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:Midwives. There were arguments for a dual merge to Category:Midwives and Category:Women in the Bible, but Fayenatic London's argument is ironclad policy-wise. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Biblical midwives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has only one article, and it seems extremely unlikely any new articles will be added to the category. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the parent categories. Women in the Bible, Midwives . Mason (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge for now, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are written. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is already in Category:Women in the Hebrew Bible, so we only need a merge to Category:Midwives. @ForsythiaJo: please do not nominate categories for deletion when the contents should rather to be merged into another category. – Fayenatic London 17:26, 24 November 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 to Category:Archaeologists of Easter Island. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Researchers in Rapa Nui archaeology to Category:Archaeologists of Easter Island

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match "Archaeologists by region of study". The description of the category is "Academics studying the archaeology of Rapa Nui (Easter Island)" Mason (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, possible C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:31, 22 November 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 to Category:People by ethnic descent. Unopposed for two weeks. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 12:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People by ethnicity of descent to Category:People by ethnic descent

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current name is odd because the main noun here appears to be "descent", while ethnicity is in the adjective. Subcategories are named Category:People of Acehnese descent etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 22 November 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: keep. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 12:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional resurrected characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Clear fail of WP:NONDEF. Having been resurrected at some point is simply not defining at all unless you are an undead, and we already have Category:Fictional undead for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Resurrection is a distinct plot device and trope, and in many cases it's an important element of a character's role in the story. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are mixing the idea of a plot device itself with what it results in. It's the equivalent of, say, a category about "Fictional characters bit by a radioactive spider". The spider bite in itself is not defining, but if they become a superhero due to it, then that's defining.

In the same way, if the resurrection results in them gaining some superheroic, or undead powers, that would be defining, but the act of being resurrected simply isn't. Unless, say, they came back as a zombie or vampire, meaning they're undead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is a character being revived from death necessarily "non-defining"? We have a ton of other categories pertaining to minor character traits. A character dying and coming back to life can be integral to a character's role in the plot, like Kenny McCormick for example. AHI-3000 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With your example of Kenny, I would say his inclusion in Category:Fictional characters with immortality already covers this aspect of him. What is defining is that he is immortal - he always comes back, not that he was resurrected. (I also don't know why he's classified as a zombie). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not convinced this is non-defining. How about Frieza, who clearly belongs here and not in a similar category? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with AHI-3000's assessment. This is a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: Having this category just encourages the inclusion of any character who got resurrected, regardless of whether it affected them in any significant way. An example being a JRPG character who is killed by a monster and revived by a powerful wizard with no ill or lasting effects.

For those who did get massively affected, there are other more pertinent categories: Category:Fictional cyborgs, Category:Fictional undead, etc. I am not sure why this category specifically is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:44, 22 November 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 all as nominated, except no consensus for merging Category:American cotton plantation owners. I am treating Fayentic London's suggestion to also merge Category:Danish sugar plantation owners into Category:Danish sugar industry businesspeople as uncontroversial. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American sugar plantation owners to Category:American planters and Category:Sugar plantation owners
• Propose merging Category:Danish sugar plantation owners to Category:Sugar plantation owners and Category:Danish planters
• Propose merging Category:American tobacco plantation owners to Category:American planters
• Propose merging Category:American rice plantation owners to Category:American planters
• Propose merging Category:American indigo plantation owners to Category:American planters
• Propose merging Category:American cotton plantation owners to Category:American planters

Nominator's rationale: intersection between owning a specific type of plantation with nationality isn't defining Mason (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI I created the cotton x American, sugar x American, etc cats bc in the 16th–18th c these were 5 crops that were primarily grown using slave labor in colonial America and the early U.S. There were also temporal and regional distinction: they stopped growing indigo after a while due to global market changes - https://history.howstuffworks.com/world-history/indigo.htm, and sugar slavery was uniquely dangerous and grueling, with some consequent demographic results - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/sugar-slave-trade-slavery.html, Cotton was South Carolina and Georgia at first (sea island cotton) and then expanded into Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, in the 19th c, once they developed the Petit Gulf strain, etc. - see W Johnson's River of Dark Dreams ISBN 9780674975385. Rice culture was more likely to use the task system, while cotton culture was more likely to use the gang system, because the planting and maintenance cycles for those crops had different demands.

SO, while I'm not sure we need categories for *every possible crop, being a planter of one of these five crops had very specific implications and distinctions in American history because of their use of slave labor. A tobacco planter in Maryland in 1685 and a sugar planter in Louisiana in 1858 were likely both slave owners but they were behaving in distinct ways from both each other and probably from the farmers who grow those crops in 2023. Interested to discuss with everyone, thanks for nominating. jengod (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context! I suspected as much because those are the big five crops. I could see the result being that we end up creating some of the five plantation types, but not intersecting them with nationality. I would suspect that sugar planter in the united states had a lot in common with sugar planters in cuba. Mason (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, most articles in the parent category are entirely uninformative about the type of crop. (In fact plantation ownership seems hardly a defining characteristic at all.) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Plantation ownership was often the basis of great wealth, and in the U.S. system, land ownership was sometimes a prerequisite for voting rights. (It was a fairly feudal system in the early going!) See planter class, Southern gentry, Plantation complexes in the Southern United States, and List of plantations in the United States, et al. And of course the wealth didn't just manifest itself, it was the product of agricultural laborers, mostly enslaved, who planted and harvested the associated cash crops. jengod (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no doubt about that, but people in this category tree are primarily known as politicians etc. rather than as plantation owners. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, but been slightly trying to change this with bios like P. M. Lapice (sugar), John Lyons (Louisiana) (cotton), Benjamin Laurent Millaudon (sugar), and S.S. Boyd (mostly cotton, but sugar-curious). EDIT: These guys (cotton and sugar planters, Deep South) really fueled the interstate slave trade as well as the movement to reopen the transatlantic slave trade, which mostly how I've been encountering them. jengod (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that you'd have a better argument if you made the case that cotton planters was defining on its own. It's not a matter of importance to history/economics, but that it is DEFINING as an occupation. Mason (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd argue its defining because no American cotton planter ever actually planted a cotton seed or pulled a cotton boll off a stem by himself. They were running slave labor camps producing a specific wildly profitable product.

    • "Passing over, for the moment, the appropriative I-language, the labor-eliding passive voice, and the slippery subject-verb relationships that deform the grammar and define the meaning of virtually every recorded statement made by cotton planters about their agricultural practice, we can follow the progress of the season in the ways that planters talked to one another about what needed 'to be done.'" (River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom by Walter Johnson)
    • "perhaps the only image to approach the socio-ecology of the Cotton Kingdom with greater force than this was provided by John Brown, who remembered his body breaking out into running sores after his owner tried to vertically integrate his operations by feeding his slaves on cottonseed oil." (River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom by Walter Johnson)
    • "From the 1790s to the 1860s, enslavers moved 1 million people from the old slave states to the new. They went from making no cotton to speak of in 1790 to making almost 2 billion pounds of it in 1860." (The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E Baptist)
    • "The places owned by Ballard and Boyd had no stately homes or ornamental gardens. They were not showcases for wealthy white families. The only steady white presences on them at all were managers and overseers, few of whom stayed on for more than a few years. The Ballard and Boyd partnership owned places whose sole purpose was to make Black people live and labor under the threat of violence to produce cotton until they were considered useless, deemed dispensable, or died." (Joshua D. Rothman, The Ledger and the Chain: How Domestic Slave Traders Shaped America)
    • "On the eve of the Civil War, raw cotton constituted 61 percent of the value of all U.S. products shipped abroad." (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660/)

    jengod (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jengod, I'm trying to help you here. Please look at the defining of DEFINING within the context of categories. You keep making arguments about the historic context, but no one is arguing with you on that. What you're not addressing the issue of DEFINING. Bludgeoning the audience about the importance of cotton in the american south is not answering the core question.

    Are the members of the category typically DEFINED in terms of being American cotton planters? My sense is no. In order to make a good case here, e.g., to convince me, you'd need to make the case in two steps.

    • Step 1: that the non-intersection of the category is defining. Like is a cotton planter substantively different from a sugar plantation owner? As you note, "no American cotton planter ever actually planted a cotton seed or pulled a cotton boll off a stem by himself", so why does it matter that they were a planter whose plantation produced a specific crop? I imagine that the situation is similar for other crops, sugar, tobaccos, etc. Why does the specific crop matter when describing the planter?
    • Step 2: Assuming that you do make the case that the specific crop is defining, then the next question is, is the intersection defining? Is there something unique about being an American cotton planter, compared to a Cuban cotton planter? Is something gained, by combining them at that intersection? Like is there added value by grouping cotton planters who are American, as opposed to saying someone is a cotton planter AND an American planter.

    If you were to structure your argument to address these two steps, you'd be able to address my concerns, and likely convince me (and others) that the intersection is defining. But right now, I do not feel like step 2 can be met, but there's potential for step 1. Mason (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel like I'm definitely misunderstanding the assignment! I'm not trying to be argumentative for its own sake, FWIW. Sorry, I think the gist of my argument is that the crop x country is defining/significant because the crop had economic & political & demographic ramifications which were manifested via the behaviors and choices of the plantation owners.

    • Norman's chart of the Lower Mississippi color codes the plantations as either cotton or sugar
    • "The Empire Built on Rice: Georgetown District, South Carolina - Decades after emancipation, rice planter and master of Woodbourne plantation J. Motte Alston recorded his memories of the slave society into which he was born, describing a region of the rural South in which slaves ―out numbered whites nearly one hundred to ten‖ and the planters ―were all fairly rich men.‖ He was hardly exaggerating. The nature and development of regional agriculture in Georgetown District in the South Carolina lowcountry created a world which bore a marked contrast to Fairfax County. Whereas nineteenth-century Fairfax County slipped from its pedestal and began to devolve from a slave society into a society with slaves, Georgetown District, which had long been one of the wealthiest and most firmly rooted slave societies of the South, showed no signs of decline in the antebellum period. The lowcountry not only remained one of the most successful agricultural regions in the slave South, but its highly profitable plantations were so dependent on slave labor that their owners provided some of the leaders of the secession movement which plunged the nation into civil war in 1861.19" - https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13609
    • "In our cotton-growing counties, particularly South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana, it is folly to to talk of raising any other article for sale...Sugar requires large capital...no poor man can benefit from it." https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-weekly-telegraph-sugar-versus-cotton/135310989/
    • Regional Labor Experiences: Sugar and Tobacco - "Sugar cultivation primarily thrived in the tropical regions of the Caribbean and Brazil (and later Louisiana in the nineteenth century). Diseases such as smallpox, typhoid, and dysentery were prevalent in the tropical climate, and enslaved workers were exceptionally vulnerable due to extreme labor exertion, malnutrition, and the recent trauma of the Middle Passage. For these reasons, mortality rates for enslaved workers were generally high in many sugar-producing areas, and often exceeded survival rates. Significant demand for new African laborers through the trans-Atlantic slave trade often remained consistent in these areas into the early nineteenth century...In contrast to sugar plantations, which required large slaveholdings that often led to a black population majority, tobacco plantations could operate profitably with smaller numbers of slaves. They also employed a mixed labor force of free, indentured, and enslaved workers, so that colonial tobacco plantation regions often had a white population majority." https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/sectionii_introduction/sugar_and_tobacco
    • Nathan Bedford Forrest's first post-war bio has a subhed "Became an extensive cotton planter" https://books.google.com/books?id=RcO_Lj_RK4AC&pg=PR11

    I just think "American planters" is an oddly broad category. Its like Category:American engineers exists but we also have some Category:American marine engineers and Category:American acoustical engineers bc those are fairly distinct jobs.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    YMMV

    jengod (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't disagree with you that American planters is broad (@Jengod:). But, it definitely feels like you're missing the mark on what it takes to justify keeping a category. I understood your argument that cotton is import to the American economy, and that it had huge ramifications on those enslaved. But the problem is that your argument doesn't address the problem being raised, which is about the people doing the enslaving. So unfortunately I don't know enough about different kinds of planters, so I can't help you with the specifics. But, what I'm trying to do is get you to spell out the case for why the specific crop matters to the planter, regardless of nationality. I like your analogy with engineers. I'm asking you to help make the case that Category:Marine engineers and Category:Acoustical engineers are "distinct jobs", because that is not established. You've been effectively saying that Marine engineering is important for the American economy and that the factory workers that support this american marine economy had different experiences from factory worker that support the acoustical economy. But what needs to be explained is whether marine engineers are meaningful different from acoustical engineers. (And obviously the impact on slaves was very different and the manner of the crop impacted their lives etc) Mason (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I kinda give up. I thought it was a logical and efficient fork of a category I felt was euphemistic and vague to the point of uselessness but if grouping Louisiana sugar planters separately from Virginia tobacco planters harms the project, then by all means merge it back. Thank you for your time. jengod (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Jengod: I'm open minded about "planters" as a category name is such a euphemism that it should be renamed to avoid running afoul of WP:NPOV. But this nomination didn't create that name so this would need to be a separate nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep Cotton/Merge Rest King Cotton was such in the American south that cotton plantation owners might hold political office but that was an extension of their land holdings, that's why you won't find any abolitionists in that category. Indeed, since 3/5ths of the slaves they owned counted as residents, antebellum politicians largely represented the cotton industry more than the population. The other categories fail both WP:NARROWCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  RevelationDirect I would be very grateful for cotton. I think there's an argument to be made that sugar (Louisiana) and rice (South Carolina) were also defining and had similar power disparities but I will not be making that argument today because I know how to quit when I'm behind! jengod (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @RevelationDirect do you mean keep the American cotton plantation owner or making a parent category of Category:Cotton plantation owners? I'm just not sure that the intersection between nationality and type of plantation is defining. Mason (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep cotton as WP:DEFINING and sufficiently large to be useful; merge the others, but the Danish should have a triple merge, also to Category:Danish sugar industry businesspeople. – Fayenatic London 17:39, 24 November 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 all as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Money launderers by nationality to Category:People convicted of money laundering by nationality (moved to top)
• Propose renaming Category:American money launderers to Category:American people convicted of money laundering

added to nomination later

• Propose renaming Category:Indian money launderers to Category:Indian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Nicaraguan money launderers to Category:Nicaraguan people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Mexican money launderers to Category:Mexican people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Iranian money launderers to Category:Iranian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Dominican Republic money launderers to Category:Dominican Republic people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Italian money launderers to Category:Italian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:French money launderers to Category:French people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:British money launderers to Category:British people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Swiss money launderers to Category:Swiss people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian money launderers to Category:Ukrainian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Chinese money launderers to Category:Chinese people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Portuguese money launderers to Category:Portuguese people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Russian money launderers to Category:Russian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:German money launderers to Category:German people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Panamanian money launderers to Category:Panamanian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Turkish money launderers to Category:Turkish people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Hong Kong money launderers to Category:Hong Kong people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Argentine money launderers to Category:Argentine people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Pakistani money launderers to Category:Pakistani people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Tunisian money launderers to Category:Tunisian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Bolivian money launderers to Category:Bolivian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Bangladeshi money launderers to Category:Bangladeshi people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Syrian money launderers to Category:Syrian people convicted of money laundering
• Propose renaming Category:Nigerian money launderers to Category:Nigerian people convicted of money laundering

Nominator's rationale: The current title could encompass mere accusations of money laundering, which is non-encyclopedic, and could encompass factually baseless and defamatory allegations against living persons. The proposed title is inherently objective and is consistent with other pages in Category:American criminals by crime; it should be added as a subcategory there after it is renamed. Carguychris (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, but the same applies to all sibling categories in Category:Money launderers by nationality, they should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed; I didn't realize they were ALL like that! Carguychris (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and Marcocapelle, and I propose that we rename them all. Or at least tag the parent categoryMason (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but all the categories will need to be listed together. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag all of the subcats and add them to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom rationale. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:36, 22 November 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs with lyrics by Rashmi Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one member, main article is a redlink Rashmi Singh. No aid to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, small category without an associated article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it the same person as Rashmi Singh (lyricist)? --woodensuperman 15:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to be the same person, in which case this should be a nomination to change the name of the category of Songs with lyrics by Rashmi Singh (lyricist). Alternative could admin consider, on my request, the withdrawal of this nomination so I can list it for speedy? Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is likely that Rashmi Singh (lyricist) is the same person, and I have filed a request at WP:RMTR to move to the empty base title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 22 November 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: keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films directed by Samantha Lang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: as per WP:SMALLCAT, only has 2 entries and can be covered in main article Samantha Lang. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. You will note that WP:SMALLCAT indicates "Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page and they conform to the other guidelines applicable to categories." You will also note that the article about Lang itself mentions she has directed various other films, which, quoting the same page you refer to, indicates that it "does have realistic potential for growth".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (And there are 3 entries now....) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Films by director are generally accepted as long as it is not empty and the director has an article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I generally oppose anything citing WP:SMALLCAT (that policy is nonsensical), but works by directors are an exception anyway. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Small cat is no longer a policy... "This former Wikipedia guideline, no longer backed by community consensus, is retained for historical reference. " Mason (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Mushy Yank. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of established tree. --woodensuperman 08:34, 23 November 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:Knights from the Austrian Empire, merge Category:Countesses from the Austrian Empire to Category:Nobility from the Austrian Empire. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 12:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Knights from the Austrian Empire to Category:Austrian knights
• Propose merging Category:Countesses from the Austrian Empire to Category:Austrian countesses

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category, where regime/being in the 19th-century isn't defining Mason (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Knights from the Austrian Empire, non-defining, in the spirit of WP:OCAWARD, and the proposed target is a container category for that very reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nominated for Category:Countesses from the Austrian Empire. The title of countess had become entirely irrelevant in the Austrian Republic. One may argue that it was already quite irrelevant in the Austrian Empire as well because it was merely a title and had nothing to do with ruling a county (if so, merge to Category:Nobility from the Austrian Empire). One may also argue that Category:Austrian countesses is redundant, countesses of Celje were countesses in the Holy Roman Empire, not in the duchy of Austria. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very open to an alternative target. Mason (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As said, if merged, Category:Nobility from the Austrian Empire would be the most obvious target. Barons should be merged too in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: what is your opinion about deletion of Category:Knights from the Austrian Empire? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question. I'm find with deleting/merging for the reasons you outlined. As I think your solution addresses the core issue. Mason (talk) 18:51, 22 November 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: keep. Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Saxony and Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Bavaria. No consensus on Category:Immigrants to the North German Confederation, but as the category is now empty I will tag it for WP:C1 in my capacity as an individual editor. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Saxony to Category:Immigrants to former German states
• Propose merging Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Bavaria to Category:Immigrants to former German states
• Propose merging Category:Immigrants to the North German Confederation to Category:Immigrants to former German states

Nominator's rationale: small underpopulated category, where regime isn't defining for the only person in the category. For example Immigrants to the Kingdom of Saxony the only category member went to school in saxony and then left after Mason (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight oppose It bothers me that the current state of the categories seems to be the only thing up for the nom's consideration. It is remarkably easy to fill out the categories from existing articles, even if the category creator(s) never bothered with it. I have just added Rallou Karatza to the Saxon category. I would like the nominator to bear in mind that removing categories without considering first if they could be expanded is a sloppy move; they should also ponder how an intersection is lost (removing a category may fully sever its connection to a topic with which it is naturally connected; for instance, it is of at least some documentary interest what foreigners moved into 19th-century Saxony, rather than generically in the "German states" of any period). Dahn (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop. It is really clear that you're only opposing because I am the nominator, and are using it as an excuse to throw barbs. Mason (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I am opposing the approach to deleting this categories, which happens to be illustrated by several (by no means all) examples of your nominations -- the assumption that someone else should take the trouble of populating valid categories, lest they get deleted. The alternative is to let these categories be deleted just so you don't take offense. Dahn (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also the creator and core editor of one of the articles which now populate the Saxon category -- prior to reading this nomination page, I was not aware that the category existed, or I would have added it sooner. Once I realized that it existed, I also took the trouble of populating the category with other articles -- it now has six entries. The same can be accomplished with the other categories you happened to nominate here. Please take this as constructive criticism, and let's not do WP:DRAMA. Dahn (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical point: Mason, supposing the category merger is done, would we have any category left that would connect Maksymilian Gierymski to Bavaria, and Rallou Karatza to Saxony -- the actual polities where these people ended up living and dying? Dahn (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They can be added to people from Bavaria, or a relevant subcategory. Mason (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mason: as long as you have no plans of doing that yourself, you are basically asking that other users, in particular those who found this category useful, keep track of the articles that were in the category, and revisit them just to add the vaguer categories. It is a much more collegial move to at least consider whether the category is valid and has potential, before/instead of making others perform what may be an entirely useless (and in any case thankless) chore. Dahn (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Saxony and Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Bavaria, they have meanwhile sufficiently been populated. Support Category:Immigrants to the North German Confederation as this existed only 5 years and it was not a state in its own right anyway. The article could be added, instead, to Category:Immigrants to Prussia, because the city-state of Frankfurt had been annexed by the kingdom of Prussia one year before the migration took place. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least as to Saxony and Bavaria: both were well-established polities for substantial periods of time; both received several notable immigrants. There is no valid reason to delete, as long as we have such categories. — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/keep Category:Immigrants to the North German Confederation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved Karl Friedrich Johann von Müller to Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Prussia where it properly belongs, leaving Category:Immigrants to the North German Confederation empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 23 November 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: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dinjčić noble family to Category:Bosnian noble families

Nominator's rationale: Moving to full discussion because speedy C2F was opposed Mason (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle and Santasa99: pinging contributors to speedy discussion.Mason (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was opposed on a wrong assumption that it was rename; as for an upmerge, as I wrote, I would "prefer it to remain because I am trying to create few new BIO's for every family of the time and place, but unfortunately, I am alone on this scope (medieval Bosnia) and a bit overwhelmed by its extent, but if it has to go this way it has to go". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At least there is two more articles now. Please next time only create a new category after you wrote a handful of new articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These are created long time ago and stayed in my browser, some translated some half-translated, some with refs other still without it - there are at least as much still in translation from other language wikis,, but I have little time to finished them; I just included those that had sources already found and refed, without expending them So, in a way handful of articles were already one step away from being published. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But they're not published yet... Mason (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point four of the articles are published, but this subject in general is my area of interest and when I edit this is where I spend most of my time and energy, so we can expect that I will add another couple of articles (translate them from linked articles on other lang. wikis) pretty soon. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category has expanded to four articles, including main and three members. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. No need to upmerge. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:27, 13 December 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: Keep without prejudice against another nomination proposing a different target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tatar people of the Soviet Union to Category:Soviet people of Tatar descent

Nominator's rationale: Contested WP:C2C. The category contains only biographies.

• Oppose as nominated, if people descend from Tatars but are not Tatars themselves then 'of Tatar descent' is alright but otherwise they are plainly 'Tatars' or 'Tatar people', WP:C2C per Category:Tatar people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as nominated per Marcocapelle. This is an unexplained change of scope. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No other category in Category:Soviet people by ethnic or national origin has this naming convention. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it is because most categories there are actually for people by descent. There are some other categories for Category:Soviet Cossacks, Category:Soviet Kurdish people, Category:Soviet Romani people and Category:Soviet Azerbaijani people, but they aren't really developed into consistent categories, plus Soviet Tatars isn't really a better name. The only improvement I can see would be to replace of... by in... or from... the Soviet union. Note that there is also Category:Tatar people of Russia and the recently renamed Category:Tatar people from the Russian Empire, for the same people in the same area. Place Clichy (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are now properly in Category:Soviet people by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be renamed to Category:Soviet Tatars or Category:Soviet Tatar people, C2C-ish. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as nominated per Marcocapelle and Place Clichy. Different scopes. Soviet Tatars may better fit into Category:Soviet people by ethnicity. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 December 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:Australian television newsreaders and news presenters. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 17:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nine News presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:ABC News (Australia) presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:10 News First presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:WIN News presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:SBS World News presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As presenters on television programming, this is textbook WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 11:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom Mason (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Australian television newsreaders and news presenters. We categorize media people by country, but not by program or studio. No listification is needed because all people are, or should be, listed at List of Australian television newsreaders and news presenters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• LaundryPizza03 is correct, they should be merged instead of deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 22 November 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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:What's Your Rupture? artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:What's Your Rupture? albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Label article was soft-deleted at AfD. I don't actually know if that's grounds for calling it non-defining, so consider this me asking. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The notability issue isn't defining for the category, which is for aggregation and navigation of the album articles (and the fact that this is a label with [at least] 8 notable albums should perhaps give us pause about the ease with which it was deleted). I fail to see how the encyclopedia is improved by removing this navigational aid. Chubbles (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just gonna withdraw this on the grounds Chubbles stated. Doesn't seem like much point to wait it out when I don't even really have an argument for or against it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:56, 25 November 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: Forward merge without prejudice against a new CfD to rename back to the original name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Russian Empire commanders of the Napoleonic Wars to Category:Russian commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category Mason (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather reverse merge, as Russian Empire people will contain many non-Russian people too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. There is little ambiguity that this category, under is long-standing name of Russian commanders of the Napoleonic Wars, is for people in Russian military service during the Napoleonic Wars, e.g. per main article List of Russian commanders in the Patriotic War of 1812. The concept of nationality was not understood at the time as it is today, and I think we should not retro-actively apply the present-day notion by restricting this category to ethnically pure Russians, whatever that is. Clearly another duplicate category. Place Clichy (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Russian commanders of the Napoleonic Wars to allow for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 13:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully agree that we should not retro-actively apply the present-day notion by restricting this category to ethnically pure Russians. Using "Russian Empire" in the category name better reflects that notion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 November 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:Ultimate (sport) teams. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Western Ultimate League Teams to Category:Ultimate (sport) teams

Nominator's rationale: The Western Ultimate League is not that notable so it's no surprise that this category has only one entry (a redirect, although that's because I turned the previous member into a redirect). Unless the league grows in importance and we get articles about multiple teams in the league, there's no sense in isolating this redirect in a one-member category. Note that if kept, the name of the category should be Category:Western Ultimate League teams (lowercase t in "teams"). Pichpich (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 22 November 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: No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Beauty pageants for people of specific ethnic or national descents to Category:Ethnic beauty pageants

Nominator's rationale: rename, more concise. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I agree that this is more concise, my gut reaction to this rename was pretty negative. I'm still thinking through why that reaction is, but I suspect that their some negative connation in American English that I'm struggling to articulate. I don't have an alternative rename to propose -- yet, but I wanted to share my thought while it was still fresh. Mason (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Almost a month later, have you managed to articulate your thoughts? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can take a stab at it. I really appreciate Marco's attempt at brevity. But, I think that "Ethnic" has racial undertones (obviously unintended by Marcocapelle!), as sometimes the adjective is used as a euphemism for being non-white. I think that a rename closer to "Beauty pageants by ethnicity of descent" works a bit better as it match the parent category of Category:People by ethnicity of descent. It's a little longer, but doesn't make me cringe. Mason (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I have nominated Category:People by ethnicity of descent for renaming elsewhere, for a different reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 23 November 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: Keep and purge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anne of Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEPON. The subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Eric ^talk 12:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  support per nom Mason (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Have you tried populating the category instead? We have articles on buildings and organizations which Anne established, and about her personal palace. Dimadick (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dimadick: it blows my mind why the creator of the category did not populate it right away, but anyway I am obviously withdrawing the deletion nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the category is User:Aciram, ask him/her. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• They have been notified of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge I begin now to understand that a number of articles are only very tangentially related to Anna of Austria, e.g. Basilica of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré. Categories are not meant to be a duplicate of "what links here". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly needs purging: Benedictine Nuns of Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, for instance, is included because Anne helped establish the order's first convent. Even more tangential is Rue des Capucins, apparently included because Anne "attended the start of construction" of one building on the street. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is included because Anne helped establish the order's first convent" Information which indicates royal patronage. Exactly what I would expect to find in a category. Dimadick (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, maybe purge. Anne of Austria was ruler of France as regent for a relatively long time, it is legitimate that there is much content eligible for this category. Place Clichy (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 22 November 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 those with one or two members as nominated, no consensus with WP:NPASR for those with three members. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 18:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging:

• Category:American LGBT people by sexual orientation to Category:American LGBT people
• Category:Argentine LGBT people by sexual orientation to Category:Argentine LGBT people
• Category:Australian LGBT people by sexual orientation to Category:Australian LGBT people
• Category:Austrian LGBT people by sexual orientation to Category:Austrian LGBT people
• Category:Bangladeshi LGBT people by sexual orientation to Category:Bangladeshi LGBT people
• Category:Belarusian LGBT people by sexual orientation to Category:Belarusian LGBT people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only 1-3 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lean oppose. So my understanding is that at most there would be three categories. If that's the case, then I think it's fine to keep them organized, as part of the purpose is to distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity. Mason (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of nationalities only have 1 or 2 subcategories. It is much more intuitive to have e.g. Lesbian and Transgender next to each other (because of the L and T in LGBT). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support merging categories with 2 or less. Mason (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maintaining separate categories leads us to making estimations in specific cases on whether someone was bisexual or either a gay man or lesbian; not always an easy distinction. The fact that we continue to use the generalised acronym LGBT suggests that it reasonable as a category here, rather than a need to subdivide. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge categories with 3 subcategories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 22 November 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/merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Deaths in the Colony of New Zealand to Category:Deaths in New Zealand
• Propose merging Category:Infectious disease deaths in the Colony of New Zealand to Category:Infectious disease deaths in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: colonial status not defining for deaths Mason (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if merged then dual merge, also to Category:Infectious disease deaths in the British Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Nurg (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first, merge the second. Deaths-by-country categories should never directly contain articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept then Category:Deaths in the Colony of New Zealand should be deleted rather than merged, per LaundryPizza03 (if kept, it should be containerized). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 23 November 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:Deaths in the British Empire, manual merge the rest as nominated. Unopposed for two weeks. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 17:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths in the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Alcohol-related deaths in the British Empire to Category:Alcohol-related deaths (and perhaps if kept Category:Deaths in the British Empire)
• Propose merging Category:Deaths from pneumonia in the British Empire to Category:Deaths from pneumonia
• Propose merging Category:Deaths by firearm in the British Empire to Category:Deaths by firearm
• Propose merging Category:Infectious disease deaths in the British Empire to Category:Deaths from infectious disease
• Propose merging Category:Tuberculosis deaths in the British Empire to Category:Deaths from tuberculosis
• Propose merging Category:Suicides in the British Empire to Category:Suicides
• Propose merging Category:People executed in the British Empire to Category:People executed by British colonies

Nominator's rationale: Either delete or containerize the main category as dying anywhere in the British Empire is not defining (as opposed to dying in a specific place within the Empire might be) Mason (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, most of these deaths occurred in what is now Australia or New Zealand. If this goes ahead, the New Zealand articles should be manually moved to the New Zealand subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm willing to do the manual merging. Mason (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 22 November 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 to Category:Sports families by nationality. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sports families by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted, merged, split, renamed, or otherwise dealt with, because it appears to be an arbitrary cross of two incompatible parent categories that yields something that doesn’t belong to the category tree at all, much less to either parent.

The parents are Category:Sportspeople by country of work and Category:Families by nationality. Their genetically challenged child is just named “by country,” but the definition at Category:Categories by country tells us that “This category is for non-people articles or works. For articles on people or works, see People by nationality, Works by nationality.”  —Michael Z. 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion, considering the many subcategories that would become orphaned. I am open to renaming, e.g. to by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Not one child category would be orphaned by deletion: each is in one or more other categories.)

  But renaming to Category:Sports families by nationality is acceptable, with removal from Category:Sportspeople by country of work which should be a sibling not a parent. —Michael Z. 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, renaming to Category:Sports families by nationality is a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 22 November 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) HouseBlaster^talk 12:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Prussian people by period (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. It should not be upmerged because people from the Duchy of Prussia (the subcategory) are not people from the Kingdom of Prussia (the parent category). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are two different time periods; in 1701, the Duchy of Prussia was dissolved and succeeded by the Kingdom of Prussia. Why not have an overarching category for all regimes of Prussia? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per LaundryPizza03's argument. There are Prussian states both before and after the existence of the Kingdom of Prussia. Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's little in common with the Duchy of Prussia, which is pretty much coterminous with East Prussia, and the Kingdom of Prussia which reached as far as the Rhineland. The first was a non-sovereign part of Poland for a great part of its history, the latter a sovereign state. Duchy and Kingdom are not different periods of the same state. Place Clichy (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per place clichy Mason (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one-item categories are per-se pointless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:37, 15 December 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Writers from Spanish Cuba to Category:Cuban writers

Nominator's rationale: regime isn't a meaningful intersection Mason (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the 19th-century articles are already in Category:19th-century Cuban writers so they can be excluded from the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be a jurisdiction of Spain category (like, say category:Writers from Catalonia), since it can sit under Spain's category, while the whole Cuba category could not -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Cuban writers and Category:Spanish writers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not all People from Spanish Cuba are Cuban. --Frenchl (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Frenchl: that sounds contradictory. To which of the articles in this category does this apply? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In 2005, it has been decided that Category:People from X should include not all people born in X, but people who have lived there for some time. Living in Cuba doesn't make you Cuban, otherwise Hemingway would be a Cuban writer. My reasoning is global, I won't check specific articles. Frenchl (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see Hemingway in this category. It sounds like a merely theoretical problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You cannot judge a category by the articles it *currently* contains. There is a proposed merging. The question is: does this merging respect the "is-a" relationship that is required according to WP:SUBCAT ? Is a writer from Spanish Cuba a Cuban writer ? By definition, no, not always. Frenchl (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Frenchl: that is not the right question. The question is: will articles in the category be miscategorized by one action or the other? If a writer from Spanish Cuba is not a Cuban writer then the appropriate action is that the article should be manually excluded from the merge. But if there aren't any articles to which this applies then there is no issue. This is really just about the technical process of merging, which you seem to misapprehend. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok. Frenchl (talk) 09:37, 24 November 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:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Antisemitism in Scotland to Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content for a dedicated child category. Only one article, for a supremacist youtuber. The target category is much better organized. Place Clichy (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per now, without objection to recreate the category when multiple articles are created. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 22 November 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:Chinese television directors. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Directors of the CCTV New Year's Gala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: directing a specific television show fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 10:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree in principle but merge to Category:Chinese television directors. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 22 November 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:American television directors. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American soap opera directors to Category:American television directors

Nominator's rationale: We should not have a subcategory by genre --woodensuperman 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Pointless as directors can work in multiple genres; borderline WP:PERFCAT but the rationale is similar. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:35, 1 December 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:Radio directors. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:BBC Radio drama directors to Category:Radio directors

Nominator's rationale: This should be upmerged. We don't need to intersect by channel and genre (although nationality would be fine). We wouldn't have a category about BBC television directors or Sitcom directors (for example), just Category:Television directors by nationality not sure why we have this here. --woodensuperman 09:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Analogous to WP:PERFCAT, but I'd suggest Category:British radio directors instead if there aren't any non-British people here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:36, 1 December 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:Contestants on American game shows. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American Gladiators contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Appearances on television shows fail WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 09:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but merge to Category:Contestants on American game shows. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Contestants on American game shows. HouseBlaster^talk 13:41, 1 December 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:British reporters and correspondents, Category:British television journalists, and Category:British television presenters. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:GMTV presenters and reporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 08:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Should this be split between Category:British television journalists, Category:British television presenters and Category:British reporters and correspondents? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if not already present. --woodensuperman 08:35, 23 November 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:British reporters and correspondents, Category:British television journalists, and Category:British television presenters. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:ITV Breakfast presenters and reporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 08:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Same question as above: shouldn't it be split to the parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if already present and they are British by nationality. --woodensuperman 08:36, 23 November 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Diarists by century and nationality to Category:Diarists by nationality
• Propose merging Category:Russian diarists by century to Category:Russian diarists

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 category in it. upmerge for now. it isn't helpful for navigation with only one category Mason (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 22 November 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 as nominated with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:21st-century Omani people by occupation to Category:21st-century Omani people
• Propose merging Category:20th-century Omani people by occupation to Category:20th-century Omani people
• Propose merging Category:Omani people by occupation and century to Category:Omani people by century

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 category in it. upmerge for now. it isn't helpful for navigation with only one category Mason (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Oman has a longer history than the countries below; the earliest regime was in 751, but the earliest century covered by an Oman category is the 18th. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more subcategories can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Omani people by occupation and century is now empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 1 December 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tongan people by occupation and century to Category:Tongan people by century
• Propose merging Category:Togolese people by occupation and century to Category:Togolese people by century
• Propose merging Category:Liechtenstein people by occupation and century to Category:Liechtenstein people by century
• Propose merging Category:Senegalese people by occupation and century to Category:Senegalese people by century

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 category in it. upmerge for now. it isn't helpful for navigation with only one category Mason (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Liechtenstein was established in 1866, Senegal and Togo in 1960, and Tonga in 1970, so there is no need for century categories in most cases. Mason (talk · contribs) Please combine bundled CfDs in one go. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ummm... so this is a really silly question, @LaundryPizza03, can you point me in the right direction so I can figure out how to bundle up front? I haven't found a good workflow, and obviously the one I'm using now is not amazing...) Mason (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: You can copy the formatting of this CfD to format a bulk nomination, and then tag each discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I was hoping you knew of some clever solution/tool. I'll try out some other workflows. Mason (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 22 November 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:Journalists from Newfoundland and Labrador. Unopposed for two weeks. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 13:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Journalists from the Dominion of Newfoundland to Category:Journalists from Newfoundland and Labrador

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. only category member is described as a "Newfoundland" journalist not a "Dominion of Newfoundland" journalist Mason (talk) 03:02, 22 November 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:People from New Spain. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Writers from New Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Poets from New Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: empires/massive colonial groupings that intersect with occupation aren't defining. following up to Category:Writers from the Spanish Empire [1] Mason (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, merge to Category:People from New Spain. While the latter exists there is no point in removing only writers from the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 22 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Writers from Spanish Puerto Rico to Category:Puerto Rican writers and Category:Colonial Puerto Rico
• Propose merging Category:Poets from the Viceroyalty of Peru to Category:Peruvian poets and Category:People from the Viceroyalty of Peru
• Propose merging Category:Writers from the Viceroyalty of Peru to Category:Peruvian writers and Category:People from the Viceroyalty of Peru

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that the intersection between regime/era, nationality, and occupation is defining for these underpopulated categories Mason (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, merge the former to Category:Colonial Puerto Rico and Category:People from New Spain as well. While these categories exist there is no point in removing only writers from those trees. If not kept, merge the latter two to Category:People from the Viceroyalty of Peru as well. While this category exist there is no point in removing only writers from this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Updated to dual merge per M's suggestion Mason (talk) 19:00, 22 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Immigrants to Spanish Cuba to Category:Immigrants to Cuba and Category:People from Spanish Cuba
• Propose merging Category:Emigrants from Spanish Cuba to Category:Cuban emigrants and Category:People from Spanish Cuba
• Propose merging Category:Emigrants from Spanish Cuba to Spain to Category:Cuban emigrants to Spain and Category:People from Spanish Cuba
• Propose merging Category:Emigrants from Spain to Spanish Cuba to Category:Spanish emigrants to Cuba and Category:People from Spanish Cuba

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection with regime is helpful. It just serves to lose information by removing people from the category where they emigrated from (fooian emigrant to cuba) Mason (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, merge to Category:People from Spanish Cuba as well. While the latter exists there is no point in removing only migrants from the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy to dual merge, so that we don't orphan folks from Category:People from Spanish Cuba. I'll update the noms Mason (talk) 18:49, 22 November 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.