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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn per comments by Koavf. All subcategories have either been removed from the nominated category or recategorised to the other category as an alternative. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Record label compilation albums to Category:Compilation albums by record label

Nominator's rationale: Two separate categories for the same purpose makes no sense. Other category seems to follow standard naming conventions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• JalenFolf, Do not merge These are two different things: the first one is "This is a compilation album put together by a record label to show off their roster" the second is "This is a scheme of several subcategories that diffuses Category:Compilation albums by the record label that released them". E.g. Dead Letter Office (album) is in Category:I.R.S. Records compilation albums and that category is a member of Category:Compilation albums by record label. Bad Boy's 10th Anniversary... The Hits is in Category:Record label compilation albums because it's a showcase of several songs released on Bad Boy Records. Does that clarify? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 19 April 2020 (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: upmerge. bibliomaniac15 02:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the United States Congress of Vietnamese descent to Category:American politicians of Vietnamese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 18:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication that being of (some, most, pure???) Vietnamese descent has any bearing on the conduct of a US congressmember. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American politicians of Vietnamese descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American politicians of Vietnamese descent only per PC above. Agree that this is just thinly-disguised racism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2020 (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:Pejorative terms for white people, split off the European ones to Category:Pejorative terms for European people bibliomaniac15 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-European and anti-white slurs to Category:Epithets for white people

Nominator's rationale: Looking through the pages in this category, the idea that most are "anti-European" or "anti-white" seems dubious and POV. Terms such as Goombah, Kraut, and Wop target a specific nationality, not European heritage in general, and are most often directed at whites by other whites. Others such as Becky, Eurotrash, Japie, and White trash are more rooted in socio-economic issues than purely racial ones. Broadly speaking, the history of racism and European colonialism means there is no perfect parity between, say, an anti-black slur which has historically been used to derogate a subjugated class of people based on skin color, and an epithet like Honky, Peckerwood, or Whitey. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: merge Goombah, Honky, Kraut, Japie, Wop, etc. into Category:Ethnic and religious slurs, and rename the present category to Category:Anti-white slurs for terms such as Peckerwood and Whitey. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Becky" and "white trash" are certainly racial and pejorative, and the first is used almost entirely by non-whites ("cracker" might be similar). That there are also associations with class or socioeconomic status or that they lack the historical power dynamics of similar terms against blacks doesn't de-racialize the term any more than "nigga", "hood rat" or "porch monkey" could be considered deracialized refererences to geographic location, lifestyle and subculture. We should call a slur a slur, as it were. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our own articles suggest the opposite:

• "In 2019 the dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster wrote that: 'Becky is increasingly functioning as an epithet, and being used especially to refer to a white woman who is ignorant of both her privilege and her prejudice' ... Whitehead was not convinced that the term is a racial slur" (link)
• "The label [White trash] signifies a social class inside the white population and especially a degraded standard of living ... the term is mostly used pejoritavely by urban and middle-class whites as a class signifier" (link)

Both terms are equally if not more rooted in class-based issues. That they have a racial element doesn't mean they derogate whiteness specifically, which the name of this category implies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our white trash article says right at the top it's a "derogatory ... slur" and applies only to whites. The parallel to "nigga", which WP includes in the anti-black slurs category, is precise: the term indicates social class when applied within-race, and within-race usage is more common, but it is considered specifically and primarily a racial remark when uttered by people outside the race. The choice to say "white trash" instead of nonracial equivalents like "trailer trash" or "hillbilly trash" is, likewise, parallel to calling a black person an "black idiot" or "negro genius" rather than an idiot or (sarcastically) a genius. The deliberate underlining of the race membership by people who are not members themselves compounds the insult and takes precedence over the embedded class reference. That the term can also be used within-race to solely describe social class, as blacks use "nigga", does not remove it from the racial slur category.

I don't know if "Becky" is best described as a slur, epithet or something else, but it's unquestionably racial, and Professor Whitehead agrees it's racial (she says it refers to a white woman of a certain kind). She disputes whether it is equivalent to a stereotypical black name like "Deshawn", but does not provide any reason to consider them different. It sounds like the only reason is IDONTLIKEIT; she personally disdains the idea of "reverse racism", or the idea that slurs against whites can be a real thing. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pejorativeness of White trash comes from the "trash" part, not the "white" part. I don't see anything in the article to suggest that the term is "anti-white". The comparison with nigga is interesting, but seems off-topic. Like I said, there's no parity between anti-white "racism" and anti-black racism. And yes, reverse racism is a faulty concept, as our article on that topic points out. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't about the contents of published sources; still, if you think any article doesn't adequately represent reliable sources, you're welcome to make such improvements yourself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but you seem to me to be digging for unprincipled exceptions to treat these terms differently (e.g., renaming the category) where whites are the target simply because you don't consider "anti-white slur" to be a viable concept. I phrased it obliquely in terms of Mrs Whitehead, but it's local IDONTLIKEIT right here on this page that was the point. If a personal peeve about "anti-white" is what it's about, that should have been stated at the outset rather than coming up with ad hoc reasons to exclude particular terms from the category, followed by even more ad hoc reasons to dismiss counterarguments.

The pejorativeness of white trash doesn't have to come from "white" (and it does come from there to some extent, when used by nonwhites) in order to make it racial. It is sufficient that the pejorativeness be conjoined with a racial reference, and to be subordinate to the racial reference (which it is, when used by nonwhites). There are other reasons, some of which I gave above, but it just looks like denialism to claim that a nonwhite pointing and shouting "look, white trash!" is not a racial insult. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pejorative term can only be "anti-white" if whiteness itself is being deprecated. Otherwise it's anti–something else. Being anti-white to some extent, when used by nonwhites (source please?) hardly makes anti-whiteness a defining characteristic for categorization purposes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Several users suggested renaming this category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#Category:Anti-European and anti-white slurs, but without proposing a specific name. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Split to Category:Anti-European slurs and anti-white slurs. White people and Europeans are not synonymous. Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly split, the category very clearly contains slurs referring to all white/western people, which can be kept in a category of its own, plus a hodgepodge of unrelated slurs (referring to foreigners, or to a specific nationality or ethnicity) for which I think the best solution is to upmerge per nominator's alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Split but don't rename to "Epithets"; the whole tree is "slurs" - and what makes these notable is that they are pejorative. (note: Caucasian race is not included nor should it be as it is not pejorative). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good to bring up the "epithets" part of the nomination, I also do not quite understand why a change from "slurs" to "epithets" would be needed but forgot to mention that in my previous comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Carlossuarez46 and Marcocapelle: Then how about Category:Pejorative terms for white people as another alternative? "Pejorative" has milder connotations than "slur", and is more broadly applicable to the pages in the category. I'm not so worried about the tree structure being disrupted, since categories are based on verified article contents, not whether they fit neatly into existing schemas. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "slurs against white or European ethnicities". This would address the point by OP that they are not used against whites-as-such or Europeans-as-such, but for specific subgroups in the white or European category. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom The only page in this category with "slur" in the title, Twinkie (slur), doesn't even mention white people and is predominantly about its use against Asian Americans. Only a few more actually describe the subject as a "slur", preferring "pejorative", "epithet", or "slang" to characterize how the term is used. Renaming to "Epithets" or "Racial epithets" would be a better description of what the category contains since that is the phrasing that most of the pages in the category actually use. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If I were nominating the page now, I might suggest Category:Pejorative terms for white people instead. You're right that most of the articles don't use "slur" to describe their subjects. But my originally proposed name is seeming vague and clunky to me now. Maybe it's the fact that an "epithet" is not always pejorative. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pejorative is fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American women of Laotian descent in politics to Category:American people of Laotian descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American women of Asian descent in politics. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 18:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nationality + sex + descent + job intersection; really? And yet another problematic descent category; how much, how far back, and why does it matter? Do American women politicians of Laotian descent do things differently is someone trying to ascribe to them some nefarious or ulterior motives? is there even a non-list article that could be written on this subject? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Laotian descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American politicians of Thai descent to Category:American people of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American politicians of Asian descent. This is a small category. Moreover, per WP:EGRS, Politicians of Thai descent in the United States do not "constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." User:Namiba 18:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comment on the women Laotian version above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Thai descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support consensus to remove Asian descent categories.--User:Namiba 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Thank you for that, I believe it makes these nominations clearer and more likely to quickly gain consensus. Place Clichy (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American women of Thai descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only one sub-category which is also up for deletion. User:Namiba 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We already have Category:American people of Thai descent SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete another unnecessary nationality + sex + "descent" combination. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American women of Thai descent in politics to Category:American people of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American women of Asian descent in politics. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nationality + sex + descent + job intersection; really? And yet another problematic descent category; how much, how far back, and why does it matter? Do American women politicians of Thai descent do things differently is someone trying to ascribe to them some nefarious or ulterior motives? is there even a non-list article that could be written on this subject? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Thai descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the United States Congress of Thai descent to Category:American people of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary "descent" category with the same problems as usual. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Thai descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the United States Congress of Taiwanese descent to Category:American politicians of Taiwanese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Taiwanese descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination is in fact a merger to American politicians of Taiwanese descent, not people. While it is probably debatable that this category is itself eligible under WP:OCEGRS (i.e. if American politicians do things differently when they are of Taiwanese descent), it has itself not (yet) been nominated for upmerge like its Thai, Bangladeshi and Cambodian descent counterparts. Until it is and without prejudice for a future nomination, it remains however the logical target for an upmerge. Place Clichy (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the United States Congress of Korean descent to Category:American politicians of Korean descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Korean descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the Taiwanese descent counterpart above, the logical target for an upmerge is currently Category:American politicians of Korean descent, without prejudice for a future nomination of this category. Place Clichy (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the United States Congress of Bangladeshi descent to Category:American people of Bangladeshi descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American politicians of Asian descent and Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Bangladeshi descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American politicians of Bangladeshi descent to Category:American people of Bangladeshi descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American politicians of Asian descent and Category:Politicians of Bangladeshi descent. Small category that is unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Bangladeshi descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American politicians of Cambodian descent to Category:American politicians of Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Cambodian descent. Per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a small category that is unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American people of Cambodian descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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 and purge to Category:Foreign Confederate military personnel (taking what I find to be the best of each suggestion). The generic article is Foreign enlistment in the American Civil War (not "foreign-born"). – Fayenatic London 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Foreign-born Confederates to Category:People of the Confederate States

Nominator's rationale: Dual umperge to Category:Confederate States Army personnel. Non-notable catch-all of citizenship and location. TM 19:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Foreign Confederate States Army personnel and purge, many articles in this category are about people who had immigrated in the United States before the war started, they are not really relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and purge per Marcocapelle. Picking a random example, I wonder what in Charles F. Buck's biography would qualify for being considered either "foreign" or "Confederate": he was born in 1841 in Germany, settled in Louisiana in 1852 with his parents, graduated high school in New Orleans in 1861, attended college there during the Civil War (the biography is silent about military or political engagement), was admitted to the bar in 1867, was a U.S. Congressman in 1895-1897. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and purge Category:Foreign-born Confederate military personnel. I found a naval officer in the category. I gather that in US they are "military", but not "army". The involvement of immigrants in the civil war is potentially interesting, but being a first generation immigrant is mundane. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is defining about the "foreign born" Confederates? None of the soldiers were born in the Confederacy, since the country only existed for 4 years.--User:Namiba 20:47, 19 April 2020 (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:East German people. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People of East German descent to Category:East German people

Nominator's rationale: Misguided. Only content is Category:East German emigrants. People who emigrate from Foo are not people of Fooish descent.. They are Fooish people. Rathfelder (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not accurate. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (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:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory to Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country

Nominator's rationale: Per convention for by-country categories, which use a loose definition of country. Also "by foo and bar" in a category name is conventionally usually used to describe an intersection of attributes, such as "by country and year" ... whereas this is not an intersection. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - we have Category:Categories by country and various others in Category:Categories by location. Elsewhere we have Category:Organizations by dependent territory. No need to extend to 'by country and territory' (which should be by 'country or territory' (union, not intersection)). Oculi (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but the target should be Category:COVID-19 pandemic by country, per consensus for Asia above on this page. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no obvious consensus on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_17#Category:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Asia. Oculi (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:St. John Ambulance to Category:St John Ambulance

Nominator's rationale: Officially, and everywhere else on Wikipedia, St John Ambulance does not have a full stop after its name and this is grammatically incorrect. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Per WP:C2D since the main article had the period removed in an RM in 2017. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename uncontroversial ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 19 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Water transport of heads of state to Category:Transport of heads of state and Category:Water transport

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Layer is not adding to navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but would not merging both to Category:Transport for heads of state be a better target? It will probably be owned by the state rather than its head, so far as that is a meaningful distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, but that would require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (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. Consensus to keep. Rename may be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Proposed coal-fired power stations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There are none as far as I know Chidgk1 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain in Some Form While I don't think there's any active proposals (natural gas undercuts them in price), these are articles about proposals that never came to fruition and need to be categorized in some form. Similar categories include Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States (which I have an open nom for, input welcome) and the poorly named Category:Railways authorised but not built in the United Kingdom. Maybe there's a clearer name? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These projects in this category have been proposed in some period of time even if these projects are ended. Beagel (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep nomination is incorrect. There are four articles present, not 'none'. Hmains (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be multiple editors who read "proposed" to include only active proposals but not cancelled proposals, and we only have the latter with these 4 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2020 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Media by continent to Category:Mass media by continent
• Also nominated: see full list of nominated categories at the Talk page.

Nominator's rationale: rename, WP:C2C per Category:Mass media and Category:Mass media by location. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nom. I counted 2751 categories in this batch. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator, since "media" is unclear but "mass media" is crystal clear. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Keep and Close: per WP:BUNDLE. 2,751 different categories in one bundle? Maybe whittle them down by continent or even country...something! 2,751 categories are far too many to go through before one suffers from the dreaded TL;DR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:54 on April 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome *Note: Just a note, I have no issue with the renaming nomination, it's the amount of categories that are being renamed at once is what I have an issue with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:55 on April 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Question We routinely have people say it's part of an existing scheme and should be removed in isolation in CFD so this may better match the consensus for how to frame noms. Is there a sub-section that's distinct that you want to pull out for separate consideration? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: RevelationDirect: Sorry for the slow answer, real life happened (repeatedly). Anyway, I would split them by "continent or even country". I'll leave that determination up to you. But 2K+ at once, it's a little crazy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:56 on April 20, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Why is it crazy? The same word is added to all of the categories in the same place. Do you really have something special to say on Category:Mass media in Algeria by city that can't be said for Category:Mass media in Africa or Category:Mass media in Prince Rupert, British Columbia? --Gonnym (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's SOP per WP:BUNDLE that we just don't lump that many articles, categories, whatever into one discussion at a time. This was very recently done here for the very same reason. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:46 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Thank you for the reply clarifying your view on the broad scope. I thought maybe there was a particular branch of the tree you were concerned with specifically. We'll have to respectfully disagree on this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom Breaking up the nomination in any way is not necessary as all are the same. And congratulations to the nominator for finding all them. Hmains (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

support to "mass media". Same renaming/re-categorizing is probably waiting in Wikimedia Commons. There is also category:Media--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: After speaking with an admin, it appears I was incorrect about BUNDLE. It is apparently only used on AfDs and CfDs don't fall under BUNDLE. I apologize for the misinformation on my part and the miscommunication. I have struck my above posts and I am supporting the CfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:40 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Neutralhomer: Thanks for looking at new information and then changing your position. That is rare in Wikipedia, and in life! RevelationDirect (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: You're welcome and thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:00 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

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. bibliomaniac15 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:M ? to Category:Articles using unknown earthquake magnitude scales

Nominator's rationale: Meaningless name. Actually, all the tracking categories in Category:Articles using templated earthquake magnitude scale have similarly meaningless names. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Out of the two options given, one would leave me clueless and the other would give me the entire information I needed to know. Would be great if editors would remember that other people don't read minds. --Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be the work of a single editor. Unfortunately the author has been blocked for 3 months, so they can't give an clarification right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Attempting to understand this set, I see that Category:M la includes 1812 San Juan Capistrano earthquake where the infobox includes Magnitude = 6.9 M_la which links to an explanation at Seismic_magnitude_scales#Mla. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Current name would be utterly meaningless to most editors and readers. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Grutness. The name is confusing. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nintendo Switch Online games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a non-"defining" category for its included items. We don't maintain lists of this sort and Wikipedia is not meant to be a catalog of a digital service's library, like a list or category of titles streamable on Netflix. This said, we're already maintaining a list within the parent article and there is no need to add categories to each individual game if its appearance on the service has no defining connection to the game itself. czar 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. There is no need to merge this somewhere, because the articles are already in a more defining Nintendo subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Communes of Lam Dong Province to Category:Communes of Lâm Đồng Province

Nominator's rationale: To match Lâm Đồng Province and Category:Lâm Đồng Province. Fuddle (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You could do this as a speedy nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Per WP:C2C, as Rathfelder pointed out. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy but leave cat-redirect as it is hard to type the diacriticals. This is what we do with Eastern European sportsmen articles, whose names are commonly (mis)spelt without diacriticals. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Norfolk County treasurers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. This is not an WP:NPOL-passing political office, so it isn't the core of anybody's notability claim -- five of the people here are notable for holding office at the state level at other times in their careers, not for this per se, and the other two are up for deletion as they have no strong notability claim at all. There's simply no need to categorize people for a political office that isn't central to their notability. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if kept it will need renaming. This is about Norfolk County, Massachusetts, one of numerous counties called Norfolk (including Norfolk). Grutness...wha? 05:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:County treasurers of Norfolk, Mass -- The present category name should refer to Treasurers of Norfolk County Council in England. As 7 of them have attained higher office, it is probably legitimate to retain a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the full state name, rather than the abbreviation, preferably :) Grutness...wha? 02:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you wish! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, we should not create categories by non-notable occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent Category:County treasurers in Massachusetts, as we should not depopulate a corresponding parent by removing members of a diffusing sub-category. That parent is now part of a hierarchy, Category:American treasurers. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there is apparently an entire tree by this occupation, merging is the best outcome for now. The whole tree should be nominated for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename Category:County treasurers of Norfolk County, Massachusetts. It is sufficiently large and, while county government is not sufficiently recognized by Wikipedia, it is not less notable of a position than being one of hundreds of members of state or provincial legislatures. Just because it does not confer presumed notability does not mean it is not-notable, any less than city council, school board, or any other political office.--User:Namiba 17:28, 27 April 2020 (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:ITV (TV network). No objections if anyone wants to create a Category:ITV plc and fine tune some of the categorization here. bibliomaniac15 05:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:ITV to Category:NEW CATEGORY

Nominator's rationale: The category text says it's for articles relating to ITV (TV network), which would mean naming it as Category:ITV (TV network), but discussion during the speedy request suggested that perhaps Category:ITV plc, after ITV plc would be more correct. I have no preference but the current one isn't good, as this network or company isn't the primary topic of ITV as ITV leads to a disambiguation page with other ITVs. Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, is splitting between Category:ITV (TV network) and Category:ITV plc perhaps an option? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I doubt there is a need to split. ITV plc is a UK public company, but I do not think it does much except run its RV channels and produce programmes for it. Some of this may be done by subsidiaries, but I doubt that matters. Historically there were perhaps a dozen ITV franchises that belonged to different companies, which sold advertising individually, but mostly broadcast the same programmes. Ultimately, they all merged into Granada, which demerged its non-TV assets into Compass Group (in a complicated transaction) - not mentioned in the article - and changed its name to ITV. There might be merit in having a separate category for Category:ITV companies before 2004, but I do not see articles in the present category which would belong in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: then do you support any of the two renaming options or do you oppose them both? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @UnitedStatesian and Fayenatic london: courtesy ping to other participants of speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping. I believe Category:ITV plc would be better as a top category (with Category:ITV (TV network) underneath it, of course), since there are pages like ITV Studios that fit better under the former rather than the latter, and Category:ITV plc could be categorized under Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange and similar categories for publicly traded companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I still favour Category:ITV (TV network) as the more general topic, over areas and times. If we also have Category:ITV plc, it seems to me that that should be a sub-cat; @UnitedStatesian: why would you make that one the top cat? – Fayenatic London 14:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is more consistent with how we have done other company categories (Category:Google is under the newer Category:Alphabet Inc., Category:CBS is under the newer Category:ViacomCBS). But I see no reason both cats can't be within the other, making them both topcats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is part of Alphabet, and ITV plc is part of the ITV network. As for circular category structures, we try to avoid them (although some loops are hard to avoid). "See also" links are a better way to provide or highlight navigation both ways. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITV plc is not part of ITV (TV network). ITV plc owns most (not all) of the stations that are part of the ITV TV network, as well as other assets that are not part of the ITV TV network. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If we split, I agree that a "see also" link would be best. The company is not part of the network or vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to TV Network Lean toward Category:ITV (TV network) without objection to the plc option. Most articles are about the network, not the company per se. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename somehow -- I accept that some rename is necessary. If anything I would prefer Category:ITV (TV network), though I would not rule out the other, if ITV plc has non-TV related activities (which I am not sure). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that Category:ITV (TV network) should no matter what be created and if there is need for Category:ITV plc then fine tuning what categories go there should be done by those that know the difference. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2020 (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.