Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27
December 29 >

December 28[edit]

People from Bethlehem and Nazareth[edit]

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 11:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See below.

I noticed that since Jesus is listed under the category People from Bethlehem, he's technically listed under People from the State of Palestine, Palestinian people, and under Arab people. This is factually incorrect, as Jesus was not an Arab- nor was he from the State of Palestine. He is also apparently listed as an Israeli due to being a part of category People from Nazareth- which he was not.

I suggest that the two categories (and maybe a fair bit of other towns in the region) be given the splits Category:Palestinians from Bethlehem and Category:Israelis from Nazareth, and the parent categories that refer to Israel and Palestine be removed from the broader "People from Bethlehem/Nazareth" categories. I also noticed that funnily enough, Jerusalem has the same problem, except that everyone from there is apparently listed as both Palestinian and Israeli due to the city being claimed by both entities, so I suppose this split would apply to pretty much every city in Israel and Palestine.

Is there any objections to me doing this? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; this isn't how you categorize people. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Omnis. Mason (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this isn't how it's worked in other splits. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes @Omnis Scientia @Smasongarrison What should be the solution for the incorrect categorization of several individuals as "Israeli" and "Palestinian" instead? Removing the parent categories? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just parent cities according to the current national boundaries. Every city in the world has the same problem, so it is not a problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cities have changed hands many times in history due to border changes. These two cities are in the parent categories of the modern nations whose borders they are currently in. This isn't unique to Israel and Palestine. It is best to leave it as it is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most cities have changed hands between numerous states over the years. My own hometown in Greece started out as an Ottoman settlement and was under Bulgarian administration in World War II. That does not mean we should divide its residents as Ottoman, Bulgarian, and Greek.Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categories are organized both under a historic and a geographic logic. That's an ambiguity you have to live with. There's no way around it as any "cure" is worse than the situation it attempts to fix. There's a defining link between Nazareth and Israel, as between Bethlehem and the State of Palestine. There's also a defining link between Jesus and both cities. Nothing is wrong. Place Clichy (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Police operations in Pakistan[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bobsledders by city or town[edit]

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 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: parent is Sportspeople by sport and populated place Mason (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, since there is only one city in the whole world with a separate bobsledders subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete the whole tree. It gives no navigational help whatsoever. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:15, 1 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.

Category:Tennis players by club[edit]

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 11:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete whole tree; it only has one country which has one club which has one player. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rowers by city or town[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: parent is Sportspeople by sport and populated place, norm is to rename c/t to populated place Mason (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Masters cyclists[edit]

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:Senior sport competitors. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two people in this category Mason (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic emigrants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete parent category; merge the remaining with parent categories. Historically, Ukrainian SSR emigrants would be referred to as Soviet emigrants - i.e. from the Soviet Union. Most of these have few biographies in them. Additionally, none of the other former constituent states of the USSR have similar categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The intersection between regime and nationality isn't defining for emigrants. Mason (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Portuguese expatriate cyclists[edit]

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:Portuguese expatriate sportspeople. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There no need to diffuse by sport. This is the only category with expatriate cyclists in it Mason (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hotels in Uganda[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge for now, as each of these only contain 1 article. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:5th-century BC people by nationality and occupation[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories only has two categories in them, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sufi tekkes in Albania[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Sufi tekkes in Albania

Category:Khanqahs by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Khanqahs by country

Category:Marine fauna researchers of the Gulf of California[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Marine fauna researchers of the Gulf of California

Category:English literature academics[edit]

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:Scholars of Fooian literature". (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it clearer that this category is for scholars of English literature rather than english people who are scholars of literature. Alternative rename would be Category:Scholars of English literature, modeled off of Category:Scholars of French literature. Mason (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I would say go by "Scholars of English literature" in part because Category:Literary scholars is the parent category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally fine with scholars. What do you think about the idea of renaming to make the distinction clearer? Mason (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I agree with the name change because, as you say, it removes the ambiguity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The proposed name change makes it less ambiguous. Although just a hyphen would work (as in English-language literature academics, for example). Bedivere (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there weren't also nationalities involved, I agree that a hypen would be fine, but I think that it could get super clunky to have english english-language literature academics for example. Mason (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ewe-language literature[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here. Mason (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People related to Persian literature[edit]

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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Mason (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shankar Lamichhane scholars[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. The only member of the category doesn't even link to the author's page. Shankar Lamichhane Mason (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Motoori Norinaga[edit]

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 12:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of a scholar with their book is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:James Matisoff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:James Matisoff

Category:Subordinators by language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Subordinators by language

Category:City Councils in Atlantic County[edit]

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 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, recently created just to overcategorize one redirect. We don't really have a ton of articles about city councils in the United States -- we obviously have some for relatively major cities, but a lot of smaller cities don't have articles about their city councils at all, with the result that the category tree for them is relatively small: just 17 states actually have "[State] city councils" categories, none of which are subdivided by individual county at all (and none of which are large enough to even need that, because California is the only state in the entire country whose category has more than five articles in it) -- the other 33 states either have no cities whose city councils have their own separate articles at all, or have only one or two that have been left in the Category:City councils in the United States parent instead of being subbed out for state.
New Jersey, for the record, is one of the ones that doesn't have a state-level category at all, and the only other place in New Jersey with an article in the US-level category is Newark. So no prejudice against the creation of Category:New Jersey city councils, if desired, but there's no need to sift them all the way down to the individual county here. There's just no navigational benefit in obsessively filtering everything down into narrow one-entry microcategories. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That redirect isn't even helpful since it just goes to the city article. - 05:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
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.

Britsh sportspeople by descent[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more sibling categories
Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between occupation and place of birth or ancestors' nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a much larger tree (Category:Sportspeople by country of descent), and it isn't trivial because country of descent can allow people to compete for other countries, e.g. Grandfather rule Mason (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and WP:EGRS/I. There are some specific intersections of sports and national origin, e.g. the contribution of Polish immigrant mine workers to early and mid 20th-century football teams in Northern France is much documented. However, such an intersection is not notable by default. A specific case must be made for each intersection. Sportspeople who compete for several national teams deserve to be categorized in each national sportspeople category, not an intersection of both. Place Clichy (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- many of these appear to be well populated, particularly English subcats of British ones. If there are small categories, they would be better merged to Africa; West Indies; etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: without having checked, a few of these may well be notable as a topic, e.g British sportspeople of Pakistani descent is likely to have decent press coverage for cricketers (at least as much as the French-Polish example above). It's not something I'd be delving into but should be considered before a blanket merge. An administrative question is, if all are merged are these going to be checked for doublers? The page that brought me here, Aftab Habib, currently has British sportspeople of Pakistani descent which would be upmerged to British people of Pakistani descent (and to Sportspeople of Pakistani descent? Should be, but can't see it listed above...) but he already has a subcat of that: English people of Pakistani descent. Crowsus (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd not normally relist a third time, but Crowsus raises an important point that should be addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the merge I can use AWB to fix all duplicate (British/English) category tags in articles. Please list this for manual work (after merging). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These current names are unnecessarily long, let's make them shorter and more concise. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this a generalization and, hence, equivalent to "undead"? If so, it could be merged to Category:Undead in popular culture. Also, I am puzzled by the separate fictional subcategory, isn't it all fictional? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture is already a subcategory of Category:Undead in popular culture. Second, Category:Fictional zombies and revenants is about fictional characters who happen to be zombies. AHI-3000 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, Jiangshi is unrelated to the Haitian-originated zombie tradition, but still belongs to undead. Of course you may argue that subCategory:Jiangshi fiction should be re-parented to Category:Undead in popular culture and otherwise the rename may go ahead as nominated. But maybe there is more non-zombie content in here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Jiangshi are commonly identified as vampires and sometimes zombies, hence why it's under both categories. Also most fictional zombies in modern pop culture have absolutely nothing to do with Haitian Vodou mythology anyways, it's basically just a general term for "undead reanimated corpse that isn't a mummy or vampire". AHI-3000 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is exactly my point, much of this is about undead in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, this nomination is very simply about renaming these zombie categories to shorter titles that remove the unnecessary "and revenants" part. This isn't about the definition of zombies vs undead in general. I don't know why you're arguing about removing references to zombies altogether, they are undeniably a distinct category of undead monsters. Nobody would be suggesting to merge Category:Zombies into Category:Undead. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example is Jerusalem's Lot in the Short stories subcat, it is about Nosferatu, not zombies but apparently another class of undead. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected that and moved it to the appropriate category about vampire short stories. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative nomination
Propose merging/renaming:
I strongly oppose this alternate nomination. Zombies have their own tropes in fiction that are very distinct from the likes of ghosts and vampires. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom There is clearly specific zombie media, enough to merit a popular culture category for zombies. Anything not zombie-related should be upmerged to Category:Undead in popular culture, or its subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Wait, you are supporting my original renaming proposal instead of Marco's alternate proposal, correct? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am, there does not seem to be a need to mix up two types of undead in this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Do you support or oppose this renaming I have suggested? This discussion is not about the definition of zombies vs other types of undead, this is about shortening the current titles to remove the unnecessary "and revenants" part. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AHI-3000: "zombies" are the most specific, "zombies and revenants" is less specific. If the category is going to be renamed it will probably require manually moving lots of articles from "zombies" to "undead". I'd like to see a discussion about that before we continue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: It doesn't have to be one thing or the other first. Whether or not we try to mandate a stricter definition of what constitutes a "zombie", we do not necessarily need the current category names to be this long. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fair use media with non-commercial licenses[edit]

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/merge.
Nominator's rationale: There is a huge mess with a duplicative tree for Category:Fair use images; non-free files can be used at Wikipedia only under a fair use claim. The new name would match subcategory Category:Non-free media with non-commercial and no derivative works licenses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Incest in legend[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think these are distinct enough Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do distinguish Category:Legends versus Category:Mythology though. The way I have always understood it, for what it is worth, is that mythology is related to religions (whether or not extinct), while legends are not. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, rename to Category:Legendary victims of incest and Category:Mythological victims of incest per WP:COPSEP, or delete as not sufficiently defining. About the latter, note that we do not have a Category:Victims of incest either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle I agree. Incest is too vague. Earlier I categorized a man who arranged a marriage between his daughter and brother in the category but I don’t think that fits.
    i think victims of incest is too subjective too because we’d need a perpetrators category too, and particularly in mythology it’s rather common for examples where it isn’t even treated as a negative such as Izanagi and Izanagi or examples where it’s treated as a crime against nature but the power dynamic is glossed over or both people are portrayed as equal accomplices.
    Is incestor a word? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose use of the word "victim". What about Category:Mythology about incest, etc instead. Mason (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok fair, victims is not always the best word, but the category is still about mythological people and otherwise it would have been "myths about". On another note, what do you think of the alternative to delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmmmm, given that we don't have a incest category for people, it seem slike we should either delete both, or change the scope. Mason (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as we don't have a incest category for people. --Yorkporter (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:Incest in mythology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Province of Massachusetts Bay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Province of Massachusetts Bay

Category:7th-century Arabian Jews[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:7th-century Arabian Jews

Category:Male veterinarians[edit]

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 15:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender and occupation Mason (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Assassinated businesspeople[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Assassinated businesspeople

Category:Articles using Template:Background color with invalid color combination[edit]

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: soft rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also populated with templates. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 01:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Archaeological museums in Kyiv[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for a narrow intersection of characteristics with no growth potential. No other museums in the national category are located in Kyiv, and no other museums in the Kyiv category are archaeological, so we don't need an archaeological+Kyiv intersection for just one museum. This would be fine if there were several archaeological museums in Kyiv, but if there's just one then the parent categories that already existed are sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sole member was Museum of Historical Treasures of Ukraine, emptied by the category creator Nbarchaeo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: I think we can close this as delete, given that it was emptied by the creator and lack of opposition in a week. HouseBlastertalk 17:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Galizien division[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Members of the Galizien division

Category:University controversies[edit]

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: disperse. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Marcocapelle, what are the two articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Qwerfjkl: it's the two articles that are now left in the nominated category. By the way, I did not receive your ping, probably you can't relist and ping simultanously. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional principalities[edit]

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. Not very strong consensus on which merge target to use, but there was clear consensus to merge. Merging to Category:Fictional countries. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Falls under WP:NARROWCAT as an unnecessarily precise category. With only 3 non-redirect members after 13 years as a category I do not think it needs to be this specific. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better merge to Category:Fictional countries. Goustien (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way would work, so I am not opposed to that either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to support mostly Category:Fictional countries, but Category:Fictional kingdoms is more specific without losing accuracy. I can live if the former is chosen over the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately it could become fictional monarchies, combining fictional empires, kingdoms and principalities. But that is probably for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Women shooting survivors[edit]

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/keep.
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection between crime victim survivor and gender is a meaningful intersection per WP:OCEGRS Mason (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Women Lynching Victims Category/Neutral on Other The Lynching in the United States describes a very racial and gendered cultural context for the crimes. (Note that the article is ghastly before you click on that link.) Based on that, women are enough of an exception that it's likely defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge Category:Women shooting survivors, - manually because some articles are already in a nationality subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep women lynching victims, Neutral on other category. The reality and image of lynching in the US is gendered and racialized, centering on Black men. A lot of people don't even realize Black women and girls were victims. A quick Google search comes up with results discussing Black women's experience of lynching, so it is a notable intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep categories, or rename by replacing "women" with "female". Female is an adjective, women is a noun. Plus "female" is inclusive of both girls and women. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People by gender[edit]

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 most of the categories. Arguments against were weak, and in some cases misunderstood the nomination. Keep Category:LGBT people by gender identity. No consensus on Category:LGBT people by gender identity - there was a valid argument for keeping this one. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: There are only a limited number of gender identities, so we don't need any category levels by gender. In most of the non-LGBT-related categories with more than 2 pages, the non-binary identities are already in the corresponding non-binary subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Per WP:NARROWCAT besides Category:People by gender, which seems like it is fine. Sorting by this is not helpful as the amount of categories that can fit are heavily limited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why would we put non-binary people in the gender in nation category? We don't do that for women or men, at least not directly. This feels like we're falling into Wikipedia:EGRS territory. Mason (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gender in <nation> usually has child categories for at least Men in <nation> and Women in <nation>. 'Non-binary' relates very much to gender. Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in principle, per nom, except the top category seems useful enough to keep and parent Category:People seems a too broad merge target. Admittedly I have not checked the nomination in detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I most particularly support merging the "by gender identity" categories because of the content of these. While Transgender is clearly an LGBT identity it is less clearly a gender identity, because you have transgender men (whose gender identity is man) and transgender women (whose gender identity is woman). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object in the cases of wrestlers and deities. It do not think female wrestlers usually compete against men. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: the intention is not to merge men and women together, the intention is to remove an intermediatr container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to removing unnecessary container layers. However in the case I mentioned we ought not to merge men and women where they operate in separate realms of activity. I would add that I am reluctant to comment on LGBT issues, but we should be wary of allowing too many categories where sexual distinctions are blurred at the fringes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, except for the top category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sámi peoples[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it is not a set category of peoples, but it is a topic category. After the rename, Category:Sámi peoples can possibly be re-created for articles like Inari Sámi people. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This category is connected on multiple language Wikipedia versions to categories that are specifically about Sámi peoples and the Wikidata item is connected many times over to articles about Sámi peoples. Renaming it will create an utter mess everywhere else besides the English Wikipedia. Create a new category called Category:Sámi, move what needs to go there from this category, and leave this one be. - Yupik (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Marcocapelle and Yupik: I would in principle support splitting content between Category:Sámi as a parent topic category and Category:Sámi peoples for individual groups such as Inari Sámi people, but in practice I don't find any other such article. Other articles such as Lule Sámi or Northern Sámi are about the languages, and dedicated categories such as Category:Lule Sámi people are for individual people, not the peoples as ethnic groups, and are already parented to Category:Sámi people and the four national Sámi in <country> categories. Place Clichy (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skolts, Sámi Americans, Forest Sami are some more, and if someone gets around to translating them, there are articles for the rest on fiwiki, nowiki, etc. I think the categories should also make a clearer difference between when they are for people and when they are for languages, with an overarching category for the entire people and their culture. So Category:Lule Sámi, with subcats Category:Lule Sámi language, Category:Lule Sámi people, Category:Lule Sámi history, etc. And the same for each group. IMO the Category:Sámi peoples should be named Category:Sámi people if it is going to be a category for individual people; in the plural, it sounds like it is referring to groups of Sámi people. But if we decide to do that, I ask that you leave it up to people who know these topics thoroughly and can fix the categorization on Wikidata and other language Wikipedias and do not just randomly create, merge, rename, and delete categories. There is already precedent with the Category:Sápmi and its titular article for this particular reason. - Yupik (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Sámi people is already the category for individual people. Place Clichy (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, not sure how I misread what you had written. Thanks! - Yupik (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Photo archives[edit]

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 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From what I gather, "photo archive" is used to refer to two mostly distinct (though sometimes overlapping) concepts: (A) archives of photographs maintained for historical preservation/research purposes by GLAM institutions, and (B) archives of images made available for licensing by stock photography agencies. Most of the articles in the category and subcats appear to be of the type (A), though there are several of (B) mixed in. It would be preferable to rename the category to make the scope clearer, but I'm not sure on the name. The photo archive page was previously a jumbled mess that I attempted cleaning up just now, so it's a poor guide. Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it matter? This is Wikipedia, not Commons, so the content here is a set of encyclopedia articles describing individual archives, not content collections from those archives (which would have different licensing status). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because categories are supposed to serve as a navigational aid by grouping topics according to their defining characteristics, not just what people may call them, especially if the term is ambiguous. (A) and (B) are different concepts, so they need to be dismabiguated, not jumbled together. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then oppose, because they're both photo archives. Their licensing model isn't any sufficient reason to split them. Nor are these two groups clearly disjoint: historical photographs by GLAM institutions are increasingly offered for commercial sale (including many that are PD). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking less in terms of licensing models than their main purpose and target group (one mainly serving researchers and public education; the other serving publishers and content users). But yes, there's overlap. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main distinction that I notice when scrolling through the articles is between photo archives (a minority of articles) versus institutes which among many other things also have photo collections (the majority of articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's a regular feature of our categorisation. Many of our entries for 'museums' will also be 'art galleries', but not all of them. Yet this doesn't mean that we have to break a simple categorisation as museums, by moving some out arbitrarily to 'museums with art galleries'. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, on the asis that photo archives are photo archives, whether they hold an electronic archive, a physical archive, or both. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I do notr see the point in splitting, which seems to be what the nom wants. The content includes institutions whose collections are not entirely of photos, but does that matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional characters from the 6th millennium[edit]

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:Fictional characters from the future. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, all on Doctor Who characters. Last nomination was withdrawn because DW is not exclusively set in the 6th millennium. Also, we don't have an established category by millennium or century, or for characters from the future. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find a 4th entry! Probably withdraw now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have completed extending Category:Fictional characters by century to the future. How about Category:Fictional characters from the future to include all the future centuries and other characters from works set in the future? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional United States government personnel[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Closest to real-world counterpart is Category:American civil servants; see also below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. Would "civil servants" be inclusive of Category:Fictional American military personnel? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think any renaming is necessary. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional government employees[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Closest to real-world counterpart is Category:Civil servants. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. Would "civil servants" be inclusive of Category:Fictional military personnel? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think any renaming is necessary. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Modern Latin-language writers[edit]

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 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the subcategories are already connected to each other in Category:Writers in Latin by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My question is: how does that differentiate this category from its sister categories as a subcategory of "Writers in Latin by period": "Old Latin-language writers", "Classical Latin-language writers", "Late Antique Latin-language writers", "Medieval Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers?" Most of these also contain subcategories of writers by century; the only difference I can see is that none of the 60 persons in "Modern's" three subcategories are listed individually (there's probably some overlap, but still plenty of individuals). And I'm not sure why that is, but is it really distinguishing from "Classical Latin-language writers", which has over a hundred entries in subcategories, and only two individual entries (plus a list)? Or are all of these categories next on the chopping block? They seem like logical divisions for anyone researching the history of Latin-language writing. So I fail to see the advantage to anyone of deleting this category, besides saving Wikipedia 419 bytes (less than half of 1 Kb) of memory. P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that ancient and medieval often contain people for whom it is not clear in which century they lived. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But in many cases they are—and writers by century are still grouped as subcategories of writers by period. If the only reason for deleting the latest category in a series of categories is that we know which century each person should be sorted into (and bearing in mind that a large number of individuals belong to more than one century, so there's no bright-line rule to be extracted from that), then the category should be kept. I don't believe that the sole justification for having these categories is that there are a few persons whose exact century isn't known. P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There is some novelty in Latin-Language writers from the modern era given that Latin is a very dead language. Mason (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to contrast with medieval. For some reason neither seems to cover 16th and 17th centuries, though there were books in the language in that period, such as Newton's Principia. The alternative would be to abolish both by merging into a by century category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Qwerfjkl: (as nominator) it would be completely understandable to me if you'd close this as keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of colonial West Virginia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:People from colonial Virginia and Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: West Virginia was never a colony but a part of the Colony of Virginia Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per nom, but dual merge also to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. Besides I guess it would be helpful for clarification to nominate the target to Category:People from the Colony of Virginia, and maybe do that for the other colonies too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I suppose you mean the name of the category per the recent discussion in speedy rename. I think it was decided that it would be "People from colonial *state name*" for all. Should I nominate those for renaming?
    I agree, the dual merge is a better idea as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps start nominating Virginia and Massachusetts first because these appear to be the most ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging; no strong opinion on renaming, as I didn't participate in or know of the other discussions. Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia in colonial times, people who lived within its boundaries is a valid a categorization—and it does not equate to "pre-statehood", which covers an entirely different scope. Only a small number of persons occupied what is now West Virginia prior to 1776–1783, and those people tend to be celebrated in West Virginia history. This is very different from the group that began settling the country en masse around 1795, and continuing to statehood in 1863. But it's also very different from people living in colonial Virginia east of the mountains—a large number, quite relevant to the history of modern Virginia, but not so much to West Virginia. They would swamp the entries for West Virginia, which would be difficult to identify as a group, just as they would if merged into a category containing say, Civil War generals who weren't born until half a century after the Revolution. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Merge to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia to address P Aculeius feedback above to maintain categorization of the geographic area. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the exact opposite of what I said—why would we put the pioneers of 1750–1776 in the same category with Civil War general Albert Gallatin Jenkins? That doesn't make any sense! P Aculeius (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rationale is updated; didn't mean to misrepresent your perspective which I must have read too quickly. Sorry about that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that, but I still don't think lumping all West Virginians prior to 1863 is a good idea, when currently we have a category for only the early ones, matching the time period of other American colonists by state or future state. It'll be much harder to spot them in the midst of a much broader category. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they will still be in Category:Virginia colonial people where they properly belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And completely swamped and lost amid people who bear absolutely no relation to the subject of this article. There are eighteen times as many individuals listed under Virginia—451 compared with 24—along with nine subcategories. Readers will have absolutely no hope of finding colonial-era pioneers of West Virginia if they're mixed in with all of the other Virginians. There might conceivably be value in having the West Virginia pioneers of colonial times added to the list of Virginians, but eliminating their own category creates an insuperable hurdle to those studying West Virginia history. This proposal is tantamount to saying that, "prior to 1863, West Virginia history is only valid as a subtopic of Virginia history". Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia until 1863, the region had its own history stretching back more than a century prior to statehood, and that's just as valid and encyclopedic a topic. There's no good reason for relegating it to the status of a subtopic of some other place. P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @P Aculeius, they were Virginians during the colonial times. West Virginia was not even a thought until during the American Civil War. They would never have thought of themselves as such. Additionally, as everyone has been explaining to you, pre-statehood West Virginia keeps them seperate just like Category:People of pre-statehood Kentucky. Additionally, there is Category:West Virginia pioneers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You probably wouldn't say that if you had studied West Virginia history—there were several proposals for a separate state over several decades, some of them before 1800! And it certainly wasn't the Civil War that made people in the west consider themselves separate from eastern Virginia. West Virginia had little of the industrialization, manufacture, trade, or large-scale agriculture that made Virginia prosperous—and it still doesn't! Was it the best or wisest course? That's a matter of opinion. But it happened, and the people who settled in what is now West Virginia before the Revolution are a vital part of West Virginia history, though barely a footnote in Virginia history.
      Unlike "colonial", which specifically refers to the period up to the Revolution, "pioneers" doesn't refer to a specific time period, and could include people from many decades after the Revolution. There is absolutely no advantage to anyone in lumping these categories together—this isn't about me not understanding what other people are saying. It's about you refusing to acknowledge the validity of a category of considerable importance to West Virginia history, by making the excuse "they were all Virginians before 1863".
      The comparison to Kentucky is unhelpful: Kentucky became a state in 1792, less than ten years after the end of the Revolution, so there's not a huge difference between Kentuckians of the colonial era and pre-statehood Kentuckians. In West Virginia, that period spans eighty years—nearly three generations—and a considerable chunk of the nation's history. But I also point out that there are only three individuals in the "pre-statehood Kentucky" category, compared with 24 individuals under colonial-era West Virginia.
      So I ask again, what advantage does anybody gain from not being able to find a list of colonial-era people from what is now West Virginia, as opposed to having to hunt page by page through over 450 Virginians for the handful who settled in what is now West Virginia? If you're going to eliminate a category that has a useful purpose, there ought to be a really good reason for it—"West Virginia wasn't a state until 1863!" seems like a pretty weak rationale for doing so! P Aculeius (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the majority opinion is Dual merge with Category:Virginia colonial people and Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. @Smasongarrison, pinging for your view since you took part in a previous discussion about this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a manual duel merging; I would prefer the WV category to be "from" instead of "of" People of pre-statehood West Virginia. I'm fairly familiar with the pre-statehood history of west Virginia; one of my ancestors (Frederick Ice) settled the area in the 18th century (which would put him in the Category:West Virginia pioneers). If we do a manual merge to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia, @P Aculeius, the information isn't lost. Mason (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, agreed about the name change regarding the categories of Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states by state. Will do it after this Cfd (and a few related ones) close before I do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's lost in a sea of people who lived up to 1863—more than 80 years after the Revolution. The category as it stands now is limited to people from 1783 or earlier, but after merging nearly everyone in the category would be after that. Good luck searching for the colonial-era ones in that group! P Aculeius (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "The category as it stands now is limited to people from 1783 or earlier, but after merging nearly everyone in the category would be after that"? The category would still be limited to pre 1783 people. You can always find people who are in both categories using the search function. incategory:"People of pre-statehood West Virginia" incategory:"Virginia colonial people" [1] Mason (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
West Virginia became a state in 1863, not 1783. If you merge "people of colonial West Virginia" with "people of pre-statehood West Virginia", the category will include not just people from before the Revolutionary War, but everyone up to the Civil War. "People of colonial West Virginia" will cease to be a category, and will be mixed in with other people who lived decades afterward and had nothing to do with those of the colonial period. If you merge it with "people of colonial Virginia", then the 24 people currently listed will be mixed in with 451 entries in a larger category, and essentially disappear.
In the first instance, readers will not be able to hone in on people associated with what is now West Virginia and exclude those who lived after the colonial period; in the second they will not be able to locate colonists who lived in what is now West Virginia due to being dispersed throughout a much larger category. The purpose of categorization is to make similar or related topics easier to find, not harder; merging the category into either proposed target—or both of them—offers no benefit to readers. It seems to constitute nothing more than a value judgment that the topic is not worthy of inclusion, or that there is no purpose in researching people who were in or associated with what is now West Virginia prior to the Revolution. I do not understand that logic. P Aculeius (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, the scope would be for a larger timespan. (I'm fine with that because West Virginia wasn't defined in the colonial period, but P Aculeius' point is accurate.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, I think the consensus is very much in favor of dual merge. There is only one naysayer in this particular case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can do with a bit more discussion, unless I'm misreading this. Just because I've relisted something doesn't mean I'm not fairly sure how it's going to be closed. Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl, fair enough. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the target category is now called Category:People from colonial Virginia per Cfd here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Soviet descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:People of Soviet descent

Category:Surnames of Jewish origin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Surnames of Jewish origin

Category:Labour Party of Albania[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Party of Labour of Albania. Charles Essie (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Patrons of the arts by nationality and medium[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This isn't helpful for navigation to have only one category in here Mason (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, plus patrons tend not to be easily categorized by medium. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There isn't a category called Establishments in the FOOian republic, this one should be renamed because this republic lasted less than a century Mason (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century establishments in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]

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 16:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one century. No need to break it down by century Mason (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic[edit]

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 16:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is only one century for the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic Mason (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century establishments in the Soviet Union[edit]

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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is only one century for the soviet union Mason (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge, much of the content is already in a more specific branch of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Steel companies of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one steel company in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. If kept, should be broadened to Companies of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic Mason (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of colonial Florida[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one page and three categories which are already present in the other two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 5 more articles. If the category is kept, the subcategories should be removed from the proposed target, per WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison and @Fayenatic london, pinging for your opinion on this one. It is quite complicted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there were also French colonies in Florida (French Florida), so I'm not sure the target is right. Place Clichy (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, people of colonial Florida is a tricky one to categorize because it did change hands a few times. I get why Spanish Florida has its own category; Spain had the longest hold on the place before the U.S. got it. Because "pre-statehood" and "colonial" have the same subcategories and (before the recent addition) only one page, I think the merge "pre-statehood" works best for French and British colonial people of Florida. Either that or move the French colonists to the "colonial" category.
    @Marcocapelle, what do you think? Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not move French people to the colonial subcat because there was no French colony in Florida. They are sort of pre-colonial, and therefore part of pre-statehood. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle. That's fair enough. I was just reading on this because (here) because I wasn't aware the French got there before the Spanish. You're right, it was never officially a colony of the French like it was for the British and the Spanish. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles for Jean Ribault, René Goulaine de Laudonnière, Dominique de Gourgues, Jacques Le Moyne, Saturiwa are very much defined in relation to colonial Florida in introduction, although the 1560s French attempts were ultimately "unsuccessful". There is also West Florida, an area which changed hands (and borders) several times between the French, the Spanish, the British and the Americans between the 1760s and the 1820s, and I note that Category:Governors of West Florida (mostly British governors) is a child of Category:People of colonial Florida, so the latter is not exclusively Spanish. Florida is the earliest place settled by Europeans in Northern America and has a rich colonial and pre-statehood history. It may be interesting to have categories for colonial Florida with focus on the geographical area rather than the European power. In my understanding pre-statehood refers to the period where these areas where part of the U.S. as territories but not yet a state (so 1821 to 1845 in the case of the present-day State of Florida, and 1810 to 1812, 1817 or 1819 for the parts of West Florida that are now in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama). Place Clichy (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping that this category would magically fix itself, because I agree that this one is hard. I don't have a good solution, but I'm not as familiar with the history of colonial florida. Mason (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I think @Peterkingiron's solution is a good one for this case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Constables[edit]

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: purge. No consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, a mix of a court position, a military position and a law enforcement position. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Eponyms in psychology[edit]

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. No consensus whether it warrants listification. The contents are: Barnum effect, Ben Franklin effect, Berkson's paradox, G.I. Joe fallacy, Google effect, IKEA effect, Perky effect, Semmelweis reflex, Streisand effect, Stroop effect, Von Restorff effect, Zeigarnik effect. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Eponyms in psychology to article Eponyms in psychology
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that being an eponym is a defining feature. It might make an interesting list, but I don't think it warrants a category Mason (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Eponyms. There is currently only one article in the category so there isn't much to listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be expanded, and I will attempt to do so now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that all the pages you included count. Here's the description from the parent category. "An eponym is a person, place, or thing after whom or after which something is named, or believed to be named. Since many medical conditions, sports moves, bridge and chess techniques, buildings, prizes, and other things have been named after people, these are not included in this category, as categorization on the basis of having been named for a person is considered to be overcategorization based on trivial aspects of the article. This category is for the process or phenomenon of naming things after people. Feel free to add other items to the appropriate lists under the category Category:Lists of eponyms." Mason (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert Belongs in a list. I have broader WP:SHAREDNAME concerns about other parts of this category tree as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too trivial for a category. I am not sure about a list either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Science fantasy characters[edit]

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. There should be a broader discussion about the larger tree of Category:Science fantasy. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Science fantasy" is an ill-defined genre, even scholars admit it. It veers into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT to place characters here and the current category members bear that out. (Even George Lucas said that Star Wars should be considered fantasy). There is nothing wrong with the original scheme of placing characters in both science fiction and fantasy if they qualify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Plenty of works of fiction can be described as science fantasy, and I'm sure they can be verified by reliable sources too. Also see Category:Science fantasy franchises and Category:Science fantasy by medium. Characters from any such science fantasy media can be described as science fantasy characters. It's more accurate to call them such if they don't fit neatly into fantasy or sci-fi character categories. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You created those categories too. The fact is that you apparently believe science fantasy is a set genre when it is demonstrably anything but. The entry in the Science Fiction encyclopedia states that "In the Terminology of sf readers, and more especially publishers, this term has never been clearly defined" and that "Twenty-first century texts are rarely described as Science Fantasy". The more that I think about it, Category:Science fantasy and everything that's a subcategory of it should probably be deleted for this reason, but I'll wait until this gets deleted or not before attempting that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make up the concept of the science fantasy genre, and I only gathered preexisting subcategories together. Category:American animated science fantasy television series has more than a few examples of science fantasy works. I don't know if others will disagree with science fantasy being a distinct subgenre that is covered by external sources. AHI-3000 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that that category was made by a user who was since indefinitely blocked for disruption. My argument isnt that it doesn't exist as a genre or that the science fantasy page ought to be deleted, just that categorizing things as it is too messy. Even reliable sources disagree. Here is one example where the video game Anthem is called science fantasy. Except that this equally reliable source calls it a "sci-fi adventure". It's like this across the board. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there is a whole tree of Category:Science fantasy, it may be helpful to have a broader discussion at a WikiProject talk page to see if the entire tree ought to be deleted or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AHI-3000's explanation. A relatively well-defined subgenre. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We shouldn't delete this unless the entire Category:Science fantasy tree is deleted simultaneously. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with narcissistic personality disorder[edit]

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: purge. No consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an inappropriate categorization. Yes, categorizing by disability WP:DISABILITYCAT can be appropriate when that disability is a defining characteristic. But that particular condition NPD is predominantly given as a label during criminal investigation. So it cannot define the person's in that it is only a judicial tool in the context of their trial. Also it is only defined as a set of (really negative) personality traits, yet it is almost always an offense of living person biography to just say that person A has negative personality trait B, C, D, E, F. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about other Category:People with personality disorders subcategories, such as Category:People with antisocial personality disorder? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination applies much less to Borderline personality disorder (more studied as a mental disorder and not a personality trait, diagnosed outside of jail settings, and even having an advocacy movement). That's why I find a blanket nomination is inappropriate. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I expected to iVote keep ... until I clicked on the articles. What defines these articles is criminal indictment/prosecution, not these after the fact claims during the criminal cases. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per WP:DISABILITYCAT. As I pointed out on a recent discussion, psychological disabilities are still disabilities. Your assumption that having a personality disorder diagnosis is an inherently negative thing is reflects the stigma surrounding personality disorders. I would support purging the articles of people who their personality disorder is not a defining feature (and only came up when there was a criminal trial), which seems to be a genuine issue. Regardless, this condition is in the DSM and is not the same as the trait of narcissism. However, I do think that we can delete both Category:People with passive-aggressive personality disorder‎ and Category:People with sadistic personality disorder as neither of those categories reflect an actual diagnosis (neither were officially included as diagnoses, but only as proposed disorders that might be added). Mason (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disabilities are a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for these same reasons AHI-3000 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for opposers if the category is kept, who will populate it? I checked several articles and none seemed defining, while some failed verification. Are there any examples where it is a defining feature? Unless there are several individuals who are defined by this trait, I will support deletion. (t · c) buidhe 06:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So I haven't looked for examples yet, but at the very least, I think purging is the correct approach here rather than deletion outright. It may very well end with the category being empty, but in that case if in the future, someone does find the WP:DISABILITYCAT. criteria, the category can be remade. Mason (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really a fan of categories where the majority of the items that would seem to be included just looking at the title do not actually belong in the category. Very few editors understand categorization rules and most categories that are set up like this end up filled with non-defining entries, that become a cleanup headache. I support OCAWARD's handling of this situation. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems highly likely that this category will continue to fill with articles of people who editors think are narcissists in the colloquial sense, regardless of whether they were diagnosed as such, even if it gets purged now. It should be deleted as unhelpful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths in Somerset County, Pennsylvania[edit]

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: manual rename to Category:United Airlines Flight 93 deaths (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Death by location in not defining, and we don't have deaths by county Mason (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case, all the deaths are related to 9/11, which are already connected to the county. So deletion might be better.Mason (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather purge John du Pont and Nicholas (Smisko), deaths categories are usefully diffused by type of death, not by location. Location of death either overlaps with where people live, or is an entirely random and trivial location. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and purge per Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignore my last relisiting comment, not sure what I was thinking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:War criminals[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 22:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I apologize for the lengthy explanation, but I noticed that another editor placed the article for David Funchess in Category:War criminals. The justification for this decision is understandable, as during his time on death row for separate crimes, Funchess confessed to intentionally killing unarmed civilians, including children, during the Vietnam War. However, despite his confessions, he was never indicted, tried, or convicted of war crimes, or any crimes related to his service in Vietnam.
Upon clicking on the category and investigating, I saw that this category was deleted once in 2007, with some justification for its deletion being that there is already a category for Category:People convicted of war crimes (which would theoretically encapsulate war criminals better than this category, which I believe could easily be misapplied). There is also a category for Category:People indicted for war crimes. It just seems that those categories are better at getting the point across than this one, without being nearly as subjective and inconsistent in application. I agree with the previous consensus from 2007. Another user re-added this category in 2019, citing "faulty reasonsing IMO," but I do not think the consensus reached in 2007 was wrong.
(I guess my complaints here might also cover Category:Female war criminals for the same reasons.) Afddiary (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate subcategory for Category:Criminals by crime. There are categories for other un-convicted criminals, so I don't see any reason to single out "war criminals". Other categories are better at getting the point across, but Category:War criminals is appropriate for, say, the identified perpetrators of a massacre who were never tried. Lightiggy (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case we already have a category for unconvicted war criminals, namely Category:People indicted for war crimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but what about ones who were not tried? What about men like self-confessed Paul Aussaresses and Jacques Massu, who have confessed and been conclusively proven to be war criminals, but were never tried for them (Aussaresses was instead prosecuted for making excuses for torturing detainees in Algeria). Lightiggy (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightiggy, my issue with the category as it is, though, is that it is so unevenly applied.
I looked at some pages for other war criminals, particularly those involved in the Nazi regime and the Rwandan genocide, and several of them were convicted of war crimes but did not have any war crime-related categories on their pages, even if their article leads or bodies said they WERE convicted of war crimes.
Others were convicted of crimes against humanity, which are similar but legally distinct from war crimes - but their pages DID have the "War criminals" category.
Then you have many people who are largely culturally and popularly considered war criminals, such as Henry Kissinger (see the "Domestic reactions" section of his page, as well as his Talk Page discussion pointing out 8 mainstream news sites that entertain the idea of him being a war criminal) - yet he was never convicted of a war crime and does not have any war criminal categories. Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter being that he was/is a war criminal, it wouldn't feel appropriate for me to apply that category to his page because it's subjective, and Wikipedia strives not to be subjective. There is not a consensus on whether or not he was/is a war criminal.
Any debate over the appropriateness of applying that category would, in my opinion, be solved by resorting to using categories that are more difficult to subjectively misapply or abuse - like "People indicted for war crimes" or "People convicted of war crimes." Meanwhile, the category I proposed for deletion feels like it could be (and has been) applied so unevenly and subjectively - doubly so because the decision to remove it was due to a consensus, and the decision to bring it back was due to one single editor's choice 12 years later, with no discussion or consensus. Afddiary (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to add this point - as someone who edits a lot of articles for people convicted of serious crimes, I've also noticed a trend towards removing categories that brand people with specific titles for the crimes they have committed, and instead focusing on what they have been convicted of committing. I actually view this as a positive change because it shifts away from applying categories unevenly and subjectively, or in a way that doesn't match the definitions of controversial, serious, or accusatory words as they should be applied on Wikipedia. (For example, I've noticed a lot of articles no longer using categories like Category:American murderers, and instead opting for any of the many categories under the umbrella Category:People convicted of murder - and I actually agree with this because I have seen categories similar to the former being misapplied in cases where the words "killing," "manslaughter," or "death" might be more appropriate than "murder". I wasn't one of the people spearheading that change, but I've watched it progress, and I see it largely as a positive. I think it would be a positive to apply this same logic to "War criminals" vs. "People convicted of war crimes.") Afddiary (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American murderers is still used when a confirmed murderer never stood trial. To me, the same logic applies to the war criminals category. Lightiggy (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightiggy and Dimadick. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would generally support deletion for the reasons expressed by the nom. The issue is that there is a disjoint between the popular understanding and legal definition of war crimes. Articles about "War crimes in X conflict" or "by X state" actually also contain content about non-tried war crimes, not to mention crimes against humanity and genocide, because many people would assume that any type of atrocity is a "war crime". (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a large part of my problem with the category. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a disjoint between the popular understanding and legal definition of war crimes, and having a category like Category:War criminals just seems like it contributes to that problem when people apply it so subjectively.
    I just ran into the article for Claus Schilling, where his short description and infobox state that he was a war criminal convicted of war crimes, but his categories do not reflect that – and neither does the rest of the text in the body of his article.
    There are dozens (if not hundreds) of similar articles I've encountered on Wikipedia, and I don't think attempting to apply the category to all of them would solve the problem.
    I also just think that on principle, it should not be acceptable for a consensus to be made on the deletion of a category after plenty of discussion, while one individual editor can make a decision 12 years later that all of them were wrong and the category should be re-added. Afddiary (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I especially agree with Afddiary's comment right above mine. "I also just think that on principle, it should not be acceptable for a consensus to be made on the deletion of a category after plenty of discussion, while one individual editor can make a decision 12 years later that all of them were wrong and the category should be re-added."
I also worry that @Lightiggy's isn't really listening/engaging with the concerns being raised as they're making child categories while this nomination is onging. (Category:Perpetrators of American Civil War prisoner of war massacres was made yesterday) Mason (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories."
Could we add that? Another objection from me to deleting this category is that it's a good branch-off point for subcategories
Lightiggy (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tyla (South African singer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Tyla (South African singer)

Category:Lists of women government ministers by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Lists of women government ministers by country

Category:Lists of women government ministers by portfolio[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Lists of women government ministers by portfolio

Category:Kosovo people[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, newly created. Place Clichy (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Peterkingiron is right, let's merge now and possibly rename later. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Foreign ministers of Palau[edit]

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:Ministers of State of Palau. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 07:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Official name. Sahaib (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of fictional life forms[edit]

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:Lists of fictional characters by species. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a duplicate now? Like there's essentially no difference between these two categories, now that the parent category has been merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suicide bombers in India[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there is only a redirect in this category, which isn't helpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia categories named after writers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Wikipedia categories named after writers

Category:Prada exclusive models[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Category:Prada exclusive models

Category:16th-century men by occupation and nationality[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. It's not helpful for navigation to only have a single category in here. Mason (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:16th-century Irish men by occupation[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. It's not helpful for navigation because there are only a handful of categories in here AND nothing else in the parent category. Mason (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:School-themed television series by decade[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:School-themed television series will be speedy renamed to Category:Television series set in schools to align with other subcategories of Category:Fiction about schools. However, the extension of that naming convention to this category is ambiguous due to a misplaced modifier. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:11th century in the Arctic[edit]

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 16:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is not helpful for navigation when there is only two categories in it. Only category is already in the proper merge target (11th century in Europe‎) Mason (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:14th century in the Arctic[edit]

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 16:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is not helpful for navigation when there is only one category in it. Only category is already in the proper merge target (14th century in Europe‎) Mason (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_28&oldid=1193833001"