March 2 >

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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Orleans Arena to Category:Events in the Las Vegas Valley

Nominator's rationale: This category contains almost exclusively articles about events which happened in the arena, not about the arena itself. Therefore, it makes more sense to merge to an appropriate subcategory per WP:PERFCAT. This is in line with the recent consensus here. User:Namiba 22:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but many articles rather belong in Category:Sports competitions in the Las Vegas Valley, i.e. manually merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So let's merge all and then manually move those that don't belong, right?--User:Namiba 00:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In principle Delete as this offends against WP:OC#VENUE, rather than PERFCAT, but I would not oppose Merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 5 March 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.

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 Category:Genderqueer. Emptied (no consensus to keep). Merge Category:Genderqueer people. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Genderqueer to Category:Non-binary gender
Propose merging Category:Genderqueer people to Category:People with non-binary gender identities

Nominator's rationale "Genderqueer" is a slightly dated term for a non-binary person or a type of non-binary person. The former genderqueer article has itself been merged into the Non-binary gender article already. That article describes the term as a synonym for non-binary. Pinging users: @User:Bearcat, @User:Another Believer, @User:TheTranarchist, @User:Mathglot, @User:Marcocapelle, @User:Fayenatic london, @User:StarTrekker, @User:Place Clichy, @User:Anomalous+0, @User:Knoterification, @User:JDBauby. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Genderqueer does seem redundant, I wouldn't be opposed to that category's deletion.

While genderqueer looks to have been largely replaced by the term non-binary, I wouldn't want the Category:Genderqueer people deleted at the moment. There is still a sizable enough amount of people who self-identify as genderqueer, and I think it would be better suited as a subcategory inside of Category:People with non-binary gender identities.

JDBauby (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore: the ping did not reach me. In order to make it work you need to add a fresh signature. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what do you mean by fresh signature? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ~~~~ again. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did it again. Did it work? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It still did not. I think the pinging and the fresh signature must be in one new edit, but I am just guessing now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try this again and ping everybody in case they didn't get a ping the first time: @User:Bearcat, @User:Another Believer, @User:TheTranarchist, @User:Mathglot, @User:Marcocapelle, @User:Fayenatic london, @User:StarTrekker, @User:Place Clichy, @User:Anomalous+0, @User:Knoterification, @User:JDBauby Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works! Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that none of the four articles in this category is specifically about non-binary gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that "Genderbending" has nothing necessarily to do with being "genderqueer" either. More related to androgyny. The queer fashion article mentions non-binary gender in the first sentence. The article about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence never mentions genderqueerness. So that leaves only the "The Prince and the Dressmaker" as directly relevant. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and note that the criteria for categories is stronger than "something to do with", in fact, it has to be a defining characteristic, a higher bar. Do the majority of sources describe "The Prince and the Dressmaker" as "genderqueer"? Seems highly unlikely, as it's a book, and books don't have gender identity, ergo, doesn't belong. I've removed it from the category, and the other three as well. Having said all that, I support the category merge. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there isn't even reason to have an individual article for the concept anymore I don't see why there would be need for category trees related to it.★Trekker (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge manually, only move content that is relevant for the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but in line with what Marcocapelle is saying, that only content that is relevant for the target should be moved. Historyday01 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support manual merge.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. While there is an overlap with non-binary, genderqueer is a distinct term in its own right. There are people who describe themselves only as genderqueer (eg, [[Ry Armstrong], Eli Clare), and others who would describe themselves as both genderqueer and non-binary (eg, Kevin Barnes, Nicky Case), or genderqueer and transgender (eg, Charlie Jane Anders, Richard O'Brien). Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WikiProject LGBT Studies of this discussion [1] Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging the category for people. If that is how people identify, that is the best category to use. It's not for us to decide that it is "slightly dated". Keeping as a subcategory of NB people allows readers who want to find people who specifically identify as genderqueeer to do so. There is no clear benefit to upmerging. Category:Genderqueer is virtually empty now, and given the merge of the Genderqueer article, it may make sense to delete it.--Trystan (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trystan MikutoH (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support manual merge Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Category:Genderqueer has been emptied. In its current state it should just be deleted, as User:Trystan already mentioned. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, the above discussion and the below discussion about queer identities. Unfortunately, categories cannot be refined in a multitude of thin elaborated nuances,otherwise they lose their primary role, which is to be a navigation tool. Nuances of identity are better served by detailed and in-context explanations in topic and individual articles. Place Clichy (talk) 13:26, 4 March 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.

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Propose splitting Category:Fascist rulers to Category:Fascist heads of state and Category:Fascist heads of government, both under Category:Fascist politicians~~

Alternative:

Propose deleting Category:Fascist rulers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT. Category:Rulers is currently a child of Category:Sovereignty suggesting that "rulers" are sovereign. Some are not rulers, they were elected. Most are in parallel related categories, not aid to navigation.

Previously kept:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Fascist rulers

William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Norden1990, Hmains, Johnpacklambert, Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, Johnbod, Gidonb, and Dimadick: active participants in 2015.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree This sounds very reasonable. Hmains (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. Both Category:Heads of government and Category:Heads of state are subcats of Category:Rulers, so the nom argument doesn't seem valid. We have a forest of sub-cats already, & I'm not sure we need more. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those don't belong under Rulers, they are already under the parallel categories. Fixed.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@William Allen Simpson: I really do not agree with moving them: most rulers are or can be considered as heads of state. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Maybe so, but you reversed that concept. By putting them under Rulers, all heads of state are considered Rulers. That's wrong. Also, I'm quite certain few heads of government are Rulers. Most other subcategories have "rulers" in the name, so these two stuck out like a sore thumb.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with William. As I repeatedly argued at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_12#Category:Rulers, "ruler" is too vague a term in general, and there are countless examples where people who never were head of state are currently in a cat or subcat named "rulers", proving my point that we should avoid the term "ruler" altogether. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly because of the vagueness of the concept, rulers may well consist of all heads of state and heads of government. It is not necessary to interprete "ruler" as "absolute ruler". Curious to hear User:Fayenatic london's thoughts on this move. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we should categorize politicians by political party, not by general labels. If kept, split per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree, but this was kept in 2015. Indeed, you agreed. Is there something specific that changed your mind?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. In the course of years I realized more and more that, especially in politics, reliable sources can be heterogeneous in content. The fact that some reliable sources explicitly label someone as e.g. a fascist is not good enough. Leadership or representation of a party, called by its name, is far more objective. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The distinction between heads of state and heads of government is essential, since several of these people were prime ministers. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Glad that nom has picked up my suggestion from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_12#Category:Rulers. Read there for my explanation that "ruler" is too vague a term in general, implies "monarch" or "head of state", but in the case of Fascist Italy, prime minister Benito Mussolini was head of govt, while king Victor Emmanuel III of Italy was head of state. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Changed my mind, now leaning towards Delete, see Update below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians and rulers should be categorized by actual regime rather than catch-all and often contentious labels like fascist. In turn, if supported by reliable sources, the regime may be placed in an appropriate fascism category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be acceptable, added to nomination.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: Perhaps it might be more appropriate to rename it to Category:Fascist leaders. -- 2804:248:FB57:D400:39:4AA:E8DD:86A4 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, previously rejected. See links provided.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per the reasons given by Johnbod. -- 2804:248:FBB4:800:70CE:7A2C:450F:31CD (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a wide-ranging category for a mixture of rulers with various titles, including the heads of WWII puppet governments under German Nazi suzerainty. This is a high level category, where a vague term serves us well. This is not an excessively large category and does not need to be split. There may be a question in some cases whether the term Fascist is correctly applied, or is rather a term of abuse by others. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- In line with what Peterkingiron, Johnbod, and 2804:248:FBB4:800:70CE:7A2C:450F:31CD are saying, deleting the "Fascist rulers" category, and splitting the category into "Fascist heads of state" and "Fascist heads of government" categories would do more harm than good. Also, I think there would be more debates about what constitutes a "head of government" or a "head of state", rather than using a more generally used distinction like "ruler", meaning that such debates could be avoided to stay with the current set-up instead. Historyday01 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: "Category:Socialist rulers" was deleted, "Category:Communist rulers" is still undecided. Marcocapelle and I have stated at the latter CfD that we would support deletion of "Category:Communist rulers" is both "Category:Socialist rulers" and "Category:Fascist rulers" would also be deleted; and "Category:Socialist rulers" has been deleted now, which sets an important precedent. Therefore, rather than supporting the split proposal (which I originally suggested myself), I'm now leaning towards Delete. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've withdrawn splitting, as there is insufficient support. Delete, per Marco, Place, Nederlandse.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now spent some hours purging. Many/most of the articles were added by IP editors, 10-20 at a time. Hard to say whether they were all the same editor, but certainly the same pattern. Looking at those contributors, about half of those edits have since been reverted, and I've removed many more. Some of the articles were ministers or even prime ministers, but with no mention of fascism regarding the government (10 had no mention of fascism anywhere in their article). Many were Japanese collaborators during WW2, but Fascism isn't an appropriate category for them. In any case, many were not "rulers". One article explicitly stated "did not rule directly." It seems most were added without actually reading the articles based upon membership in some other category. A garbage intersection category.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it should be limited to dictatorship established in Europe in the period 1918 to 1939. Anything else depends on an editor's POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and nom. — Qwerfjkl talk 19:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Skovl (talk) 17:44, 11 March 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.

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:Brain–computer interfacing in fiction. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brainships to Category:Fiction about brainships

Nominator's rationale: Clearly there are no ships of this kind that merit their own article. The category should be moved to Category:Brain–computer interfacing in fiction instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Merge to Category:Brain–computer interfacing in fiction as suggested — WP:SMALLCAT with little chance of expansion. Technically, 1 of the 3 examples doesn't even belong in the category.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Merge Per WAS. (No objection to recreation under the proposed name if we ever get to 5+ articles that truly belong in the category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:31, 4 March 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.

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American musicians of Caribbean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:American rappers of Caribbean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: proliferation of tiny categories with unusual and irrelevant hierarchical organization. Wikipedia:Category naming does not provide for by region encapsulating by country. Only occupation alongside sportspeople?

Summary: There's no rhyme nor reason for this convoluted tree, entangled with others, very few articles. This is less like navigation, more of "a maze of twisty little passages, all different."

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These nominations together have the same signature, because I've had to split the nomination twice. Apparently, European descent British sportspeople are English (not Irish, Scottish, or Welsh) and/or "other"; but not concerned about Europeans (as a region), instead "othering" the West Indies; which are in the Caribbean; intersecting with Canadians and Americans; who are also concerned about "othering" musicians from the same islands (even though they have little to do with each other and even less to do with sportspeople). My conclusion is these regional categories are effectively racially "othering".
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the rationale here is baffling as neither is small and we have the hierarchy Category:People of Caribbean descent. The objection might be to the splitting of these 'by occupation'. I don't think Wikipedia:Category naming has any bearing on this; we have all sorts of long-established subcat schemes such as Categories by city, Categories by location, Categories by continent, Categories by region. Oculi (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we should categorize people by national descent or not at all. If national descent is unknown, so be it. It is not like every biography MUST be in some descent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a 'containerise' argument, not 'delete'. And why not upmerge to Category:American people of Caribbean descent? Oculi (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition occupation and descent is a trivial intersection. Subcategories of sportspeople by national descent shouldn't be moved to Category:American people of Caribbean descent because that already contains the main categories by national descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Containerise -- This is already a container, except that one article is on a New York man born to parents of unspecified precise origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Containerise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not containerise — that would perpetuate this grouping of tiny, trivial intersections, for regional classification by race. WP:COP-HERITAGE: Categories that intersect heritage with occupation, residence, or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.... Jamaicans and Haitians are closest (French colonies), but do not share the same culture or patois. Haitians and Dominicans share the same island, but are culturally and ethnically different groups.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi.--User:Namiba 15:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument that musicians should be assigned to a genre of music because of the place where their ancestors were born makes me nauseous. There are excellent classical musicians from the Caribbean, and there are also quite good calypso or reggae artists from many other places. Place Clichy (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:15, 12 March 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.

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople of Caribbean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:American sportspeople of Caribbean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Propose deleting Category:American boxers of Caribbean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Propose deleting Category:American sportspeople of West Indian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:British sportspeople of West Indian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - Propose deleting Category:English sportspeople of West Indian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Canadian sportspeople of Caribbean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: recent proliferation of tiny categories with unusual and irrelevant hierarchical organization. Wikipedia:Category naming does not provide for by region encapsulating by country.

Summary: There's no rhyme nor reason for this convoluted tree, entangled with others, very few articles. Continuing removals after categories were emptied by previous discussions.

Followup to:

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These intersections of occupation and regional descent are not eligible per WP:OCEGRS. Also, they are often used and understood as a proxy for race, which are prohibitid by WP:ETHNICRACECAT. Categorization by national origin is widely sufficient to convey the notion, provided individuals are actually defined as such by reliable sources. Place Clichy (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query - what is the point of deleting Category:British sportspeople of West Indian descent, a container category appearing on no articles, unless there is an intention to delete Category:British sportspeople of Jamaican descent etc? Oculi (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - these should all be made into container categories, not deleted. Grouping categories by region is entirely standard. Oculi (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not standard at all for occupation-descent intersections. E.g. if I randomly look at Category:American professional wrestlers of Italian descent or Category:American actors of Jamaican descent, they aren't in any of these "grouped by region" categories. This may be because these intersection categories are often judged trivial and deleted in succesful CfDs such as this or this, so there are not a lot of them, so "grouping by region" does not bring much value in terms of helping navigation. And, of course, it plays a role that these intersections are a bad stinky mix in the first place. Place Clichy (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, occupation and descent is a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename Caribbean to West Indian (or vice versa) and containerise (if possible). However, are we going to get enough people from smaller islands to make worthwhile categories. If not, complete containerisation may be impracticable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Containerise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not containerise — that would perpetuate this grouping of tiny, trivial intersections, for regional classification by race. WP:COP-HERITAGE: Categories that intersect heritage with occupation, residence, or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.... Jamaicans and Haitians are closest (French colonies), but do not share the same culture or patois. Haitians and Dominicans share the same island, but are culturally and ethnically different groups.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not containerize (as an answer to the relisting comment). This recent addition of an intermediate level of regional groupings for the intersection of descent and occupation, just for sportspeople, does not seem to be a good idea seen previous discussions and the guidelines on trivial intersections. Extending it to other occupations would not be a better idea either. It is just not a level that brings any value in terms of either navigation or encyclopedic information. What's next, Indian plumbers of Mercosur descent? Place Clichy (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:15, 12 March 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pennsylvania state historical marker significations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD: people, buildings, and events are generally not notable because they have a historic marker, but due to their fame may have one or more historical markers or other commemorations (e.g. receiving awards, appearing on stamps or currency, having books and films made about them, etc.). But merely having a commemoration is not defining in this case. The presence of an honorary marker is adequately covered in List of Pennsylvania state historical markers and its subsidiary county lists (e.g. Centre County). Compare to Category:Blue plaques, and its similar previous discussions regarding categorizing people and buildings. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being designated as significantly notable to the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is absolutely a defining characteristic for each so designated article topic where historical significance has been publicly marked, although it is not necessarily the only defining characteristic for each article topic. "Nondefining" makes no restriction that categorization of article topics be restricted to only one defining characteristic or to arbitrarily determined "most important" defining characteristics for any one topic. Further, notability may not be dependent on any singular defining characteristic, although the latter could contribute substantially to evidence of notability in some of these instances. The concept of "notability" appears to be inappropriately conflated with defining characteristics in this nomination. Note that these historical designations are not awards so that OCAWARDS is not applicable. Also note the overarching category Category:Blue plaques was retained in the prior discussion, which this category is most similar too, as it is not broken down into specific people or building categories. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crazypaco. The well over 200 entries show that this is a functional and category. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number is not relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nominated. The lists of markers are in the parent Category:Pennsylvania state historical markers. No such thing as "significations."
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Rename if Kept While historical registries can be defining, since List of Pennsylvania state historical markers says there's over 2,000 in PA, it's hard to see this one as defining. If kept, "significations" is not likely to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:35, 4 March 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.

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/rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People of the Danish West Indies to Category:People from the Danish West Indies
Propose renaming Category:People of the British West Indies to Category:People from the British West Indies (WAS)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be the same topic, I'm not aware "of" and "from" generally being split in categorization. ★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reverse~~ merge ~~and rename~~ like Category:People of the British West Indies. Move the older "from" page over the newer "of" page. – Fayenatic London 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StarTrekker, Marcocapelle, and Fayenatic london: sadly Johnpacklambert made from British a month ago, and of Danish 8 months ago. No consistency.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have left him a note. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions resulted in of to from:
1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#Category:People of the Russian Empire
2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 18#People from the Russian Empire

William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, William Allen Simpson. In the light of that we should use "from", and rename all the categories using "People of" within ~~Category:People of former British colonies and protectorates~~ Category:People from former British colonies and protectorates. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london OK, I've swapped my nomination. Note the former is merge and the latter is rename; the history of the originals should be preserved.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rename respectively, to preserve history per Fayenatic london.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I support this. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the alternative naming format Category:British West Indies people would match a large number of siblings within ~~Category:People of former British colonies and protectorates in the Americas~~ Category:People from former British colonies and protectorates in the Americas. – Fayenatic London 14:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. That's very confusing. Why are they named like an "ethnicity" category? They mostly seem to be fairly small shim categories with "planter" (owned a large plantation with slaves) articles, and "governor of" subcategories; beginning to smell a bit. Also, pirates!
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Reverse Merge Whatever the final name, these should be combined. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:36, 4 March 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Las Vegas Monorail templates to Category:Nevada templates and Category:United States monorail templates

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 member. WP:C2F did not include cases where there was only 1 template; I am boldly adding it now, but will of course not take advantage of that for this nomination. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found Template:Las Vegas Monorail Navbox but I've sent it to TfD as it has only 1 non redirect link. Gonnym (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whatever the technicalities of WP:C2F, this doesn't aid navigation or administration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:30, 7 March 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fundidores Monterrey players to Category:Fundidores de Monterrey players

Nominator's rationale: Renaming to reflect the actual name of the team, in line with similarly named categories (see here). JTtheOG (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:42, 4 March 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Controversial national anthems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per similar discussions such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_25#Category:Controversial_songs - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles can cover any controversy, but this isn't objective enough for a category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SUBJECTIVE. This is really a variety of IDONOTLIKEIT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. There are in fact very few national anthems that aren't controversial in some way according to someone somewhere somewhen. (In January 2022 I made a small collection of "awful anthems" that glorify violence, wartime bloodshed and dying in battle for one's country; it included the UK, French, Dutch, Belgian, Danish royal, Irish, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese national anthems. But the potential list is far, far larger for all sorts of other reasons, including pronouns, ethnic slurs, territorial claims, and obsolete linguistics.) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 8 March 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.

March 1

Category:Orleans Arena

Genderqueer categories

Queer categories

Category:Fascist rulers

Category:Brainships

Category:American musicians of Caribbean descent

Category:Sportspeople of Caribbean descent

Category:Pennsylvania state historical marker significations

Category:People of the Danish West Indies

Category:Las Vegas Monorail templates

Category:Palestinian terrorism

Category:Terrorist incidents on underground rapid transit systems

Category:Underground railways

Category:Fundidores Monterrey players

Category:Controversial national anthems