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.
Nominator's rationale: A prior renaming proposal for the Canadian-specific subcategory resulted in that category being deleted rather than renamed or upmerged back here, because consensus decided that it wasn't a sufficiently WP:DEFINING characteristic -- and if it's not adequately defining of Canadian towns and cities, then it's not adequately defining of towns and cities on the US side of the border either. Many of these places are not the location of any actual border-crossing facility, but merely happen to be located near the boundary line -- and thus they don't have a defining relationship with the Canada-US border per se, because you can't go there to cross the border (unless perhaps you want to get yourself arrested for sneaking across the border illegally, which is not something Wikipedia should be encouraging.) And for the ones that do have border crossing facilities, we already have Category:Canada–United States border crossings to contain the articles about the facilities themselves, so we don't need to also categorize the towns they happen to be located in or near. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Nearly every article was already in another professional wrestler category (usually Fooian male/female professional wrestlers), and I manually added the rest. Only two articles—Marianna Komlos and Wally Karbo—will be excluded from this category tree after deletion, because I could not determine from the articles whether they were in fact professional wrestlers or just performed some other role (e.g. announcer, manager, promoter). -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has the potential to grow huge, needs constant monitoring to remain fully up to date, and has little practical use that I can see. McPhail (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these will eventually contain ever single wrestler of that nationality, giant catch all bucket of uselessness. MPJ-DK 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the reasons already given. Might be worth noting that these were created by a user who has had a history with creating bad categories.★Trekker (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think these are defining categories. LM2000 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everybody dies eventually. We have a long-established consensus that we do not maintain categories that intersect deadness with occupation like this — yes, such things have been tried before and they got deleted. For a couple of very particular kinds of death, namely murder and suicide, we may do that in some instances — but we do not create catchall "Deceased X" categories for everybody in any given occupation who's shuffled off this mortal coil in any manner whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or rather merge back, where necessary)-- We still categorise people by their occupation even after they are dead, so that they should be merged back to the national category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Besides being based on the same video games, the anime and manga have almost nothing to do with each other. It makes no sense to lump them in a category together. JDDJS (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, they should be separate categories.★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Pokémon is a special case. Most animes are directly based on a manga, and while they often add additional plots, they don't usually make significant changes to the plot. Pokemon anime is different in that it's not based on the manga at all, and both run completely independently of each other. JDDJS (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason for this to exist.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing renaming this cat and all of the sub cats. I think French-language writers sounds more natural and it is clearer what it means. JDDJS (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not necessarily opposed to this in principle — I created some of the subcategories, but I used the word order I did because this (which was created by somebody else) was named this way and not because I'm particularly wedded to that exact order. But it does warrant mention that there are 15 other subcategories of Category:French-language writers which are also named in the "[Nationality] writers in French" format — and for consistency's sake, they should all be renamed the same way rather than this one standing alone as an outlier. So they need to all be handled as a batch nomination, so that all relevant views on the preferred word order can be considered — because if this gets moved now but then somebody can subsequently bring up a compelling reason against renaming the equivalent categories for Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Britain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Morocco, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia or Ukraine that results in those renamings getting shut down, then this will have to get moved back to the current name again. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There seems to be a feeling that 'Fooian Booian-language writers' will not do. Category:English-language writers uses the format 'English-language writers from Foo'. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I'm not opposed to renaming in the interests of consistency, "Canadian French-language writers" has one significant disadvantage compared with "Canadian writers in French": it is ambiguous. "Canadian French-language writers" could refer either to
There will naturally be significant overlap between these two categories, but they are not identical. There are surely French-language writers who are Canadians but do not speak Canadian French (e.g. writers who immigrated from France to Canada), and there may be people who write in Canadian French without having Canadian nationality (e.g. Québécois who immigrated to the U.S. or their children).
By contrast "Canadian writers in French" refers reasonably clearly to the second of these two groups. --Saforrest (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Yugoslavia did only exist in the 20th century. Redundant category. Zoupan 02:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. – FayenaticLondon 15:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge. Note that nobility categories do not have to be organized by modern countries, we also have e.g. Category:Swabian nobility, so it may be a downmerge instead of an upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bosnia was a state, a banate then a kingdom 1177-1463, after which it was an Ottoman province. Herzegovina was a separate state with a distinct history. It is wholly appropriate to have separate categories for each historic state. I am not clear when or how these two polities were amalgamated, but until then it is appropriate to have them as separate categories with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina nobility as mainly a container parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 15:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. – FayenaticLondon 15:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a country. Herzegovina is a modern name, while the category mostly houses medieval nobility. There is already proper categories in the Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina nobility tree.Zoupan 01:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is a category of people who happened to rule Herzegovina, but not necessarily with any Herzegovina roots. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bosnia was a state, a banate then a kingdom 1177-1463, after which it was an Ottoman province. Herzegovina was a separate state with a distinct history. It is wholly appropriate to have separate categories for each historic state. I am not clear when or how these two polities were amalgamated, but until then it is appropriate to have them as separate categories with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina nobility as mainly a container parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (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.
