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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Politicians killed in World War II to Category:World War II politicians

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category for navigation. We don't need to add make a politician specific death category for every death Mason (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is not unhelpful AHI-3000 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We have categories e.g. for civilians who died in internment camps during the war and for military personnel who were killed in battle, these deaths are immediate consequences of the war. Just a general "killed" is trivial, especially considering who are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't just a category for important leaders in the war, Category:Politicians who died in the Holocaust is included as a subcategory. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That category is very relevant indeed, even more is its subCategory:Politicians who died in Nazi concentration camps since many left wing German politicians were sent to concentration camps. But neither of these two categories has been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would argue that politicians being killed in one of the biggest military conflicts in the modern era is a noteworthy and defining trait for them, especially because they're involved in the leadership of belligerents one way or another. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neither of the two is primarily known for being killed in the war. Hitler wasn't even killed, he died by suicide. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm sure there's more than a few articles that can be added to this category. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the content is already in Category:World War II politicians and its leaders subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 121.202.28.169 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh... to the closer these are probably the same IP (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:185.104.63.112_reported_by_User:Smasongarrison_(Result:_Blocked)) Mason (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a death category, more defining than a laundy list of politicians who were active during the war. I would suggest simly deleting Category:World War II politicians as non-defining. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 29 March 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 in the truest sense of the term: no consensus to merge, no consensus to rename, no consensus to keep as-is. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Arab-Jewish culture in the United States to Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States

Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping scope, Mizrahi Jews are Jews from countries in the Middle East and North Africa; and Arab-Jewish is very imprecise as the term mixes up two different ethnicities. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename instead to Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora in the United States as part of Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora. The only other category like the nominated one is Category:Arab-Jewish culture in France. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: then what about Mizrahi Jewish versus Arab-Jewish? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture and Category:Arab-Jewish culture have separate hierarchies at the moment. If perhaps they should be merged, that should be a wider proposal, not one-by-one. (BTW, your ping failed). – Fayenatic London 17:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not all Mizrahi Jews are Arab Jews. Turkish Jews, Iranian Jews, Kurdish Jews, and many Berber Jews are not Arabs. Afghan and Central Asian Jews including the Bukharan Jews, as well as the Mountain Jews of the Caucasus, may also be considered Mizrahim but are likewise not Arabs. There should be categories for Jews from Arab countries specifically, as they have specific histories and cultures, including the Judeo-Arabic dialects and literature and media in those dialects. I would be fine with renaming the category to "Arab-Jewish diaspora", per Fayenatic London's suggestion. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bohemian Baltimore. 121.202.28.169 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh... to the closer these are probably the same IP (Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:185.104.63.112_reported_by_User:Smasongarrison_(Result:_Blocked)) Mason (talk) 14:23, 24 March 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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:16th-century Swiss Roman Catholic priests to Category:16th-century Swiss clergy

Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category to 16th-century Swiss clergy, so it can be populated with more than just one person Mason (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, that would have siblings from Category:19th-century Swiss clergy onwards. But also add to current parent Category:16th-century Roman Catholic priests. Perhaps the other parent Category:Swiss Roman Catholic priests is not so important, as Zwingli became notable as a Protestant Reformer. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have added two articles and I doubt if adding Category:Swiss Protestant Reformers as a subcategory would make a lot of sense, while that is the only potential extra content. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we'd need to add the Category:Swiss Protestant Reformers as a sub cat, but we'd be able to add some of the people within the category Mason (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smasongarrison: who exactly? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not everyone in the category is a member of the clergy, but some seem to be. Felix Manz for example, he was a minister. William Farel founded a church. etc Mason (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • There wasn't formalized clergy that early. As the article about Felix Manz says: "The movement spread rapidly, and Manz was very active in it." That is how far it went. William Farel may be added though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 121.202.28.169 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh... to the closer these are probably the same IP (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:185.104.63.112_reported_by_User:Smasongarrison_(Result:_Blocked)) Mason (talk) 14:24, 24 March 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. A nomination which finds a way to leave the members in the tree of Category:Internments might have a better chance at gaining consensus (cc Smasongarrison). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People interned during World War I to Category:World War I civilian prisoners

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories, either merge or reverse merge Mason (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger per nom, and also merge Category:People interned during World War II to Category:World War II civilian prisoners as well for the same reasons. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure this is the right way. With this proposal the articles would be removed from the tree of Category:Internments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 21 March 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 follows:

• Category:18th-century Danish women farmers to Category:18th-century women farmers, Category:18th-century Danish farmers and Category:Danish women farmers
• Category:17th-century Danish women farmers to Category:17th-century Danish women

Thanks, (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:18th-century Danish women farmers to Category:18th-century women farmers and Category:18th-century Danish women and Category:18th-century Danish farmers and Category:Danish women farmers
• Propose merging Category:17th-century Danish women farmers to Category:17th-century Danish women and Category:17th-century Danish farmers and Category:17th-century women farmers and Category:Danish women farmers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one or two people per category, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Only dual merge the first one, not to Category:18th-century Danish women because the only article is already in Category:18th-century Danish businesswomen. I am hesitant about how to merge the 17th-century category because the articles are entirely about witch trials, these women's occupation is entirely irrelevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smasongarrison:, see my comment above, I am leaning towards alt merge Category:17th-century Danish women farmers to Category:17th-century Danish women only, what do you think? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm ok with that. Mason (talk) 13:17, 22 March 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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:18th-century Danish letter writers to Category:18th-century letter writers and Category:Danish letter writers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is underpopulated and isolated; it is unhelpful for navigation. ( I encourage the page creator to populate the categories they create and to remember to add them to the non Danish parent categories. ) Mason (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, isolated category and its parents are poorly populated anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have embarked on populating the category and making it less isolated. I think it is quite obvious that there are already enough biographies that belong in the letter-writer categories to justify categories by country and century for a wide range of countries. The fact that they have not yet been created should not be a valid reason for not starting somewhere (that is how Wikipedia works).Ramblersen2 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a defining characteristic for Ove Høegh-Guldberg or Ole Rømer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the category was for people with a substantial number of published letters Do you have a definition of "defining characteristic#? If someone has found a given person's letters interesting enoughto publish them (often with comments), I think it is very helpful to be able to find them via a category.Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramblersen2 Wikipedia:Defining Mason (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Currently the category contains 10 articles which should be enough to justify keeping it. If someone is of the opinion that any of the articles don't belong in the category, shouldn't that discussion take place on the talk page of the article? Either way, it is only the relevance of placing two of the current articles in the category that has been questioned, which would still leave it with eight artivles.Ramblersen2 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't double vote. It makes it harder on the closer. Mason (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that. I misunderstood the point with relisting the discussion and the new for new comments below the line.Ramblersen2 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (updated vote) purge the category and remove articles about people who were not known as letter writers, then dual merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough articles for a valid category. Dimadick (talk) 08:40, 29 March 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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Macalester Scots football seasons to Category:Macalester Scots football

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, only redirects in this category, that does not aid navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; category now contains four items including two stand-alone article. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jweiss11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2 of the category members are redirects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Heading towards no consensus, but let's try relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster, this should be closed as keep as the merge votes apply to an outdated status of this category. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade to Category:WikiProject 2010s
• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade articles to Category:WikiProject 2010s articles
• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade participants to Category:WikiProject 2010s participants

Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade was renamed to WikiProject 2010s, so the categories should match. -- ZooBlazer 15:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just going to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 2010s; if there is no further participation by next week we should be all set for a rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:31, 21 March 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) 19:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Monster High characters to Category:Monster High

Nominator's rationale: Outside of the character list, it is entirely comprised of redirects. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 21 March 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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People from East Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Indian independence activists from East Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Born in East Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These are new categories, set up without any parent categories i.e. they have not been integrated into the category hierarchies. The members are already in at least one of People from the Bengal Presidency, Anti-British establishment revolutionaries from East Bengal or Indian independence activists from Bangladesh. (See PetScan.) The member pages should also already be categorised by district of birth. All the member pages were added rather than moved from other categories, so there is no need to merge anything back where it came from. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london

The category "People from East Bengal" specifically denotes that the person's roots are in East Bengal, i.e., present-day Bangladesh. The term "Bengal Presidency" does not make it clear whether the person is from West Bengal or East Bengal. The Bengal Presidency no longer exists. The East Bengal of the Bengal Presidency is now a separate independent country. The category "People from East Bengal" is used to distinguish those people who were born and raised in East Bengal but later moved from East Bengal to India. The category "People from East Bengal" is useful for distinguishing people who have roots in East Bengal from those who have roots in West Bengal. This is important because the two regions are now separated. ফারদিন (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for Category:Born in East Bengal, all the members seem to be born well before 1947, but East Bengal was not a defined region before 1947, so that name is inaccurate. Do you intend the category "People from East Bengal" only for people who migrated from East Bengal after the partition of India? The name "People from East Bengal" does not capture that meaning either; maybe "Emigrants from East Pakistan to India" as a subcat of Category:Pakistani emigrants to India? – Fayenatic London 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic londonThe region of present-day Bangladesh was indeed referred to as "East Bengal" even before 1947. We can find instances of this in the writings of Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda, and many others, where they use the term "East Bengal" to describe the region.

Furthermore, the East Bengal Club was established in 1920, well before 1947. This serves as another piece of evidence that the distinction between East Bengal and West Bengal existed long before the Partition of India.

Prior to 1947, East Bengal and West Bengal were identified separately as East Bengal was Muslim majority and West Bengal Hindu majority.

Even today, present-day Bangladesh is often referred to as East Bengal. ফারদিন (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london

Those who migrated from East Bengal before 1947 also belong to "People from East Bengal" category. ফারদিন (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably those references to East Bengal were to the Muslim-majority part of Bengal. But East Bengal #History indicates that the region was not clearly defined before partition in 1947, e.g. Mayu, Sylhet, Chittagong Hill Tracts. So it is hard to make it a criterion for categorisation.

As for those who migrated before 1947, can you demonstrate that moving from one part to another within British India would be WP:DEFINING? If not, we cannot build a category on it. – Fayenatic London 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london

East Bengal had its own identity even before 1947. East Bengal still existed when Bengal was divided in 1905.

If East Bengal were still a part of India, there would have been no need for these separate categories. But now that East Bengal is not a part of India, there is a need for these categories.

I see no problem with having a "People from East Bengal" category since there is a "People from West Bengal" category. Usman Serajuddin was born in 1258 AD. At that time, West Bengal did not even exist. Yet, he is included in the "People from West Bengal" category. There are many such examples where people from before the existence of West Bengal are included in the "People from West Bengal" category.

If there can be categories named after West Bengal, such as "People from West Bengal" and "Indian Independence activists from West Bengal," then I see no problem with having categories named after East Bengal. ফারদিন (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:People from West Bengal because West Bengal is a current state of India. Usman Serajuddin does not need to be in that category directly because he is in its subcat Category:People from Malda district – we categorise people by birthplace using the current name of the location, even though Malda district did not exist in his time.

As for East Bengal we use the current name Category:Bangladeshi people. People are categorised by birthplace within the current borders of Bangladesh. We also have its subcat Category:People of East Pakistan for the period from the partition of India to the independence of Bangladesh.

You have made the point that within British India some people referred to East Bengal, but this appears to be as a cultural region rather than an administrative division. We do not generally categorise by such regions.

As for the short period when East Bengal was an admin division, please note tge precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 26#East Bengal and East Pakistan where East Bengal categories for 1947–1955 were merged to "East Pakistan".

For earlier periods you could use Wikipedia:Category intersection tools to find persons from the Bengal Presidency born in locations within what is now Bangladesh. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london

Then we can simply convert the category 'People from East Bengal' to the category 'People from Bangladesh ফারদিন (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there is nothing to distinguish that name from the existing and correctly-named Bangladeshi people.

Can you please specify the purpose that you require the new category to fulfil? It it intended specifically for migrants from East to West? and if so, for what period? – Fayenatic London 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london

Albert Einstein was born and raised in Germany, but he later became a citizen of the United States and died there. However, he is still referred to as a German scientist. The same is true for Karl Marx.

However, Prafulla Chandra Ray and many other famous Bengalis, even though they were born in East Bengal, are only referred to as Indians. They are not even called British Indians. Although present-day Bangladesh was part of British India, it was never part of India. In other words, by referring Prafulla Chandra Indian, the fact that his roots are in East Bengal is hidden.

Even though he is included in the 19th-century_Indian_chemists category (when India did not even exist), he is not included in any category that specifically identifies him as a Bangladeshi chemist.

It is not just Prafulla Chandra Ray, but many other people who are only referred to as Indian.There is no mention of their connection to Bangladesh. ( This kind of activity is done more in the introduction and Wikidata items.)

Prafulla Chandra Ray and others like him are also the pride of Bangladesh. Therefore, there is a need for a category that shows their connection with Bangladesh. ফারদিন (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fardeen: In Prafulla Chandra Ray's case, that needed category is Category:People from Khulna District, which is within Category:Bangladesh. As he died in 1944 (in what is now India) that is his only connection with Bangladesh.

You still have not stated specifically what should be the scope of these categories. If nobody comes up with an answer to that, then they cannot be kept. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london

Profulla Chandra Ray has been included in the scientists from Kolkata category. But according to you, he does not need to be included in the following categories:

19th-century Indian chemists

20th-century Indian chemists

Scientists from British India

People from the Bengal Presidency

This is because at that time, Kolkata was part of the Bengal Presidency, India, and British India. Therefore, there is no need to mention these categories separately.The same is true for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. ফারদিন (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london

There are some categories like African-American people, American families of German ancestry...

This kinds of category applies to which period? ফারদিন (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I expected that categories of "American people" would apply to the period during which USA has been a country, i.e. since American independence. However, looking at the intersection of African-American people and People of the Thirteen Colonies, I found a few categorised as African-Americans who died before 1776, namely Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, Anthony Johnson (colonist) and Emanuel Driggus. As Africans who were taken to Britain's American colonies, I suppose it is right to count them as African Americans, in which case the starting date for those ethnic American categories can legitimately predate the independence of the United States. However, they only go back to the European colonies which became the US, not earlier Mesoamericans.

I'm not sure that the above has any bearing on this CFD. But it does show the power of category intersection tools, which can likewise find people from what is now Bangladesh among people of British India: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=27365133 – Fayenatic London 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant considering the already existing categories. Admittedly the name Category:Indian independence activists from East Bengal is more spot-on than Indian independence activists from Bangladesh. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those are anachronistic, as East Bengal existed from 1947 to 1955, and was then renamed East Pakistan until it became independent as Bangladesh. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a fair point. So then Indian independence activists from Bangladesh should be merged to Category:Indian independence activists from Bengal. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @MarcocapelleBengal is no longer undivided. When you say Bengal, it is not clear whether you mean East Bengal or West Bengal. ফারদিন (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • "No longer" is spot on: it is an anachronistic distinction, not relevant for people of the past. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        @Marcocapelle

        If East Bengal were still a part of India, there would have been no need for these separate categories. But now that East Bengal is not a part of India, there is a need for these categories.

        I see no problem with having a "People from East Bengal" category since there is a "People from West Bengal" category. Rash Behari Bose has been included in the category of Indian independence activists from West Bengal.Even Usman Serajuddin, who was born in 1258 AD. At that time, West Bengal did not even exist. Yet, he is included in the "People from West Bengal" category. There are many such examples where people from before the existence of West Bengal are included in the "People from West Bengal" category.

        If there can be categories named after West Bengal, such as "People from West Bengal" and "Indian Independence activists from West Bengal," then I see no problem with having categories named after East Bengal. ফারদিন (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • Obviously West Bengal categories before 1947 should be merged to Bengal as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          Merge/delete per nom and Marco discussion. Mason (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: (I know this isn't going to be a good name to many people here.) What about People from pre-independence Bangladesh or People from pre-1971 Bangladesh? 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there are any precedents for doing that for a future country, but there are Category:People from pre-statehood U.S. states by state. – Fayenatic London 13:00, 29 March 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) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American white supremacist assassins to Category:American assassins and Category:American white supremacists and Category:White supremacist assassins
• Propose merging Category:South African white supremacist assassins to Category:South African assassins and Category:South African white supremacists and and Category:White supremacist assassins

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't think we need to diffuse Category:White supremacist assassins by nationality. I also think that this category could use some purging. Mason (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom With the exception of anarchists, the ideology of most assassins does not have much of an impact. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 29 March 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/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Universities and colleges in Saint-Denis, Réunion to Category:Universities in Réunion and Category:Buildings and structures in Saint-Denis, Réunion
• Propose deleting Category:Education in Saint-Denis, Réunion

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, not useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 21 March 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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose subcategorisation of Category:Anglican church buildings in Hong Kong to Category:20th-century Anglican church buildings in Hong Kong and Category:19th-century Anglican church buildings in Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: To feed into the categories for 20th- and 19th-century architecture of this country. 2403:4A00:4000:0:0:0:1:2A (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to open a CFD for this. However, there is only one page in this category, so I do not think creating subcategories makes sense. Mason (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Anglican church buildings in China, Category:Anglicanism in Hong Kong and Category:Protestant churches in Hong Kong, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not appropriate to categorise items of dependent territories under categories for the metropolitan. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you mean exactly? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you put a Bermuda or Akrotiri and Dhekelia or Alderney article straight into a corresponding category for the UK? Or a Greenland article straight into that for Denmark? Or Aruba and the Netherlands? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alderney into the UK for sure, as there isn't any geographical separation between Alderney and UK. Likewise for Hong Kong and China. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alderney into the UK for sure, as there isn't any geographical separation between Alderney and UK. That's something so new. There isn't much geographical separation between e.g. the Faroe Islands and Denmark or Åland and Finland too. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Or the Territory of the Saar Basin or the Saar Protectorate and France during their existence. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are five articles - four already moved to one of the proposed subcategories. Subcat per nom. 218.102.133.99 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you mean this? I now see two articles in this category and the proposed subcategories have not yet been created. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that the IP is referring to Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong. But this is extremely unclear. Mason (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle so the IP has been adding red links to the pages [1], and removing the pages from the current categories eg. [2] Mason (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for sorting this out. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, unfortunately, it looks like this IP has very strong opinions on categories. @Marcocapelle does something like this go to ANI? Mason (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not usually. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per nom per above. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Do not remove the pages from the original category. It makes it impossible to judge whether a category is needed. Mason (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Me? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You and everyone else in the discussion. Mason (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I? (It's you who's adding parent categories around.) 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, with only six articles it is far too early to diffuse. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So double-catting (i.e. to Anglican church buildings in Hong Kong and 19th-/20th-century buildings in Hong Kong) is more preferable at this stage? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose per Marcocapelle. Also the IPs are all the same person who was blocked for using a proxy/evading their block. Mason (talk) 20:11, 23 March 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) 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video games featuring male protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is non-defining. The female protagonist category only exists because sources have stated there are too few female protagonists (Gender representation in video games#As player characters), therefore such protagonists are notable to mention. So, either this category should be deleted as completely irrelevant to the issue of female representation in video games, or there is no reason to sort by gender at all, and both should not exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pretty clearly non-defining. Cat creator appears to be trying to make a WP:POINT. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the category exists so that people can better find and filter games based on the protagonist's gender and this is a relevant sub-category for Category:Video games by theme which is related to Player character. I also recommend to add more categories such as for nonbinary protagonists. Such categories are relevant to have as well. The female protagonist category also exists to better filter games based on the protagonist. So additional gender subcategories are valuable in that respect. By only having 1 sub-category for gender it is too one-sided and limited. For example if someone wants to research games with protagonists or the Player character of a specific gender or ethnic group then the user can use extra subcategories to find organized results. The category links to the article Player character so this is a sub-theme or sub-category of Player character and it improves the search precision via the parent category Category:Video games by theme. Additional categories that should be added are "Video games featuring asian protagonists‎" and "Video games featuring native american protagonists‎". -Artanisen (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you, or anyone, actually tried using it like this. The category is so massively populated, that it's terrible for navigation in practice. I don't believe people are actually using the category like that. Sergecross73 msg me 11:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, for research purposes it is very useful to be able to refine searches with more sub-categories to filter results. You argue the category is massively populated, but by comparison the female protagonists category has 2,171 total pages (compared to 447 total in male protagonists). The Category:Video games with gender-selectable protagonists has 702 pages. The sub-category is also useful for the parent Category:Gender and video games, because to study the issues requires including all genders or the result is limited and one-sided. - Artanisen (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even ignoring the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument being thrown around, the stats don't agree with your assertion - virtually no one was even viewing this category prior to this nomination and the Wikiproject discussion that sparked it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very useful to have more sub-categories to filter pages and get better search results on Wikipedia. For example if a user wants to know which game titles in a series such as Aliens have male protagonists it will show the result with links to the pages. This category is very new and not given a chance to exist. This category was created on 18 March 2024 and the stats show 116 for that day. It was nominated for deletion on 21 March 2024. When comparing 2 categories the stats are quite similar despite this category having significantly fewer pages. There has also been no promotion yet of this category except attempts to delete it. A few other users added pages to this category so it is being used. Nominating a category for deletion discourages other users. Artanisen (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)-13:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:DEFINING. Sergecross73 msg me 11:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Non-defining. Mason (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above as non-defining. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per WP:NONDEF and nominator's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:27, 24 March 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) 17:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:American military personnel killed in the Gulf War to Category:Military personnel killed in the Gulf War and Category:American military personnel of the Gulf War

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one page in here, which isnt helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 21 March 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:Lincoln assassination conspirators and Category:Executed American assassins. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Executed Lincoln assassination conspirators to Category:Lincoln assassination conspirators and Category:Executed American assassins

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no need to create this level of death for cause of death for each specific group of conspirators Mason (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Executed Lincoln assassination conspirators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):Nominator's rationale: Oh come on. This is ridiculous! A category for four people? Give it a rest. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would remove the category members from their parent categories, which would be more unhelpful. Also please don't create separate discussions about the same category. I've moved your nom. Mason (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 21 March 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.