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. bibliomaniac15 05:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Place templates to Category:Geography and place templates

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category fork. Ibadibam (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. "Place" is already covered in "geography and place" so a fork is redundant (WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, merging would make the number of subcategories increase from 20+ to 50+, this would become quite messy, and places is a valid subset of geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - geography is wider than place. I would support a rename of Category:Geography and place templates to Category:Geography templates, much as Category:Geography contains Category:Places. Oculi (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For the latter, see follow-up nomination Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_5#Geography_and_place_templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2022 (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: not merged. bibliomaniac15 05:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:People's Republic of China emigrants to the United States to Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States

Nominator rationale In general we use China and Chinese to refer to the PRC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States contains multiple subcategories by period, these should be discussed in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we should stop mixing national, linguistic, cultural and ethnic categories confusedly. All of these categories should stop using bare demonyms. And oppose per the One China policy accepted by the U.S. government, Taiwan and the mainland are both Chinese -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States since 1949, so that Qing dynasty and Republic (1912-49) remain separate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That format would contradict the format of the tree, e.g. the parent category is Category:People's Republic of China emigrants. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The category specifies its temporal and geographic scope, while the target category does not. "Chinese" is overly vague. Dimadick (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Transvaal women cricketers to Category:Central Gauteng women cricketers

Nominator's rationale: As the Central Gauteng women's cricket team page now reflects, Transvaal is simply a former name of the team (as Gauteng is a former part of Transvaal province), so all players who played for the team should be contained within one category. Mpk662 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support one category for the team is better than one category for each name it's been known as. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom and Joseph2302's comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2022 (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) 05:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Echopraxia9000 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment: nominator's edit summary was: "a list of unrelated people shouldn't be on wikipedia". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the people in the category seem unrelated to each other, and they are therefore not a family. Unlike other family categories such as Category:Lauda family, where the 4 people are 4 generations of the same family. Please can someone tag this nomination appropriately as a deletion discussion (I don't know how to do manually, as I use Twinkle for it). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged now. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- According to Zellweger, this is a Swiss noble family, so that they are probably all ultimately related, but we normally deal with this by having a list, which is what that article is and lists all four people. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2022 (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.