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely so. I've tagged this subcategory as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both -- The two people in the ministers category are Prime Ministers (past or present) and neither mentions holding a catering portfolio. If they have and an article on the ministry is created, we can re-create it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the original creation was a confusion for "caretaker prime minister"? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or possibly a mistranslation. I'll have to admit that looking at the creators talk page and contribs list puts some pressure on AGF, too. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It'd be good if someone knowledgeable could look into the creator's contributions, given Grutness's concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem to be anything too serious, and it's all old (the editor hasn't contributed for over two years). They seem to have had a habit of removing categories and/or adding or creating unnecessary categories. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 1 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 Category:Ukrainian people of Cuman descent, but keep Category:People of Cuman descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:People of Cuman descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Ukrainian people of Cuman descent

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in it. The Cumans were in the Ukraine from the 11th to the 13th century, then moved on to Hungary and assimilated, so it is very unlikely that these categories will be populated with more (Ukrainian) people who claim Cuman descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ukrainian item (or rather merge to Category:Ukrainian people), since the one article does not have that category yet and it will prevent orphaning the article; not sure about the other. This is a classic case of minute categories created to house claims about a person. That person also has Ukrainian people by ethnic descent (which should be a container only, if we need it at all and Ukrainian people of Asian descent, which is equally doubtful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Actually, the category about Ukrainian people of Cuman descent, probably, should be upmerged to the category about people of Cuman descent. Also, user:Peterkingiron speculates on a subject without actually being familiar with it. Volodymyr Polovets openly declares about the fact that he is of Cuman descent and wrote a monograph about it. Also, the Marcocapelle's claim that Cumans left Ukraine is totally wrong. Cumans were active in intermarriage processes with the Kievan dukes and actively participated in ethnogenesis of modern Ukrainians leaving a print in Ukrainian toponymy. It is possible that some Cumans also have moved to Hungary as well, but certainly never completely left Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I didn't mean to exclude the possibility of assimilation in Ukraine as well, but the Cumans settled in Ukraine a really long time ago so it will be very hard for anyone to claim Cuman descent, even harder to become wp-notable as a person of Cuman descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Ukrainian subcategory, but keep the parent. It's rarely, if ever, possible to properly source a contemporary person's genealogy all the way back to the 13th century, so there's virtually no potential for that to actually grow past a WP:SMALLCAT. Polovets claiming Cuman ancestry does not mean it's proven that he does have Cuman ancestry, so he shouldn't be upmerged to the general parent category. The parent category, however, more correctly restricts itself to historical figures who were active in the time when Cumans existed, and thus aren't nearly as problematic as trying to prove that a person who's alive today actually belongs here. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I hadn't noticed that the parent category has meanwhile been populated. Honestly I think it is a bit artificial to categorize medieval rulers by their mother's nationality. Descent categories are based on the assumption that people with similar descent have something in common, most particularly that they are part of an ethnic community. While that assumption may not always hold in modern times, it is even less true with medieval rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Ukrainian subcategory, but keep the parent. Sourcing Cuman descent is easy. Sourcing Ukrainian ethnicity is far more difficult. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 1 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Category:Barlas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 10 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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Specialist police agencies of India to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of India‎
• Propose merging Category:Specialist police agencies of Russia to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Russia‎
• Propose merging Category:Specialist police agencies of Georgia (country) to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Georgia (country)
• Propose merging Category:Specialist police agencies of Australia to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Australia‎
• Propose renaming Category:Specialist police agencies of Cyprus‎ to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Cyprus
• Propose renaming Category:Specialist police agencies of France to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of France
• Propose renaming Category:Specialist police agencies of the Republic of Ireland‎ to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Ireland‎
• Propose renaming Category:Specialist police agencies of Venezuela to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Venezuela

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary distinction. Police agencies are law enforcement agencies. In line with other categories and the relevent articles. Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 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: no action; a different proposal may be brought forward instead. – Fayenatic London 10:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sports competitors to Category:Sportspeople
• Merging Category:Sports competitors by sport to Category:Sportspeople by sport
• Merging Category:Sports competitors by nationality to Category:Sportspeople by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Category:Sportspeople previously had the scope, "people involved in sports in some way", while Category:Sports competitors had the scope, "People who are notable for practicing sports, i.e. players, not administrators or other non-player roles." This was confusing, as the dictionary definition of sportsperson is "someone who plays sport". I have created Category:People in sports as a parent, and moved administrators, referees, etc. there. The scope of Category:Sports competitors now duplicates that of Category:Sportspeople, and should be up-merged. Paul_012 (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "renaming" the "people involved in sports in some way" category to "People in sports". --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mind that lots of categories will have to be moved, for example German sports broadcasters and German sports businesspeople, which are currently subcategories of German sportspeople. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. All the Fooian people in sports categories will have to be created. I expect that this can be done gradually. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reverse merge Despite the dictionary definition, there is some confusion over whether the notion of "sportspeople" includes non-competitors or not. If you look back through the history of Category:Sportspeople, you can see that this deletion discussion has already broached this topic before and essentially deleted the current structure (that was not a good move IMHO). There is no ambiguity over the term "sports competitors", thus it is better for categorisation as it clearly delineates the competitors from the new competitor+non-competitor parent category and will avoid rehashing of this argument again. SFB 20:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The French and German Wikipedias have a solid example for us to follow with "Personnalité liée au sport" parent of "Sportif/Sportive" and "Person (Sport)" parent to "Sportler". The former does beg the question of which level Sportsmen/women should sit at (not sure myself). Just an FYI - I've created "sports figure" as the main occupational topic for "People in sports" on Wikidata and aligned People in sports to the interwikis over Sportspeople. SFB 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least the old situation with sportspeople including non-players was very confusing. Even if we would keep the name sports competitors instead of sportspeople (which I doubt is needed) we should definitely use the new Category:People in sports for non-players. The situation is very similar to Category:Businesspeople and Category:People involved in business. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marcocapelle: No doubt the new parent is very much required. I really don't like that business one. Can you nominate that separately? I think on the sports front we're missing detail article side. The only top level occupation we have is athlete which is only a subset of sports competitors, as it's exclusive of people towards the games side of sport. I'll have a think about a top level occupation article, possibly something similar to Legal profession. SFB 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed to a reverse merge, provided a category redirect template is left behind. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: Would you also support the reverse merge (so parent is "People in sports" with "Sports competitors" within that, and a category redirect at "Sportspeople")? SFB 20:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fair enough. Then Category:Sportspeople should become a category disambiguation page, referring to both Category:Sports competitors and Category:People in sports, with an explanation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin comment to @Paul 012, Marcocapelle, NaBUru38, and Sillyfolkboy: As none of the Sportspeople categories have been tagged, I don't find sufficient consensus here to take any action on them. I am minded to close this as "no action", after which one of you may prepare a group nomination for the Sportspeople hierarchy, to pursue the suggested reverse merge. Some of that hierarchy would have to be split, some merged, some renamed; e.g. Sportsmen and Sportswomen appear to contain only competitors, whereas other parts would be renamed as "people in sports". Any comments? – Fayenatic London 10:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Yeah, the discussion reached a different conclusion from the original nomination, and one which requires a lot of work (especially the nationality tree). A new nomination set will be needed to recast "Fooian sportspeople" as "Fooian people in sports", though I'm not sure what the best idea for next steps is. Perhaps we could start with creating the new trees for sports competitors first to make the reasoning for such a change more obvious? SFB 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​ I would suggest using the renaming process as much as possible, because this retains the page history from the existing categories. But if parts of the "sports competitors" hierarchy don't exist, and the corresponding sportspeople categories currently contain more than competitors, then yes, go ahead and build those parts of the competitors tree. (Oh, and I mentioned Sportsmen thinking it would need to be renamed as "Male sports competitors", but perhaps the existing names for sportsmen and sportswomen are clear enough already – they may be less ambiguous than sportspeople, in which case they could be retained at the current names but within the competitors tree.) – Fayenatic London 21:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem here. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 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 all except Canada and Australia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Television programs based on British novels to Category:Television programmes based on British novels

Nominator's rationale: Local usage trumps category similarity. In the UK (and in the other countries listed) a "program" refers almost solely to computer software (sometimes also to a course or regime), never to television. Grutness...wha? 05:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating -

Category:Television programs based on Australian novels → Category:Television programmes based on Australian novels

Category:Television programs based on Indian novels → Category:Television programmes based on Indian novels

Category:Television programs based on Irish novels → Category:Television programmes based on Irish novels

Category:Television programs based on New Zealand novels → Category:Television programmes based on New Zealand novels

Not sure what the usual spelling is for Canada; the Canadian category might also need renaming.

Also -

Category:Television programs based on works by Walter Scott → Category:Television programmes based on works by Walter Scott (per similar spelling for other UK authors - e.g., Category:Television programmes based on works by Charles Dickens‎, Category:Television programmes based on works by A. J. Cronin‎)

Category:Dracula television programs → Category:Dracula television programmes (Irish fictional creation)

I suspect that a better name could be possible for the Dracula category (open to suggestions!). Grutness...wha? 06:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom To match British use. "Dracula television programs" should be renamed to Television programmes based on Dracula, after Dracula (1897), the original novel. One observation, however: Bram Stoker (1847-1912) was a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922), but he was an Irishman from Clontarf, Dublin. Should he and his works be categorized as Irish, British, or both? Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even during the period of GB&I, Ireland was considered as a distinct item, in much the way Scotland and Wales are currently, so I'd say his works should be categorised under Ireland. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- This nom is a correct application of ENGVAR. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:ENGVAR. Just to clarify nom's uncertainty about Canada, "program/me" is one of those words where CanE generally aligns with American rather than British spelling (you can certainly find some Canadians who prefer to use the British spelling instead, but it's considered a variant spelling in CanE rather than the standard one.) So Canada should be left at "programs". Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clearing that up :) Grutness...wha? 01:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'd be willing to do this category. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Australian move - while both spellings are acceptable in Australian English, "program" is more common than "programme" - see Macquarie Dictionary source [1] and media reports [2] and this recent RfC. Neutral to other moves -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:32, 7 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. List is at List of sportspeople–artists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople who were artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a WP:TRIVIALCAT to me. Paul_012 (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Their athletic and artistic careers are irrelevant to each other. Unnecessary intersection. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is an interesting intersection. I agree they are unrelated, but that is where category intersections are useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of sportspeople–artists sounds good in my opinion. I find it an interesting intersection as well and I agree on the idea of renaming.Svedlundp (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. As Peterkingiron says, it's an interesting intersection, but I'm not convinced it needs a category. I added a few others including Jean-Pierre Rives - I was surprised he wasn't already in the category! Note - if kept (or listified), the current name should be changed, as it implies that these are all people who started off as artists and became sportspeople, when the opposite is often the case.
  • very interesting to learn about Jean-Pierre Rives, thanks, and that's a good example of its functionality Svedlundp (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness...wha? 23:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If listified, it is probably better to create a separate list of artists who were sportspeople and link the two lists to each other. List of sportspeople who were artists or artists who were sportspeople does not sound like a clear list name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of sportspeople–artists might work, though... Grutness...wha? 02:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• List of sportspeople–artists sounds good in my opinion. I find it an interesting intersection as well and I agree on the idea of both listifying and/or renaming.Svedlundp (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No objection to listifying if desired, but we do not create a category for every possible "People who happen to be both X and Y" combination of occupations, if the intersection is not itself a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Not a common defining feature, but unusual enough to warrant a list per above. SFB 20:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've created Draft:List of sportspeople who were artists from the category. DexDor ^(talk) 16:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved it into article space at the title shown above (List of sportspeople–artists) and started to fill it out. Needs more work though. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 5 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 redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This came up at Redirects for Discussion, but it appears that the nominator there (Backendgaming) may have emptied this category and made the redirect themself (I'm not sure on the history). I think categories for discussion is a better place to discuss this, since it largely asked what should be included in the category and whether it should be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The category was manually moved (renamed) to Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- while this has been done out of proper process, we should acquiesce in the result. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - are there similar categories for other parts of the world? If so, the "... Asia" category could become a parent. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a subjective grouping and nearly all the contents are simply focused on East Asian educational culture. The idea of whether that constitutes some kind of overbearing pressure or not is in the eye of the beholder. SFB 20:17, 26 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) 13:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Lebanese communities outside Lebanon to Category:Lebanese diaspora by country

Nominator's rationale: "X disapora by country" is a well-established category tree, but oddly the Lebanese diaspora (famously large and wide) lacked such a cat. I created Category:Lebanese diaspora by country this week and request that the non-standard "communities" cat be merged into my newer standardized equivalent. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC) MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- There is no meaningful distinction between these. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 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.