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 03:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants
• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants for Armenia to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Armenia
• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants for Belarus to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Belarus
• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants for Belgium to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Belgium
• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants for Malta to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Malta
• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants for the Netherlands to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants for the Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants for Russia to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Russia
• Propose renaming Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants for Ukraine to Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants. Nominating after Grk1011 pointed this inconsistency out in this discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Consistency. Grk1011 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 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: no consensus. There is consensus to create a new category Category:Meta Platforms people as a parent of Category:Facebook people (and to move articles as appropriate between the two) but no consensus for anything else. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Facebook people to Category:Meta Platforms people
  • Propose renaming Category:Directors of Facebook to Category:Directors of Meta Platforms
  • Propose renaming Category:Facebook employees to Category:Meta Platforms employees

Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is people of Meta Platforms, who may or may not be exclusively working on the Facebook service. feminist (+) 16:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and redirect directors, split the others to new parents. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- FaceBook has not been renamed. It has merely had a holding company imposed above it. A new category for the holding company would be appropriate, but one is probably enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meta Platforms" is not a new company, it's merely renamed from "Facebook, Inc." which has existed for a few years as the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. Had Facebook, Inc. not been renamed "Meta", I would have proposed a CfD for renaming to "Facebook, Inc. people" etc. feminist (+) 15:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the company was renamed, and the content before was just all Facebook, so should be renamed. Separate categories for people involved with just the Facebook platform might be considered for subcategories. It also simplifies "Facebook people" so that it doesn't mean people with Facebook accounts on first glance -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not at all happy about this renaming. Well, formally it's okay. But how can we all allow a highly controversial corporation to "kidnap" an important scientific language term like meta? No I do dislike it and can't support it even here. --Just N. (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - but create subcats for the several sub-entities, eg Category:Instagram people, Category:Whatsapp people (it is odd that these do not already exist). Oculi (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- FaceBook has not been renamed. I refuse to be a party to their campaign of disremembering. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged: Wikipedia is not the place for righting great wrongs. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Standard practice is to have the people category match the top company name, which is now Meta Platforms. This would qualify as a speedy rename. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this cannot be a speedy because it is not uncontroversial whether the scope (for WP:C2D purposes) of the category relates to Facebook (the service) or Meta Platforms (the parent company formerly known as Facebook, Inc.). feminist (+) 02:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the option to create subcategories as needed, e.g. for employees only working on the website of Facebook. Someone only working on WhatsApp is not a "Facebook person" now that the parent company has been renamed. --mfb (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming or splitting; I do notice that almost all the articles in those categories don't mention the word "Meta" once. Is that because those articles simply haven't been updated, or because these people actually only work on the site Facebook? If the latter, I think we might want to keep this as a subcategory of Category:Meta Platforms people. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC), edited 11:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if that was standard practice, then Google would be called Alphabet. But it isn't. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged: I am not sure what you are talking about; we also have Category:Alphabet Inc. people. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that. And we also have Category:Google people. Looks like we have a wider policy question. 12:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split per Fayenatic london, this is the most accurate solution and also a fair compromise between keeping and renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Make parent Meta Platform cats and then move "Facebook", "Insta" and "Whatsapp" cats there as children cats. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 13 December 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: listify as article section and delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tenzing Norgay relative to Category:Norgay family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At the very least, this should be Category:Relatives of Tenzing Norgay, but the proposed name is more in keeping with WP naming practices. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being related to Tenzing Norgay is now a notable event in its own right? I don't think so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't this a work-family category? Like political families or sports families? Category:Mountaineering family of Tenzing Norgay ? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Laurel Lodged. No encylopedic relevance in suchg a category. --Just N. (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Nom) I could live with upmerging into Category:Tenzing Norgay - given the size of the category, it may make more sense. PS - @Laurel Lodged: no, these people are notable in their own right, which is why they have articles. Family categories are useful though for linking relatives with articles, as I'm sure you know :) Grutness...wha? 10:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Grutness: I never said that they were not notable. My point was that it is questionable whether being related to Tenzing Norgay is in itself notable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One person being related to another is rarely notable in Wikipedia - notability is not inherited. But there are plenty of categories for families of people that are grouped together because they are related, even if the relationship between the members is not in itself notable. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you have a family with a number of notable people with articles, then it makes some sense to have them in a family category. And even if there is no "notable relationship", there are still cases where the family link is worthy of note - in Norgay's case, for instance, one of the relatives was the first person to summit Everest twice, which makes the connection an intriguing point. Grutness...wha? 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it would make a better list than a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the small number (fewer than normally expected for a stand-alone category), mentioning these people in a subsection of the Tenzin Norgay article is probably enough. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 12 November 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.