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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a placeholder section for categories tagged on 18 March with an incorrect link. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_15#1983_establishments_in_India_by_state_and_union_territory. – Fayenatic London 07:45, 19 March 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Delphi to Category:People from Phocis

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, even more because Dora Kaminsky had a house in Delphi but did not actually live there, and Dimitrios Psarros was born in Chryso, another village though in the neighbourhood of Delphi, and had a military career entirely unrelated to his place of birth. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delphi is a quite significant town (it being probably the most sacred site of Ancient Greece). In Dora Kaminsky's case, saying "she had a home there" implies she lived there. --Antondimak (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily (she may have rented the house) and not likely in this case (because she "settled" somewhere else). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway I believe it's easier to believe that this specific category is going to have growth, it being Delphi. --Antondimak (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The oracle is very famous indeed but I do not get the impression that Delphi ever was a populous city. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added Plutarch and we're at 5. This also seems more likely to have growth.- RevelationDirect (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently I was wrong on the article. I'll defer to others on this one. -01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Delphi, the ancient town, was indeed humble in size, so this is never going to get to the size of a category about Athens. But also I think not unreasonable to expect some growth. Tried to Google for a few more people to add, but was thwarted by the fact that Delphi is *so famous* for so many other things that the origins of modestly notable historical people get drowned, so couldn't ballpark who else might be added. In addition, I think we should endeavor inasmuch as possible to have our categorization resemble the existing categorization of these people as evidenced by their historical names used by scholars to refer to them ("Timasitheus of Delphi" vs "Ameinias the Phocian"). Ford MF (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from what I can tell, "Delphi" specifically refers to a city from antiquity the area around which no longer heavily inhabited, so it would be anachronistic to place anyone from antiquity into a category about a modern subdivision. That being said it does seem like two of the four individuals in the category at the moment are actually contemporary.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have no problems to have persons from Ancient Greece and contemporaries side by side, it's a cat of location! Dephi seems a useful historical name not so Phoics which nobody knows but local citizens. --Just N. (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Midrange apparat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be terribly defining for those bio articles included. If we want to preserve the party affiliation, it could be merged to the (quite large) Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members. If kept, should this not be renamed to Category:Midrange apparatchiks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union per apparatchik? Pinging participants in the speedy discussion Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, these are politicians and writers for whom being a local party official is a minor element in their career. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem defining. Neutral on rename if kept. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Category:Apparatchiks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. "Midrange" sounds to me as it will not have objective inclusion criteria. My suggestion will be wider, but I doubt that matters. I suspect that joining the party was necessary to hold office, but this is narrower than members of the party. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Peterkingiron's suggestion seems sensible to make this a Soviet sub-cat of Category:Civil servants by nationality (which I have tentatively added as a parent), but perhaps Category:Soviet civil servants would be better. However, most of the articles are notable for something more specific. Only Dmitry Abramenkov would look under-categorised without this one, and that one lacks notability anyway so I have PRODded it. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, Dmitry Abramenkov was kept as passing WP:NPOL. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Good Olfactory, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, RevelationDirect, and Justus Nussbaum: is there any value in keeping this within "civil servants"? – Fayenatic London 20:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the current name of the category that would be wrong, because they supposedly were communist party officials (i.e. politicians) rather than civil servants. However, I still think the category should be deleted altogether, as the people in this category either are better categorized as a politician already, or their having been a party official is trivial considering they are notable for another reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, if there is a merge target, it would be to a party membership category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, basically per nom. In terms of alternatives, I think that Category:Officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is better (which would include both high and mid-level officials). The term apparatchik is fairly peculiar, and many readers are unfamiliar with it. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2021 (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:Roman Catholic bishops in Dominica. The sole content is now Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Dominica‎, so although there was support for Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Roseau, this seems to be the best option here. This is without prejudice to creating Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Roseau. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Dominica Roman Catholic bishops to Caegory:Roman Catholic bishops in Dominca or delete
• Nominator's rationale As writter this should be deleted. We have no articles on people of Dominica nationality who were Roman Catholic bishops. We do however have 2 articles on people who were Roman Catholic bishops in Dominica, so we could in theory rename it to reflect its actual contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category:Bishops of Roseau which is what they were. Also, add Arnold Boghaert to the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We have decided - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_28#Category:Bishops_by_nationality - to categorise bishops by country of diocese, not by nationality of the bishop, so this should be Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Dominca.Rathfelder (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not a "we" that was 3 editors with me expressing opposition and ignored. It ignored the actual contents where we have hundreds of bishops categorized by nationality, many categories like French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa exist. It is high time Wikipedia stop treating 3 people as enough to decide anything and it is even more high time people stop being allowed to represent such a small group as forming a consensus. All the more so since the later discussion about Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by nationality shows that there is strong opposition to this alleged decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category:Bishops of Roseau or Alt Alt to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Roseau. Oculi (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Bishops of Roseau. That diocese is the whole of Dominica. I doubt that there are any other bishops to require the denomination to be named. The one article might also be categorised as American bishops in Caribbean. I not that his immediate predecessor (a Belgian) has not been included and his successor has no article yet, meaning there should be at least 3 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent of Feb 28. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and per precedent of Feb 28. --Just N. (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the CFD precedent on "Bishops by nationality" (linked above) is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_18#Category:Roman_Catholic_bishops_by_nationality and may end up being relisted. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2: the DRV noted above ended with "relist". The relisting is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 4 May 2021 (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:Roman Catholic bishops of Samoa–Pago Pago. The main concern seems to be applying "American Samoan" to these articles. This resolves that problem. (I'm using the style "Samoa–Pago Pago" to match the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Samoa–Pago Pago.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:American Samoan Roman Catholic bishops
• Nominator's rationale There has never been an American Samoan appointed as a Roman Catholic bishop. There have been two bishops in American Samoan, one was a New Zealander, and one was an American from Illinois. This category should be empty, and we should not have empty categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Bishops of Samoa Pago-Pago or merge to Category:American Samoan Roman Catholics, Category:American Samoan clergy and Category:American Roman Catholic bishops. Deletion does not make sense as the two articles are clearly related to American Samoa. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The people are not American Samoan and so clear do not belong in American Samoan clergy. We need to stop conflating functioning in a place and having the nationality of a place. People are especially sensitive to this in Pacific Island areas, so much so some writers refuse to use the term Hawai'ian for those without native Hawai'ian ancestry. This category should be empty and deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The alt rename solves that issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Bishops of Samoa Pago-Pago or Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Samoa Pago-Pago. Oculi (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is always acceptable to remove people who are wrongly categorized. I have removed both categories because I am right in removing these false categorizations. The category is false and should be deleted. That in no way prevents people from creating a new category. However there is no reason to rename because that is a very different thing. No one should be reverting the proper removal of people from categories that clearly do not apply. This is very frustrating. Neither entry is American Samoan, and so emptying it was totally appropriate and placing either person back in it is a case of falsely attributing nationality that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not you who decides on whether or not to rename, that is up to the closer of the discussion. By removing the articles you are obstructing the discussion about renaming as an alternative to deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the articles are flasly placed here. Misidentifying people as Polynesians is a major offense to many people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The editors are ignoring how racially charged all such designations are. To call someone Samoan just because they happened to live in Samoa for a few years for a job is a major insult and an add on to the inherent insults of colonialism. The fact that those of us who work to make sure that Wikipedia does not reinforce needlessly colonialist narratives are attacked for it should cause those who recklessly attack us for trying to remove these colonialist categorization schemes that under value indigenous people to pause. The whole category tree of bishops has been implemented with reckless disregard for the actual meaning of nationality tags.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishop of a diocese is not a job for a few years, it is often a lifelong appointment and if it is in another country it should be considered as a matter of emigration. Also note that we categorize neither by race nor by strictly legal citizenship. There is not much wrong with Samoan if someone has permanently settled there. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No it is not a mater of emigration. These people are considered foriegn clerics, and I can show you places like Mexico in the 1920s where they expelled foriegn clerics. People who come to a country only as eccesiastical leaders are almost always going to be considered foriegn, and will be treated as such by the authorities. These people are in no way, shape or form nationals of American Samoan, and to imply otherwise is just plain wrong. Go read Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa where we over and over again correctly identify these people as French nationals who served as bishops in various countries. This is not a matter of emigration, and for Wikipedia to treat is as such would be incorrect and wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mexico in the 1920s, with among others the Cristero War is a very atypical example. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indonesia and India have both at times banned foreign clerics. I am sure I can find many more examples. There was a bishop in the early 19th century who for about a decade was bishop in New Orleans and hen he returned to France and served as a bishop there. He never would have been considered to be American only French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't bother finding more examples, because they are still exceptions. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Category:Bishops of Samoa–Pago Pago. No need to say RC, as no ambiguity. It is much better to categorise by see, not by nationality. If they are expatriate (missionary) bishops, they can also have a national category such as Category:American missionary bishops
• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Samoa–Pago Pago per precedent of Feb 28. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the CFD precedent on "Bishops by nationality" (linked above) is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_18#Category:Roman_Catholic_bishops_by_nationality and may end up being relisted. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2: the DRV noted above ended with "relist". The relisting is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 4 May 2021 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Battle family
• Nominator's rationale This is a case of overusing categories. There are two people here, a father and son. The articles both mention the other, and thus link. There is no purpose is having a category. What next Conyers family for the disgraced forced from office for sexual harrassment John Conyers and his crook of an ex-wife Monica Conyers?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete two articles, both linked; category unnecessary (even assuming paternity is legitimate). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary per Carlossuarez46....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Woodruff family
• Nominator's rationale We have three articles in here. Wilford Woodruff, plus one of his sons Abraham O. Woodruff and one of his daughters Clara W. Beebe. This is not really enough to justify a category. If we went for distant relatives by marriage we could add Lorenzo Snow since one of his 8 or so wives was Phoebe Woodruff the younger, daughter of Wilford Woodruff and his first wife Phoebe, and we could add George Albert Smith because his one and only wife (he is the only president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who had no wives while president, he outlived his wife by 16 years and never remarried) Lucy Woodruff was the daughter of Wilford Woodruff Jr., however I do not think that justifies creating a family category. These have been overused and abused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 3 articles; mostly interlinked but not between the son and daughter, but a template could correct that. I note we have no article Woodruff family, and Woodruff (surname) shows the name isn't unique to these folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilford Woodruff had a total of 34 children. Although the two children involved here happen to have the same mother, so there is more linkage there than may at first appear to be the case. It gets more fun, their mother was a niece of Abraham O. Smoot, and we have an article (super poorly sourced) and a category on the alleged Rowlett-Smoot family, so if we were being as open to family designation as some of the other categories I have recently nominated, we could create a Smoot-Rowlett-Woodruff family category. Of course Wikipedia is not supposed to be where people do original research, so that is a bad plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2021 (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: split as nominated. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Split Category:Pratt–Romney family to Category:Pratt family (Latter-day Saints) (or some other name) and Category:Romney family
• Nominator's rationale Right now this is used to indiscriminately capture anyone with any relation because George Romney's mother happened to be a Pratt. It gets even more messy because we have Category:Bennion–Eyring family evidently because Henry Eyring married a Bennion, why the fact that his sister married a Kimball, while there mother was a Romney (with no Pratt ancestry though), does not justify creating a category Pratt-Romney-Eyring-Bennion-Kimball-Snow-Woolley family is unclear since other links are used to build these extended families. Marion G. Romney, and the Ballifs have no Pratt ancestry, nor do the Eyrings who get tacks on here, let alone William F. Edwards who married an Eyring. A family unit should have an identified and recent to when the members lived common ancestor. That is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom. What a mess of marriage connections. --Just N. (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Bennion–Eyring family
• Nominator's rationale This is built around the fact that Henry Eyring (scientist married a Bennion, and then linking every relative of either (including the husband of Henry's sister) into one unified group. There is no article Bennion-Eyring family for the plain reason this is not a unified family. Also since Henry Eyring's mother was a Romney, there is no clear reason to not make this part of Pratt-Romney family or to tag in the Kimball-Woolley-Snow family his brother-in-law is allegedly part of. This is just an excuse to group together people who are related, even if the relationship of some of these people is hard to describe, because it is so far apart. As in we have Carl F. Eyring who is only related to some of these Bennions becasue his nephew married their niece/cousin/more distant relative. A family unit should have a clear common ancestor, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, it is Henry Eyring (chemist).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2021 (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 for now. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Hinckley–Bitner family to Category:Hinckley family
• Nominator's rationale This is not a unified family. This is just using the fact that Bryant S. Hinckley and Joseph L. Wirthlin married half sisters to connect every relative of either man, and we only do not have to add Wirthlin because the only notable relatives of Joseph L. Wirthlin the creator decided to include were his sons by said marriage. On the Hinckley side we include sibblings and parents of Bryant S. Hinckley, as well as children. I am less than convinced there is actually enough to justify the Hinckley family as a cohesive unit, but at least there we would limit it to people with clear biological relations. The inclusion of Neal A. Maxwell beacuse his wife was somehow related to the Hinckley's also seems a bit off to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am less than convinced we need this category at all. It has been almost a month and no one seems to want to weight in at all. These family categories have lead to some bizarre categories. The extreme is Category:Dudley–Winthrop family, which seeks to claim John D. Rockefeller, Herber Hoover, John Kerry, Bill Gates and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. were all part of the same family. This is a huge abuse of any meaningful use of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Kimball–Snow–Woolley family
• Nominator's rationale This is just plain a mess. We start with Heber C. Kimball who had a very large number of wives and children. I believe over 40 children. One of his son's Andrew Kimball married a daughter of Edwin H. Woolley who also had a very large number of wives and children. We thus group all the people descended from either Edwin D. Wooley or Heber C. Kimball because they happened to have 2 children who married. We also group people who married in. Erastus Snow and Lorenzo Snow were distant cousins of each other. I am still not sure how they fit in here. Anthony W. Ivins married a daughter of Erastus Snow. Steven E. Snow is a great-great-grandson of Erastus Snow. This is just too much divergence. It might be 3 families, but I would argue 4, and I am not sure any are coherent enough for an article let alone a category. We could have Kimball family of Utah, Lorenzo Snow family, Erastus Snow family (I do not think we can treat them as 1 family) and maybe one more family. This is just bringing together too many people who are barely related at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Wells–Bennett–Grant family
• Nominator's rationale This is a true mess. There is no coherent family here, even after I deleted 3 articles with no shown relationship at all. We start with two men who were prominent in leaders in all aspects of life in Utah Territory, Jedediah M. Grant and Daniel H. Wells. Both were polygamist, and had large numbers of children. We include anyone who is a descendant of either, and anyone who married a descendant of either. We tack of Bennett only because the most prominent person politically in this family in the 21st-century was Senator Bob Bennett of Utah. We run these together because Jedediah M. Grant's most notable son Heber J. Grant married Emily Harris Grant, a daughter of Daniel H. Wells, as one of his three wives. So this is two families joined together, but with lots of people only connected by marriage tacked in. This is at best 2 families, and tacking in people by marriage makes this even more messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• At worst this should be Category:Wells family and Category:Grant family. However I am unconvinced we need these categories, especially since most of the Wells share a common father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except those are other families. Maybe Wells family of Utah and Grant family of Utah. At this rate I am shocked we do not have a Category:Linsey-Gong family article because we have articles on Richard Linsey, one of his sons, his son-in-law Gerrit W. Gong, and Gomg's father. I think one of Gong's sisters may be notable, and Lindsey's wife was a Bangerter, who I think is related to W. Grant Bangerter, and I think there was a Utah governor who was his brother. That is about the cohesion level of some of these categories, although I think it still exceeds some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. As long as Wells–Bennett–Grant family exists, the category should not be broken into separate families. I'm not so sure the category is needed since we have the article, but there does seem to be an awful lot of these types of categories for families. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a total junk argument. That is an unsourced article. As in no sources at all. This is the stupidies argument ever, and a total insult to the effort I put into creating this nomination. It in no way addresses the issues of linking people like Frederick J. Pack and Emeline B. Wells. Their relation, Wells husband had by another wife a daughter who married the uncle of Pack's wife. How in the world can anyone believe that it is at all logical to place them in the same family? The idea we would keep such a category because an unsourced article exists destroys any and all meaning to verrifiability in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't attacking or insulting you through my !vote, and I'd prefer it if we could keep the dialogue elevated above the level of calling things "junk argument[s]" and "stupidies [sic] argument ever", etc. Doing that just alienates people you are trying to convince. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose. The article is up for deletion too. If and only if valid arguments are offered to keep the article, the category should be kept too. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the article with 0 sources. Do editors here ever read these things. Why do I even bother explaining how disparate and unrelated the actual entries are when people will just ignore that and go about imposing false policies with no evidence of anything. The notion that Frederick J. Pack and Emeline B. Wells as part of the same family is super ludicrous. Pack's wife's father's half-brother was married to Wells' husband's daughter by a different wife. This is just plain a ludicrous claim to a family relationship. It is shoddy and wronghead categorization in the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just thought of something else. This category treats Robert F. Bennett as if he were the only notable grandson of Heber J. Grant. This is clearly not the case. Gordon A. Madsen was a state legislator, assistant attorney general, and even without that might well have made enough contributions as legal scholar and editor on the Joseph Smith papers project to be notable. Yet most would agree Gordon Madsen is less notable than his late brother Truman G. Madsen. I would argue that during his life time Madsen was one of the 5 most influential non-general authorities in issues related to doctrine and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I first read a book by Madsen back in about 1993 but had no clue he was a grandson of Heber J. Grant until about a year ago. Yet Madsen was raised in a section of Salt Lake City's Avenues at the time affectionataly called "Grantsville" because Heber J. Grant and his daughters (all his sons died in infancy) and their families all lived in a very close area within just a few blocks there. I almost think we could write a well sourced article on Family of Heber J. Grant, but we should do this before creating a category. I also will point out both this category and the especially the backing article treat political actions as real and important, and religious leadership positions as of no consequence. This is clearly the philosophy of the New York Times, but it does not reflect actual reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears the article has been deleted so there is no longer any argument to keep this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no objection to deletion now because the article has been deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 28 March 2021 (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) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Aldrich family
• Nominator's rationale There is no Aldrich family article. Beyond this, we have here a man, his wife, his brother, and one of his great grandsons. This is hardly a coherent group that it is justified in categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2021 (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: British nonjuror bishops. – Fayenatic London 18:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:English nonjuror bishops to Category:Nonjuror bishops

Nominator's rationale: Not all of them are English. Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, they are all English or Scottish but there is no reason to add nationality in the category name because it concerns a British issue anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this category is for whether or not a bishop took an oath or not to support the revolution of 1688? Isn't that basically an WP:OPINIONCAT? We can find many other theological/political disputes or petty schisms over the ages but we generally don't usually categorize upon them. Category:Roman Catholic bishops appointed by the monarch not the pope; Category:Clergy who perform same-sex weddings for example don't exist. We do have Category:Married Roman Catholic clergy which does categorize clergy who defy the Vatican on that aspect of doctrine (or are absolved of that through various exceptions granted under canon law), but I don't see that we have generalized categories for any other clergy who break canon law (or are allowed some exception under it), or church doctrine or civil law. I don't think Category:Clergy convicted of crimes would be a tenable tree to create, but perhaps I'm wrong? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a little bit more than just an opinion, because they left or were forced to leave the Anglican church. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename to Category: British nonjuror bishops. The main article should be Category:Nonjuring schism. This refers to bishops who having sworn allegiance to James II of England refused to swear again to William III and Mary. Considering that they could not go back on their first oath. This is an issue in British church history of a particular period. It probably hardly mattered in the case of any Scots bishops as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was restored at the Glorious Revolution, so that any bishops cease to hold office. There were apparently hardly any Irish bishops who were nonjurors, but they might conveniently be included in a British category. In either case there are enough of them for a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The main point is that the nonjurors were still regarded as bishops but not in either denomination.Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category: British nonjuror bishops per Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2021 (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 - jc37 10:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sites using OpenStreetMap data (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: non-defining feature fgnievinski (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' As long as OpenStreetMap data are not availabe for more than half the geography related cats it seems a useful enough info for Wp users and as a result not at all WP:TRIVIALCAT. Wikipedia is about usability! --Just N. (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not defining and a maintenance issue. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People associated with the London Business School to Category:People associated with London Business School

Nominator's rationale: Also:

• Category:Academics of the London Business School --> Category:Academics of London Business School
• Category:Alumni of the London Business School‎ --> Category:Alumni of London Business School
  • The sub-categories have not been tagged. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that "London Business School" does not take a preceding "the" (much like, "Princeton University" and not "the Princeton University"). Usage in the article itself is inconsistent. BD2412 T 01:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:People associated with the London Business School per WP:OCASSOC, interlink the two subcats directly and move the dean and president to the academics category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but that is of no use to the question of the possibly extraneous "the", which is also found in both subcats irrespective of whether the supercat is deleted. BD2412 T 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose random deletion This is part of an overall category structure at Category:People by university or college in the United Kingdom and many university officials are not academics (this is particularly true of Chancellors). Picking off individual bits that come through a renaming nomination just creates a mess. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on "people" - equally a lot of university categories don't have a "People associated with" category, and the top categories are never so busy that you can't have one first-level daughter for academics and another for non-academics. Would be worth having a separate CfD for it though, removing it would help SWC a little... Le Deluge (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this a recent style guide change? A lot of articles use "the London Business School" and the term can be found used a lot across the institution's website (even if you ignore references to specific programmes and the like). Unfortunately the server with the LBS style guide is down at the moment (and "LBS" is also being used rather too much). Timrollpickering (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - WP:THE has always worked something like that, the burden of proof is to show consistent use of The (with a capital) XXX unless it's needed for disambiguation purposes. In this case, usage seems inconsistent (which points to defaulting to no 'the') and rarely if at all is it capitalised. Anecdotally, I know an alumnus and from memory I can't remember them ever using "the", I can ask though. Le Deluge (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By way of evidence, I would note a substantial number of books describing individuals as a "graduate of London Business School". BD2412 T 18:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And many others use "graduate of the London Business School". [1] WP:THE isn't applicable here - that's about whether "The" should be at the start of the article title not whether it's used in running text. Many British institutions are "the Foo Foo" - for example the London Business School's parent body is "the University of London" not "University of London" and sister bodies include "the Institute of Cancer Research", "the London School of Economics" and "the Royal Academy of Music" to name but three. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't the norm: Category:London Business School people, which ought to be a container only? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal would also apply to the subcats. BD2412 T 03:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am agnostic about "the" (though slightly leaning against it per the example of The Ohio State University) - but I'd prefer the "associated with" to be named Category:(The) London Business School people. Associated is to amorphous and of course, containerize. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the London Business School a special case that should be different from all other British higher education institutions? See Category:People associated with the University of London for how they're all named. The category structure for universities was worked out over a long time with scope for national variations. Nobody has made a case for why individual institutions should be exceptions. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think alternate cases can exist. For example, we would say "alumni of the University of Florida" but not "alumni of the Florida State University". Of course, our categories here are Category:University of Florida alumni and Category:Florida State University alumni, so it doesn't come up in the category structure. BD2412 T 04:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem here goes back to at some point we let people claim that Alumni of Foo etc vs. Foo alumni was a US/British Englishvariation issue. The evidence I have seen does not at all support the claim that this is an issue of language variation. Instead it seems that tacking alumni etc at the end is just as common in Britain as in the US. The main variation seems to be Americans are sure that we have the University of Michigan, the University of Detroit and Harvard University. No American would call it Michigan University or Detroit University, and the University of Garvard is not going to be used either. In Britain there seems to be both Oxford University and University of Oxford used. The one exception in the US is the Cal States with interchangeable use of Long Beach State and Cal State Long Beach. I think this leads to British editors seeing our use of University of Oxford as an endorsement of formalism while Amerixan editors see it as the only possible way to go. Of course this does not quite answer why we can't just have Category:People of the University of London. Nor has anyone explained why Category:Employees of the University of London or Staff of the University of London will not do. I have a friend who worked 2 years in the business office of the dental school of the University of Detroit. If he later becomes a member of the state legislature are we going to categorize him by this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per nom. This usage is reflected in the main article. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2021 (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 per initial nom. Apparently Category:Pop albums was also later tagged - no consensus on that - but no prejudice on a separate follow-up nom on that. - jc37 10:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pop EPs to Category:Pop music EPs

Nominator's rationale: Similar categories such as those for house music are called House music EPs. This would better match the genre's target article name. Additionally note that the album's category is called Pop music albums. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now but in favor of a larger discussion. The parent is Category:Pop albums but the main article and category is at Pop music and Category:Pop music, respectively. While I would agree that something like Category:Pop record labels should probably be changed to Category:Pop music record labels, "pop album" and "pop song" are commonly used terms in the industry. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pop albums to Category:Pop music albums (currently a category redirect)
• We don't require all things to be discussed at the same time. This nomination can be a pattern for later decisions. However, I've tagged the parent nomination, whose parent is in turn Category:Pop music.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose this change. Pop albums, pop EPs, pop songs are all appropriate names. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — although I'm getting a little tired of all these tiny distinctions in the pop music industry. When this was vinyl, an EP or LP was the album. Only after CDs had so many more tracks did we get this ever diminishing subcategorization. With streaming, albums, EPs, LPs, etc. are going the way of the dodo.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. I commend RevelationDirect for pre-emptively making lists in such cases. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of the Southern Cross

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Collars of the Order of the Southern Cross‎
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Southern Cross
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Officers of the Order of the Southern Cross
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Order of the Southern Cross‎
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Officers of the Order of the Southern Cross
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights of the Order of the Southern Cross

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)

Brazil gives out a the Order of the Southern Cross as a general purpose award. The recipients fall into three categories:

• 1 Foreign Leaders: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lech Wałęsa and Alexander III of Russia are not remotely defined by this award.
• 2 Other VIP Guests: The articles for Neil Armstrong, Che Guevara, and Shoichiro Toyota don't treat the award as defining.
• 3 Brazilians: This group seemed the most likely to be defined by the award but articles like Lula, Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, and Deodoro da Fonseca tend to just mention it in passing with other honours.

I copied all the category contents into a collapsible list of recipients by class right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting/Listifying per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Red Cross Medal (Prussia)

Prussia issued the Red Cross Medal (Prussia) for special achievement in the service of the German Red Cross and assisting the sick either in peace or at war. The category starts out promisingly with Jakob Weis, a priest with the German Red Cross who voluntarily was interned as a POW to provide pastoral care. From there, the other 5 articles aren't remotely defined by the award: a prince of Bavaria, a future Nazi war criminal, an Austrian General, and 2 Austrian physicians who mention the award in passing with other honours. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2021 (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.