The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People with acquired Guyanese citizenship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think any of the articles in this category actually belong here. They all appear to be birthright citizens (per Guyanese nationality law#Acquiring Guyanese nationality, having a parent with Guyanese citizenship is enough for citizenship regardless of one's place of birth). Upmerging is not needed, because they are all already in subcategories of Category:Guyanese people. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2024 (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: dual merge. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Political posters of Italy to Category:Political posters of Europe

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single non-free file. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As it is, it's a convenient way to tie it into both European posters and the politics of Italy. It's the politics of Italy that's the much stronger connection. Admittedly it's near-empty, because we generally avoid hosting media on WP, but it's also a good tie to Commons, where we have many more items. I don't see any advantage to this merge, other than a rather pointless nod to SMALLCAT. It also singles out Italy (or is the plan, as usual, to remove all countries here, one by one?) when the other countries have very few images in their similar categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it should be a dual merge then, also to Category:Images of Italy. The number of images of political posters by country is so small that they can all be merged together indeed. Category:Political posters of Scandinavia is a good example of subcategorization "just because you can". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge. The category isn't helpful with only a page in it. Mason (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (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 the exception of merging to Category:Indian medical doctors in place of Category:Medieval Indian medical doctors. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:11th-century Indian medical doctors to Category:11th-century physicians and Category:Medieval Indian medical doctors and Category:11th-century Indian people
• Propose merging Category:7th-century Indian medical doctorsto Category:7th-century physicians and Category:Medieval Indian medical doctors and Category:7th-century Indian people
• Propose merging Category:8th-century Indian medical doctors to Category:8th-century physicians and Category:Medieval Indian medical doctors and Category:8th-century Indian people

Nominator's rationale: There are only a handful of Medieval medical doctors from India. I think we should upmerge for now until there's a critical mass Mason (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support most of it per nom, but rather than creating Category:Medieval Indian medical doctors with only two articles I would rather merge to Category:Indian medical doctors. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Indian in "Indian people" may or may not be associated the modern Republic of India. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand that point you are trying to make. No one is saying these doctors are from the modern Republic of India. Mason (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Indian people by century feeds ultimately to Category:Indian people and thereupon Category:India (and not any other modern-day successors). Are these physicians Indian if we are to equate India with the ROI? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so I think I now understand what's happening with your dispute over Hong Kong versus China. That's not how nationality works for nesting. So there's no built-in assumption with categories that people nested in India are necessarily citizens of the modern nation of India. Mason (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination and change Indian to South Asian. 121.202.28.169 (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: To the closer: the IPs are all are probably the same IP (see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:185.104.63.112_reported_by_User:Smasongarrison_(Result:_Blocked), and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/185.104.63.112) Mason (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming Indian to South Asian would require a broader discussion. The current nomination is about a much smaller issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like one of the entries is about a doctor who was Bengali. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? All Bengali people were Indian people until 1947. It is not a mistake that Chakrapani Datta is currently in Category:11th-century Indian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the alternative target. Mason (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (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 · he/him) 00:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Indian scientific authors to Category:Indian science writers and Category:Indian academics

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection dual upmerge; the category description is part of the job of being an academic. The description says says: "Indian scientists who contribute their scientific publications, among others in scientific journals and magazines, in biology, chemistry and physics, and so on. authors who write scientific books etc, may be categorized in the related scientific fields at Category:Indian science writers." Mason (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, articles are already in more specific academics categories if applicable and ought to be in Category:Indian science writers if that is applicable. If anyone wants to volunteer to check more than 400 articles manually in order to find very few articles that aren't properly categorized yet then by all means, but I don't think we should make that a requirement. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Delete is fine with me. Mason (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Welsh bisexual people by occupation to Category:Welsh bisexual people

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (underpopulated) occupation in here, which is not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2024 (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 · he/him) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:War criminals by nationality to Category:People convicted of war crimes by nationality
• Propose merging Category:Liberian war criminals to Category:Liberian people convicted of war crimes

Nominator's rationale: These are the same thing. Am I missing something? If I'm not, I'm happy to add the rest of the categories to the list. Mason (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These categories are meant for war criminals who were never formally convicted of war crimes. It exists for the same reason why Category:War criminals is seperate from Category:People convicted of war crimes. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per AHI. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smasongarrison: are you okay with keeping, or do you still support merging? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Im ok with keeping. Mason (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (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 (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT aromantic people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:LGBT asexual women to Category:Asexual women
• Propose merging Category:LGBT demisexual people to Category:Demisexual people and Category:Asexual people
• Propose merging Category:Asexual gay men to Category:Gay men and Category:Asexual men
• Propose merging Category:LGBT asexual men to Category:Asexual men
• Propose merging Category:LGBT asexual people to Category:Asexual people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism and Asexuality are the A of LGBTQIA+ and Intersex is the I and is inherently an LGBTQIA+ identity. (Also for the emtied categories, I've nominated them to make it clear that the category shouldn't be recreated Mason (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a merger as well. The fact these were created WITHOUT much discussion is deeply unfortunate and needs to be reversed. I would also say that the said user needs to be warned. Historyday01 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison No, they aren't. There are plenty of asexuals who identify also as lesbian, gay, bi, or transgender. There are plenty of asexuals who identify as cis and heteroromantic / straight. Wikipedia should not erase queer asexuals. Being both queer and asexuals is a non-trivial intersection, a minority within a minority. There's a reason that terms like homoromantic and biromantic are used in the asexual community; because asexuals queers exist. Likewise, it is flat out false that all intersex people are LGBT. There are plenty of intersex people who identify as cisgender heterosexuals. Being both intersex and LGBT is likewise a meaningful and defining intersection of two oppressed identities. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Aromanticism and Asexuality are the A of LGBTQIA+ and Intersex is the I and is inherently an LGBTQIA+ identity and manually emptied the LGBT aromantic people category aready). Raladic (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, but do not merge to Category:Gay men because articles are already in the tree of Category:Gay men by nationality and/or by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconding this. I've gone through and checked, and all the members of the "Asexual gay men" category are already in other branches of the "Gay men" category tree, so they only need to be merged to "Asexual men" ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep asexual gay men, merge the rest, per Marco. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is "Keep asexual gay men" in line with what Marco says? A triple intersection like this is a tough sell under EGRS. Mason (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep is not in line with what I said. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I misread and confused with another commenter in the intersex thread saying "...with exception of...". Anyways it's not a triple intersection essentially, since both identities can complement each other. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, already covered by LGBTQIA terminology and shouldn't be othered in the category trees. Suonii180 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your error stems from the misunderstanding that is how we consider LGBT as encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus. It just hasn't been renamed because consensus for what to rename it to (LGBT vs LGBTQ vs LGBTQ+ and so on) has been difficult (you can find a whole lot of history of rename discussions at LGBT.

  Since Asexual, Aromantic and and Intersex are inherently part of that community umbrella, it is redundant to say that someone who is Asexual is also LGBTQIA+ with a different category, hence the categories you created misrepresent this and imply that they were not already part of the umbrella by othering them out. Raladic (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom assuming the nominator meant to say "asexual" and not "intersex" (AFAICT all of the categories listed above are about "asexual", not "intersex"); in any case, I support ditching the weird "LGBT asexual" categories (either merging them per nom, or just removing them if the articles are already better categorized in other ways as Marcocapelle suggests). -sche (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:LGBT aromantic people was an empty category due to be deleted on Sunday. Why did you make it part of this CFD discussion when it was already going to be deleted? Did you not see the CSD tag on the page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 14 April 2024 (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. There is consensus that this category should not exist, but there is no consensus on whether Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label‎ should be in the merge target (Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians). Because that is a concern more suited to the talk page than a full-blown CfD, further discussion on the categorization of Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label‎ can take place at Category talk:Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label‎. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedians by sexuality to Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: This seems unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Raladic (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:OVERLAPCAT but purge the last subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose People who "who reject a sexual preference label" are very explicitly not defining themselves as LGBT, so that subcat doesn't belong in the LGBT category. Second, not all asexuals identify as L, G, B or T. Plenty of asexuals are cisgender and identify as straight or heteroromantic. Erasing queer asexuals is homophobic and transphobic. Being both queer and asexual is a relevant intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the above comment by Raladic "LGBT [i]s encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus." No one is erasing queer people or asexual people with these categories. As a queer person, I appreciate your concern about representation. However, I think calling the current category homophobic and transphobic is missing the point. Mason (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison We could avoid the debate over whether all asexuals and all intersex people are LGBT by merging the LGBT asexuals and LGBT intersex people categories, but keeping the categories for people who specifically identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. As a non-heterosexual and non-cisgender member of the LGBTQ community, representation is indeed my concern. Thank you. Although, wouldn't people who reject a label by definition also be rejecting an LGBT label? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your rhetorical questions. Mason (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison There's a single question. Why should people who reject a label be labeled as LGBT, per your baffling insistence that no label = LGBT? That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose a merger, but would be fine with simply deleting the "by sexuality" category. I can't support a merger, because the categories, as named, have different scopes, and I'm not talking about the question of whether LGBT includes B, or L, or A, or whatnot, I'm talking about the other category: heterosexuality (for example) is a sexuality, but not (in most cases) "LGBT", so "Wikipedians by sexuality"—as presently named—is scoping itself to somethng broader than "LGBT Wikipedians". However, "Heterosexual Wikipedians" has been deleted for not being related to improving articles, and "Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label" says (for better or worse) that it's only for LGBT-aligned people, so I see that there's nothing but LGBT sexualities to go in the "by sexuality" category, making it useless/redundant to the "LGBT Wikipedians" category, so I am fine with just deleting the "by sexuality" category. -sche (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @-sche: in this case, technically, a merger and a deletion is almost the same, because all subcategories except the last one are already in the target. So deletion in contrast to merge just translates as "don't put Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label under Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2024 (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 (in the updated nomination). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Transgender women by sexual orientation to Category:Transgender women
• Propose merging Category:Transgender men by sexual orientation to Category:Transgender men
• Propose merging Category:Transgender people by sexual orientation to Category:Transgender people (updated by Mason) on 18:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_2#LGBT_people_by_sexual_orientation_and_nationality Mason (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this upmerger as proposed. It would be more useful to users this way. Historyday01 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be more in line with recent CfD outcomes ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to eliminate the newly created Category:Transgender people by sexual orientation rather than merging into it. It's just another unhelpful intermediate category level.--Trystan (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me add that to the nom! @Trystan:Mason (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I support as revised.--Trystan (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Raladic (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the first two are redundant category layer with only a few subcategories. The last is an odd mix of very unrelated subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge, but also reparent subcategories in Category:Transgender people by sexual orientation (as well as transgender lesbians and transgender gay men) to Category:Transgender sexuality as well. Please tag/sort them to be grouped to gether --MikutoH ^talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is defining. There's no reason to erase gay/lesbian and bi people within the trans community. Being both queer (sexually) and trans is a double minority. It is relevant and defining, not a trivial intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is erasing being both a gender and sexual minority. The merging of the category places both elements on equal footing in the main category rather than isolating each. Mason (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing is erased, people can be part of multiple, separate categories as is already the case. Raladic (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (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 · he/him) 23:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Genocidal massacres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - the genocidal massacre article doesn't offer a firm number-based benchmark and it could be rightfully stated that any sizeable massacre is genocidal. As such, that categorization also opens the gates for original research. Brandmeister^talk 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All content is also somewhere else in the tree of Category:Massacres so a merge is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Bangladesh‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Bangladesh‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Bolivia‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Bolivia‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Denmark‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Denmark‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in El Salvador‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in El Salvador‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Germany‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Germany‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Honduras‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Honduras‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Kenya‎ (1 C) to Category:Gender in Kenya‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Liberia‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Liberia‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Mexico‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Mexico‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in North Korea‎ (1 P) to Category:Gender in North Korea‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Russia‎ (1 C) to Category:Gender in Russia‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Sri Lanka‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Sri Lanka‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Sudan‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Sudan‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Thailand‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Gender in Thailand‎
• Propose merging Category:Sexism in Tonga‎ (1 P) to Category:Gender in Tonga‎

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, WP:OVERLAPCAT. Brandmeister^talk 14:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Category:Sexism by country in general provides easy navigation for related article per country. Having one article in a cat is not a solid ground for merger or deletion especially as most of these countries in the nom has very low coverage here, which can be improved rather than erased. In general I do not think the merger will improve anything but will limit the reader access to the entries from this countries at Category:Sexism by country FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Railway lines opened in 1604 to Category:History of rail transport and Category:Transport infrastructure completed in 1604
• Propose merging Category:Railway lines closed in the 1620s to Category:History of rail transport

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom to Category:Masorti Judaism in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: "Conservative" has a party-political meaning in the United Kingdom and is therefore an inappropriate description for what is known as Masorti Judaism in the UK. For instance, in the bio on Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman, who is a prominent member of Masorti UK, he should be categorised as a British Conservative Jew, but that doesn't sit easily with him being also a prominent member of the British Labour Party. Headhitter (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I note that main article Conservative Judaism says Conservative Judaism (known as Masorti Judaism outside North America). The UK is outside North America, so Masorti Judaism makes sense for this catname. NLeeuw (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Eastern European diaspora in the United States to Category:European diaspora in the United States

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Home-made definition of "Eastern European", ranging from Azerbaijani to Montenegrin to Czech to Estonian; it has no siblings like Category:Western European diaspora in the United States or Category:Southern European diaspora in the United States (it seems that everything except Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey is considered "Eastern European" already). NLeeuw (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. -sche (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (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 · he/him) 23:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indo-Bangladesh joint production films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a slightly different name of a category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Category:American-Canadian joint production. Films that are joint productions of more than one country are certainly categorized for each relevant country on its own, but do not get special "X+Y joint production" categories -- since there are close to 200 countries in the world and all of their film industries engage in some degree of multinational coproduction with other countries' film industries, scaling this out to its logical endpoint would require the creation of between 30 to 40 thousand categories for every possible combination of two countries. And then we would have to start catting for three-country, four-country and five-country combos too, which is just an untenable nightmare. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, and joint production is also a trivial characteristic of a film. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (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: just deleted by User:Liz (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category was supposed to be deleted on March 20 and again on April 3. Something's not working. Yours6700 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2024 (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 · he/him) 23:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Academics of the College of the Resurrection to Category:Staff of the College of the Resurrection

Nominator's rationale: To match other staff categories in Category:Bible colleges, seminaries and theological colleges in England Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 14:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But the parent category is Academics by university or college in England. Staff has a *very* different meaning. From looking at the contents, these people are academics. If anything, I think that other categories should be renamed to reflect that these folks are academic staff/faculty. Mason (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Mason. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I update my vote to oppose. Mason (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (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:2023 Al Haouz earthquake with no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake to Category:2023 Al Haouz earthquake

Nominator's rationale: Per main article move. Article's name is now 2023 Al Haouz earthquake. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant category layer, there is nothing in the category but the main article and the above subcategory. If kept of course rename, then it is a simple matter of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, it'll leave the subcat as the only one without a main category. But I'm still for renaming. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The subcat still has three other parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation would be very much appreciated :) If there is no further participation by next week, I think a rename (per WP:C2D) with no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion is the appropriate close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I think that there's now just enough to support a category, but I don't feel strongly. Mason (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2024 (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.