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.
No one seems to offer those in the other discussions... in any case I have limited the discussion to Abkhazian... which from what I can tell is just a Russian client state and not really an ethno-state. (nationalists beware)--Prisencolin (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are people for whom Abkhazian ancestry is significant and defining. This is not in any way an endorsement of all categorizations, and ones where it is not justified by sourcing can be removed on a case by case basis, but there is no reason to mass delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 6 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Unexplained, and, as far as I can see, undocumented. It seems to be Roman Catholic priests who supported Hitler, but the phrase does not appear in Catholic bishops in Nazi Germany. If I am wrong and it is kept it needs some explanation. Rathfelder (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Marcocapelle. By the way, pope Pius made a reciprocal agreement with Nazi Germany to stay calm with each other. He was also sort of a 'brown' catholic' for hate/fear against socialists/communists. --Just N. (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until someone can create a reliably sourced article Brown priests (Nazism), and then if recreated we need to use that term. The fact that one of the people here is is disputable if the label applies also causes me to question if this is a label that can actually be categorized by. I think a list in the parent article where we can discuss if the term does or does not apply is much better than a category ever could be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 6 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.
Merge this two category tree has two articles that cover completely different things. We do not need categories for every overlap of ideas that exists somewhere in some form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 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 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.
Regarding the container issue, maybe better the other way around, delete Category:Squatting in Kazakhstan if it's actually a problem to have a category with only one current entry. Reason being I don't think it will have more entries soon (I'm the person populating these cats). I'd like to keep Category:Squatting by country as a containerised category all things considered, since it maintains order. Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is getting a bit ridiculous now. As I've already suggested, why not simply delete the cat if it only has only item in it. Despite what was said above, Fayenatic london has broken the current categorisation system since Category:Squatting by country now has the both container template and individual items. That is unsatisfying. For me the previous system was working well and I'd welcome some informed help figuring out a new categorisation hierarchy since it's plainly sub-optimal to have Category:Squats full of random entries from around the world, seems to me like it's better to put squats from the now deleted categories into Category:Squatting in X categories instead. Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to my "breaking the system" means my close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_17#Category:Squatting_in_Ghana and others below it. Sorry, I had forgotten that I had participated in this CFD, otherwise I might have recused mtself from that set. But I do not think I have done anything unusual. If anything it is the creation of these 1-page eponymous categories which is unusual. WP:C2F was added in order to provide a quick way to remove such categories, which do not assist navigation. – FayenaticLondon23:17, 12 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.
Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 12 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.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Roraima of Guyana
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.
Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. Who says they're "non-defining"? Some are; many aren't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 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.