< April 5
April 7 >

April 6

Category:Miocene bear dogs

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:Miocene Amphicyonidae. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Miocene amphicyonids, Miocene Amphicyonidae, any similar rename could work, reasons are similar to my reasoning in the "bear dog" category for the amphicyonids in moving away from colloquial name usage not often used in paleontological studies and consistency with the family taxon name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimalMustelid (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 April 2023 (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:20th Century Studios stubs

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:20th Century Studios stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and template ((20th Century Studios-stub))
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, unproposed, and incorrectly formed. Her Pegship (?) 19:41, 6 April 2023 (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:Churches in Germiston

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. User:Namiba 18:59, 6 April 2023 (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:Royalty and nobility of Austria-Hungary

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Royalty is a subcategory of Category:Nobility. Similarly, most countries have a nobility category, and then a royalty subcategory (for example Category:French royalty is a subcategory of Category:French nobility), but no other country uses "royalty and nobility". V27t [ T • C ] 17:36, 6 April 2023 (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.

Women of the Holy Roman Empire

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that "from" is preferable to "of" in the case of multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2023 (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:Holy Roman Empire royalty

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:Royalty of the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The demonym is inappropriate in the case of multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (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:Politicians of the Holy Roman Empire

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:Politicians from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that "from" is preferable to "of" for multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2023 (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:Physicians in the Holy Roman Empire

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:Physicians from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that "from" is preferable to "in" for multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (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:Holy Roman Empire philosophers

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:Philosophers from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The demonyn is unsuitable for empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2023 (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:Businesspeople of the Holy Roman Empire

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:Businesspeople from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For multi-ethnic empires, it seems that "from" is preferred to "of". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (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.

Slavers

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a lot of overlap between slave owners and slave traders. How does one own a slave without having first purchased that slave? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment then that leaves Slavers as a simple dichotomy: owners and traders. I thought that dichotomies were discouraged? Was not every trader an owner of the slaves that he traded? Isn't that WP:Perfect ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, Category:Slavers may well be nominated for upmerging. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That sounds acceptable. However, we have a potential purge problem around Emirs. Every Emir in the vicinity seems to be lumped into the slave owner category. While they probably were slave owners, it all looks a bit WP:Pointy. After all, so were most Christian rulers not to mention every notable person of antiquity. Shouldn't the scope be confined to people who were notorious or prominent for slave owning? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Once this is closed/withdrawn, we can purge the extraneous emir subcategories, and concentrate on those persons for whom it is defining.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that some are in both is not good enough. Slave trader is an occupation, slave owner is not, there is a big difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not make any sense. Plantation owner may be an occupation (assuming ownership implies management) and we have Category:Plantation owners for that. But slave ower is not an occupation, one may rather characterize it as an uneven relationship between two or more people. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, that is how the subcategories are organized. We could rename all the country demonyms to "Slave owners of Foo". All slave traders are slave owners by definition, but currently only 241 people are in both.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This effectively upmerges Category:Slavers so I am very happy with this. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2023 (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:Shinty clubs established in 1855

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:Sports clubs established in 1855. Additionally, Category:Shinty clubs by year of establishment will be automatically deleted per C1. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Shinty clubs established in 1855 to Category:Sports clubs established in 1855
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One entry. Only year of this tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2023 (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:Lists of Nepalese cricket records and statistics

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:Nepalese cricket lists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category, the one article (and 3 listed in incorrect format in this article) are already categorised in Category:Nepalese cricket lists. Other countries that have stats lists have unique content for them, whereas this would just be a duplication Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2023 (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:Dhangadhi Premier League lists

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:Nepalese cricket lists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, the only article listed is already in Category:Dhangadhi Premier League, so no need to upmerge there. But sensible to add it to Category:Nepalese cricket lists Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2023 (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:Nepal Premier League

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:Nepalese domestic cricket competitions. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, these competitions only appear to have taken place in 2014. Nepal Premier League redirects to Everest Premier League, but I don't see any evidence that it's the same competition (it may be a successor competition). If evidence can be found that the 2 are the same, then and only then a merge to Category:Everest Premier League may be a better option. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2023 (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:Women Prime Ministers of Turkey

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:Women prime ministers and Category:Prime Ministers of Turkey. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 member. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (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:Women Prime Ministers of Sweden

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:Women prime ministers and Category:Prime Ministers of Sweden. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 member. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2023 (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:History of the Muisca

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:Muisca. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, only contains Muisca Confederation. Before the Muisca Confederation virtually nothing is known about the Muisca. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2023 (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:Sportspeople by ethnic or national origin

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 09:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:American baseball people by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
        • Propose deleting Category:American baseball coaches by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
        • Propose deleting Category:American baseball managers by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
        • Propose deleting Category:American baseball players by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:American basketball players by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:American players of American football by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:American sportspeople of North American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:American sportspeople of Oceanian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (empty)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. WP:COP-HERITAGE allows only descent or diaspora.
Summary: This recently created parallel category tree was also populated by the same continent and region decent subcategories. Continuing removals after categories were emptied by previous discussions.
Followup to:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2023 (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:New towns in Egypt

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: Opposed/Keep - jc37 09:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:New towns in Egypt to Category:New Egyptian Cities
Nominator's rationale: Make more concise. Also they are cities not towns. PalauanReich (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should rename the entire category to match the article name.--User:Namiba
  • Agreed, the whole category should be renamed to Category:Planned communities in FOO and likely merged with Category:Planned cities. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case the New Urban Communities Authority is specifically Egyptian, there is nothing wrong with naming the nominated category after that particular article as in Category:Cities of the New Urban Communities Authority. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt renaming to Category:Cities of the New Urban Communities Authority can go ahead regardless of the fate of the parent because it is specifically Egyptian. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus against the nominator's proposal, but the alt rename needs assessment as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for finding this. Then I withdraw my alternative and simply oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2023 (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:Conservative Party of Quebec MNAs

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At the time when the (old) Conservative Party of Quebec existed, there was no such thing as the National Assembly of Quebec, instead, there was a Legislative Assembly (the lower house that became the National Assembly in the 1960s) and a Legislative Council, for which a category already exists. This name is therefore ahistorical. It should be "Conservative Party of Quebec MLAs", which the category's description already sort of suggests.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:18, 6 April 2023 (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:Women who experienced pregnancy loss

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Massive catch all category with exceedingly broad terms for inclusion anyone who's ever had a miscarriage or still birth. this is not a defining characteristic per WP:NONDEF in most cases, and there are clear BLP issues coming up with it. Gugrak (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a defining characteristic is a requirement for categories. (See WP:NONDEFINING.) If you feel WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that isn't defining, please nominate those categories.- RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only a requirement in categorising and not whether a category should exist. Defining and notable are content related and not category related. Biofase flame| stalk  16:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hemorrhage: A found poem about women on Wikipedia

This was unexpected, so the pregnancy was written into the storyline of the show. In October 1991, however, she had to have an emergency caesarean section in her seventh month of pregnancy, ending in the stillbirth of a daughter. The pregnancy on the show was then treated as a "dream sequence"

A series of stillbirths disenchanted the king and served to chill their relations

Further bouts of illness, that may have been miscarriages, occurred in mid-1678, early 1679, and early 1680. Her childlessness would be the greatest source of unhappiness in her life

Between the births of her two sons, Underwood had three miscarriages. In 2018, she told CBS News that this was the basis for her song "Cry Pretty", as "I would have these horrible things going on in my life, and then have to go smile and, like, do some interviews or, like, do a photo shoot or something."

Catherine produced no heirs for Charles, having suffered three miscarriages

In February 1961, Plath's second pregnancy ended in miscarriage; several of her poems, including "Parliament Hill Fields", address this event. In a letter to her therapist, Plath wrote that Hughes beat her two days before the miscarriage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs)
  • I appreciate your thoughtful reply! I like your idea of limiting the category to where it's defining; I'm also unsure if adding "defining" to the category name would accomplish that in practice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notable" has all sorts of problems with MOS:NOTED and elsewhere. It's also kind of redundant; we wouldn't categorise anyone or anything that isn't notable per WP:N. I don't think this can be solved in the title, it should be solved with a clear and unambiguous description indicating how the category should be populated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree that including a word like notable or defining is not appropriate. The normal way of titling a "Category:Notable women who had notable pregnancy losses" is "Category:Women who had pregnancy losses". You should only put notable women who verifiably experienced a pregnancy loss that is relevant or prominent into that generically titled category, but you should not bloat the cat title itself to say that the category does not need to be stuffed with anyone who experienced pregnancy loss. The guideline for naming categories says to avoid descriptive adjectives such as famous, important, or notable in category titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There really was no need for the maths lesson. I think that we are all agreed that for the majority of females, whether human or bovine, pregnancy loss is not a defining thing. However, for a very few, it is a notable and defining thing and so should be kept. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those events are usually actually defined and notable because of those occurrences. Having Oklahoma City bombing in the category Bombings isn't the same as having Oklahoma City in the category just because a notable bomving happened there. If there was an article for Anne Boleyn's miscarriages it would also be included in the miscarriage category. We simply can't have categories for every single minute detail.★Trekker (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer:
    1. WP:OCTRIVIA: Even though such categories may be interesting to some people, they aren't particularly encyclopedic.
    2. WP:CATDEFINING: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently use to describe the topic....
    3. WP:CATSPECIFIC: ... do not add categories to pages as if they are tags.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jen, my memory may be fading, but I'm fairly sure you've been around here as long or longer than me. In our historically patriarchal society, women had no rights, to vote, to own property, to inheritance, to health care, to be a professional (professor, lawyer, engineer, doctor). But Michelle Obama never describes herself as a miscarriage survivor. She is much more than that. Point to any article that begins its lede, "Michelle Obama began this interview by complaining about her miscarriage, and subsequent IVF treatments."
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Allen Simpson Associated Press (2018) quoting from her autobiography, headline "Michelle Obama had miscarriage, used IVF to conceive girls" [2]

“We were trying to get pregnant and it wasn’t going well,” Mrs. Obama, 54, writes in “Becoming,” set for release Tuesday. The Associated Press purchased an early copy. “We had one pregnancy test come back positive, which caused us both to forget every worry and swoon with joy, but a couple of weeks later I had a miscarriage, which left me physically uncomfortable and cratered any optimism we felt.”

The Obamas opted for IVF, one form of assisted reproduction that typically involves removing eggs from a woman, fertilizing them with sperm in a lab, and implanting the resulting embryo. It costs thousands of dollars for every “cycle,” and many couples require more than one attempt.

Mrs. Obama writes of being alone to administer herself shots to help hasten the process. Her “sweet, attentive husband” was at the state legislature, “leaving me largely on my own to manipulate my reproductive system into peak efficiency,” she said.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 2023-04-10 20:15:10 (UTC)
  • That's not an actual interview, that's a book excerpt of an "early" stolen copy purchased before official release, reported as salacious material. Click bait doesn't qualify for categorization. (Your ping didn't work, because you forgot to sign. Always preview.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or as old as me, who has heard decades of women talk about miscarriage (starting with a stillbirth for a woman at church when I was 5). Nearly every woman experiences it. They don't lose their brains, or even their jobs anymore. (In my youth, women who became pregnant lost their jobs. My mother lost her job as a teacher for me. My kindergarden teacher, 3rd grade teacher, 6th grade teacher, all lost their jobs.) Friends underwent many rounds of IVF. And it never has been history changing, especially as most of the time they didn't even know what happened. Every family, royal or otherwise, experiences miscarriage, whether or not it becomes public. The only royal issue was the lack of sons. We now know that had nothing to do with the women.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a reliable source and yet I will quote us just the same. From the article infertility: "The medicalization of infertility has unwittingly led to a disregard for the emotional responses that couples experience, which include distress, loss of control, stigmatization, and a disruption in the developmental trajectory of adulthood...In many cultures, inability to conceive bears a stigma. In closed social groups, a degree of rejection (or a sense of being rejected by the couple) may cause considerable anxiety and disappointment. Some respond by actively avoiding the issue altogether; middle-class men are the most likely to respond in this way." I have this on my user page but remember, this is not the future. We are not civilized. We are a future generation's primitives. We haven't solved *any of this* {gestures at the world} just because a lawyer in 6 specific western countries might take your case if you get fired while visibly pregnant. jengod (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some version of your statement that "Nearly every woman experiences it." has appeared repeatedly in this discussion, and (a) it's irrelevant to the question of whether we should have a category for notable women with a significant connection to pregnancy loss and (b) unless your "nearly every woman" means "only sexually active fertile females who are not using effective contraception" and "it" means "fertilized egg" instead of "implanted blastocyst that survived long enough to be clinically detectable", then this statement is not true.
    (I hope that "stillbirth for a woman at church" involved a family you knew from your church, rather than an event that happened on the premises.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2023 (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:Articles about multiple people in pre-Tang China

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:Articles about multiple Chinese people. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Articles about multiple people in pre-Tang China to Category:Articles about multiple Chinese people
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the Tang dynasty is an arbitrary cutoff in the midst of Imperial China. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:03, 6 April 2023 (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:Astronomical events in the near future

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) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 03:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrarily defined grouping of astronomical objects, most of which do not mention a future event in the next 10,000 years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:05, 6 April 2023 (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.
  1. ^ "For The Want Of An Heir: The Obstetrical History Of Queen Anne". ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-barack-obama-michelle-obama-c49c570c8a444ff3ac01f2f5e5b91b5f
More