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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa to Category:Physicians from Genoa

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category where the intersection between regime and occupation and nationality isn't defining Mason (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• OpposeDelete. The lone article (Ignazio Cardini) was from Corsica not Genoa. The Republic of Genoa had more territory than just modern-day Genoa. Simple deletion is an option as the article is already in Category:16th-century Genoese people. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Good catch. Deletion is then the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. We are talking about two entirely different administrative units (the older one - Republic of Genoa - is also by far more important and historical than the current one, WP:RECENTISM). The fact that one of them no longer exists or has a different territorial extent it's not a valid point, it would be like deleting (or including elsewhere) the category:People from the Republic of Florence", "category:Republic of Venice people", "category:Grand Duchy of Tuscany people", etc. If need be, we could consider a more precise placement or name... --teatroge (dm) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I guess we can all agree that Category:16th-century Genoese people should be renamed to Category:16th-century people from the Republic of Genoa, and similarly the other centuries. If that would be done we would not have to disagree on a single-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I support this rename: Category:16th-century Genoese people should be renamed to Category:16th-century people from the Republic of Genoa Mason (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hello. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that this type of categorization can be academically accepted. It's a complex issue from an archival perspective, which has been studied for many years and needs to be approached rigorously and without haste. Let me try to explain using a very similar example. Italy and Italian citizenship only exist from 1861 onwards. Moreover, modern Italy only exists from 1946. Yet, no one would ever dream of saying that Leonardo da Vinci or Raphael were not Italian (in fact, both biographies unequivocally state them as "Italians"). Why? The reason is simple: there's a distinction between the people (that is, that set of individuals with a historically shared culture, traditions, and customs) and administrative divisions. These are two entirely different aspects, both importan, but in different ways and with different meanings. Both categorizations have the encyclopedic dignity to exist, but for different purposes.

  The same can be said about the Genoese (a population with specific tradition, history and customs, recognized by dozens of authoritative academic sources and different from the Italians), I could suggest this book for example.

  I hope I have explained myself well. If there are any questions I haven't answered, please feel free to ask. --teatroge (dm) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Teatroge: it is not clear to me whether you support or oppose the nomination, or whether you support or oppose my later comment. Marcocapelle (talk)

  @Marcocapelle: I'm sorry, I can become verbose at times since English is not my mother tongue. :-) I believe renaming the Category:16th-century Genoese people in that way is incorrect (oppose). Following the rationale of the proposal, it's similar to the Category:16th-century Neapolitan people‎, Category:16th-century Venetian people‎ or Category:16th-century Sicilian people. This was the name for the citizens of that administrative unit, and also, many populations in the world have existed before the respective nation was administratively founded (Italian people are the best example: Italy has only existed since 1861 but even Dante Alighieri, born in 1265, was already Italian). Thus, the current category seems appropriate; renaming it would be wrong. If we want to rename that category, we have to decide a general standard beforehand. Rather, I think it would be more appropriate to populate the category we are talking about and maybe create similar ones for additional activities (only when appropriate and with enough articles available), which I could also do if there are no deletions 'hanging over the situation'. :-) I did a brief search among the articles and found a couple more suitable for the category. Is it better now? --teatroge (dm) 01:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Teatroge: well, I apparently disagree with you, if only on the fact that you call independent countries like the republic of Genoa and the republic of Venice "administrative units". But we can better continue this conversation when that renaming nomination actually takes place. For now the proposal is just to merge Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa to Category:Physicians from Genoa for an article about someone who lived in Corsica. That is apparently wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Marcocapelle: Yes, you're right. I'll be happy to continue the conversation wherever you prefer.

• Cheers, --teatroge (dm) 06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. I believe that attempting to categorize people by the myriad of small states of feudal and early modern Europe (and, in the case of Italy and Germany, until 1861/1871) is dangerous and borderline useless. In any case, intersecting them with occupations is tricky and a can of worms. Even more so if it is done in a hit-and-run fashion of creating a poorly-defined category, adding a lone article and moving. Back to basics: we define topics and people by their defining characteristics. In the cases at hand, the physicians there are primarily defined as Corsican, and Genoese in the case of the 2 that were added since this nomination started. That's how they should be categorized, because that's how reliable sources consider them. There are parent categories such as Category:People from the Republic of Genoa (the previous name People of the Republic of Genoa may have been in fact better) where some articles can be put if needed only (i.e. if they are strongly associated with that state). Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Place Clichy: I agree that the previous name People of the Republic of Genoa was better. About the sentence "attempting to categorize people by the myriad of small states of feudal Europe", the Republic of Genoa lasted from 1099 to 1797 (and from 1814 to 1815), longer than the majority of nations currently existing in the world. But please help me to understand your suggestion: would you categorize those physicians in Category:Genoese physicians and Category:Corsican physicians? In this case I agree, It seems a good idea to me. --teatroge (dm) 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would place Ignazio Cardini in both a Corsican and a Republic of Genoa category, seen the little we know of him with this 3-line un-sourced article. However, this does not need to be a physicians category, as there is not really an imperious need to intersect occupations with every local geography. Cardini was living in Corsica in the 16th century under Genoese rule, and is presented as being Italian himself, so it is perfectly fine to have him in 16th-century Italian physicians (as you would place Dante Alighieri in an Italian writers category), next to Category:People from Bastia and Category:16th-century Genoese people (itself a child of Category:People from the Republic of Genoa). Place Clichy (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Generally speaking I agree with you that we do not have an imperious need to intersect occupations with every local geography. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb. It's not about localism or geography; rather, it's about adhering to reliable sources and maintaining a WP:GLOBAL perspective. I agree that this principle applies specifically when referencing state entities or populations with a documented centuries-old history, as supported by academic sources,[1][2][3][4] and not to every tiny village the size of a cute little ant. :-) Dante Alighieri has always been identified as Italian, if for no other reason than being considered the father of the Italian language, which was the first element of cultural unification for the country. On the other hand, Christopher Columbus, throughout his life, never called himself as Italian (instead, depending on the context: Genoese, Portuguese, or Spanish). Should we remove from that article the "Category:Italian explorers of North America"? Of course not. Should we remove "Category:16th-century Genoese people" of course not. Should we list him in a Category:Genoese explorers? If there were enough articles to populate it, yes. The fact that a category is not (yet) widely used right now doesn't make it incorrect. It reminds me a bit of WP:DEFUNCT or WP:NOEFFORT criterias. :-) We have Category:Native American people by occupation or the whole Category:People by ethnicity and occupation thanks to good reasons and good references, in my opinion. ;-) --teatroge (dm) 06:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Genoese is not an ethnicity though, and not considered as such at any period in history. It also has the issue that it ambiguously refers to either the city of Genoa, or the centuries-old Republic of Genoa, a case that's far for exceptional (see Venetian, Roman, Bavarian etc.). although this ambiguity is not the same depending on the context (e.g. in the context of 16th-century Corsica, an occurrence of Genoese would be rather transparently a reference to the Republic, not the city). The way I suggest out of this is apply moderation, and place the many articles relative to the Republic of Genoa in Category:People from the Republic of Genoa and century-based categories (which we have in principle only for countries, not regions or cities), and not break down these categories in as many child categories we would have for, e.g. Italy, unless absolutely necessary. By absolutely necessary I mean when a topic is both clearly (not marginally) considered a topic in its own right in reliable sources and that the volume of articles makes it more convenient for navigation to have a dedicated category. A typical example would be Venetian painting and Category:Republic of Venice artists, which are arguably more a topic in its own right that Genoese medecine. Also, I don't think that WP:GLOBAL implies that every polity that ever existed on the face of Earth would have rights to be equal with modern nations in terms of nationality categories, especially if there was never really a corresponding nation (think of the Free Territory of Trieste or the Free City of Danzig). In fact, even for present-day independent nation-states, categories for people by occupation and nationality are far from equal: Spain has 91 such categories while East Timor has 21. Such categories are (and should be) created only when there's a need for them and when they're helpful, not for the sake of them. Place Clichy (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Place Clichy: Very convincing arguments, I must say. Thank you for addressing them that well and for the time spent. I do agree with almost everything you said. I still have a few thoughts. Firstly, pardon, I wanted to refer to the Category:Indigenous peoples, which indeed applies to the Genoese. I did not meant to refer to ethnic characteristics (which are, in any case, an extremely debated topic), my fault. Secondly, the broad categories Category:16th-century Genoese people seem fully consistent with the criterion you described here (which I support). The Genoese of that period was extremely significant on a global level, so much so that the century spanning from 1500 to 1600 is known in Spanish historiography (even more than Italian one) as "El siglo de los genoveses" ("the century of the Genoese"). As a second option, I would still use the older Category:People of the Republic of Genoa ("of", not "from"), which is far more precise. Lastly, since I agree with you I also think it is undeniable that over the last two thousand years, three or four populations settled in the Italian territory has been significantly relevant worldwide (Roman, Venetian, Genoese). But again, yes, those are RARE exceptions for which a broad category, except for cases of significant cultural relevance, it may be sufficient. Thanks. --teatroge (dm) 13:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Manx expatriate men's footballers to Category:British expatriate men's footballers and Category:Manx men's footballers

Nominator's rationale: Expatriates are for nationalities, there are no other expatriate manx categories Mason (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom and clap loudly. There are no many such expatriate sportspeople categories from places that are not nations that it's embarrassing. Place Clichy (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wiśniowiecki family residences to Category:Wiśniowiecki family

Nominator's rationale: 1 page in category Mason (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, I did populate the category with 3 new items; I really encourage other participants of the discussion to check more troughly the subject before nominating/voting. For example Zbarazh Castle was in the parent category.Marcelus (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks for populating! Mason (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Still merge per nom. Houses are not generally categorized by family. Having them in the general family category is sufficient enough for navigation. Additionally, the residences are already listed at Wiśniowiecki#Gallery_of_estates. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What about Category:Buildings and structures by family? Marcelus (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Under the revised circumstances it would make more sense to nominate parent Category:Houses in Ukraine by family for upmerging. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Do you even examine categories before commenting? Half of items in the category are in Poland. Marcelus (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Łopaciński family to Category:Łopaciński family residences

Nominator's rationale: It either needs to be renamed or deleted, as there are no family members in the category. I couldn't find any English language pages for the category. Mason (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete for now, only two articles and not even one family member (or, if kept, a rename to Category:Buildings and structures of the Łopaciński family probably fits better in the category tree, in Category:Buildings and structures by family). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The name of the family is Łopaciński not Lopacinskiai Marcelus (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you for catching that unintended typo. Mason (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: My original opinion was Delete without prejudice, as the proposed new category would be WP:NARROWCAT, but I am seeing that a lot of the Category:Buildings and structures by family subcategories have only 2 members within so is it acceptable then?..Respublik (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Marcocapelle - @Respublik, the other categories can be deleted as well (in a separate nomination). Qwerfjkltalk 19:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Catholic high schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Catholic high schools in the United States
• Propose merging Category:Catholic middle schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Catholic middle schools in the United States
• Propose merging Category:Public preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Public preparatory schools in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. 1 sub-category. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question: shouldn't this content be redistributed to the hierarchy of Category:Secondary schools in the United States, which seems to be a lot better organized? Place Clichy (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Aidan721: ping. Place Clichy (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not exactly sure what you would propose. There is already Category:Catholic secondary schools in California to parent the lone sub-cats in the first two noms. And the sub-cat in the third nom is already a few layers deep in Category:Secondary schools in California. What would you propose? –Aidan721 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per nom. I'm unclear on what @Place Clichy proposes. Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:American suffragists by state or territory. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 18:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American suffragists by state to Category:American suffragists by state or territory

Nominator's rationale: Territories need to be added. The commons cat already includes territories. This will put this category in line with other wikis. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is part of the much larger Category:American people by occupation by state tree. I don't see how renaming this one while leaving all of the others makes sense.--User:Namiba 20:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a kinda "I stand in the way" argument. And it can be seen the other way around: the root for U.S. categories is Categories by state or territory of the United States, and although a number of categories in this tree still use by state, they get regularly nominated here for renaming to by state or territory. I guess you just cannot make it a prerequisite to manage the renaming of potentially thousands of categories at the same time (unless you intend to manage that yourself), because that usually ends in a WP:TRAINWRECK and also because WP:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Every nomination or batch thereof in this direction is a good step. Place Clichy (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. The principle of diffusion by geography is to include every type of geography, and it is standard practice to nominate U.S. categories in a way that includes not just the 50 states but Washington D.C., territories both present and historic, minor outlying islands (although not for suffragists) etc. That's why we have Categories by state or territory of the United States, as well as, for other countries in a comparable situation: Category:People from Australia by state or territory, Category:People from Canada by province or territory, Category:People from India by state or union territory etc. Place Clichy (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename Mason (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: User:Johnpacklambert mentioned on my talk page that at least 2 US territories granted women suffrage before any states did, so in the case of the suffragist movements, by state and territory is especially correct. If I'm not mistaken, these are the Territory of Wyoming (1869) and the Territory of Utah (1870). Note that 1°) the parent is Category:Women's suffrage in the United States by state or territory, that 2°) a great part of the suffragist movement actually occurred when many present-day states were still territories, and that 3°)the nominated category and its children were nearly all created in September and October 2023 and populated also with present-day territories, including Category:Suffragists from the United States Virgin Islands and Category:Suffragists from Washington, D.C.. Place Clichy (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support per nom. However, I don't think we should change or to and because that seems like a fairly unique scenario that we can just note in the category page. Mason (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Poets associated with Dundee to Category:Poets from Dundee

Nominator's rationale: "from city" doesn't require people to be born in Dundee. I think that these are overlapping categories, contrary to what the category description states: "This category is for poets with a strong association with Dundee in Scotland, but who were not originally from the city. For poets born in Dundee see Category: Poets from Dundee" Mason (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've dug a little deeper, and it seems like there's an entire tree for Category:People associated with Scotland by council area, but it doesn't exist for any other country Category:People associated with places Mason (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment As the creator I started because the issue was the categories Category:XXX from Dundee such as Category:Poets from Dundee were all sub-categories of Category:People from Dundee which states "This category is only for people actually born in Dundee. For people who are strongly associated with the city, but not born there, see Category:People associated with Dundee". Thus the sub-category Category:Poets from Dundee had to follow suit. The issue is this means foud of the most famous Dundee poets who contributed significantly to Dundee's culture, William McGonagall, Mary Brooksbank, George Gilfillan and Robert Fergusson were not born in Dundee, so I created the associated category to pick them and others up. I have no strong view about merging in the long term, but I think there would need to be an end to the this is "for people born in text" for the people from Scottish place categories and parent categories like Category:People from Glasgow and Category:People associated with Glasgow similarly being merged. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge, "from" does not require to be born there per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment - while that is true, I wonder if there is a threshold for how close the association has to be for it to be from? Mary Brooksbank and William McGonagall spent substantial parts of their lives in Dundee so I personally would not have any objections to them being in a "From Dundee" category (as long as the born in text is removed). On the other hand Thomas Hood only spent a few years in Dundee, but they were influential to his career as a writer in the long term. To an extent the same could be argued of Rachel Annand Taylor. Thus I am not sure they would fit in a "From Dundee" category and so I am not sure a full merge would work - it may be that some articles would be best to be removed from the merged category. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All entries are already in Category:20th-century Afghan people tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan which would be a more defining intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support rename per Marcocapelle Mason (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: alt rename:

• Category:Belgian people of Assyrian/Syriac descent to Category:Belgian people of Assyrian descent
• Category:Dutch people of Assyrian/Syriac descent to Category:Dutch people of Assyrian descent
• Category:German people of Assyrian/Syriac descent to Category:German people of Assyrian descent
• Category:Norwegian people of Assyrian/Syriac descent to Category:Norwegian people of Assyrian descent
• Category:Assyrian/Syriac Palestinians to Category:Palestinian Assyrian people
• Category:Swedish people of Assyrian/Syriac descent to Category:Swedish people of Assyrian or Syriac descent
• Category:Assyrian/Syriac Syrians to Category:Syrian Assyrian people (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 12:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Belgian people of Assyrian/Syriac descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Belgian people of Assyrian and Syriac descent‎
• Propose renaming Category:Dutch people of Assyrian/Syriac descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Dutch people of Assyrian and Syriac descent‎
• Propose renaming Category:German people of Assyrian/Syriac descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:German people of Assyrian and Syriac descent‎
• Propose renaming Category:Norwegian people of Assyrian/Syriac descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Norwegian people of Assyrian and Syriac descent
• Propose renaming Category:Assyrian/Syriac Palestinians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Assyrian and Syriac Palestinians
• Propose renaming Category:Swedish people of Assyrian/Syriac descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Swedish people of Assyrian and Syriac descent
• Propose renaming Category:Assyrian/Syriac Syrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Assyrian and Syriac Syrians‎

Nominator's rationale: See previous nomination. The slash in the title isn't helpful. Open to other suggestions for renaming targets. Pinging contributors to previous discussion: @Edward-Woodrow, @Fayenatic london, @Marcocapelle, @Place Clichy, @Mason. Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Thanks for making the bigger nomination and providing rename targets. Mason (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. This format is consistent with the fact that words Assyrian and Syriac are often used one for the other, sometimes synonymous but also sometimes covering different realities depending on context. In fact, choosing Syriac or Assyrian often denotes various POVs so it's better to use both, but if they are the same thing then Assyrian and Syriac means nothing (you wouldn't say Dutch and Netherlandish, or Greek and Hellenic). An alternative may be "... of Assyrian or Syriac descent." Place Clichy (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I was a bit hesitant about this nomination exactly because of the reason that Place Clichy pointed out. Probably using "or" is a good compromise. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then I support alt renaming to Category:Belgian people of Assyrian or Syriac descent‎ etc. Place Clichy (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I have no objection to this. Qwerfjkltalk 19:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename using just "Assyrian" following the main article Assyrian people, Category:Assyrian people and Category:Assyrian diaspora, like the other 26 siblings in Category:People of Assyrian descent, e.g. to Category:Belgian people of Assyrian descent‎. The category name does not have to reflect all the subtleties involved. It is a matter of ethnicity rather than religion, otherwise I would suggest "Syriac Christian" for all 32, e.g. to Category:Belgian people of Syriac Christian descent‎. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's what I thought for a time, but see how Talk:Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden is filled with discussions on how some parts of the community there don't recognize themselves under the name Assyrians but prefer other terms (Syriacs or Arameans), although they acknowledge that there all belong to the same group. Similar debates on Talk:Assyrian–Chaldean–Syriac diaspora. Therefore I acknowledge that writing "Assyrian/Syriac" or ""Assyrian or Syriac" is needed as a local break from the wider convention, at least for Sweden. Place Clichy (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I concede that the Swedish community/communities may be a special case because of Assyrians/Syriacs_in_Sweden#Identity, and therefore Category:Swedish people of Assyrian or Syriac descent may be preferable there. However, Assyrians in the Netherlands and German Assyrians refer to no such division, so the national categories for Germany and Netherlands should follow the majority short pattern just using Assyrian. So should Belgium and Palestine for which there is no lead article, e.g. Category:Palestinian people of Assyrian descent (like others within Category:Palestinian people by ethnic or national origin). – Fayenatic London 09:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I agree that we could keep Assyrian or Syriac descent for the Swedish category, and just Assyrian for the others. However, Palestinians and Syrians are native populations in the Assyrian homeland, so I don't think we should rename them by descent. I suggest Category:Syrian Assyrians and Category:Palestinian Assyrians, in the format of e.g. Category:Syrian Jews, Category:Syrian Kurdish people, Category:Syrian Druze, Category:Syrian Alawites, Category:Syrian Yazidis. Place Clichy (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks. For the people in Syria I suggest Category:Syrian Assyrian people like the Iraqi and Iranian siblings. But Palestinian Assyrians, for just two people, seems an unnecessary divergence as the sole outlier within the Palestinian parent cat. – Fayenatic London 14:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  OK for Category:Syrian Assyrian people and Category:Palestinian Assyrian people, as for the Iraqi and Iranian siblings. The two articles in the Palestinian category (Jabra Ibrahim Jabra and Yacoub Shaheen) are clearly for people who are both defined as Palestinian and Assyrian, plus there are siblings such as Category:Palestinian Jews, so I still think that of Assyrian descent would not be appropriate for that category. Main article Assyrians in Israel and Palestine tells us that there is a community centered on Bethlehem and Jerusalem since the aftermath of the Assyrian genocide ca. 1920, so there is no reason to present these people as descendants rather than as Assyrians themselves. Place Clichy (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Category:Norwegian people of Assyrian/Syriac descent has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:People of Assyrian or Syriac descent, etc. The current title format fails MOS:/ (and Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden should be moved for the same reason), and or is better than and here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  For the origin of the slash, see Assyrians/Syriacs_in_Sweden#Identity. I'm not saying we should keep it; rather, that if we keep both terms in some category names, then we should rename using "or" having acknowledged official usage of the slash. – Fayenatic London 09:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Summarize the propositions which as I understand have the widest consensus:

• Propose renaming Category:Belgian people of Assyrian/Syriac descent‎ to Category:Belgian people of Assyrian descent‎
• Propose renaming Category:Dutch people of Assyrian/Syriac descent‎ to Category:Dutch people of Assyrian descent‎
• Propose renaming Category:German people of Assyrian/Syriac descent‎ to Category:German people of Assyrian descent‎
• Propose renaming Category:Norwegian people of Assyrian/Syriac descent to Category:Norwegian people of Assyrian descent
• Propose renaming Category:Assyrian/Syriac Palestinians‎ to Category:Palestinian Assyrian people
• Propose renaming Category:Swedish people of Assyrian/Syriac descent‎ to Category:Swedish people of Assyrian or Syriac descent
• Propose renaming Category:Assyrian/Syriac Syrians‎ to Category:Syrian Assyrian people

@Qwerfjkl, Edward-Woodrow, Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, Liz, and LaundryPizza03: would you agree with this summary? Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objection to this. Qwerfjkltalk 17:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agreed, but then delete the Norwegian category as empty. It was created for Eser Afacan who was only in Norway for a few years. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Okay, no issue with deleting a category that's now empty, that would be anyway speedily deleted per WP:C1. Place Clichy (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) HouseBlaster^talk 18:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Horror film male actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Horror film actresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a defining category, and doesn't seem to be part of an existing structure that I'm familiar with. DonIago (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Classic WP:PERFCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as WP:PERFCAT. Note that I'm also adding a sibling category for actresses to the nomination, as it's subject to the same issue as its male counterpart — but the problem is that while these categories both assert that they're meant for performers whose careers have been associated nearly or entirely exclusively with horror films and not for every actor who's merely been in horror films once or twice as a minor part of a more multigenre career, that's virtually unmaintainable: since people regularly add articles to whatever categories they think applicable and walk away without checking for any usage notes to see if they're doing it wrong, it would be literally impossible to adequately manage these categories to ensure that they were staying within the lines. (Also, Adrienne Barbeau is noted much more for Grease and Maude than for her appearances in horror films, and while Jamie Lee Curtis certainly had the "scream queen" reputation early in her career that's hardly what she's best known for in 2023 anymore.) Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indigenous people in German South West Africa to Category:People from German South West Africa

Nominator's rationale: these are all Namibian people from German South West Africa‎ Mason (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: This cat was recently created by me, in response to the existence of Category:Colonial people in German South West Africa. Not all members are people from German South West Africa, for instance Zacharias Lewala was South African. This is a new category, haven't had the time to go through all possible members yet, but my guess is that there are many more. Moreover, often the sources do not give the birth place, only what they did in their lifetimes. And then there is the problem (described at Talk:History of Namibia#Pre-colonial name?) that South West Africa applies to the period both before and after German colonialisation, which leads to inconsistencies in the categorisation.

I find the distinction colonial / indigenous useful. If it is merged then both should be merged. BTW, the same dichotomy is present at Category:Indigenous people in South West Africa and Category:Colonial people in South West Africa, with the same situation. --Pgallert (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In the mean time, Category:Colonial people in German South West Africa has been moved to Category:Colonial people of German South West Africa, but the issue remains, of course. --Pgallert (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Noble families in the British Isles to Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: These seem to me to be overlapping categories. I think that the intention is to distinguish between ireland and the uk Mason (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. There was once a time where there were noble families in Ireland when Ireland was not under rule of the English monarch, and Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom today. Having this as a supercategory of Category:Irish noble families‎ and Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom‎ makes logical sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Red-tailed hawk: why wouldn't it suffice to have Category:Noble families by nationality as the parent category? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Nationality gets a bit funky the further one goes back across the history of the British Isles. Some families, like Uí Ímair, are in Ireland, Scotland, and England at many points, and also pre-date the Anglo-Normans. It would be a bit anachronistic to try to fit them into a modern "United Kingdom" or "Ireland" box. It would make a good bit more sense here for the supercategory to be Category:European noble families rather than Category:Noble families by nationality. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The British Isles also include Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just delete, arbitrary combination of two nationality categories. Uí Ímair may be manually moved to Category:European noble families as Red-tailed hawk indicated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 to merge. Populate instead. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Painters from the Republic of Venice to Category:Painters from Venice

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category Mason (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dual merge to Category:Republic of Venice artists. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Dual merge per Aidan721. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Do not merge. The only article, Thomas Bathas, is a Greek painter from the Cretan School, at the time of Venetian Crete. There are dozens of so painters who are notable, and not all of them would be just "from Venice", as the Republic extended well beyond the city of Venice and even Italy. I'm not entirely sure that we need a category for that at all, but you there is a consistent hierarchy at Category:Republic of Venice people by occupation and Category:Republic of Venice artists. Place Clichy (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Place Clichy: good catch, but then (because the article is already in Category:16th-century Greek painters) we can do a single merge to Category:Republic of Venice artists, can't we? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well, Category:Cretan Renaissance painters has 45 articles for painters that would all belong there. Category:Painters of the Heptanese School, a related movement in then-Venetian Ionian Islands, has 26 more. And that's just 2 movements I know. Thomas Bathas, the lone article currently in Category:Painters from the Republic of Venice, was a 16th-century Cretan but was also active in Corfu and Venice (the city), but he wasn't the only one. I don't really know what to do, really, seen the lack of population in Category:Painters from the Republic of Venice. We could at least reparent these two painters categories there.

  I easily find plenty of artists in e.g. Category:Painters from Bergamo (68 P) who were active in that city when it was Venetian (1428-1797), e.g. Giovanni Paolo Cavagna, Francesco Zucco, and Enea Salmeggia. The same exercise can be done with Painters from Brescia (84 P), Painters from Cremona (77 P), Painters from Padua (41 P), Painters from Verona (128 P), Painters from Vicenza (33 P), cities which were all Venetian for several centuries at a time of rich artistic activity. Sadly, it seems that parent Category:Republic of Venice artists was probably only just populated with articles relative to the city of Venice and dates earlier than 1797.

  There's plenty of content which meets the definition, and Venetian painting is very much defining. The question is then: do we need a category for the state, or are we satisfied with having painters categorized by their city in Italy and their artistic movement? Frankly I don't know. Place Clichy (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge ONLY to Category:Republic of Venice artists per Place Clichy. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Populate per Place Clichy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation to Category:Television series by 20th Television Animation

Nominator's rationale: The name of the division is outdated as Fox is no longer associated with 20th since the latter's merger with Disney in 2019. SlySabre (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Would this be appropriate categorization for TV series that existed before the merger? Maybe this should be kept as a subcategory not outright renamed. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay that's fair, considering that there are two separate categories for both "Category:20th Century Fox films" and "Category:20th Century Studios films", which despite being the same studio, differentiate the two eras. SlySabre (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Scotland to Category:Scottish expatriates
• Propose merging Category:Kingdom of Scotland expatriates in the Holy Roman Empire to Category:Scottish expatriates in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category: the intersection with regime isn't defining for emigrants/expatriates. (I missed this category Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_5#Category:Emigrants_from_the_Kingdom_of_Scotland_to_Sweden) Mason (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just delete Category:Kingdom of Scotland expatriates in the Holy Roman Empire, there is only one article in it about a diplomat who once visited the Holy Roman Emperor but was on the move most of the time, not quite an expatriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: are you opposing or supporting the alternative? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm in support of the alternative of deleting for the child category, but I'd still like the merge with a redirect the parent category. Mason (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Category:Kingdom of Scotland expatriates in the Holy Roman Empire per Marco. Merge Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Scotland to Category:Scottish expatriates per nom (this aspect of the nomination does not seem to have attracted opposition in the month this has been open, and I see no reason it would be defining). Also support keeping a redirect from the former to the latter. HouseBlaster^talk 18:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:People from the Habsburg monarchy. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People of the Habsburg monarchy to Category:People under the Habsburg monarchy

Nominator's rationale: maybe, c2c, as under is for dynasties/monarancies, eg. Category:People under the Almoravid dynasty‎ Mason (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It sounds strange to me, one can be "under a monarch" or "under a dynasty" for sure, but I have not seen "under a monarchy" before. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Fair point. I thought that People from the Habsburg monarchy sounded stranger, but I'd be equally fine with either, as they all have a more precise preposition that what's current being used. Mason (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:People from the Habsburg monarchy as better than the current name. I agree there is not really a "good" name, but this one seems like the least awkward. HouseBlaster^talk 18:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Vince Vance & the Valiants songs. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 18:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Vince Vance & The Valiants songs to Category:Vince Vance & the Valiants songs

Nominator's rationale: In keeping with MOS:THEMUSIC which specifies lower case "the" for band names in running prose. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

support per nom Mason (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Organized crime task force articles. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 18:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Organized crime articles to Category:Organized crime articles

Nominator's rationale: Not a WikiProject anymore. Placing it here so it can be decided if its:

• Category:Organized crime articles
• Category:Organized crime task force articles

Both styles are used for task forces so can't find a strong C2C. Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second one, more clearly indicated as a non-content category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alternative Category:WikiProject task force Organized crime articles -- to properly define the scope of the category as a wikiproject TF named "Organized crime" -- and not some PD organized crime TF in the real world -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't believe any task force uses that style so would oppose creating a new variation. Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Second option per LaundryPizza03. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:African-American basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The overwhelming majority of biographies in this category are unsourced and unprovable. Per WP:BLPCAT, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." I've spent considerable amount of time and energy sorting articles with reliable sources but these are very few and far between. The common argument in favor of keeping this category on an article is "everyone knows person X is African-American". This is, of course, not how we use categories but it is virtually impossible to stop. Moreover, the vast majority of basketball players from the United States are likely African-American, so as to make it non-defining. Per WP:EGRS, this is not been recognized "as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" given the preponderance of African-Americans in all levels of basketball for decades. Note: this category was nominated for deletion in 2017 but no consensus was reached." User:Namiba 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Upmerge to Category:American basketball players and Category:African-American sportspeople Mason (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That would not solve the problem at hand. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I don't like the argument that being in the majority makes a group non-defining. However, I think that the defining intersection is african-american sportspeople rather than basketball per se. There's a lot written about the fact that sports is a form of upward mobility for african americans. Mason (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that the vast majority of the articles in this category do not even mention the person's ethnicity.--User:Namiba 00:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. I have never thought the category was particularly useful. Just too common to be defining. Rikster2 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. As the vast majority of American basketball players are African-American, that's not a defining characteristic. The team you play for, the titles you win, and for segregation-era the kind of league you played in are defining factors, but not that one. Place Clichy (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment This was also discussed in 2020. I'm still not sure what to do with this category, but in practice, we usually don't see any cited sources that explicitly say a given player is African America. Yes, we can verify that a historically significant player like Bill Russell is African American. But can we do the same for, say, John Thomas or Chris Carr? Of course, broader categories like Category:African-American sportspeople have the same problem. Zagalejo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as non-defining. Should the consensus here result in deletion, it might be worthwhile to open up all of the sibling and parent cats in the category tree for a mass-CfD since there'd be a precedent. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Works by Edmund Goulding. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Compositions by Edmund Goulding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one subcat which correctly cat'ed Richhoncho (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to Category:Works by Edmund Goulding, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per Marco. HouseBlaster^talk 18:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Songs written by Matty Healy. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs by Matty Healy to Category:Songs written by Matty Healy

Nominator's rationale: To bring into line with all the other members of Category:Songs by songwriter Richhoncho (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2C, seems a case of speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) HouseBlaster^talk 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:World Series Cricket venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Clear case of WP:OCVENUE, and for most of them, it isn't the most WP:DEFINING event that's happened there either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) HouseBlaster^talk 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:9th-century Frankish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, the Carolingian Empire was multi-ethnic, it was no longer meaningful to distinguish who was originally Frankish. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support/upmerge. there's only one child category, should probably be upmerged to Carolingian Empire Mason (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is already in Category:People from the Carolingian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Even better :) Mason (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Histories of cities in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not convinced this half-step is required. The majority of other categories relating to the United Kingdom go straight from England/Wales, etc. to UK without an intermediary GB step. It just adds an extra layer to the tree for no apparent reason (Before anyone mentions it, BTW, yes, I realise some of these histories with include pre-UK events, but if we're judging by that measure some of them are also long enough for them to be included in categories like Category:Histories of cities in Wessex/Mercia etc, which would be equally unnecessary). Grutness...wha? 02:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to Category:Histories of cities in the United Kingdom per nom. The decade subcategory should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Centuries in Great Britain by city‎ to Category:Centuries in the United Kingdom by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Decades in Great Britain by city to Category:Decades in the United Kingdom by city

• • • I missed them - thanks. Support all. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Grutness: @Marcocapelle: the UK didn't exist in the 18th century and what about Northern Ireland? Sahaib (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While that's true, all of the cities are currently in the UK - and that's how all other countries are categorised. See my comment on this in the nomination. Similarly, we don't have Cat: History of cities in the Principality of Moscow or Cat: History of cities in West Germany. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Support merge. per Grutness. It would effectively just duplicate the UK categories. Mason (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.