Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20
October 22 >

October 21[edit]

Category:Families from Sokoto State[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, as right now there's only one family in the category Mason (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Zamfara State 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one occupation Mason (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom without prejudice to recreation of the category when more reasonably-populated occupation subcats can be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Charles Horman[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small cat (n =2 ), without potential for growth Mason (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Gombe State 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as there's only one occupation in the category Mason (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom without prejudice to recreation of the category when more reasonably-populated occupation subcats can be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rivers State politicians by party[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one political party in the category Mason (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom without prejudice to recreation of the category when more reasonably-populated party subcats can be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English families by 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: keep. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Name change will have the benefit of broadening the scope of the category as right now the English families category is overflowing Mason (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we use the term "populated place" for cities, towns, villages, hamlets etc. But not for country subdivisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Basketball families by country[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one category in it Mason (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The subcategory may also be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Expatriates from the Austrian Empire in the United States[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge because only member should be (and is ) in Category:Slovenian expatriates in the United States because being Slovenian is defining for Lovrenc Lavtižar, not for being from the AE Mason (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, without prejudice to recreation of the category when more articles can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:19th-century Scottish Presbyterians[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small underpopulated category, that, at present isnt needed for the parent category Category:Scottish Presbyterians Mason (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:19th-century Austrian Presbyterians[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:19th-century Presbyterians. The sole member, Alfred Edersheim, doesn't belong in Category:Austrian Protestants, as noted by Marcocapelle (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small, underpopulated category without a proper parent: "Austrian Presbyterians" Mason (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Continental Basketball Association venues[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic of these multi-purpose arenas. Note: this category was nominated for deletion in 2017 but no consensus was reached. User:Namiba 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are mostly multi-purpose venues and should be categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Heavenly attendants in Jainism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 31#Category:Heavenly attendants in Jainism

Category:Fictional Soviet people by ethnic or national origin[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 19:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, many articles in the subcategories aren't Soviet fictional characters. The category may be restarted from scratch, but should only contain articles and no subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is supposed to be a container category for subcategories. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These people aren't necessarily Soviet people. At present, this category contains nationalities, that aren't exclusively for soviet people. Fictional Russian people by ethnic or national origin I think the category is attempt to mirror: Category:People from the Soviet Union by republic; however those child categories are explicitly Soviet republics, while these child categories are much broader nationalities that existed before and after the soviet union. Mason (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Employment of foreign-born[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:Employment of foreign-born people. This is a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE situation, so I am going with the title with majority support. No prejudice against a speedy renomination for a further rename, but it is clear that the category should not be at the current title when such a discussion occurs. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 17:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Right now, it sounds awkward; an alternative could be Employment of expatriates Mason (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MIT Center for Theoretical Physics alumni[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:MIT Center for Theoretical Physics people. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Make the scope larger to match other labs/centers, eg Category:MIT Media Lab people‎ Mason (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MIT Department of Physics alumni[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alumni by university department aren't defining. See [1] Mason (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Bavaria to the United Kingdom[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 19:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to distinguish between regemes Mason (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Moving to full discussion for an alternative rename @User:Place Clichy; Mason (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note:@Johnpacklambert has added commentary/context on my talk page. The crux of his reasoning is: "Emigration is at heart a movement from one political unit to another, and so emigrant categories need to be tied to those politcal units." I disagree with him on this as I think that political unit is mostly not a defining intersection for people leaving a nation (obviously there are exceptions). Regardless, I think his perspective is worth considering. Mason (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 00:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pettus family[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 most. I am convinced that WP:TRAINWRECK applies here, but discussion-wide !votes are mostly in favor of deletion, and most nominations have not been specifically objected. Therefore, all of the nominated categories will be deleted, except for the following:
These will be treated as no consensus closures. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat (n<3 ) without a corresponding eponymous article about the family Mason (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larger families that have grown to 4+ since nom
Nominator's update: these have grown since the nom, so I've pulled them out made them easier to see. @@GiantSnowman, Marcocapelle, and Aidan721: Mason (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smasongarrison: pulled out, do you mean you withdraw them? They are still small categories while the families are apparently not notable in their own right. On top of that, article USS Izard is unrelated to the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair question. I'm not withdrawing them; my intent was to make it easier for folks to decide about cases that are a tad larger. As my understanding was that part of @GiantSnowman's concern was that there was the risk of over deleting the categories that had grown. Mason (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Patapsco913: Why did you place your !vote(s) within the nomination? It's kind of annoying to read. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where else was i to put them? The nomination feeds to this page.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, what a massive amount of overcategorization. Especially with few articles per family, all articles will link to each other directly (unless a very distant relationship) and a category does not add anything. Delete all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That was my thinking as well. Some of them might have grown a bit after the creaters were notified. (I'll check and note if any have grown...) Mason (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - totally inappropriate mass nomination, some of them have 3/4 entries (e.g. Daddario family). GiantSnowman 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I nominated them, they all had 3 or less. What more appropriate approach would you suggest I take instead @GiantSnowman? Mason (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominating fewer at a time so that they can be considered properly??? GiantSnowman 21:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to do smaller bundles, if you'd find that helpful. My challenge was that I was going through Category:English families, and well, it's a really really big category. I thought it was less disruptive to bundle them all together. Mason (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the quantity you have done. This discussion is already a confusing mess! GiantSnowman 09:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax bud. It'll get settled. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. There is nothing inappropriate with mass nominations as suggested by Snowman. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Categories are here to help navigation, and only for that. Too many categories with little relevance do the opposite of that, whereas some direct links in a "see also" section, or in article body, do the job a lot better. Thanks to the nominators for sorting this out! Place Clichy (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Several misplaced !votes have been condensed below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Various comments by User:Patapsco913
Patapsco913 (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Daughters of barons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 31#Category:Daughters of barons

Category:Kingdom of Bohemia emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies[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/rename (Ignoring Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Ireland which has since been deleted.) (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The intersection with regime isn't defining for emigrants/expatriates. Mason (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first category is tricky. "Czech" would serve as ethnicity in this period, but one article is about an ethnic Jew and the other could be about a German Bohemian (that is not clear). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree that the first category is tricky. I first had is as German, but that clearly wasn't a perfect match Mason (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle how about Bohemian emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies? Mason (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great! I've updated it. Mason (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the updated nomination per the above discussion. HouseBlastertalk 17:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Finnish emigrants (1809–1917)[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 "Finnish foo (1809–1917)" to "foo Grand Duchy of Finland". (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 17:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category, where it really isn't worth distinguishing that this is when Finland was part of the Russian Empire. If not merged, it could be renamed Emigrants from the Grand Duchy of Finland Mason (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Emerging consensus is to rename Category:Finnish emigrants (1809–1917) to Category:Emigrants from the Grand Duchy of Finland, but little discussion on Category:Finnish emigrants to the United States. @Place Clichy, Marcocapelle, and Mason, do you have any thoughts on that category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 13:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from the Hanseatic City of Lübeck[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 both to Category:People from Lübeck. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping, underpopulated cat Mason (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:People from the Free City of Lübeck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Manually merge both because most articles are already in an occupation subcategory of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British sportspeople in British 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent is: British expatriate sportspeople in India‎ Mason (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People convicted on terrorism charges[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) HouseBlastertalk 17:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other subcategories of Category:People by criminal conviction. Opposed by a user who didn't recognize the pattern. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • At second thought, Fayenatic london may well be right. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Surnames of Jewish origin[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 19:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category was speedied recently into the current name. You cannot speedy a category with thousands of entries. "Jewish surname" is not the same as "Surname of Jewish origin". The former means "Surname common among the Jews", the latter - surname originated in Jewish culture. "catmore" points to Jewish surname. The issue requires a thorough discussion. For example, Kaufmann or Genovese are Jewish surnames but not surnames of Jewish origin. And many more. Probably the category must be diffused. In particular we have category:Yiddish-language surnames and category:Hebrew-language surnames, which, as I saw, overlap with this one. - Altenmann >talk 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the "X surnames" for different ethnicities were moved today by the JJMC89 bot to "Surnames of X origin" through the speedy rename process. This is just one of dozens. Maybe it should have been objected to at that stage of this renaming process. But there are many others which have been altered as well. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I am sure you are aware that Jewish ethnicity is a rather unusual case. I could not object because the category was not on my watchlist. BTW, you know what? even the famous surname Soloveitchik is not of "Jewish origin": it originated in smartass brains of some Russian bureaucrat who was bored with the process of inventing surnames for the Jews in the Russian Empire, who didn't have any. - Altenmann >talk 04:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if certain surnames are not of Jewish origin then we should not categorize them as Jewish. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with the nominator's reasoning entirely. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sons of Temperance[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) HouseBlastertalk 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Sons of Temperance was a moderately important temperance organization in the nineteenth-century but membership in it was non-defining for the careers of these notable figures. User:Namiba 19:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather delete, the people in this category are hardly known for being an activist. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through the articles, you will see that most of them highlight their temperance activism, some in a major way. I'm fine with removing any which do not do so.--User:Namiba 15:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of what I see is just membership of Sons of Temperance and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the appropriate national or state-based temperance activist category for those who had a significant relationship with the temperance movement. Therefore, I support deletion.--User:Namiba 14:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Queer organizations & Category:Queer 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: delete. No substantial reason against. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There's no clear distinguishing characteristics between a "queer" organization and an "LGBT" organization. Half of the organizations simply seem to have queer in the title of the group. Ditto for literature, mass media, and magazines. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from what other commenters noted, one of my problems with this merger is that "queer organizations" wouldn't easily go into LGBT organizations category, while "queer literature" doesn't go into LGBT literature, nor does "queer-related mass media" to LGBT-related mass media, nor "queer magazines" into LGBT-related magazines. So, at its current form, I oppose this merge. Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear indication on when to categorize an organization as "LGBT" or as "queer". What makes Black Laundry, Out On Screen, or the Ingersoll Gender Center queer orgs rather than LGBT orgs? What makes In the Dream House or I Am J queer books? What distinguishes Thirsty Sword Lesbians as queer media and not just lesbian media? What makes a queer magazine distinct from other LGBT magazines? As they exist now, these categories are incoherent, because there is no clear idea on what to include and what not to include. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for inclusion in any queer-related category is whether reliable sources use the term queer to describe the organization or work. This will typically coincide with whether the org or publication uses queer as a self-descriptor. There is nothing unusual or complex about that as a category scope.
Whether there is a sufficiently justified philosophical basis for the nuances of the distinction between queer specifically and LGBTQ+ more broadly is not Wikipedia's problem to solve. Some people, organizations, and works specifically identify as queer, and have reasons for doing so. One may take the view that they aren't good or sufficient reasons, and that the distinction is ultimately meaningless. Others will disagree. I don't think it would be appropriate for our category structure to endorse the view that the distinction is meaningless, because it would remove the ability for readers who are interested in the distinction to research queer topics.--Trystan (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nom, but just delete instead of merge, because the articles are already deeper down in the LGBT tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It hasn't even been six months since the closure of the last time you proposed this. Proposing it again so soon, in a way that doesn't take any of the direction from the previous close, is not productive. There was no consensus last time for your view that queer and LGBT are simple synonyms, so no consensus for blanket merges on that basis. That doesn't seem like the type of thing likely to have changed in five months.--Trystan (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trystan The last time the related proposal was closed as "no consensus", it was entirely due to the inclusion of categories related to people. So no, this isn't the same proposal. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about organizations exclusively for people who identify as queer, rather they are broadly for LGBTQ people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or delete per Marcocapelle if the merge were to only create useless redundancy. It just creates more confusion to attempt to split queer and LGBT+ categories, as, unfortunately, categories are not good for nuances. However, the specific positioning and identification of these media and organization can and must be explained in article body, with all the needed precision. Place Clichy (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tripartite Alliance[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 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was the one who created this category but I now believe it should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. Charles Essie (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Actually, looking at this cat, I think it's worth keeping. I don't think there's a clean way to link to those categories in the article. - jc37 18:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, it is also not a very defining characteristic of each of these organisations. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Membership in the Tripartite Alliance is a defining characteristic of each of the three organisations, in my view. Jlalbion (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic. See, e.g., [2][3]. Five members is reasonably populated, so it should not be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. HouseBlastertalk 17:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:16th-century Prussian 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only had two child categories in it (16th-century FOO bishops in Prussia‎), that both belong in the parent category. I'm nominating it, and then moving the final category to 16th century in Prussia Mason (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I nominated one of the subcategories, see above, but there is a third subcategory that would fit in people, namely the dukes. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was no justification to remove the bishop subcategories, Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Prussia and Category:16th-century Lutheran bishops in Prussia, and likewise Category:16th-century dukes of Prussia should be included, if not outright merged into it for containing only 2 pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "There was no justification to remove the bishop subcategories..." Bishops in Prussia belong in the "in Prussia" category, as that is for countries. If the bishops were "Prussian" bishops, they'd belong in the Prussian people category. Mason (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: I disagree strongly with that. Categories are for easy navigation between related topics and splitting overlapping people by country from people by nationality just makes navigation more difficult than necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate your thoughts/perspective on this, @Marcocapelle. I need to think about this some more, as my perspective is that nationality and country for religious workers like bishops is important to distinguish as they don't necessarily overlap. I agree that we should make it easy to navigate between people in country and nationality people. The question is how to do that in a way that respects that distinction.
      In my mind, the "true" structure of how these categories relate looks something like this: Category:16th century in Prussia is the parent of Category:16th-century people of Prussia, which covers people who are connected in some manner with Prussia (either nationality, country of work etc). Within that "of" category, we have Category:16th-century people in Prussia and Category:16th-century Prussian people to distinguish between the nature of their relationship with Prussia. Mason (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People of the Habsburg monarchy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:People of the Habsburg monarchy

Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Scotland

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation

Christian abolitionists[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 19:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_15#Category:Christian_abolitionists in which the suggestion came up to only keep the Quaker's subcategory. The others aren't a defining intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba and Smasongarrison: pinging contributors to that earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per old discussion Mason (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It seems weird to me to only keep Quakers, although certainly they were heavily involved with abolitionism (there's even an article on it), other denominations were too. Christians played a significant part in abolitionism so I’m actually against containerizing Christian abolitionists as well, although I recognize I might be too late on that. - Relinus (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • People against and for slavery were Christians of all sorts of denominations, only Quakers were against it based on a consistent denominational point of view. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds almost like an argument that you don't need the Quaker category, except that the time period is important. For the rest one assumes it is useful to some people to be able to group together those in that denomination that were on the abolitionist side of the fence, and divide them from those coreligionists on the other side or those who stayed silent on this issue. For some of these denominations the internal debate would have been an important part of their history. ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the categories should be exclusively limited to people who were known specifically both as Christians and as abolitionists, and for using Christian theology to oppose slavery. It looks like there are a number of people in the categories who might not belong. (Take for instance Mark Twain in Presbyterian abolitionists, who’s religious views vacillated widely and was actually critical of organized religion and Christian theology at times.) However, there are also people who should be labeled as Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce, who wrote on abolitionism specifically from a Christian viewpoint; Elijah Lovejoy, a Presbyterian minister who was killed for his opposition to slavery; or Theodore Parker, a Unitarian minister who frequently preached on the topic and whose sermons later influenced Martin Luther King. (Unitarians by the way, like Quakers, were very frequently staunch abolitionists so quite a few of their ministers probably fit in this category.) Relinus (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quakers had a unique history of abolitionism, which is why that category should be kept. If evidence can be provided that the other Protestant sects also had a similarly unique history, then they should also be kept.--User:Namiba 13:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not totally sure what more you’re looking for, it’s easy to find examples (see above) of individuals whose specific Christian beliefs informed their abolitionist stances, not just Quakers. It is very much a defining intersection for them. As ϢereSpielChequers has already pointed out, it is useful to be able to group them together by denomination, as it is an important part of their denominational history. If you want more evidence that the debate over slavery is an important part of each of these denominations' history, a quick Google search revealed the following: Baptist,[1][2][3] Congregationalist,[4][5] Methodist,[6][7][8][9][10] and Presbyterian.[11][12][13][14][15] I also came across other denominations including Evangelical,[16][17] Episcopalian,[18] Lutheran,[19][20] Unitarian,[21] and Christianity in general.[22][23][24][25][26][27] Again, those were all easy to find and I can find more if needed. I also just noticed there literally is a whole article on Wikipedia addressing the topic of Christian abolitionism. It seems to pretty clearly be an important intersection of history. Relinus (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Baptists and Anti-Slavery
  2. ^ From Abolitionists to Supporters: a Historical Evaluation of the Relationship between Southern Baptists and Slavery
  3. ^ Baptists, Slavery, and the Road to Civil War
  4. ^ "New England Congregationalism and the Anti-Slavery Movement, 1830–1860."
  5. ^ Baptists, Congregationalists, the Free Church, and Slavery
  6. ^ The relationship between the Methodist church, slavery and politics, 1784-1844 politics, 1784-1844
  7. ^ Early American Methodism and Slavery
  8. ^ Antislavery Roots: A Call to end Slavery - The Wesleyan Methodist Church 1843 - 1865
  9. ^ Methodist Bishops and Abolitionism
  10. ^ From abolitionists to fundamentalists: the transformation of the Wesleyan Methodists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
  11. ^ Abolitionism and the Presbyterian Schism of 1837-1838
  12. ^ Theophilus Wylie, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and Slavery
  13. ^ Slavery and Presbyterianism in the Revolutionary Era
  14. ^ Presbyterian Attitudes Toward Slavery
  15. ^ Presbyterian Attitudes Towards Abolitionists (1860)
  16. ^ Abolitionism and Evangelicalism: Isaac Nelson, the Evangelical Alliance, and the Transatlantic Debate Over Christian Fellowship With Slaveholders
  17. ^ Slavery and the Evangelical Churches
  18. ^ The Episcopal Church and Slavery: A Historical Narrative
  19. ^ Just Enough? Lutherans, Slavery, and the Struggle for Racial Justice
  20. ^ New York Lutheran Abolitionists: Seeking a Solution to a Historical Enigma
  21. ^ Unitarians, Universalists, & Slavery
  22. ^ "The Power of Religious Activism in Tocqueville’s America: The Second Great Awakening and the Rise of Temperance and Abolitionism in New York State"
  23. ^ The Abolitionists
  24. ^ The Religious Roots of Abolition
  25. ^ The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action
  26. ^ No Ordinary Sin: Antislavery Protestants and the Discovery of the Social Nature of Morality
  27. ^ Slavery and The Protestant Ethic (with Commentary)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references are nice in order to know more about the topic, but they also confirm that none of these denominations collectively took a stance against slavery. Insofar individual people were against it, it was not because their denomination as a whole was against it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I’m not understanding where you're coming from. Would you mind explaining your position more or pointing me towards relevant wikipedia rules or precedent? Thanks. Relinus (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were also lots of Christians, of these same denominations, against abolition. So ultimately it is not related to denominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I'm certainly not denying there were anti-abolitionist Christians, far from it, some of the references I provided discuss them. I'm saying that's not a reason to delete the category, in fact it’s a reason to keep it. If the groups were synonymous and all Christians were abolitionists and all abolitionists were Christian, then that would be a reason to delete the category. It is precisely because you cannot assume one from the other that it is useful for those researching the topic to have a category to contain people who are both.
To give an example: we have a category for American abolitionists despite the fact that not all Americans were abolitionists and not all abolitionists were American. The category is important precisely because you cannot assume one from the other.
There are literally books written about the intersection between these two topics, and I think by this point I have clearly demonstrated that this is a topic that someone may be interested in researching, so deleting it would be doing researchers a disservice. - Relinus (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lawyers in British 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedied request was "stale". Grandparent category is People from British India. [4] Mason (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Forgot to ping all the people: @Jahaza, @Ymblanter. Mason (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Lawyers in British India to Category:Lawyers from British India – C2C: grandparent is People from British India Mason (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's going to be a somewhat different topic. Many judges in British India were civil servants who weren't "from" India and left when they retired. Jahaza (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but the category is supposed to be that different topic (as this entire chain is in nationality) Mason (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the scope is different then some items need to be removed, and possibly the category has to be split. It is better done in a full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many of these people weren't "from" India. They worked in India. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to suggest an alternative so that we can have lawyers from British India as well as expatriate lawyers in british india? Mason (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose fine as it is (or change to "of" BI maybe). Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT deities[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: listify/delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlap of categories. Redtigerxyz Talk 03:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other way around? Moving Category:Homosexuality and bisexuality deities to Category:LGBT deities? --AHI-3000 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, "Homosexuality and bisexuality deities" is clearer. LGBT deities can be interpreted as deities associated with LGBT topics or deities who are LBGT.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW there's another discussion about Category:LGBT deities. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "homosexuality and bisexuality deities" even mean? The articles in the category barely touch upon the subject. This is probably better for a list, in which a detailed description can be given of any type of LGBT relationship. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree, the phrasing "homosexuality and bisexuality deities" is very unclear and awkward English. Since we are clearly not talking about adjectives (Homosexual deities etc) and since homosexuality and bisexuality are not religions.. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deities are not restricted to M/F/intersex/hermaphroditic so "bi" in relation to have more than 2/3 genders is also off. LGBT deities also is unclear. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but I don't know where. There is indeed too much overlap here for two distinct categories to be viable, but "Homosexuality and bisexuality deities" is a grammatically untenable and unsupportable name for it, whereas "LGBT deities" doesn't work either because not every deity who is regarded as an LGBT symbol was actually depicted as LGBT themselves in the original mythology — so we only need one category here rather than two, but neither of the existing names is the right one for it, so the appropriate solution is to upmerge them both to a completely new name. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify/Delete both so to explain how the deity in question is associated with or related to LGBT/Homsexuality/Bisexuality/etc. Also, because we shouldn't be grouping deities of disparate mythologies together this way. The article LGBT themes in mythology seems to handle this much better than these categories, if anyone wanted to add any of these categories' members there, while also attempting to avoid WP:OR. - jc37 11:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion/listification makes all the more sense after the parallel discussion has been closed as delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Delete both Both names are too vague. A list could better describe any non-OR relationship between these concepts and a given deity. Paul August ☎ 15:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Northeastern Ukraine campaign[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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article northeastern Ukraine campaign no longer exists, it was merged into Eastern Ukraine campaign and Northern Ukraine campaign. The pages in it should be reassigned to a category associated with one of those articles depending on their location. HappyWith (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split; nom appears to be advocating for a split rather than deletion, and I agree. HouseBlastertalk 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional humans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Fictional humans

Fictional people by populated place[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 "foo city bar" to "foo populated place bar". (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with each other, with parent Category:Fictional people by populated place and with two siblings. (The renaming of the two siblings will be processed soon.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional European-American 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: rename. (@Marcocapelle) (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename aligning with Category:American people of European descent, Category:American people of British descent, etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom. Mason (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other ethnic subcategories of Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin? Or the other subcategories under Category:Fictional people by ethnic or national origin? Should all of them be renamed under the "Fictional X people of Y descent" pattern? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this goes ahead I will nominate the others too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kartikeya_temples[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Kartikeya_temples

Category:Stanford University students[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:Stanford University alumni. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the norm is to put non-graduates in the alumni category Mason (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom. Relinus (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Leaders of American University[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:Chancellors and presidents of American University. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: AU changed from chancellors to presidents in the 1940s. Seems more accurate to just call the category the more specific term. I modeled the category name after: "Category:Chancellors and presidents of New York University" Mason (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom. Relinus (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American University faculty and staff[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: split between Category:American University faculty and Category:American University staff. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 17:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've never seen a US-based university that combines these categories. Category:Faculty by university or college in Washington, D.C. Category:Staff by university or college in the United States Mason (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom. Relinus (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Family concepts[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:Family. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom Mason (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pirates from the Dutch 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The intersection of regime and pirate is not defining. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Private members' clubs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 30#Category:Private members' clubs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_21&oldid=1183664465"