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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Not helpful for navigation. There are only two people in here, who are already linked Mason (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 2 January 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. Nothing left in here. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:United States Space Force personnel stubs to Category:United States Space Force stubs

Nominator's rationale: This should probably be up-merged to Category:United States Space Force stubs (or Template:US-mil-bio-stub) since it only has one member article. I'm not against having this stub template one day, but it doesn't have nearly enough articles to justify inclusion yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, per nom, but recategorize article and delete stub template for now. I tagged the template too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, what do you mean by "recategorize article"? Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Qwerfjkl: just like this [1]. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 10 January 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: no consensus. There's a mishmash of options here, most of which don't have the categories tagged. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional British characters by descent to Category:Fictional British people

Nominator's rationale: Only one immediate subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Mason (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt merge Category:Fictional British characters of Asian descent to Category:Fictional British characters by descent in order to keep it in the descent tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are only 3 or 4 of these "Fictional X characters by descent" categories, I wonder about the value of these limited categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03, Smasongarrison, and AHI-3000: what do you think of User:Liz's comment? Should we categorize fictional characters by ancestry at all? And if not, what do you think of my alt merge proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the recent deletions, I'd suggest merging all except the American category to Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second LaundryPizza's suggestion. Mason (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suspect some categories need to be tagged and added somehwere, but I'm not sure which ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, when we keep a descent tree for the Americans it still does not make sense to remove the British from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 2 January 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: manually merge / rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Newspaper chain founders to Category:Newspaper founders
Propose renaming Category:Turkish newspaper chain founders to Category:Turkish newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:Venezuelan newspaper chain founders to Category:Venezuelan newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:Nigerian newspaper chain founders to Category:Nigerian newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:Pakistani newspaper chain founders to Category:Pakistani newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:Mexican newspaper chain founders to Category:Mexican newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:Indian newspaper chain founders to Category:Indian newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:German newspaper chain founders to Category:German newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:French newspaper chain founders to Category:French newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:Canadian newspaper chain founders to Category:Canadian newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:British newspaper chain founders to Category:British newspaper founders
Propose merging Category:American newspaper chain founders to Category:American newspaper founders and Category:American newspaper chain owners

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between size of newspaper founded and nationality.Mason (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles I am looking at do not concern founders of anything. They are businesspeople who grew existing newspapers to a chain. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless my previous comment is properly addressed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge to businesspeople and newspaper founders depending on the the specific case? Mason (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the articles are already in the businesspeople tree. So before deletion of the categories we might manually check the articles if there is any newspaper founder among them. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 2 January 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: no consensus. 3 different users, 3 different proposals. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ibero-American awards to Category:Latin American awards

Nominator's rationale: Unclear what the intended distinction is between "Latin American" and "Ibero-American" in this context. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (nominally) Ibero-American awards encompass a wider scope including Spain and Portugal (unlike Latin-American ones, which leave those countries out).--Asqueladd (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (with a redirect) to Category:Ibero–American awards. Apparently this is a defining thing: The category contains a good number of awards from separate organizations for Latin America and Iberia together (e.g. Pablo Neruda Ibero-American Poetry Award, Platino Awards, and Ariel Award for Best Ibero-American Film. There are seven articles in the category, so this is not a WP:MFN situation). Rename per MOS:ENBETWEEN. House Blaster^talk 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 2 January 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: redirect/merge/delete (respectively). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirecting Category:Deaths in British India to Category:Deaths in India
Propose merging Category:Suicides in British India to Category:Suicides in India
Propose merging Category:Disease-related deaths in British India to Category:Disease-related deaths in India

Nominator's rationale: Like Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_17#Category:Deaths_in_the_German_Empire this intersection between time period, nation, and death is not helpful as there are more specific death categories in the parent category. Mason (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum Category:Deaths in British India should be containerized, but the nomination is ok too. The last category, if not kept, should be plainly deleted instead of merged because all articles are already in Category:Deaths from pneumonia in India. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did go through and restore as many of the removed indian categories as I could find. JPL removed people from more specific cause of death categories a lot when he moved them to the much vaguer british india category. Mason (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:48, 2 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:19th-century players of American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Covers only one century and doesn't help in navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the fact that there aren't 20th-century and 21st-century categories is not decisive. A 19th-century category is relevant for historical purposes, which would not apply to the 20th and 21st century. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I noticed a similar Category:19th-century baseball players. If that is the case, I have no objection to keeping either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, as the nominator, I have no issue if you close this as keep. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:48, 2 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Santali-speaking people by occupation to Category:Santali language

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here Mason (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Santali-speaking people. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:22, 2 January 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. No consensus to overturn previous closure. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony to Category:People from the Thirteen Colonies by colony

Propose renaming Category:People of colonial Connecticut to Category:People from colonial Connecticut
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial Delaware to Category:People from colonial Delaware
Propose renaming Category:People of Georgia (British colony) to Category:People from colonial Georgia
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial Maryland to Category:People from colonial Maryland
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial Massachusetts to Category:People from colonial Massachusetts
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial New Hampshire to Category:People from colonial New Hampshire
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial New Jersey to Category:People from colonial New Jersey
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial North Carolina to Category:People from colonial North Carolina
Propose renaming Category:People of the Province of New York to Category:People from colonial New York
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial Pennsylvania to Category:People from colonial Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:People of colonial Rhode Island to Category:People from colonial Rhode Island
Propose renaming Category:South Carolina colonial people to Category:People from colonial South Carolina
Propose renaming Category:Virginia colonial people to Category:People from colonial Virginia

Nominator's rationale: The names in Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony should be "People from *colony name*". I have also added the parent category for renaming. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it shoud be from *colony name* but that would imply that the categories are renamed, for example, to Category:People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, you are right.

Side note: I did suggest that format - e.g. "People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay" etc. - but someone else said that "People from colonial *name*" would be more fitting and less confusing. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unsure about removing the disambiguator for Georgia, as the other Georgia was colonized too (by Persia, the Ottoman Empire and Russia). Maybe Category:People from Georgia (British colony). Place Clichy (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I don't think that the alternative fits into the format. I'd be more ok with People from the colonial Georgia (British colony), even though it's redundant, so it's clear it belongs in the same set as the other 13 colonies Mason (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy, I assume you do agree with the name change. Just for clarification. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The present Category:People of Georgia (British colony) avoids the 'colonial colony' redundancy, and there seems to be no issue of fitting into the format. The British also colonized South Georgia, BTW. My personal inclination for the target name would be, by order of preference, 1° Category:People from Georgia (British colony) > 2° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British America) > 3° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British colony) > 4° Category:People from colonial Georgia. The second option also avoids both redundancy and ambiguity, and it fits into the format. But I would not let that stand in the way of the renaming from of... to from... @Omnis Scientia, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: ping for opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy, I was initially in favor of using the names of the colonies i.e. "People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay" and "People from the Colony of Virginia" and so on since it leaves out any ambiguity. The category Category:People of the Province of New York is an example. That said, I worried it might make navigation harder. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the disambiguator entirely as in option 4 would be my least preferred choice as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2 or 3 would work in fitting the set without losing any information. Also to be clear, it isn't the end of the world if georgia doesn't fit nicely into the set. I think in an ideal world it would, but there are much more important aspects to a category name than matchiness. Mason (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I would go with number 2 or number 3 as well. Number 2 is more preferrable though. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the Georgia category to Category:People from the Province of Georgia to match Category:Province of Georgia and Province of Georgia. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed target for Georgia wouldn't make sense while simultaneously renaming Category:People of the Province of New York to Category:People from colonial New York as proposed above, without any objection so far. Category:People from colonial Georgia (British America) seems to be the target with the largest support. Place Clichy (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: | initially closed this as rename. I've reopened it per User talk:Qwerfjkl#CFD closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, I don't understand the reasoning there. Pinging, @Marcocapelle, for their view on the objection on your talk page since they have more experience on this matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia, @SnowFire wanted the case reopened. I assume that they will make their case that "of" is the correct level of specificity, whereas "from" is too specific (and somehow implies that people originated from that place). I don't have a problem with them sharing their concerns here. Personally, I prefer "from" because it helps demarcate country of work and nationality, whereas "of" does not. Mason (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We always use denonyms or "from" for cases like this. "Of" can be used for certain occupations, e.g. "president of". In this case "from" is probably desirable over a denonym. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem either of course! I just disagree with the rationale is all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I was the one who asked this CFD be re-opened per above. See User_talk:Qwerfjkl#CFD_closure for the chat - basically, I disagree that "from" is preferable to "of", and that is especially true of colonial-era items. As a reminder, categories are maintained by all editors, not just ones who frequent CFD. "From" strongly implies "born there" to my ears, while "of" correctly gets across the implication that a strong association is what is being looked for instead. A glance at how "from" categories are used often shows that is how they're done (e.g. John McCain is in Category:Aviators from the Panama Canal Zone). In the case of these colonial era entities, a huge proportion of people in them were not born there, but rather emigrated from elsewhere. I don't believe the name-change helps with clarity here - if the goal is not to do a scope change but rather to just rename for clarity, why not use "of" which clearly does not imply birth? SnowFire (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Of" does not distinguish between country of work and nationality. Mason (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree that we should limit "from" to place of birth. It is merely an alternative for a denonym when a denonym would result in awkward grammar. When someone emigrates to the United States, becomes an actor there, then they should be part of American actors i.e. actors from the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I don't follow your argument. Are you saying the category should differentiate?

@Marcocapelle: As stated before, I don't have any problem with having categories that aren't limited by place of birth. If that's the goal, though, we should use "of" rather than "from". This is an objective question - ask 100 editors what they assume the category means with "from" vs. "of". I feel confident that a substantial proportion of editors would assume that "from" is somewhat restricted to birthplace (or at least place-where-they-grew-up). It's no use to say that they're wrong; at some point, it's easier just to work around it and name the category unambiguously. We have a clearly named category that doesn't imply birth already with "of"; I still do not understand the benefit of moving away from it. Even if hypothetically only 25% of editors use the "birth" interpretation, that's quite a lot of them, actually, and will cause category drift. (And I'd guess it'd be more like 50%+). SnowFire (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are distinct categories for people from places, versus people who work in places (see Category:Bishops by country of work compared to Category:Bishops by nationality). Honestly, until you brought it up, it never occurred to me that some people might consider "from" to mean birthplace. I highly doubt that its 50% or even 25%; otherwise this issue would have been raised by someone before now. I think that "of" is vague and describes multiple relationships, whereas from is more precise. Mason (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of was used initially, until it appeared to cause problems with multiple occupations. I remember (perhaps not the best example) "painters of Austria-Hungary" who could be painting things of Austria-Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better example is "historians of" where "of" may refer to their specialty rather than to their nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I definitely support a distinction between Category:French historians and Category:Historians of France. If there's no risk of confusion, though, using "of" seems better. Again, we don't get to set how certain people use the English language - even if the goal is completely not to limit "from" to place of birth or origin, I'm just saying that many people do use it to mean that, and there's no way to force them to use English differently. SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is not specific to Thirteen Colonies categories, for which there previously seemed to be consensus for e.g. Province of New York to colonial New York. The only thing that matters here is to stress that people should only be placed in a category about a place if they have a defining link to that place, although not limited to birth. From... seems to stress this better than of... and we have seen in the past people being added to such categories with only a very tenuous link. Place Clichy (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, choose your poison, right? Using "from" will cause articles not to be added to a category that clearly qualify. I completely agree that there are some editors who indiscriminately add non-defining categories, but I still think that "from" will imply a narrowing scope change to well-meaning editors that isn't intended. SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 5 January 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:People by type of organization. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by organization and type to Category:People by organization type

Nominator's rationale: Current name is ambiguous: type of what? Type of person? No, what's meant is type of organization. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, per nom, but prefer Category:People by type of organization, aligning with Category:Types of organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm good with that. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I like this alternative rename Mason (talk) 20:55, 4 January 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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:RADA to Category:Royal Academy of Dramatic Art
Propose renaming Category:People associated with RADA to Category:Royal Academy of Dramatic Art people

Nominator's rationale: Is there any reason this is abbreviated? I believe it should match the article name "Royal Academy of Dramatic Art" per WP:C2D. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd case, the article has been moved to RADA after an RM discussion about a different name. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, that is odd. Because I don't believe RADA does not apply to WP:COMMONAME. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a notice at the article's talk page. Let's see if that leads to clearer consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I guess I will withdraw this until the article name is dealt with. RADA is quite ambiguous, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, the category should match the article title, I don't see a reason to deviate here. And for a concrete rationale, it is far more commonly known as RADA than by its full name, as indeed the article RM discussion determined. This matches Category:FIFA, Category:NASA and other similar cases. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article move was supported by two people only. Outside the U.K., it isn't called as such. Comparing it to FIFA or BBC or NATO, also international organizations, is somewhat of a false equivalence. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:58, 2 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category containing only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and delete the subcategory too. I will tag the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 2 January 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:Resort towns in Canada. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Resort destinations in Canada to Category:Resort villages in Canada (A) or Category:Resort towns in Canada (B)

Nominator's rationale: Alternative A to align with subcategories, alternative B to align with parent category and with main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom with weak preference to option B. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states by state to Category:People from pre-statehood U.S. states by state
Category:People of pre-statehood Alabama to Category:People from pre-statehood Alabama
Category:People of pre-statehood Alaska to Category:People from pre-statehood Alaska
Category:People of pre-statehood Arizona to Category:People from pre-statehood Arizona
Category:People of pre-statehood Arkansas to Category:People from pre-statehood Arkansas
Category:People of pre-statehood California to Category:People from pre-statehood California
Category:People of pre-statehood Colorado to Category:People from pre-statehood Colorado
Category:People of pre-statehood Connecticut to Category:People from pre-statehood Connecticut
Category:People of pre-statehood Delaware to Category:People from pre-statehood Delaware
Category:People of pre-statehood Florida to Category:People from pre-statehood Florida
Category:People of pre-statehood Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:People from pre-statehood Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:People of pre-statehood Hawaii to Category:People from pre-statehood Hawaii
Category:People of pre-statehood Idaho to Category:People from pre-statehood Idaho
Category:People of pre-statehood Illinois to Category:People from pre-statehood Illinois
Category:People of pre-statehood Indiana to Category:People from pre-statehood Indiana
Category:People of pre-statehood Iowa to Category:People from pre-statehood Iowa
Category:People of pre-statehood Kansas to Category:People from pre-statehood Kansas
Category:People of pre-statehood Kentucky to Category:People from pre-statehood Kentucky
Category:People of pre-statehood Louisiana to Category:People from pre-statehood Louisiana
Category:People of pre-statehood Maine to Category:People from pre-statehood Maine
Category:People of pre-statehood Maryland to Category:People from pre-statehood Maryland
Category:People of pre-statehood Massachusetts to Category:People from pre-statehood Massachusetts
Category:People of pre-statehood Michigan to Category:People from pre-statehood Michigan
Category:People of pre-statehood Minnesota to Category:People from pre-statehood Minnesota
Category:People of pre-statehood Mississippi to Category:People from pre-statehood Mississippi
Category:People of pre-statehood Missouri to Category:People from pre-statehood Missouri
Category:People of pre-statehood Montana to Category:People from pre-statehood Montana
Category:People of pre-statehood Nebraska to Category:People from pre-statehood Nebraska
Category:People of pre-statehood Nevada to Category:People from pre-statehood Nevada
Category:People of pre-statehood New Hampshire to Category:People from pre-statehood New Hampshire
Category:People of pre-statehood New Jersey to Category:People from pre-statehood New Jersey
Category:People of pre-statehood New Mexico to Category:People from pre-statehood New Mexico
Category:People of pre-statehood New York (state) to Category:People from pre-statehood New York (state)
Category:People of pre-statehood North Carolina to Category:People from pre-statehood North Carolina
Category:People of pre-statehood North Dakota to Category:People from pre-statehood North Dakota
Category:People of pre-statehood Ohio to Category:People from pre-statehood Ohio
Category:People of pre-statehood Oklahoma to Category:People from pre-statehood Oklahoma
Category:People of pre-statehood Oregon to Category:People from pre-statehood Oregon
Category:People of pre-statehood Pennsylvania to Category:People from pre-statehood Pennsylvania
Category:People of pre-statehood Rhode Island to Category:People from pre-statehood Rhode Island
Category:People of pre-statehood South Carolina to Category:People from pre-statehood South Carolina
Category:People of pre-statehood South Dakota to Category:People from pre-statehood Dakota
Category:People of pre-statehood Tennessee to Category:People from pre-statehood Tennessee
Category:People of pre-statehood Texas to Category:People from pre-statehood Texas
Category:People of pre-statehood Utah to Category:People from pre-statehood Utah
Category:People of pre-statehood Vermont to Category:People from pre-statehood Vermont
Category:People of pre-statehood Virginia to Category:People from pre-statehood Virginia
Category:People of pre-statehood Washington (state) to Category:People from pre-statehood Washington (state)
Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia to Category:People from pre-statehood West Virginia
Category:People of pre-statehood Wisconsin to Category:People from pre-statehood Wisconsin
Category:People of pre-statehood Wyoming to Category:People from pre-statehood Wyoming

Nominator's rationale: per previous Cfd on Category:People from the Thirteen Colonies by colony; changing "of" to "from". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wasn't sure this could be speedied without being opposed because someone raised an objection to the previous change of "of" to "from". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per abundant precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. No-brainer. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:12, 3 January 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 both. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Coupe Internationale de Nice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category containing only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, including the subcategory. I will tag the subcategory too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:39, 2 January 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 to Category:Torture victims. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People executed by torture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Execution by torture" is not a generally accepted category. As cited in the article torture#punishment, it is controversial whether deliberate executions meet the definition of torture. Most of the articles in this category are of such executions (not all the articles explicitly mention torture). Others are of people who died while being tortured. Usually torturers do not want their victims to die until they are done with them, so such deaths cannot be classified as an execution. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People killed by torture or something like that. AHI-3000 (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Torture victims. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with this if it was a manual merge that purged capital punishment for the reasons discussed above. (t · c) buidhe 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle per nom, but merging to Category:Torture victims is a better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Torture victims. Mason (talk) 20:56, 4 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of former regions and territories of the United States to Category:People from former regions and territories of the United States
Propose renaming Category:People of the Alaska Territory to Category:People from the Territory of Alaska
Propose renaming Category:People of the Arizona Territory to Category:People from Arizona Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Dakota Territory to Category:People from Dakota Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of the Territory of Hawaii to Category:People from the Territory of Hawaii
Propose renaming Category:People of Illinois Territory to Category:People from Illinois Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Indian Territory to Category:People from Indian Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Minnesota Territory to Category:People from Minnesota Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Illinois Territory to Category:People from Illinois Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of the New Mexico Territory to Category:People from New Mexico Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of the Northwest Territory to Category:People from the Northwest Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Oregon Territory to Category:People from Oregon Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Idaho Territory to Category:People from Idaho Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Utah Territory to Category:People from Utah Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of the Washington Territory to Category:People from Washington Territory
Propose renaming Category:People of Wisconsin Territory to Category:People from Wisconsin Territory

Nominator's rationale: Names of these categories are not uniform. Per previous precedence "from" should be in place of "of" and majority had "the" before the name of the territory. Rename per suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: edited per suggestions below (to match article name). I've removed some categories which were already formatted as "People from *name* Territory". Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support "from" per abundant precedent. Apply either "from the" or just "from" in a consistent manner. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per Marcocapelle, leaning towards just "from", no "the". Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support under the criteria above concerning "from the". And Hawaii Territory category should be Category:People from the Territory of Hawaii. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721, there are different names for each territory. Some are "Territory of *state name*" and some are "*state name* Territory". So we either keep consistancy or use the names as they are for each. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is Territory of Hawaii and the category is Category:Territory of Hawaii, so I would call that consistency. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alignment with the article names should have priority, so I support Category:People from the Territory of Hawaii (in this case adding "the" is clearly better grammar). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, so should I do it for all categories so that it matches the article name? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: yes, I would recommend that. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle. I have a bit of a dilemma. Should I renaming all of them to "Territory of..." because the name of article says one thing while the official name is "Territory of..." in just about every case.

(except "Indian Territory" which per the convo below will remain "Indian Territory"). Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: we are using common names rather than official names throughout. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, alright. Just asking because a similar suggestion for "People from colonial..." (the Thirteen Colonies one) was disregarded. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding the for Category:People of Indian Territory and Category:People from Oklahoma Territory. It's much more common to not use an article instead of writing "the Indian Territory" or "the Oklahoma Territory". (Example: Google Scholar has "in the Indian Territory" yields 6,620 results, while "in Indian Territory" yields 12,900 results.) Regarding the second suggestion, changing of to from is fine. Yuchitown (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
@Yuchitown, I will be changing the names; was waiting for a consensus of sorts to appear. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the question would be: how will they be changed? From above discussion, the main articles will guide renaming. “Indian Territory” isn’t a state’s name and throughout its article, as in real life, “the” is very seldom added. Yuchitown (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
@Yuchitown, in that case, I will keep it without the "the". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:31, 5 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 16:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cannibalism in the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not helpful for navigation. I've already readded the two categories to the parent Cannibalism by continent. Mason (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This sort of category would only be helpful if there would be a substantial number of articles covering North and South America together, but that is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Yuchitown (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Metropolitan areas of Serbia to Category:Metropolitan areas of Europe

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one metro in here, which isn't helpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, the article is and belongs in a populated places category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question before a decision: Is there anything that explains as to what fits in this category ? The reason why I am asking is because there are cities in Serbia such as Novi Sad and Niš that are big enough so I was just wondering what is the definition (if any) for cities to be put in the category of Metropolitan areas. Боки ^{Write to me!} 07:34, 4 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Military personnel of the Crusades to Category:People of the Crusades

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There really aren't military personnel to diffuse for the crusades Mason (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, many crusaders were warriors, obviously, but it would be rather odd to call them military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 2 January 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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1992 Summer Olympics bids to Category:Summer Olympics bids and Category:1992 Summer Olympics
Propose merging Category:1988 Summer Olympics bids to Category:Summer Olympics bids and Category:1988 Summer Olympics
Propose merging Category:2016 Winter Youth Olympics bids to Category:Winter Youth Olympics bids

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge, as there's only one page in each category (or a page and a redirect). It's unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then better merge all. After merging, e.g. Category:Summer Olympics bids will only contain some 50 articles, and they can be sorted by year if desired. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge under WP:C2F. The siblings could also be speedily renamed to "Bids for the 20YY Summer Olympics" under C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 5 January 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: listfiy. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requires a list, not a category, due to context. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. This clearly belongs to a list, rather than a category, provided there are reliable sources supporting inclusion in the list. Guideline WP:CLNT applies. User:Mehediabedin had originally created this under the name of Category:List of longest beaches of the world, so I guess that was their original idea, so I amicably suggest them to transform this in a list article. Place Clichy (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I will consider that. Mehedi Abedin 09:43, 5 January 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.

January 2

Category:Du Barry family

Category:United States Space Force personnel stubs

Category:Fictional British characters by descent

Category:Newspaper chain founders

Category:Ibero-American awards

Category:Berber Islamists

Category:Arms traders

Category:Deaths in British India

Category:Women referees and umpires

Category:19th-century players of American football

Category:Martial artists

Category:19th-century referees and umpires

Chairman to Chairperson

Category:Santali-speaking people by occupation

Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony

Category:International Organisation of Good Templars people

Category:People by organization and type

Category:RADA

Category:Triglav Trophy

Category:Resort destinations in Canada

Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states by state

Category:Coupe Internationale de Nice

Category:People executed by torture

Category:People of former regions and territories of the United States

Category:Wikipedia articles containing buzzwords

Category:Cannibalism in the Americas

Category:Metropolitan areas of Serbia

Category:Military personnel of the Crusades

Category:Public image by individuals

Category:Paralympic Sport Awards — Best Female winners

Category:1992 Summer Olympics bids

Category:Longest beaches