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 (d c̄) 11:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Executives of Indiana based companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are no other U.S. states with corresponding categories. It's unclear why Indiana should be the only one. If this isn't deleted, it should at least be moved to Category:Executives of Indiana-based companies (i.e. with a hyphen). Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. We should probably manually merge folks into American business executives and Businesspeople from Indiana. Mason (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mason. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 19 October 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 both. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Iraq Division One to Category:Iraqi Division One
Propose renaming Category:Iraq Division One seasons to Category:Iraqi Division One seasons

Nominator's rationale: The correct name would be "Iraqi" Division One rather than "Iraq" Division One, since the term used in Arabic is "العراقي" not "العراق". Also, this would keep consistency with other Iraqi football tournaments such as Iraqi Pro League and Iraqi Super Cup which all use "Iraqi" in both English and Arabic titles, hence I moved the page and asking for the categories to be moved also. Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Giant Snowman 18:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 19 October 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) House Blaster^talk 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Iraq Central FA League to Category:Iraq Central FA Premier League
Propose renaming Category:Iraq Central FA League seasons to Category:Iraq Central FA Premier League seasons
Propose renaming Category:Iraq FA Basra League to Category:Iraq FA Basra Premier League
Propose renaming Category:Iraq FA Basra League seasons to Category:Iraq FA Basra Premier League seasons
Propose renaming Category:Iraq FA Kirkuk League to Category:Iraq FA Kirkuk Premier League
Propose renaming Category:Iraq FA Kirkuk League seasons to Category:Iraq FA Kirkuk Premier League seasons

Nominator's rationale: These articles are specifically about the top division in each of the regions which was called Premier League. Each region also had several other lower divisions, for example, see here for source about the Iraq Central FA 2nd Division League. Since these articles are specifically about the top division only, it becomes important to specify "Premier League" in the article name, hence why I moved these pages, and am asking for the associated categories to be moved also. Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Giant Snowman 18:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:28, 19 October 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) House Blaster^talk 21:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Assassinated politicians by type to Category:Assassinated politicians

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed mayors, governors, presidents from the Category:Assassinated politicians by type. I was wondering why. Do you think they are not politicians? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents are still here (in heads of state). Mayors and governors are in Category:Assassinated government officials because sometimes they are politicians, sometimes they aren't, dependent on time and place. Government officials is always correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presidents I agree being in heads of state and heads of government.

"A politician is a person who has political power in the government of a state, a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected office in government."

Also, I think more categories could be made, for example, Assassinated City Council Members. Then Category:Assassinated politicians by type has potential for growth. I favor keeping it, as it is a different category than Assassinated government officials, which as you say, not all are politicians (even though all mayors and governors are). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other possible categories that could be created or included under Category:Assassinated politicians by type: Assassinated city and county councillors, Assassinated national legislators, Assassinated regional legislators, Assassinated vice-presidents and deputy governors, Assassinated party officials. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Assassinated members of parliament could probably be a good category, but other than that I expect these would be very poorly populated categories and also based on not so very important distinctions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Assassinated American county and local politicians‎ had 12 entries. Of these 9 were mayors. That means that 25% were county and local politicians who were not mayors, 3 entries. Extrapolating, we could make an educated guess that for example a Category:Assassinated Local Politicians except Mayors could have around 6 entries per continent (except Oceania), for a total of around 30 pages.

Using the above info, we get the table below using the formula (US Cat)x10=(global cat), where US Cat is the number of pages in a US category and global cat is the number of pages in a global category.^[1]

US category^[2]	Entries	Global category	Entries
Assassinated American county and local politicians except mayors	3	Assassinated Local Politicians except Mayors	30
Assassinated American vice-presidents	0	Assassinated vice-presidents and deputy governors	5
Assassinated American former and incumbent party officials	7	Assassinated former and incumbent party officials	70
Assassinated United States Congress members and candidates	13	Assassinated national legislators and candidates	130
Assassinated American State legislators and candidates	21	Assassinated regional legislators and candidates	210

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Edited 03:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Except Assassinated American vice-presidents
^ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Assassinated American county and local politicians by time

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 17 October 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional Cimmerians to Category:Fictional Eurasian people

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only one article in the category. No objection to recreation of the category if and when it can be populated better. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Cimmerians in Conan the Barbarian have nothing to do with the actual Cimmerians, In fact, the author crafted an entirely imaginary world (see Hyborian Age § Nations and landmarks). Place Clichy (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment "have nothing to do with the actual Cimmerians" Not true. Robert E. Howard based his entire depiction of the Cimmerians on historical theories that they were either Celts or related to the Celts. Per the main article on the Cimmerians: "Some early modern historians asserted Cimmerian descent for the Celts or the Germans, arguing from the similarity of Cimmerii to Cimbri or Cymry, noted by 17th-century Celticists." Per the main article on Conan the Barbarian: "Howard imagined the Cimmerians as a pre-Celtic people with mostly black hair and blue or grey eyes. Ethnically, the Cimmerians to which Conan belongs are descendants of the Atlanteans, though they do not remember their ancestry. In his fictional historical essay "The Hyborian Age", Howard describes how the people of Atlantis—the land where his character King Kull originated—had to move east after a great cataclysm changed the face of the world and sank their island, settling where Ireland and Scotland would eventually be located. Thus they are (in Howard's work) the ancestors of the Irish and Scottish (the Celtic Gaels) and not the Picts, the other ancestor of modern Scots who also appear in Howard's work. In the same work, Howard also described how the Cimmerians eventually moved south and east after the age of Conan (presumably in the vicinity of the Black Sea, where the historical Cimmerians dwelt)." Several other depictions of ethnic groups by Howard tend to reflect historical theories from the 19th century, and scientific racism from his own era. Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fantasy world set in 30,000 BC on an imaginary land. Even though 17th-century historians noted a similarity between the name of the Cimmerians, a Scythian people, and Cymry, I don't think that modern historiography (or even that of Howard's time) would agree that the Iranic Cimmerians would be related to either the Atlanteans and the Celts in a way similar to how Howard tells it. Anyway, what matters here is that the nominated category's lone article Conan the Barbarian would probably not be fit for Category:Cimmerians, and the major effect of this category is to bridge the two. Place Clichy (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the target category is also nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 10#Category:Fictional Eurasian people. I note that the homeland of Howard's fictional Cimmerians would have been located on the Atlantic, not in the Eurasian steppe. The only place for an hypothetical Hyboria category would probably be Category:Fictional continents or Category:Continents in fiction, but I doubt it is necessary to create it, as all content relative to this universe is already conveniently gathered at Category:Conan the Barbarian<=Category:Mythopoeia. Place Clichy (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge, Listify/Delete instead. The time period is prior to Recorded history. And looking at History of Eurasia, I don't think the target is appropriate either. As for Cimmerian, as noted above, there seems quite a difference between 30K BC and 8K BC. That the author was working on his own WP:OR for the novels' world and peoples, is just another reason to listify, so that all this can be explained. This should be a list, if anything. - jc37 10:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(as nominator) Place Clichy and Jc37 convinced me that merge isn't a proper action and deletion is better. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 17 October 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:Films about teenagers, restrucutre Category:Teen films. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Teen films to Category:Films about teenagers

Nominator's rationale: These seem to be covering identical territory. "Teen films" seems to be better developed and has been around longer, while "Films about" uses our preferred naming standard for film categories. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on which naming scheme is better, just that the two seem duplicative. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete Category:Films about teenagers. A number of these films are already deeper down in the tree of Category:Teen films and if they aren't then the occurrance of a teen character isn't defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Teen films, more skeptical about Category:Films about teenagers. There is a well-established structure of Entertainment by demographic and Teen entertainment, and film/media/entertainment targeted towards various age groups is undeniably an area of study. Place Clichy (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Category:Films about teenagers too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Teen films are a genre, they don't necessarily have any teens in the films themselves. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the category description: "This is a list of "teen films," movies centering around the lives of teenagers and young adults, with teens and young adults as the target audience." Are you suggesting that the scope of the category should be changed? DonIago (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's wrong. Teen films are films where the target audience are teens and young adults; with themes that teens and young adults identify with. Films centered around the lives of teens and young adults are not necessarily teen films, and films aimed at teens do not necessarily feature teens (or even humans). Youth/teen adaptations of adult content also occur, films with youth/teen-oriented content featuring younger children also occur; etc. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given this comment, I think you should change your oppose !vote to a proposal to change the category scope. DonIago (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP. Intuitively, I understand "teen films" to be "films made for teenagers", not "films about teenagers". Therefore, restructure scope. House Blaster^talk 18:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure per teen film - Teen film is a film genre targeted at teenagers, preteens, or young adults by the plot being based on their special interests.

Delete Category:Films about teenagers, overlapping. At the very least delete one of them. Qwerfjkl talk 17:13, 29 October 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. Could be a textbook example of nc... (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Landowners from the Kingdom of England to Category:English landowners and Category:Medieval English people

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alt Propose splitting Category:Landowners from the Kingdom of England to Category:English landowners and Category:People from the Kingdom of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's not a trivial intersection. English landowners is who the landowners are (they're English, regardless of where they live), and Kingdom of England is where they're from (including Danes, Normans, Welsh, etc.) Also, if we use the date given at the beginning of England in the Middle Ages, 1485, all but one of the people in this category was born after the end of the mediaeval period. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the benefit of categorising Englishmen by occupation, however. The English landowners category could be split into the current category, "Landowners from the Kingdom of Great Britain", and "Landowners from the United Kingdom", with no overlap except for landowners who lived in 1707 and 1801. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, do not merge to Category:Medieval English people. Three articles aren't about the middle ages and the fourth is already in Category:15th-century English women. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an alt merge, as I agree that medieval english people aren't quite right as a parent. Still I think that this overlaps way too much with English landowners, which are already broken up by century, making this intersection is redundant. Mason (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the alternate proposal too. Some English landowners lived in other realms (for example, the King could own land in France), and non-Englishmen could own land in England (for example, King James I was a Scot who owned a huge percentage of land in England). We ought to give up on this discussion and have one about getting rid of the English landowners category. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing outright deletion of landowners categories requires a fresh discussion because there is a huge category tree involved. There is no point in deleting the English in isolation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's merit to having a category for landowners by country. However, in both these cases the category is about landowners by nationality. Mason (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster^talk 02:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 17 October 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 Uncontested for more than a month. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military doctors by country to Category:Military doctors by nationality

Propose renaming Category:Military doctors of the Russian Empire to Category:Military doctors from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: Although the parent categories have both country categories and nationality categories, the names pretty much all reflect nationality. Moreover, I think that the most pertinent categories are: Category:Medical doctors by specialty and nationality AND Category:Military personnel by nationality Mason (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this earlier CfD discussion: the category was renamed from "by nationality" to "by country" because the categories are supposed to refer to a country's army rather than a person's nationality. In retrospect I think, while that is a reasonable principle, that much more needs to be done throughout the military tree for a consistent implementation of that principle, and I wonder if it is worth the effort. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! that's helpful context Mason (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (just adding) ... so I am not opposing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 17 October 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:Heads of universities and colleges in Africa and Category:University of Eswatini. Category:Heads of universities and colleges in Eswatini will be deleted as well. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Vice-chancellors of the University of Eswatini to Category:Heads of universities and colleges in Africa

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization: 1-article category Gjs238 (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this nomination would remove eligible parent categories such as Category:University of Eswatini and Category:People by university or college in Eswatini. This university exists since 1964 so there is potential for expansion.

However, I suggest to Alt-merge parent Category:Heads of universities and colleges in Eswatini to Category:Heads of universities and colleges in Africa. Maybe that's what the nominator intended in the first place. There used to be intermediate container categories for university vice-chancellors, but these were upmerged to heads of universities and colleges following this 2019 CfD. This would remove Eswatini from parent Category:Heads of universities and colleges by country but maybe we can live with that, seen the small number of universities in this small country (one extant and one former university). Place Clichy (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combine the above and merge Category:Vice-chancellors of the University of Eswatini to both Category:Heads of universities and colleges in Africa and Category:University of Eswatini. This is without prejudice to recreation of the category when more articles about vice-chancellors of the University of Eswatini are written. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we make a child category for Category:University of Eswatini people? That way we can gather up all the assocatied people, including the VC? Mason (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We surely can, but in turn this will make Category:University of Eswatini redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Note: We're discussing how to categorize one (1) article: Lydia Makhubu. Sometimes simpler is better.
  
  Gjs238 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vice-chancellors of the University of Eswatini contains one article Lydia Makhubu. Recategorize that article to Category:Heads of universities and colleges in Africa. Gjs238 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent categories as per WP:SMALLCAT

Gjs238 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People executed by the Holy Roman Empire to Category:People executed in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: rename, executions were the business of principalities within the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE did not have any law enforcement personnel by itself. The subcategories already properly use "in". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about Category:People executed by principalities in the Holy Roman Empire? as that would make it a litter clearer that these are law-enforcing executions Mason (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very long category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
true. How about under instead of in? Mason (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "Under" sounds odd here. It can be under an emperor, or under a dynasty, but not under an empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as originally nominated. I think "execution" (as opposed to e.g. "murder") makes it clear that the executions were lawful. House Blaster^talk 02:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compare Category:People executed by the United States, which includes some federal-level executions but mostly those by US states (e.g. Category:People executed by Texas). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:17, 26 October 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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Roman Catholics by occupation to Category:American Roman Catholic religious workers

Nominator's rationale: Cat that will encourage people to create WP:OCNARROW categories at the intersection of religion, nationality, and occupation Mason (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if they do, they can be addressed in CfD. As long as we continue to consider it appropriate to intersect all occupations by location/country, then there is no reason to cherry pick these. This looks like an appropriate sub-cats of its 3 parents. Or to use a comparison - I don't see how this differs (per WP:EGRS) from Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation. - jc37 00:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: there is no issue of cherry picking here, they are called religious workers throughout the tree of Category:Catholic religious workers, or, more generally, Category:Religious workers by religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is 1 of several parents of the cat. - jc37 08:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: it does not have another parent while it definitely should, namely Category:American religious workers. Renaming the category will allow adding that additional parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I look at the cat and see the following 3 parents at the bottom: American Roman Catholics, American people by occupation, Roman Catholic religious workers. - jc37 06:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point, the 4th parent is missing because of the deviant format of the category name in the tree of Category:Religious workers. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I look at Category:Religious workers, and it's a really broad category. Basically, any work related to the topic of religion. These aren't even restricted to clerics/clergy. Looking at the Catdesc, it looks like they're supposed to be limited to Category:Religious occupations, but looking over that cat and subcats, it doesn't look like it is. It seems to me that the "by occupation" might be better than just saying "religious workers", due to this. That said, if we could fix this, I think that would be great. - jc37 08:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"any work related to the topic of religion" (my italic), well that is a lot less vague than "by occupation" which may also include unrelated occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both are pretty bad. I look at things like Category:Consecrated virgins, which should probably be grouped with the rest, but I wouldn't call them workers, or that, an "occupation"... We need a better name for this tree, I think. - jc37 20:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 17 October 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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African-American Catholic consecrated religious to Category:African-American Catholic consecrated religious workers

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to rename this, but it needs a rename, as it doesn't actually have an occupation attached to it... Mason (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse (many articles can be put in Category:African-American Roman Catholic bishops) and upmerge to Category:African-American Catholics, this is an unnecessary and confusing category layer. We do not have this distinction in Category:Roman Catholics either. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename It should have never been under the occupation category in the first place. I just moved it under the "African-American Catholics" category. natemup (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Natemup, can you please explain what this name means? The name right now is extremely uninformative. Mason (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the official English term referring to Catholics who have taken vows in a religious order/community. Such folks would be religious sisters, nuns, consecrated virgins, religious brothers, or religious priests. Mother Teresa, Thomas Merton, and Pope Francis are all prominent examplesglobally. natemup (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so please forgive me, as this is going to sound incredibly dense. But, are you staying that this full phrase "African-American Catholic consecrated religious" is the official English term? Because, my read of this phrase is "African American" as in the adjective describing African Americans, "Catholic" as in the faith, is also an adjective, and the "consecrated religious" as two adjectives that are in need of a noun.

Like, when I google this phrase, the only thing that comes up is this category. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22African-American+Catholic+consecrated+religious%22 Mason (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia we have them as Category:Roman Catholic monks and Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I was just saying that "religious" is a noun in Catholic terminology referring to sisters, nuns, consecrated virgins, religious brothers, or religious priests. The category I created is the most concise way to express what I intended. natemup (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diffuse then delete per Marcocapelle. Some of this should go to the two subcategories of Category:African-American Roman Catholic clergy‎ and the rest should be upmerged to Category:African-American Catholics. Pichpich (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This seems to be a misunderstanding. "Religious" is what individuals in a religious order are called. It's a noun, not an adjective. Please see wikt:religious#Noun. And also, the previous CfD - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_31#Category:African-American_Catholic_consecrated_religious. - jc37 00:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: your oppose does not seem to address the fact that we have them as Category:Roman Catholic monks and Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns in the category tree, which seems to work well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to clarify.

"Religious" includes more than just monks and nuns. Please see Religious order#Catholic tradition, and Religious order (Catholic). They include priests, deacons, brothers, friars, and so on.

I would not be surprised if, like the discussion above, someone, not understanding the term "religious" in this context, stripped out other category members. - jc37 08:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds to me like this category would map onto the religious worker category, if I'm understanding it correctly. I think for me and I imagine that for others as well, the name is only informative to a narrow category of users.

>"I would not be surprised if, like the discussion above, someone, not understanding the term "religious" in this context, stripped out other category members"

Do you have a naming suggestion for how we can prevent others from making this misunderstanding? I'd support keeping the category IF we can find a way to name it so that more people can understand it. Mason (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the goal when the (normally unnecessary) word "consecrated" was used. But apparently that hasn't helped. Typically, for something like this, where the correct/accurate word can still be misunderstood, we do that by adding clarification to the WP:CATDESC. - jc37 23:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking that question because this follows from the point that I was making earlier: "monks" and "religious sisters and nuns" are clear. But then, they do not have to be intersected with ethnicity per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they really aren't. One can be a catholic monk, and not be in a religious order. Same goes for nuns and sisters too.

Part of me just wants to WP:TNT and start over, because - to my eyes - a lot of hands who had no idea of "religious as a noun", have pretty much destroyed any sense of a tree of what was being categorised here.

And changing this to the vague "religious workers" will just make this all worse. - jc37 08:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a discussion for another time. Regardless of how that plays out, here they do not have to be intersected with ethnicity per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I think we could say that the times are a-changin', I don't think we're yet to where ethnicity in the US intersecting with being in a religious order is not defining. And that without even delving into Religion of Black Americans.

All that said, I was looking at the various trees, like the subcats of Category:Members of Catholic orders and societies. While I see by nationality, I'm not seeing them split "by ethnicity" anywhere, except these few, which were apparently all created by the same editor. However, Category:African-American Catholics, and for that matter, Category:LGBT Roman Catholics, do exist, so EGRS apparently is in play here.

So far, the best rename I've come up with is: [[:Category:African-American members of [Roman] Catholic religious orders]]. - jc37 20:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good candidate for a renaming, minus "Roman" (which is unnecessary and could create confusion concerning Latin and Eastern Catholic religious). natemup (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:57, 17 October 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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Canadian people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Loaded category. While pretendian, or people falsely claiming indigenous heritage they don't really have, is a real phenomenon, this category appears to have been created principally to sidestep content disputes about who did or didn't belong in the main article as examples of it -- it mixes a number of people who are properly sourceable as having had their claims of indigenous identity questioned or debunked (Joseph Boyden, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond) and have been accordingly listed in the article, with a whole lot of people who are not properly sourceable as being "pretendians" and thus have not been listed in the article.
For example, while it was about a year ago now that somebody tried to use Wikipedia to rip on singer Iskwē as a "pretendian", as of September 2023 there has yet to be a single reliable source posting even one single solitary word on the matter that we could ever use as sourcing for describing her that way in our own editorial voice. (And there have been prior attempts to rip on Tomson Highway, of all the people in the world whose indigenous credentials aren't actually in any valid doubt whatsoever. I'm really not making that up.)
This is simply not an appropriate basis for a category at all: if a person's indigenous identity is actually in question, then it's easy to just remove them from indigenous categories they might have been filed in, but a category that essentially comes right out and explicitly labels them as lying liars who lie is absolutely inappropriate on WP:BLP grounds. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia relies exclusively on what can be verified by published sources. It is easy to verify that people have publicly identified themselves as being Indigenous of descent through secondary, published sources. If the sources can then be backed up by First Nations, Inuit, or Métis communities that acknowledge the individual as having Indigenous identity, then the person can be moved into smaller, more specific categories; for instance, if a specific First Nation acknowledges a person as being a member of that nation. This would be the broadest category. Even the current description (which can be edited) does not say that every individual does *not* have Indigenous ancestry. If you believe someone does not belong in this category (i.e. if they have not made a public claim identifying as being of Indigenous descent or are not a Canadian), feel free to move them out. Yuchitown (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

We also need, but in many of these cases do not have, reliable sourcing that properly verifies the existence of any challenges to or questions about the person's indigenous identity. It wasn't Wikipedia's job to know anything, or have any doubts about, Joseph Boyden's identity until reliable sources told us there was a problem. It wasn't Wikipedia's job to have any inside knowledge, or any questions about, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's identity until reliable sources told us there was a problem. It wasn't our job to gainsay Michelle Latimer's identity until reliable sources told us there was a problem. It isn't our job to question Iskwe's identity until reliable sources tell us there's a problem (which, as of September 2023, reliable sources have still never done). And on and so forth: our job is to follow the media coverage, not to research people's genealogies ourselves. So it isn't our job to interrogate anybody's indigenous identity until reliable sources tell us that there's a problem, and many of the people in this category don't have any such thing. Sure, some people misrepresent themselves as having indigenous heritage when they really don't — I'm not denying that. But it isn't Wikipedia's job to conduct the investigation, because we are not an investigative journalism project. Our job begins and ends at summarizing a person's media coverage, and does not include saying anything, including even the allegation that they might be misrepresenting their identity, if we can't back that up with media coverage explicitly reporting they're misrepresenting their identity. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yuchtown. This category is still useful, even if the sourcing is a pain. @Bearcat, your arguments are well thought out, I just really hesitate to delete this category as it is defining for many people. Indeed, in the US for example, many members of the African American community identify as having indigenous heritage, but were/are being denied tribal membership (I'm thinking of the Cherokee Nation in particular). Mason (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does not need to be a challenge to claims. The category is absolutely *not* "Canadians who claim but do not have Indigenous ancestry." Even the description (which can be further edited) points out that only some of the people in the category have had their claims contested. Yuchitown (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Comment:To Bearcat: Again, it's easy to confirm with published sources that someone has made the self-identification, so that is what this category is about. This is not a category only for people whose claims have been disputed or disproven. Nothing in the description talks about anyone lying. If you wanted to create such a category as subcat, that would be a different conversation. Yuchitown (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

The category's description explicitly states that the category is for people who "claim to have some Indigenous peoples of the Americas ancestry but provide no proof of this heritage" — but what published sources exist to verify that most people in the category have failed to provide the necessary standard of proof in the first place? What published sources exist to verify which self-identified First Nations people have the necessary amount of proof to get transferred from "self-identified" to "confirmed", and which self-identified First Nations people do not? What published sources exist to verify who has provided the proof and who hasn't?

What reliable sources tell us that Alec Butler has failed to provide the necessary standard of proof? What reliable sources tell us that Iskwe has failed to provide the necessary standard of proof? What reliable sources tell us that Faith Nolan has failed to provide the necessary standard of proof? And for that matter, what reliable sources tell us that almost any First Nations person, whether they've been added to this category or not, ever actually has provided the necessary standard of proof? What reliable sources establish that any First Nations person has ever graduated from "self-identified" to "confirmed"?

Which is precisely why "disputed" is the only grounds on which a person can be assigned to this category — because the existence or non-existence of a reliably sourceable dispute about the person's indigenous heritage is the only mechanism we have to establish that anybody in the category has ever met the "provide no proof" criterion. We need reliable sources to tell us that a person has failed to provide the necessary standard of proof, which means that the existence of a reliably sourceable dispute about the person's indigenous heritage is the only thing we can go on. Without reliably sourcing the existence of a dispute, we get things like the attempt I explicitly linked to above where somebody actually attempted to pretendianize Tomson Highway — because even people who are fully accepted as members of the appropriate indigenous communities still generally don't have any reliable published sources by which we could actually source proof that they've landed on the correct side of a distinction between "self-identified" and "confirmed". Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The description can be changed (in fact, I will shortly). The sources that could verify would be First Nations (or Inuit or Métis communities) identifying the individual as a being of Indigenous descent, or prominent Indigenous publications, such as Inuit Art Quarterly or Nunatsiaq News — some substantiation of a claim independent of the individual making the claim. Just a back story for why this article exists that that many celebraties claim Indigenous identity and their fans will repeatedly put them in inaccurate subcats. You are trying to make this category something that is it not. 21:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown Yuchitown (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make the category into anything it didn't explicity call itself, and First Nations, Métis or Inuit communities are not published sources that we can consult for verification or citability. What published sources verify which "confirmed" First Nations people have their indigenous status properly verified by community affirmation of their indigeneity and which "self-identified" First Nations people do not? As important as community affirmation is, community affirmation is not a published source, so we need published sources to tell us who has community affirmation and who doesn't.
And as for "prominent Indigenous publications, such as Inuit Art Quarterly or Nunatsiaq News", well, spoiler alert, even Joseph Boyden and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had coverage in prominent indigenous news outlets that took their indigeneity at face value, and would have met the standard you propose, before the existence of any dispute became sourceable. That simply fails to meet the "who has community affirmation and who doesn't" test, because there are people without community affirmation who have gotten coverage in publications like that, and there are people with community affirmation who have not gotten coverage in publications like that. Bearcat (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When sources contradict each other, say Inuit Art Quarterly, you got by the more recent information that debunks previous misinformation, like any other field. Yuchitown (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Split to Category:Canadian people with disputed Indigenous descent and Category:Canadian people with Indigenous descent, this category mixes up two very different issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian people of Indigenous peoples descent exists. Basically the self-identification category is the largest since it's easy to confirm through published sources that someone has self-identified. If their self-identification can be substantiated by independent published sources, then they can move onto the smaller subcategories. If others thought Category:Canadian people with disputed Indigenous descent would be useful and viable, then that would also be a subcat of Category:Canadian people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent. Yuchitown (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
- Ok, then split to Category:Canadian people with disputed Indigenous descent and Category:Canadian people of Indigenous peoples descent. The point is that "disputed" is a defining characteristic and requires a subcategory of its own. If not disputed, diffusing is not needed per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Whether a person's Indigenous status is "disputed" or not is irrelevant. There are Indigenous people with confirmed connections to tribes who have nonetheless had their Indigenous identity disputed by others for whatever reason. Tomson Highway and Buffy Sainte-Marie have already been mentioned as two Indigenous people where this is the case. There are also plenty of self-identifying "Indigenous" people who have not been subject to public controversy or dispute over whether they are Indigenous or not, but who simply lack a confirmation of their Indigeneity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - category is clear, if they self-identify, then they belong here. It's not a mark against the claim being legit or not. This category keeps Wikipedia NPOV and avoids being used to as a way to "validate" vague claims made by folks. If media reports they're enrolled somewhere, then they are not self-identifying, they are claimed. Having two category for folks with "disputed Indigenous descent" and one for people with Indigenous descent could even be going into the field of original research unless there's sources for both that show someone is descended from a tribe but isn't enrolled and that someone else is being publicly challenged by the media in their claims. Keeping it as self-identifying isn't OR, it's going by their claims. oncamera _{(talk page)} 12:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Yuchitown and others. This is not a category specifically for pretendians. It is a general category for people who have claimed an Indigenous identity without verification. There is nothing in the category's title that claims or implies that anyone is a liar. The category is useful both for the general reading public and for Indigenous WikiProject editors in navigating between verifiable Indigenous people and people who have made claims without verification. Self-identifying as Indigenous is a defining characteristic in and of itself, regardless of whether or not there is media coverage of a controversy over an unverified claim. Deleting the category would be a disservice to general readership and Indigenous editors. Determining Indigenous identity is not particularly difficult. Individuals can be removed from the category if additional sources are provided verifying their Indigenous identity. It is irrelevant that some Indigenous people like Tomson Highway have been called pretendians by some individuals, because those claims aren't from a reliable source. Even Buffy has been called a pretendian (David Cornsilk and others have alleged she's just Italian-American and lies in a tanning bed all day), but we don't list her in the self-identifying category because she is claimed by the Piapot First Nation. Controversy itself isn't a deciding factor, one way or the other. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up, two groups who are not pretendians who would also fall into the category for this group would Sixties Scoop survivors who have not yet been able to trace their birth families and Canadian citizens of Latin American Indigenous ancestry who have are unconnected their their communities of origin. Yuchitown (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No concensus yet on whether disputed claims of Indigenous descent should be segregated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The majority of us voted to keep, and the one person who suggested splitting the categories wasn't familiar with existing categories. I know this isn't a simple vote count, but this was overwhelmingly voted to keep. The topic of unsubstantiated claims of Indigenous identity (not necessarily false, as I pointed out in my previous comment) is much more widely discussed by the Canadian press than the American press and is written about by Canadian scholars in academic journals as well. Yuchitown (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

This is not about the topic of unsubstantiated claims but about whether or not the ethnicity of particular people has been disputed. If there is no dispute for some people, they do not belong together in a category with people whose ethnicity is disputed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an Indigenous person of Canada is not an ethnicity. Inuit and First Nations people are completely different linguistically, historically, and genetically. Yuchitown (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
- Ok, so do you propose splitting to Inuit and First Nations people? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Of course not. Like almost everyone in this conversation, I vote to keep the category as it is. Yuchitown (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Delete. For the record, I believe that this category, like its American counterpart, is used the wrong way. It should be perfectly fine to place someone with widely accepted Indigenous descent, but who does not culturally identify themselves as Indigenous, in Category:Canadian people of Indigenous peoples descent or Category:American people of Native American descent. People whose such claims are considered baseless or fraudulent (or for whom this descent is otherwise irrelevant to their biography) should not be in a descent category at all. Place Clichy (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In these articles the claims of Indigenous identity are often the primary focus of their notability as covered in news, academic literature, and books. The concept of self-identifying as being of Indigenous descent is widely published about, as a subject and pertaining to specific individuals. The users who actively contribute to Indigenous topics are familiar with this, hence the keep votes. Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Delete per Place Clichy.--User:Namiba 16:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Place Clichy. Category:Canadian people of Indigenous peoples descent is more than sufficient. At its heart, this is a category of opinion, namely, Jane Doe's belief that she is of native descent. House Blaster^talk 20:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I understand why folks see this category as unnecessary through a social/cultural lens, but the important point here, as @Yuchitown mentions, is that Indigenous is an important political designation in Canada. Official recognition conveys special status, whereas self-identification does not. To reiterate, this category's importance is primarily political, not cultural. Crescent77 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to deletion per se, but then at least the articles about people with undisputed descent should be recategorized to Category:Canadian people of Indigenous peoples descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Individuals whose claims confirmed by the groups being claimed, published in secondary sources, already are in different category. To User:HouseBlaster suggestion that this category it based on opinion; it is not. The fact that someone has self-identified as being of Indigenous descent is a fact that can easily be confirmed by statements made by the individual as published in secondary sources. I don't think I've seen a CfD be relisted twice before. Yuchitown (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
- That is different from what I said. We don't require any other ethnic groups to confirm a person's descent explicitly. A self-stated descent always suffices. At most we may make an exception when the claimed descent is disputed but I am not even sure we should. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Kainai is an ethnic group. Being an Indigenous person of Canada is a politic status that encompasses hundreds of diverse ethnic groups. It's not a race; it's not an ethnic group. Yuchitown (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[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) House Blaster^talk 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military food of the United Kingdom to Category:British military catering
Propose merging Category:Military food of Canada to all parents

Nominator's rationale: I have moved the UK category up from Category:Military food, which otherwise contains topics on army rations & foodstuffs. The Canada category currently only holds one article, so should be merged to all parents unless and until there are more articles to go in it. – Fayenatic London 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Military catering of the United Kingdom. Also rename Category:Military food of the United States‎ to Category:Military catering of the United States‎ and merge Category:Military food (and Category:Military food of Canada) to Category:Military catering. No need for two separate categories. There is no such thing as "military food" really. Soldiers eat the same food as everyone else, just not necessarily in the same ways due to the way they have to operate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "soldiers eat the same food" – yet we have dozens of articles specifically on military rations. The US category contains articles mainly about foodstuffs rather than organisational topics, so I was going to leave it at its current name. How about renaming to Category:Military rations (matching List of military rations) and Category:Military rations of the United States? A few articles could be moved to a new parent Category:Military catering of the United States‎. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's my point. It's the same food, just served up in different ways. Military rations don't actually usually comprise different food from what the rest of us eat. Soldiers aren't aliens with different diets. It's simply the style and organisation of catering that can be different. That's why I think "military catering" is the best terminology and having two separate categories is pointless, overcomplicating and confusing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may be describing recent experience. Military_nutrition#British_military says WWI rations were "often inedible and did not resemble real food", lacking essential nutrients and causing psychological distress. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, that was the catering, not the food itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The UK category has now been moved back. If my proposal gains consensus, British food items will need to be added again to Category:Military food/rations when done. – Fayenatic London 17:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do any reliable sources call it "catering"? I've never seen it called that in the last 40 years at least. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than Australian Army Catering Corps, which is a seriously anemic stub? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - and the Army Catering Corps (1941–1993) – Fayenatic London 08:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Catering" is quite a stretch. What about Category:Food in the British military? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was to create separate levels for foodstuff/rations and for the service that provides it. I've only just spotted that there is an article Military rations which I think should be the lead article for the first. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must say, I'm rather puzzled as to this opposition to the term "catering". According to the OED, "catering" means: Purveying of food or other requisites. To "cater" means, in this respect: (1) To act as 'cater', caterer, or purveyor of provisions; to provide a supply of food for; (2) To buy or provide food. A "caterer" is defined as: One who caters or purveys provisions for a household, club, etc.; one who supplies the viands at an entertainment, fête, etc. How on earth is that not appropriate to the subject? It sums this topic up perfectly. Not all the articles in these categories are strictly about food, but all of them are about catering (i.e. the provision of food). It is by far the best general term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:51, 17 October 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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Edmonton Elks to Category:Edmonton Eskimos

Nominator's rationale: I am proposing to revert this and all associated subcategories to their original names. This was speedily moved without a CfD but 95% of the stuff in the Elks cat is actually for the Eskimos. There are supposed to be separate categories for the different incarnations of gridiron football teams. See Category:Washington Commanders and Category:Los Angeles Rams for a few examples. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current category name. I can understand starting a new category when a franchise moves to a different city - that's a major break in the franchise's history. But a mere name change while staying in the same stadium is pretty minor and does not mark a new "era" in and of itself. And the category name should match the current name of the team. Those three categories for the Washington NFL team look like a bad decision to me. Indefatigable (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on the two Boston categories in the Washington category? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two Boston categories should be merged as well. It was the same team, but its initial nickname lasted only one year. That's not enough to warrant a separate category for that single season, unless there are other nuances I'm not aware of. 1930s American football is not something I have a lot of knowledge about. Indefatigable (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename back to Category:Edmonton Eskimos, and create a new category structure for the Edmonton Elks for all post-2020 info for the team. Not sure why this wasn't done in the first place. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We categorize association football clubs that have been renamed under the current name. Why not do that for all sports? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is only one aritcle then there should only be one category tree. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 26 October 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 with no prejudice to recreation. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Geréb family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: small cat (n=1) without a corresponding eponymous article about the family. category has no interlanguage links ( seems unlikely for growth). Mason (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable noble family in 15th-century Hungary. Unfortunately, there is currently only an article about one family member. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This does not aid navigation at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marcocapelle and nom. It can be recreated if it can be further populated. House Blaster^talk 02:21, 25 October 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) House Blaster^talk 02:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Stein family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: small cat (<3) without a corresponding eponymous article about the family. category has no interlanguage links ( seems unlikely for growth.) . Mason (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 17 October 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:Video game businesspeople. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Video game businesspeople by nationality to Category:Video game businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Only one category in it Mason (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 17 October 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:Canadian women radio hosts. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Canadian women radio presenters to Category:Canadian women radio hosts

Nominator's rationale: These two category pages are essentially the exact same topic. Giovanni 0331 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are 68 other categories at Category:Women radio presenters. Why single out this one?--User:Namiba 13:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:ENGVAR issue. Each country should be using the term that would actually be expected in that country's own dialect of English, so having "hosts" in some countries and "presenters" in others is not a problem — but it is a problem for one country to have both a "hosts" category and a "presenters" category existing alongside each other at the same time when they're the same thing. Every other country has either "hosts" or "presenters", and Canada is the only one where somebody tried to create "presenters" alongside "hosts" as a second category for the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge per nom. If we have duplicates in other countries as well, they should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hosts but leave a redirect. In this recent discussion about Puerto Rican television hosts, User:Bearcat explained that "this is indeed an ENGVAR issue: what much of the world would call a television "presenter", North American English speakers call a television "host", so they're just different words for the same job rather than different things." I guess the same reasoning applies for radio. However I cannot say myself for sure which term is used in Canadian English, which is sometimes different than the Usonian standard. Place Clichy (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I refined my vote after Bearcat's explanation below, which I find fully satisfactory. Place Clichy (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hosts. "Hosts" is the normative term in Canadian English (see e.g. David Common named new host of CBC Toronto’s ‘Metro Morning’), which is why "hosts" already existed before "presenters" did, and why the ungendered parent is Category:Canadian radio hosts rather than "Canadian radio presenters". That said, "presenters" probably should be maintained as a redirect to "hosts", so as to avoid any possibility of this happening again. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 18 October 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:Spanish explorers. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Explorers from Extremadura to Category:Spanish explorers

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection, follow-up on the merge of Basque explorers in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_8#Category:Explorers_by_ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 23:38, 17 October 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) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Children of American missionaries in China to Category:American expatriates in China

Nominator's rationale: not defining, Mason (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is actually a notable intersection and is particularly evident when looking at archival materials. For example, look at this finding aid for the Clarke Family "Ruth and Eric Clarke were both children of missionaries in China, and the Clarkes lived in China through the 1940s." Yale too [1]. Here as well [2] Here is an academic paper on the topic [3].--User:Namiba 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These people were not "Category:American expatriates in China" and many of them, for instance Henry Luce, John Hersey,Elizabeth J. Perry, James C. Thomson Jr., and C. Martin Wilbur never lived in China after their youth and their importance was in the US, not China. David A. Hollinger, Protestants Abroad: How Missionaries Tried to Change the World but Changed America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017) shows their influence in American cultural and political life. ch (talk) 02:11, 18 October 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 contents have increased to 10 pages since nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Engineers from the Kingdom of Prussia to Category:German engineers

Nominator's rationale: I'm inclined to merge as the category is underpopulated, and i don't think the intersection with regeime is defining. But an alternative could be Prussian engineers, to match the bulk of the names Mason (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge for now~~, probably also to Category:Scientists from the Kingdom of Prussia. No prejudice to recreation of the category when it can be populated better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to oppose as the category has been populated better. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 17 October 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:German Egyptologists. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Prussian Egyptologists to Category:German Egyptologists

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category where political regime's intersection with occupation is not defining Mason (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now, also to Category:Historians from the Kingdom of Prussia. No prejudice to recreation of the category when it can be populated better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 October 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 Saxe-Meiningen. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from the Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen to Category:People from Saxe-Meiningen

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category Mason (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, seems to be a duplicate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 17 October 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) House Blaster^talk 02:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: With an article for only one song, this eponymous category isn’t needed per WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 17 October 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) House Blaster^talk 02:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Von Rad family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: small cat (<3) without a corresponding eponymous article about the family. category has no interlanguage links ( seems unlikely for growth) Mason (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 17 October 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) House Blaster^talk 02:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ribbentrop family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: small cat (<3) without a corresponding eponymous article about the family. 2 family members are father-son pair. category has no interlanguage links ( seems unlikely for growth. Mason (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 17 October 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:House of Holland (nobility). (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gerulfingian dynasty to Category:House of Holland (nobility)

Nominator's rationale: upmerge. small cat. (n<3). The interlanguage link only had one page in it, indicating low chance of growth. Mason (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, just a duplicate. The House of Holland were descendants of Gerolf of Holland. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 17 October 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) House Blaster^talk 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Hattonid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: small cat (<3) with one member and a corresponding eponymous article about the family. category has interlanguage links, but there weren't additional pages. Could also possiblly be upmered into Category:Ruling families of the Duchy of Saxony. Mason (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete, oppose merge, Banzleibs was appointed margrave of Saxony for as little as two years. It is questionable if he has ever been there. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 17 October 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) House Blaster^talk 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Abercron family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: small cat (<3) without a corresponding eponymous article about the family. category has no interlanguage links ( seems unlikely for growth.) . Mason (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 17 October 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.

October 17

Category:Executives of Indiana based companies

Category:Wikipedia XX-Class level-n vital articles

Category:Iraq Division One

Category:Iraq Central FA League

Category:Assassinated politicians by type

Category:Fictional Cimmerians

Category:Teen films

Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality

Category:People from the State of Palestine

Category:Landowners from the Kingdom of England

Category:Military doctors by country

Category:Vice-chancellors of the University of Eswatini

Category:People executed by the Holy Roman Empire

Category:American Roman Catholics by occupation

Category:African-American Catholic consecrated religious

Category:Canadian people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent

Military catering

Category:Edmonton Elks

Category:Geréb family

Category:Stein family

Category:Video game businesspeople by nationality

Category:Emigrants from Portuguese Timor to Macau

Category:Canadian women radio presenters

Category:Explorers from Extremadura

Category:Children of American missionaries in China

Category:Engineers from the Kingdom of Prussia

Category:Prussian Egyptologists

Category:People from the Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen

Category:Mentissa

Category:Von Rad family

Category:Ribbentrop family

Category:Gerulfingian dynasty

Category:Hattonid dynasty

Category:Abercron family