Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 24

October 24

Category:Jewish chess players

Propose deleting:

Category:Jewish chess players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish gymnasts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish ice hockey players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish table tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish water polo players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS/I: Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics), with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless these characteristics are relevant to that topic. The intersection of religion and occupation is not defining here. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial intersection, per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, this is part of parent Category:Jews by occupation where other subcats haven't been tagged. Alternatively, could be recategorized per country based on Category:People of Jewish descent on a case-by-case basis. Brandmeister^talk 15:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every intersection is trivial so a nomination of all subcategories together would not make any sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jews are considered ethnoreligious group rather than simply religious, as such I think this should be discussed on a broader basis rather than choosing particular categories. It's not obvious why, e.g. Category:Jewish chess players should be deleted but the entire subparent Category:Jewish sportspeople or e.g. Category:Jewish astronomers would stay (for the sake of neutrality, I'm not a Jew). Brandmeister^talk 09:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that Category:Jewish astronomers should stay. It should require a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, at the same time, argue that the merits of individual intersections can be discussed individually, and that it's a prerequisite to put them all up for discussion together. Place Clichy (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete~~Conflicted. This intersection is trivial, specific religions and sports isn't a meaningful intersection. Moreover, the alternative solution doesn't make sense to categorize by country as that would just add another layer of intersection, if anything it would be by nationality. Mason (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking more about this and considering the arguments, I'm conflicted. On the one had, I don't think we should do specific sports by ethnicity, like African American basketball players, but I can see the merits of African American sportspeople. With that reasoning, I'm in support of a Jewish sportspeople category, but not specific sports, like chess.Mason (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brandmeister has hit the nail on the head by pointing out that Jews are ethnoreligious. In UK law, Jews and Sikhs are defined as ethnoreligious and, as such, are protected under the terms of our race relations and anti-discrimination statutes. While I would agree that categories for Anglican chess players or Catholic water polo players or Atheist gymnasts should be deleted, you cannot treat Jews or Sikhs in the same way. A category like Jewish gymnasts has the same authenticity as Category:English gymnasts. (Again in the spirit of neutrality, I am a British atheist.) PearlyGigs (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant that Jews are ethnoreligious. WP:OCEGRS refers both to ethnicity and religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PearlyGigs: As Marcocapelle said, EGRS/I advises against intersections with ethnicity and religion. Also, what authenticity does Category:English gymnasts have? The English people are an ethnic group, which intersects with their occupation – another EGRS/I violation. I was considering nominating it for deletion for that very reason, but I'll wait (at least a little bit), as nominations to make a point never go anywhere good. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Edward. Well, first of all, English is a nationality, nothing more. The English people, arguably the most diverse on Earth, are a multi-ethnic group.

The whole of WP:CAAP is an editing guideline, not an editing policy. If you look above OCEGRS at WP:EGRSD, it says that categorisation by ethnicity, religion and other attributes is permitted, although it acknowledges that controversy may arise. OCEGRS summarises intersections including ethnicity and religion but it rightly urges caution. It says intersections should not be created unless the characteristics are relevant and later says that a category for Swedish American politicians, for example, would be invalid, whereas one for Native American politicians is valid. Intersections should be used to split large categories such as those for LGBT people or, in this case, Jewish people. Such categories should only be created if the combination (e.g., Jewish gymnasts or English gymnasts) is a defining topic that is academically or culturally significant in its own right.

The fact that a gymnast is English is defining. Nationality defines a gymnast from England vis-à-vis a gymnast from another country. Religion per se is not defining because it doesn't matter if an English gymnast is Anglican or Catholic or atheist. But, if the gymnast belongs to an ethnoreligious group like Jewish or Sikh, that does define them. As I pointed out earlier, UK law actually defines Jews and Sikhs as ethnoreligious and grants them a status under the terms of our race relations and anti-discrimination statutes.

Below OCEGRS is WP:EGRS/E which considers ethnicity and race in more detail and, because it is a specific guideline, must take priority over OCEGRS which is generic. EGRS/E states that ethnic groups, including Jewish people, are commonly used for categorisation, while race is not. It gives the Jewish/Semitic example to illustrate the point. The reader is directed to List of contemporary ethnic groups in which Jews have possibly the largest entry.

While OCEGRS provides a useful overview of the guidelines, EGRS/E makes the points that actually count. If we had Category:Anglican gymnasts or Category:Atheist gymnasts, I would readily support their deletion on the grounds that they do not add value and are neither here nor there in terms of academic or cultural significance. But Category:Jewish gymnasts has both academic and cultural significance because of the ethnoreligious characteristic of Jewish people. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PearlyGigs, I hope you're well.

Firstly, from English people (emphasis mine): The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language... Regardless...

I maintain that the fundamental issue here is that being Jewish does not affect how people play, say, table tennis. The subjects are defined by being table tennis players and probably a myriad other things, but the intersection of being Jewish and playing table tennis is not. Also, how UK law defines things isn't particularly relevant.

Regarding EGRSD: it says that, broadly, categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability is permitted, but that, as you say it may cause controversy. It then goes on to comment, in various sections, about aspects of EGRS categorization, including specific intersections – which these categories are an example of. Here we come back to our old acquaintance, WP:EGRS/I.

Regarding your comment regarding WP:EGRS/E (which regards something, I hope) :

Below OCEGRS is WP:EGRS/E which considers ethnicity and race in more detail and, because it is a specific guideline, must take priority over OCEGRS which is generic. Maybe, if, that section actually addresses the issue at hand, which it does not. You are confusing broad categorizations of ethnic groups, which EGRS/E covers, like Category:Rohingya people, and intersections of ethnic group etc. with other aspects – like the categories in question – which EGRS/I covers.

Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, thanks, Edward, and hope you are also. I do understand your point of view but I'm looking beyond a Jewish person's sporting capability to the importance of Jewish people in ethnoreligious terms. I believe Wikipedia must recognise nationality and ethnicity because many readers will expect to find articles whose subjects have those characteristics. While the individual article should provide the information, the category helps the readers by providing a list of the articles. Anyway, it is right that all points of view are presented here and then consensus will decide the way forward. Thanks for your message and good wishes. Regards. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There are currently five related discussions about Jewish people which should be viewed collectively as the points raised are common to all – please see each of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 26#Category:Jews by occupation; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:Jewish sportswomen; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:Jewish sportsmen; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:Jewish athletes (track and field); and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 25#Category:Jewish chess players. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Jewish chess players, which of all of these, should have been a separate nom. There are several reasons, but I'll just cite Pilpul, which should be enough. - jc37 01:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a trivial intersection per WP:OCEGRS except Neutral on Category:Jewish chess players. If someone played in a specifically Jewish league or competition, such as the Maccabiah Games, then their article should be categorized in relation to this league or competition. Otherwise, sportspeople who just happen to be Jewish in generic leagues or competitions play ice hockey or water polo just as well as other competitors, I do not see any specificity there. It has been argued that there's something special for chess, so we can defer this one to another discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are individual subsets of a massive categorization scheme in Category:Jews by occupation. The main category needs to be debated first, and if that survives, these should too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that supporters of such intersection categories seem to never answer on the merits of individual intersections (which is however required by our guideline WP:EGRS/I). It is clear that some occupations in Category:Jews by occupation are relevant to Jewishness, and therefore the larger category tree is legitimate, for them. However, I also note that when we have had discussion on large batches of occupational categories, they often ended in "no consensus" due to the difficulty of holding such discussions. This is quite different from a vote of support. This refusal to discuss the individual merits and defer to an hypothetical discussion which can't be held is an avoidance tactic, it is not a constructive argument. Place Clichy (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:EGRS permits intersections by demographic with occupation where their identity is directly relevant, such as Category:Jewish artists, but not here. The other categories in Category:Jews by occupation that fail this test should be nominated separately. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Speaking specifically for chess, I don't know enough about the others—I don't think this particular intersection is trivial. The history of Jewish people in the sport is particular and noteworthy in itself; I think it constitutes relevance as per WP:OCEGRS.

— Remsense聊 23:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

[reply]

Keep - per Mike Selinker and Brandmeister. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People in Europe by century

Propose merging Category:13th-century people in Europe by country to Category:13th-century European people
Propose merging Category:14th-century people in Europe by country to Category:14th-century European people
Propose merging Category:15th-century people in Europe by country to Category:15th-century European people
Propose merging Category:16th-century people in Europe by country to Category:16th-century European people
Propose merging Category:17th-century people in Europe by country to Category:17th-century European people
Propose merging Category:18th-century people in Europe by country to Category:18th-century European people
Propose merging Category:19th-century people in Europe by country to Category:19th-century European people
Propose merging Category:20th-century people in Europe by country to Category:20th-century European people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two or three subcategories each. Moreover, if anyone would be willing to expand this, it would require "by occupation" in the name rather than "by country". The merge was suggested earlier in this rename discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Country and nationality are different. The people in Europe category is for people working in a specific European country. Several occupations draw the distinction between the country of work and the nationality of the person working. Mason (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is just unhelpful not to be able to navigate between the two. Besides, within Europe there is a very strong overlap between the two, can you tell which African or Asian kings there were in Europe? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some overlap, but the entire point of making this rename from "European people by country" last month was to make it clearer that nationality and country are distinct category structures. I'm be much more supportive of reparenting the "people in Europe" category to Category:20th-century in Europe if that would help. Mason (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It seems to me that there is over-categorisation here. For example, Category:20th-century monarchs in Europe is one of the three sub-categories of Category:20th-century people in Europe by country but it is also a sub-category of Category:20th-century rulers in Europe, which in turn is a sub-category of Category:20th-century European people. Given that the people in Europe sub-categories consist entirely of monarchs and bishops, plus 19th-century Ottoman governors, I doubt if any of the people were non-European and so the people in Europe categories are superfluous. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alfred Jolson is an American who is in the 20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Iceland. Mason (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These categories, as they stand now, seem to be a bad idea altogether, or an abandoned unfinished business. If there is at some point enough content for Nth-century fooers in Europe category, the parent categories should indeed probably be in the format of Category:Nth-century people in Europe by occupation, to avoid confusion with century categories in European people by nationality. Place Clichy (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, because the whole point of this hierarchy is to navigate by country of work (see Category:People by occupation and country) as opposed to country of origin (nationality). This hierarchy (started by an editor who is no longer active) was intended to draw together Bishops in Europe and Monarchs in Europe along with any other occupations categorised by country of work.

Within Category:People by occupation and continent, only nobility, religious leaders and rulers are sub-catted by country of work as opposed to origin. However, there is no worldwide parent by century and country of work. Perhaps we should repurpose and rename these and their parent without "Europe", creating scope to add in other categories elsewhere:

The Ottoman governors category can be removed, as it is not by country (it has sufficient other parents already e.g. Governors in Europe).

Alternatively, if the Europe structure is considered useful, then rename to Category:13th-century people in Europe by occupation and country of work etc. Worldwide head cats could still be added later.

I'm thinking aloud here, and open to better suggestions. – Fayenatic London 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic high schools in the United States by state or territory

Propose merging Category:Catholic high schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Catholic high schools in the United States
Propose merging Category:Catholic middle schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Catholic middle schools in the United States
Propose merging Category:Public preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Public preparatory schools in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. 1 sub-category. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: shouldn't this content be redistributed to the hierarchy of Category:Secondary schools in the United States, which seems to be a lot better organized? Place Clichy (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: ping. Place Clichy (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure what you would propose. There is already Category:Catholic secondary schools in California to parent the lone sub-cats in the first two noms. And the sub-cat in the third nom is already a few layers deep in Category:Secondary schools in California. What would you propose? –Aidan721 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Łopaciński family

Propose renaming Category:Łopaciński family to Category:Łopaciński family residences

Nominator's rationale: It either needs to be renamed or deleted, as there are no family members in the category. I couldn't find any English language pages for the category. Mason (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, only two articles and not even one family member (or, if kept, a rename to Category:Buildings and structures of the Łopaciński family probably fits better in the category tree, in Category:Buildings and structures by family). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the family is Łopaciński not Lopacinskiai Marcelus (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that unintended typo. Mason (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My original opinion was ~~Delete without prejudice~~, as the proposed new category would be WP:NARROWCAT, but I am seeing that a lot of the Category:Buildings and structures by family subcategories have only 2 members within so is it acceptable then?..Respublik (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiśniowiecki family residences

Propose merging Category:Wiśniowiecki family residences to Category:Wiśniowiecki family

Nominator's rationale: 1 page in category Mason (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I did populate the category with 3 new items; I really encourage other participants of the discussion to check more troughly the subject before nominating/voting. For example Zbarazh Castle was in the parent category.Marcelus (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for populating! Mason (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still merge per nom. Houses are not generally categorized by family. Having them in the general family category is sufficient enough for navigation. Additionally, the residences are already listed at Wiśniowiecki#Gallery_of_estates. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa

Propose merging Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa to Category:Physicians from Genoa

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category where the intersection between regime and occupation and nationality isn't defining Mason (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The lone article (Ignazio Cardini) was from Corsica not Genoa. The Republic of Genoa had more territory than just modern-day Genoa. Simple deletion is an option as the article is already in Category:16th-century Genoese people. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Deletion is then the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We are talking about two entirely different administrative units (the older one - Republic of Genoa - is also by far more important and historical than the current one, WP:RECENTISM). The fact that one of them no longer exists or has a different territorial extent it's not a valid point, it would be like deleting (or including elsewhere) the category:People from the Republic of Florence", "category:Republic of Venice people", "category:Grand Duchy of Tuscany people", etc. If need be, we could consider a more precise placement or name... --teatroge (dm) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can all agree that Category:16th-century Genoese people should be renamed to Category:16th-century people from the Republic of Genoa, and similarly the other centuries. If that would be done we would not have to disagree on a single-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this rename: Category:16th-century Genoese people should be renamed to Category:16th-century people from the Republic of Genoa Mason (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that this type of categorization can be academically accepted. It's a complex issue from an archival perspective, which has been studied for many years and needs to be approached rigorously and without haste. Let me try to explain using a very similar example. Italy and Italian citizenship only exist from 1861 onwards. Moreover, modern Italy only exists from 1946. Yet, no one would ever dream of saying that Leonardo da Vinci or Raphael were not Italian (in fact, both biographies unequivocally state them as "Italians"). Why? The reason is simple: there's a distinction between the people (that is, that set of individuals with a historically shared culture, traditions, and customs) and administrative divisions. These are two entirely different aspects, both importan, but in different ways and with different meanings. Both categorizations have the encyclopedic dignity to exist, but for different purposes.

The same can be said about the Genoese (a population with specific tradition, history and customs, recognized by dozens of authoritative academic sources and different from the Italians), I could suggest this book for example.
I hope I have explained myself well. If there are any questions I haven't answered, please feel free to ask. --teatroge (dm) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Teatroge: it is not clear to me whether you support or oppose the nomination, or whether you support or oppose my later comment. Marcocapelle (talk)

@Marcocapelle: I'm sorry, I can become verbose at times since English is not my mother tongue. :-) I believe renaming the Category:16th-century Genoese people in that way is incorrect (oppose). Following the rationale of the proposal, it's similar to the Category:16th-century Neapolitan people‎, Category:16th-century Venetian people‎ or Category:16th-century Sicilian people. This was the name for the citizens of that administrative unit, and also, many populations in the world have existed before the respective nation was administratively founded (Italian people are the best example: Italy has only existed since 1861 but even Dante Alighieri, born in 1265, was already Italian). Thus, the current category seems appropriate; renaming it would be wrong. If we want to rename that category, we have to decide a general standard beforehand. Rather, I think it would be more appropriate to populate the category we are talking about and maybe create similar ones for additional activities (only when appropriate and with enough articles available), which I could also do if there are no deletions 'hanging over the situation'. :-) I did a brief search among the articles and found a couple more suitable for the category. Is it better now? --teatroge (dm) 01:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Teatroge: well, I apparently disagree with you, if only on the fact that you call independent countries like the republic of Genoa and the republic of Venice "administrative units". But we can better continue this conversation when that renaming nomination actually takes place. For now the proposal is just to merge Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa to Category:Physicians from Genoa for an article about someone who lived in Corsica. That is apparently wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Yes, you're right. I'll be happy to continue the conversation wherever you prefer.

In the meantime, you can read a short reply to your point in this hidden box :-)

I used the general term "administrative unit" to be as comprehensive as possible. By that term, I simply meant to refer to any organized human entity with some form of statutory organization, rules, and hierarchies (be it a nation, a federation, a municipality, a republic, a fiefdom, a commune, a tribe). Tying a population (such as the Genoese, Italians, etc.) exclusively to these kinds of organizations is a simplification that can be applied in some cases but not in others. It needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The situation of the Italic populations is just one example; however, this applies to many other populations in Latin America, Northern Europe, and Asia, among others. The further back in time you go, the more evident this becomes. Regarding the Genuati, for instance, who are the earliest historically known inhabitants of Genoa, there are certain records dating back to 117 BC. In the following centuries, they are referred to as Genoese (especially after their encounter with the Romans), but obviously, they cannot be framed within any specific administrative unit, although they fall under the category of Genoese exactly as the people of Republic of Genoa, and what about, then, the Repubblica Genovese (1814-1815)? This also applies to the Helvetii, the Quechua, the Jews, the Inuit, etc. In short, it is a complex topic. :-) I apologize for this short off-topic!

Cheers, --teatroge (dm) 06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that attempting to categorize people by the myriad of small states of feudal and early modern Europe (and, in the case of Italy and Germany, until 1861/1871) is dangerous and borderline useless. In any case, intersecting them with occupations is tricky and a can of worms. Even more so if it is done in a hit-and-run fashion of creating a poorly-defined category, adding a lone article and moving. Back to basics: we define topics and people by their defining characteristics. In the cases at hand, the physicians there are primarily defined as Corsican, and Genoese in the case of the 2 that were added since this nomination started. That's how they should be categorized, because that's how reliable sources consider them. There are parent categories such as Category:People from the Republic of Genoa (the previous name People of the Republic of Genoa may have been in fact better) where some articles can be put if needed only (i.e. if they are strongly associated with that state). Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: I agree that the previous name People of the Republic of Genoa was better. About the sentence "attempting to categorize people by the myriad of small states of feudal Europe", the Republic of Genoa lasted from 1099 to 1797 (and from 1814 to 1815), longer than the majority of nations currently existing in the world. But please help me to understand your suggestion: would you categorize those physicians in Category:Genoese physicians and Category:Corsican physicians? In this case I agree, It seems a good idea to me. --teatroge (dm) 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would place Ignazio Cardini in both a Corsican and a Republic of Genoa category, seen the little we know of him with this 3-line un-sourced article. However, this does not need to be a physicians category, as there is not really an imperious need to intersect occupations with every local geography. Cardini was living in Corsica in the 16th century under Genoese rule, and is presented as being Italian himself, so it is perfectly fine to have him in 16th-century Italian physicians (as you would place Dante Alighieri in an Italian writers category), next to Category:People from Bastia and Category:16th-century Genoese people (itself a child of Category:People from the Republic of Genoa). Place Clichy (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Establishments in Germany (Holy Roman Empire period)

Propose merging Category:1280s establishments in Germany to Category:1280s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1260s establishments in Germany to Category:1260s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1250s establishments in Germany to Category:1250s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1240s establishments in Germany to Category:1240s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1220s establishments in Germany to Category:1220s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1210s establishments in Germany to Category:1210s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1200s establishments in Germany to Category:1200s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1170s establishments in Germany to Category:1170s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1150s establishments in Germany to Category:1150s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1130s establishments in Germany to Category:1130s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
Propose merging Category:1120s establishments in Germany to Category:1120s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: All German categories nominated here link to the Holy Roman Empire. Germany did not exist in this time period. Merge (and redirect) all per WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as proposed. Germany was not united until 1871. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Kingdom of Germany (843-16th century) existed, and the Holy Roman Empire also covered areas of the Italian Peninsula. Dimadick (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Dimadick is right and, as the scope of these categories is evidently limited to locations in modern Germany, my preference is to rename them from "establishments in Germany" to "establishments in the Kingdom of Germany". I've struck out my previous entry above. PearlyGigs (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick is not right, the article is clear about the fact that it was one country for which various names have been used in the course of history. The name by which is best known in current historiography is Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle is correct. Kingdom of Germany and East Francia refer to the same entity and existed from 843–962, being succeeded by the Holy Roman Empire. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose: The kingdom of Germany and the Empire were distinct entities, one of which was a subset of the other (see P. H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire 2016, chapter 4). In the High Middle Ages, the HRE also contained the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Italy (855–1801), and the Kingdom of Arles. By 1500, this had become basically irrelevant as Arles was gone and Italy barely participated (it still used the HRE imperial court). Furius (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... but all of these Germany categories are tiny and none of the HRE ones contain any Italian material, so I withdraw the "oppose" and sit back on the fence. Furius (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking this related discussion from April 2022. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_11#Germany_1000-1803. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous Mexican schools

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Indigenous Mexican schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Indigenous Mexican schools by state or territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Indigenous Mexican schools in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Hispanic and Latino American schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Hispanic and Latino American schools by state or territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Hispanic and Latino American schools in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROW. Not a useful way to categorize schools. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hispanics are a relative majority in California I believe. Articles about these schools do not give much information on what is special in their curriculum, or in their recruitment. Place Clichy (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I tagged Category:Minority schools in California.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the cfd tag from Category:Minority schools in California as it is a parent of Category:Native American schools in California. Why are you adding it back to the nomination? This could have been closed as delete. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan721, tiredness I suppose. Please remove it from the nomination rather than just removing the tag, in future. Qwerfjkl talk 08:11, 25 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:Phalia

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

Nominator's rationale: No need for a category for this town. Most of the entries are notable people, who can be, and often are, listed in the town's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, create a subCategory:People from Phalia tehsil. If not kept, split to Category:Mandi Bahauddin District and Category:People from Mandi Bahauddin District. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Category:Villages in Phalia Tehsil can probably be listed at the article too, I guess. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create Category:People from Phalia Tehsil. There are 5 biographies in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are three very different proposals going around; more participation would be very welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster^talk 16:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic Albanian rebels

Propose deleting Category:Ethnic Albanian rebels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: same problem as the rest of the ethnic Albanian categories [1] Mason (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to include new categories. Pinging. @Marcocapelle@Place Clichy Mason (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ethnic Albanian military personnel to Category:Albanian military personnel
Propose merging Category:Ethnic Albanian activists to Category:Albanian activists

Mason (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, these were Albanian rebels against the Ottoman Empire before the state of Albania existed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, they're Albanian rebels nonetheless, in the same fashion that one talks about the Albanian National Awakening, not the Ethnic Albanian National Awakening. Place Clichy (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or more precisely merge to Category:Albanian rebels. If RS call these rebels Albanian, so should we. It is not practical to have duplicate trees like this. Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support upmerging the two other categories added to the nomination, for the same reasons. Place Clichy (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the same user has in the meantime created Category:Ethnic Albanian military personnel and Category:Ethnic Albanian activists. Place Clichy (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. @Johnpacklambert seems to have a disruptive streak/(WP:DONTGETIT) when it comes to ethnicity, nationality, and the like... Mason (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge Category:Ethnic Albanian rebels to Category:Albanian rebels as both categories concern (ethnic) Albanian rebels against the Ottoman Empire. Note that merging is something very different than deletion! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging Category:Ethnic Albanian military personnel to Category:Albanian military personnel since the former category contains military personnel of the Ottoman Empire while the latter category military personnel of the state of Albania, those should not be lumped together. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging Category:Ethnic Albanian activists to Category:Albanian activists since the former category Albanian independence activists against the Ottoman Empire while the latter category activists of any sort in the state of Albania (or in exile), those should not be lumped together. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not true: the latter category activists of any sort in the state of Albania (or in exile). (1) The first category is an unfinished business created by a mass creator of bogus categories, populated with 2 articles and left to stand there, while the second is a long-standing one that has demonstrated its usefulness by the number of articles and sub-categories that users have trusted it with over the years, in full understanding of what Albanian activists means. (2) Looking at the content (and name) of Category:Albanian activists, I would describe it as a category for activists that reliable sources primarily call Albanians, whereas their state of residence or citizenship is Albania proper, the Ottoman Empire (plenty of them) or, in rarer cases, other countries. (3) The difference between the two notions is not feasible in practice. How do you treat people who where both Albanian activists within the Ottoman Empire before independence and in Albania after, such as Sali Butka or Thoma Avrami? How do you treat the most important child Category:Activists of the Albanian National Awakening, precisely because the Albanian National Awakening movement describes events and people both before and after independence? Place Clichy (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: if incidentally people (or a subcategory) belongs in two subcategories, so be it. I still don't get why you have a problem with keeping a nationality in one country and an ethnicity in another country in two different categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic Greek people

Propose deleting Category:Ethnic Greek people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:Ethnic Greek politicians to Category:Greek politicians

Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this category at the intersection of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation is defining. This situation seems really similar to this CfD about "ethnic" Armenians. Mason (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, these are people who kept their original Greek language and Christian religion after the Muslims conquered Anatolia. The lone article in Category:Greek politicians may be moved to Category:Greeks from the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. We discussed that extensively here which is worth reading. In short, nobody self-identifies as an ethnic Greek. Greeks that lived in the Ottoman Empire would have self-identified as just Greeks, not ethnic Greeks. I don't think it is appropriate to make a difference between people who held a passport from the Greek state and those who didn't because (a) the reliable sources will always call them Greek and not ethnic Greek (b) this can change throughout the life of the same individual and (c) in many or most cases it is impossible to know for sure. There are already several categories available to better describe the precise situations: Greeks from the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Greeks, Byzantine people, People of medieval Greece, Greek Cypriot people, Pontic Greeks, People of Greek descent etc. No need for a duplicate tree that can never be properly filled. @Cplakidas, Fayenatic london, Johnpacklambert, and Mondiad: participants to the previous discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per my arguments in the previous discussion. This category only invites POV-minded debates about what an 'ethnic Greek' is vs a plain 'Greek'. Constantine ✍ 14:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I grok the problem here, in that the one person in the "politicians" category was ethnically of Greek heritage but was not a politician in Greece, and therefore wasn't a "Greek politician" in the correct sense of that phrase — but if he wasn't a politician in Greece, then being of Greek ethnicity isn't defining in relation to his politics at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporters of deletion seem to oversee that Category:Ethnic Greek people is mostly a container category. The only effect of deletion is that the subcategories become orphaned. I can't imagine anyone wants that?? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be orphaned. They'll be categorized just how they were before the ethnicizers of everything created this prefixed nonsense, and how they have been fine for years, e.g. in Category:Greek diaspora. I just checked that nothing would be orphaned, or restored relevant parent categories that were wrongfully removed. Place Clichy (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Place Clichy: my point is, they aren't diaspora. They and their ancestors have always lived in Anatolia, as a linguistic-religious ethnic group, as the remnants of the Byzantine Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noble titles by country

Propose merging Category:Noble titles by country to Category:Titles of nobility by country

Propose merging Category:German titles of nobility to Category:German noble titles

Nominator's rationale: I *think* that these are overlapping categories. But if someone who is knowledgeable to sees the difference, perhaps there's a good way make that distinction clearer Mason (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there is no difference in scope, but reverse merge Category:Titles of nobility by country to Category:Noble titles by country and the other countries should be added to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Smasongarrison, which direction are you suggesting the merge take place? Your proposal has conflicting directions for the parent and the one subcat. You also left out the Spanish (a/b), French (a/b), Dutch (a/b) and British (a/b) categories. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Honestly, I don't have a clear direction on the merge. I found the German category first, and then realized it was a much bigger web, and decided to bring the category here for other people's wisdom. Mason (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: The Fooian noble titles branch, I think, should be for the titles granted to people (duke, earl, etc.), and the Noble titles in Foo branch for their associated domains (dukedoms, earldoms, etc). Further clean-up is evidently needed, but if the distinction can be made clear they could probably remain separate.
Background: Previously, the Fooian noble titles categories were a jumbled mess containing both concept articles and people subcategories. Following this 2021 CfD, I separated the people subcats into Fooian nobles by title, leaving the concept articles in the respective Fooian noble titles cats. The Fooian titles of nobility branch is a long-standing separate tree. I think I attempted a bit to clarify the distinction according to the above explanation, but gave up as I wasn't quite able to draw a clear line. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the targets as well to allow discusssion for a merge either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French-language Occitan writers

Propose deleting Category:French-language Occitan writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. All four articles (1, 2, 3, 4) are for 19th- and 20th-century French writers from the region of Occitania who wrote some or most of their work in French. It is not defining for French writers to write in French, hence we don't need such a category (that's why there is no Category:French writers in French or Category:French-language writers from France). Other parent categories for European writers or Writers by nationality are out of place because they are all French and Occitan was never a nationality. No merge is needed as all members are already in other Occitan-language categories. Place Clichy (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is the opposite of what you would expect, namely Occitan-language writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the category's description: "This category is for French writers defined by their Occitan culture, but who did not necessarily write in the Occitan language." Are you suggesting we keep these four articles in Category:Occitan writers without subcategorizing them? The issue is that if we assume that Occitan writers are French-language writers and categorize them as such, then all non-French-language Occitan writer categories become subcategories of French-language writers, which is inaccurate. --Iketsi (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should delete Category:Occitan writers altogether and move any Occitan-language content from there to Category:Occitan-language writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, besides this bogus French-language category, all the rest of Category:Occitan writers is redundant with Category:Occitan-language writers. Hardly surprising, as there never was an Occitan nation and Occitan people are primarily defined as such because of the language. Place Clichy (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, would it be worth adding that category to this nom? Qwerfjkl talk 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: I'd prefer a separate nomination, it would become quite complicated to add it here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Are you suggesting we keep these four articles in Category:Occitan writers without subcategorizing them? As written above, all 4 articles are already in more precise child categories of Category:Occitan writers: Provençal-language Occitan writers, Occitan-language Occitan writers, Félibres or Occitan poets. Per WP:SUBCAT, they shouldn't be also kept at the root of Occitan writers. Place Clichy (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that Iketsi's concerns above were all answered. Namely, all articles in this category will be kept in Occitan-related categories, often more precise ones. The purpose of this nomination is just to remove the non-defining French-language category. Place Clichy (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture of Karelia

Propose renaming Category:Culture of Karelia to Category:Karelian culture

Nominator's rationale: based on the content of the category.Everything here is connected specifically with the Karelian people (with the exception of the "Culture of the Republic of Karelia" category, which needs to be swapped with) I suggest 1) remove from here the category "Culture of the Republic of Karelia" 2) And to the already changed category,add this category :

Category:Karelian people
Category:Culture of Russia by ethnicity
Category:European culture by ethnic group
Category:Culture of Finland
Category:Culture of the Republic of Karelia

It seems to me that this will be more informative and rational more consistent with some standards for sorting categories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miikul (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, with a few questions @Miikul:
- What's the difference with Category:Karelian-Finnish folklore ?
- I note that Category:Finnish mythology is presently a child category of both Category:Culture of Karelia and Category:Karelian-Finnish folklore. Is all of Finnish mythology Karelian? This leads to weird category chains: Finnish folklore/Folklore of Russia => Karelian-Finnish folklore => Finnish mythology => Sámi mythology.

Place Clichy (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that if we take a strict definition of mythology, then Karelian and Finnish mythology are essentially the same, for example, everything from Finnish deities is also in “Karelian mythology” - but a look at folklore among peoples, different. In general, the category about “Finnish mythology” has some chaos, for example, articles about Hammaspeikko - not a mythological character in the strict sense of the word, but a literary invention. The category itself, about "Finnish mythology", most likely also needs to be renamed and cleaned up... Miikul (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that having a subcategory here related to Sami mythology will be disorienting. Borders of countries and boundaries of cultural areas are very different things.... Miikul (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Christian hymnwriters by nationality

Propose merging Category:British Christian hymnwriters by nationality to Category:British Christian hymnwriters

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization Mason (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added to nomination as suggested below)
Propose merging Category:British Christians by constituent country to Category:British Christians
Propose merging Category:British military personnel killed in action by nationality to Category:British military personnel killed in action

Merge as a useless redundant layer. May I suggest the following categories with similar features?

Place Clichy (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Updated nomination. Note that I proposed deleting the foundational category: Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom" Mason (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redundant category layer. Shouldn't Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom be merged too, to Category:British people? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ deletion of Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom since that would remove English people, Welsh people etc from British people, British people by ethnic or national origin and People by first-level administrative country subdivision. Although it could be merged to the first and second of these, it is necessary to keep it as the UK sub-cat of the last. Instead of deletion, I suggest renaming it to Category:British people by nationality. No objection to merging the other nominated categories, as incomplete hierarchies by occupation/religion/cause of death. – Fayenatic London 15:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would be wrong with having English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Ireland people categories at the root of Category:British people, probably with an appropriate sort key, as for all other children people categories? After all, Category:People from Northern Ireland is also at the root of Category:Irish people. Place Clichy (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I was not clear enough. Merging People by nationality within the United Kingdom would be better than deleting as nominated, but one thing would still be wrong with merging, namely leaving the UK without a category in People by first-level administrative country subdivision. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. that makes sense! I hadn't considered "People by first-level administrative country subdivision." I had a similar reasoning as @Place Clichy. I'm not sure I like the rename "British people by nationality" as Wales is a tad nebulous (like I don't think it's treated a its own kingdom, but i could be wrong). What about British people by nationality in the United Kingdom ... ok maybe not that. But I think we should try for a rename that looks a little bit distinct from "X people by nationality" Mason (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a better choice would probably be Category:British people by country, within United Kingdom by country, as "British" is the nationality. I think "by country" should just mean the four Countries of the United Kingdom, unlike Category:British writers by location which also holds writers from Crown dependencies, British overseas territories and former colonies. – Fayenatic London 09:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really have an issue with having British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies people together with other British people (they are usually found at the root of each Category:British fooers), but by location categories also include lower-level locations such as counties and cities. Category:British writers by location also has Category:British writers by city in it. Place Clichy (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from obvious that said countries/nationalities are in fact the first-level administrative subdivision of the UK. The dedicated article states that: "The administrative geography of the United Kingdom is complex, multi-layered and non-uniform." For administrative purposes, the UK itself considers the 9 regions of England as its first-level subdivisions, next to 3 entities with different statuses called Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (rather than a common administrative status that would be called 'constituent/home country/nation'). That's true both before (NUTS1) and after Brexit (ITL). So I don't think it is so big an issue not to have a British category in People by first-level administrative country subdivision, it just does not apply. I don't really see the use of a rump category with only the four English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Ireland people categories and nothing else. Place Clichy (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there are some additional occupational subcats which were not being collected here, e.g. police officers which has now been nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:British police officers by nationality. Category:British politicians by nationality was in the category, but has been emptied in good faith (albeit out-of-process) by Place Clichy. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This must be a reference to this edit, in which I indeed attempted to do some clean-up and standardization in the way Template:Fooian fooers is used on British categories. This whole discussion may be a consequence of the fact that {{Fooian fooers}} is massively deployed on E/NI/S/W occupational categories. This template, through parameter ParentNationality=British (which is legitimate, obviously), will add a parent category British fooers with a blank space ' ' as sort key. This would be utterly redundant with a Category:British fooers by nationality/home country/home nation next to it, and conflict with WP:SUBCAT. So this tree never developed into something consistent (there is a more refined tree for topic categories at United Kingdom by country, though).

I think there are 2 options available: either (1) continue with the present logic of things and clean up the few categories that do not fit the pattern, or (2) change the logic, replace or remove {{Fooian fooers}} on hundreds of categories, and create British fooers by country/nation/whatever at every level. I am not completely against option (2) a priori, although as I wrote above it is harder than it seems to determine what UK first-level divisions are. However I believe the logic should be consistent throughout (and option (2) would be a LOT more work). Place Clichy (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Place Clichy for your replies. I note that the article Administrative geography of the United Kingdom states that the four Countries of the United Kingdom "are not comparable to administrative subdivisions of most other countries."

I also note that Category:United Kingdom by country, which is quite a full hierarchy between E/NI/S/W (e.g. Geography of the United Kingdom by country), is the UK sub-cat of Category:First-level administrative divisions by country. I considered whether it should be removed from there, and do not think that would be useful. One alternative, of replacing it with a new intermediate layer comprising 9 English regions + the other 3 Home Nations, would be even more cumbersome.

I was reluctant to let go of People by nationality within the United Kingdom as the "people" subcat of Category:United Kingdom by country, preferably renamed to British people by country; but I guess we could get by without it.

I see the advantages of your option (1). As e.g. English artists sits directly in British artists, then let English people be held directly within British people. (I picked Artists at random, but it is an interesting example as there are overseas territory and crown dependency siblings there too.) – Fayenatic London 15:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So: oppose changed to support, but merge Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom to Category:British people rather than deleting it as currently listed in the nom. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums produced by John Cornfield

Propose deleting Category:Albums produced by John Cornfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Parent article (John Cornfield) was deleted at AfD, thus this is not a "notable" category. Natg 19 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The producer of an album is a defining attribute of that album. Whether the producer is notable by WP standards is another matter that would be decided on other matters, like celebrity. (As per WP guidelines which confirms that an article need not exist to support a category). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richhoncho. Categories do not have notability requirements, they are meant to group articles about notable topics into their defining aspects. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from the Dominion of Newfoundland to the United Kingdom

Propose merging Category:Emigrants from the Dominion of Newfoundland to the United Kingdom to Category:Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: small, overlapping cat with an unhelpful distinction. I'd also support merging Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United Kingdom to Canadian emigrants to the United Kingdom, under the same reasoning Mason (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alt merge to Category:Canadian emigrants to the United Kingdom~~, as Pre-Confederation Canada refers to the period before 1867, while the Dominion of Newfoundland existed between 1907 and 1949. The distinction brings little value, although Newfoundland was administratively a separate dominion. Category:Dominion of Newfoundland people could be a secondary merge target, but both articles are already in more precise Newfoundland categories (Alastair Mars in Newfoundland military personnel of World War II and Eric Robertson (athlete) in Newfoundland Colony people and Newfoundland military personnel of World War I). Place Clichy (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete may be a possible outcome as well, as it doesn't seem that the 'emigrant' status is defining in any way for these two individuals. They were born in St. John's, Newfoundland, but the actions for which they are primarily known seem to indicate that they were considered British in the first place: Alastair Mars for his career in the Royal Navy (joining as a 17-year-old cadet in 1932), and Eric Robertson (athlete) as a marathon runner for Great Britain at the 1920 Olympics in Antwerp, where he was grabbed from the stands at the last minute to join an under-manned team. Neither article elaborates on any change of national affiliation, because by all appearances there was none. Place Clichy (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Place Clichy. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose calling people from the Dominion of Newfoundland, in effect, "pre-Canadians" is presupposing that the were always actually secret Canadians, destined to join that country; it's highly anachronistic. A much better solution is to remove the "pre-Confederation" tag from all of our categories about British colonies that later became part of Canada, and instead have Category:People from Nova Scotia (colony), etc. 67kevlar (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@67kevlar: indeed I agree that in many cases these people are better described in relations to the Newfoundland Dominion that by later Canada. However it is the emigrants part that is disputable here. If you read arguments above, I actually wrote that articles in this category are in Newfoundland World War I, World War II and Colony people, and that they cannot be called emigrants to the United Kingdom. Hence the suggestion to delete, i.e. just remove them from Category:Emigrants from the Dominion of Newfoundland to the United Kingdom. Would you agree with this outcome? Place Clichy (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 67kevlar. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Newfoundland was a separate dominion until 1949. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721 and Necrothesp: actually, the 2 articles here will be kept in Newfoundland Dominion categories. The issue is the "emigrants to the United Kingdom" part. They were both British from birth, not immigrants, and have nothing to do there is the first place. Would you agree to just delete the category, instead of merging it as initially proposed? Place Clichy (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As was anyone else from the British Empire, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. Do you plan on purging these categories of anyone who came to Britain when this was the case? Because that, I can assure you, will be a losing battle. And given that, it makes no sense to delete this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Necrothesp here. The modern concept of "emigration" and "immigration" as leaving one sovereign nation sate for another doesn't really apply at all to movement within the British Empire, however, in the broader sense, these people were leaving one self-governing area to a very geographically remote and therefore culturally distinct place for a very different one. We perhaps have to decide if we rank legalities or geographies as more important here. 67kevlar (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from pre-Confederation New Brunswick to the United States

Propose merging Category:Emigrants from pre-Confederation New Brunswick to the United States to Category:Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United States

Nominator's rationale: small overlapping cat, where I doubt it makes a difference from which pre-confederation colony they emigrated from Mason (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the nom may not understand pre-Confederation Canadian history. From 1784 to 1867, what is now the province of New Brunswick was the Colony of New Brunswick. It was separate from Canada politically and governed separately. That is why Category:Colony of New Brunswick people exists. Moreover, merging this category as described would remove the now 11 articles from Category:Colony of New Brunswick people so that the proposal needs to be rectified at the very least. Grouping people from different colonies together in pre-Confederation Canada doesn't make much sense and, honestly, I would like to see categories like the one nominated created for each province. Note: I have added 10 articles in approximately 7 minutes. Smallcat is not a useful rationale for this category.--User:Namiba 15:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, as you are correct that I was unaware of the distinction. I'm thrilled that the category is more populated now. Mason (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nambia. I've also noticed that multiple articles placed in the Canadian emigrants category can fall under the New Brunswick Category, so I'll work on moving the ones in question to the right category. Additionally, I feel that the parent category is a bit messy and could really use some further categories to better sort the people listed under it. Possibly add new categories for Ontario and Quebec? B3251 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
update: being bold and adding new categories for at least Quebec and Ontario to further help categorize the articles. B3251 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using the political designations used at the time, i.e. Lower Canada, Upper Canada and so on. Ontario didn't exist until Confederation. So prior to Confederation, it would have been Canada West.--User:Namiba 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could the category be interpreted as what makes up modern-day Ontario? My only concern about this is that it seems that a number of the articles do not mention whether the individual was born in Lower Canada, Upper Canada, Canada West, etc. B3251 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be included, we need to look up which designation existed during that person's birth / residence in the province / colony. Canada West was not coterminous with modern day Ontario.--User:Namiba 17:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian, I would suggest we not split hairs. Upper Canada and Canada West were not radically different things from modern Ontario; they were just different names for what's always been fundamentally the same thing. (It's also a digression from what this discussion is about, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with New Brunswick.) It's a real technical distinction in history, yes, but it's not particularly helpful to the reader to pedantically overcomplicate the category system with an explosion of narrowcast microcategories for purely technical distinctions that don't represent meaningful differences in context. It would be like saying we need to start a new category every time a sports team changes its name, even though it's still the same entity. Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Emigrants from the Colony of New Brunswick to the United States to be clearer. All entries are people from the Colony of New Brunswick who moved to the United States. Similar rationale to reason to keep as Namiba. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or rename. As noted by most commenters above, the issue here is that New Brunswick was not part of what constituted Canada in the pre-Confederation era, so it would be entirely incorrect to categorize a person from New Brunswick in the 1820s, 1830s, 1840s or 1850s as "Canadian". I'll grant that a New Brunswick category should be kept as a subcategory of a Canadian category anyway (just as this already is) for ease of navigation (i.e. the location of New Brunswick categories needs to be predictable to the uninitiated even if they don't have the background knowledge to know that New Brunswick wasn't already part of Canada yet in that era), but it would be entirely inappropriate to merge the categories. Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writing systems derived from the Chinese

Propose renaming Category:Writing systems derived from the Chinese to Category:Writing systems derived from Chinese characters

Nominator's rationale: Awkward category name Remsense聊 18:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update Incorporating Folly Mox's suggestion, I'm currently in favor of merging this and Category:Chinese scripts into Category:Writing systems using Chinese characters. Remsense聊 17:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese scripts

Propose renaming Category:Chinese scripts to Category:Writing systems using Chinese characters

Nominator's rationale: 'script' is a particularly ambiguous term here, the purely stylistic sense of 'script' has another category Remsense聊 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is Chinese family of scripts, wouldn't that be a good category title too? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, actually! Nice one. Remsense聊 23:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "script" in the Chinese orthography sense isn't really ambiguous, and its technical use is super well established in English language literature: see e.g. Small seal script, Ancient Script Texts, Clerical script etc. However the meaning of the word doesn't match up with the contents of the category, which is using "script" more like "alphabet". I'm not sure I see the a rename from Category:Chinese scripts to Category:Chinese family of scripts solving that. I think the proposed title Category:Writing systems using Chinese characters is precise and correct, but it's a little clunky. Of course, not all of these writing systems use the same orthographic lexicon: for example there are Kanji which are not Hanzi and vice versa, and presumably the same goes for Hanja etc, but I don't think that invalidates the proposed name. Folly Mox (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update Incorporating Folly Mox's suggestion, I'm currently in favor of merging this and Category:Writing systems derived from the Chinese into Category:Writing systems using Chinese characters. Remsense聊 17:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think I suggested anything for this one: I just agreed with your proposed rename title.

But I'm not sure I'm 100% sold on merging those two categories. I think it's worthwhile to continue to distinguish between Chinese characters and written figures derived therefrom. Maybe Category:Writing systems using Chinese characters for this one, and Category:Writing systems using Chinese character derivatives for the other? Or Category:Writing systems using modified Chinese characters for the other? I'm not entirely opposed to a catmerge either, for clarity, but it does seem a little imprecise if we're going to be using the term "Chinese characters" when talking about e.g. Bopomofo. Apologies if this isn't what you meant. Folly Mox (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've now gone back to them being separate categories, hmm. Category:Writing systems using Chinese characters and Category:Writing systems derived from Chinese characters maybe? Remsense聊 00:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writers by Occitan dialect

Propose merging Category:Gascon-language Occitan writers to Category:Occitan-language writers
Propose merging Category:Occitan-language Occitan writers to Category:Occitan-language writers
Propose merging Category:Provençal-language Occitan writers to Category:Occitan-language writers.

Nominator's rationale: merge per. Gascon dialect and Provençal dialect are just dialects of the Occitan language and we do not usually categorize writers by dialect. This is follow-up on this pending discussion, pinging User:Place Clichy and User:Iketsi contributors to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Han character input

Propose renaming Category:Han character input to Category:Chinese character input

Nominator's rationale: consistent with almost the entire rest of the site as per 'Chinese characters' over 'Han characters' Remsense聊 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In computing, 漢字 usually are (or at least used to be) called "han" characters (or glyphs), but CJK might be better known today. I'm not sure if CJK refers specifically to the Unicode block and has nothing to do with the older encodings like Big5 or GB 2312, but I do know that the articles in this category are not exclusively about CJK graphs for Chinese language purposes: for example, it contains Japanese input method and Korean language and computers. I think Category:CJK input methods or Category:CJK ideograph input might be better rename targets. Folly Mox (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
certainly, i would support category:CJK input methods and just accept that articles pertaining to hangul or hiragana might end up in a subcategory of category:chinese characters Remsense聊 15:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' it should use "CJKV", as these are the regions with the historic use of this script characters. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I'm currently supporting Folly Mox's suggestion of Category:CJK input methods. Remsense聊 17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license

Propose merging Category:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license to Category:Formerly free software

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a WP:OVERLAPCAT with no reason to exist separately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Formerly open-source or free software, per List of formerly open-source or free software. - jc37 15:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: I disagree, as open-source already implies the software is free. I think the list should instead be moved to List of formerly free software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name of the article: Free and open-source software. I'm not an expert in these things, but my understanding isthat there's a difference between free software and free-to-license software. See also: Open-source software#Free software and Comparison of free and open-source software licenses. - jc37 19:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the cat, but I'm now not sure it was a good idea. I seem to remember also creating a cat for Category:Permissively-licensed software converted to a copyleft license (e.g. Friendica), and vice-versa, Category:Copyleft software converted to a permissive license (e.g. Mycroft AI). We have Category:Free software by license and Category:Software by license; I'd like to also cat it by license transition (Category:Software by license transitions).

We have Category:Formerly free software and Category:Formerly proprietary software. I'm with jc37 on the ambiguous meaning of "free". Software can be "free" but proprietary (using it does not cost money), and "open-source" but proprietary and not free (you can see the source code, but copying it is illegal and using it may cost money). I'd prefer using unambiguous categories of license: copyleft, permissive, and proprietary is the main division.

But we already have a Wikipedia-cat definition of "free" software, given at Category:Free software. So we can subcategorize "free" into copyleft and permissive licenses.

So... I suggest we merge and subdivide. We subdivide the huge Category:Formerly proprietary software into Category:Proprietary software converted to a permissive license and Category:Proprietary software converted to a copyleft license. Likewise, Category:Formerly free software and Category:Open-source software converted to a proprietary license could be merged and have subcats Category:Copyleft software converted to a proprietary license and Category:Permissively-licensed software converted to a proprietary license,

HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ankylosaurian stubs

Propose deleting Category:Ankylosaurian stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stubs category with less than 50 pages, upmerge to Category:Ornithischian stubs. Andumé (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Chinese script

Propose renaming Category:History of the Chinese script to Category:History of Chinese characters

Nominator's rationale: Remsense聊 21:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed title might be misinterpreted as covering the histories of individual characters. Kanguole 22:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the issue I've been running up against. How about 'History of Chinese family of scripts'? Remsense聊 23:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original title is more accurate, but it's a weird category. Like, Li Si is in there, but Zhong Yao, Xu Shen, Qian Xuantong, and Guo Moruo aren't. Large Seal script and Small seal script are in both this category and Category:Chinese script style; Oracle Bone script is in this one but not that one, and Clerical script is in that one but not this one. Meanwhile Chinese characters of Empress Wu is entirely different, and the only article that is actually about characters (字) rather than script ~~(文)~~ (書). whoops 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I guess since we're here, I should have a constructive idea, but I rarely come to CfD. Maybe add Oracle Bone script to Category:Chinese script style, upmerge Chinese characters of Empress Wu to Category:History of the Chinese language(??), and then delete the category, or rename it to something like Category:Chinese script tastemakers and add more dead dudes to keep Li Si company. Right now we've got articles in this category for three different reasons, and none of the reasons is pulling its full complement of candidate articles into the category. Folly Mox (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly, it seems like you make my ideas better whenever you pop up. :) Remsense聊 15:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Li Si belongs here, and more "dead dudes" should not be added either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update. My proposition is now to just upmerge with Category:History of the Chinese language. Remsense聊 00:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alopoglossidae stubs

Propose deleting Category:Alopoglossidae stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stub category with less than 50 pages, upmerge to Category:Lizard stubs. Andumé (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's rationale: I do understand that 60 articles is the standard threshold; I created this as a way to help decrease the size of the overlarge Lizard stubs category. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anguidae stubs

Propose deleting Category:Anguidae stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stub category with less than 50 pages, upmerge to Category:Lizard stubs. Andumé (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's rationale: I do understand that 60 articles is the standard threshold; I created this as a way to help decrease the size of the overlarge Lizard stubs category. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Meteorological Society journal image covers

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:American Meteorological Society journal cover images. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 15:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Meteorological Society journal image covers to Category:American Meteorological Society journal cover images

Nominator's rationale: to match other cats in this tree. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 12:23, 24 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:Afghan women cricketers

Propose merging Category:Afghan women cricketers to Category:Afghan cricketers

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 person in the category, and given that the Afghanistan women's national cricket team no longer exists (and they only played a handful of matches ever), it's unlikely that there are other notable Afghan women cricketers who could be added to this category (I did not find any other existing articles for Afghan women cricketers). Roya Samim was previously in Category:Afghan cricketers (which is the category where all men's cricketers are) and so should be upmerged back there. No need to split by gender when there's only 1 woman in the women's category. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support. I think they'd also need to be added to Category:Women cricketers Mason (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. This is arguably part of a coherent structure of categories, which would allow it to be kept even if small per WP:SMALLCAT. Also, WP:CATGENDER explicitly indicates that sportspeople categories are split by gender when their sport is. Arguably, it is more defining for Samin to have played women's cricket than just cricket, as I guess that cricket is not mixed in Afghanistan. I agree that potential for expansion is low. Place Clichy (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CATGENDER never seems to have had a consensus to demand sportpeople to categorise this way, this probably needs a wider discussion at WT:SPORTS since tonnes of single-gender sports don't categorise everyone by gender. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tonnes? I can only think of 3 major sports that don't discriminate participants: sailing, horse-riding and chess. In terms of categories, we sometimes have a root apparently non-gendered category which is in fact the male category, with a female ghetto subcategory. I don't really call that single-gender. I am all in favour if non-gendered categories for non-gendered occupations. I agree that separation is not very useful here, hence only the mild keep. Place Clichy (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the category seems to be of established Category:Women cricketers by nationality tree and helpful for intra navigation and also per above. Respublik (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category with one person is not helpful for any navigation at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre–World War I spies

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:19th-century spies and Category:20th-century spies. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 15:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Pre–World War I spies to Category:19th-century spies and Category:20th-century spies

Nominator's rationale: non defining split Mason (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, largely overlaps with Category:19th-century spies. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support large overlap, defining by century is the normal categorisation way. And the subcat Category:American Civil War spies‎ is already in Category:19th-century spies, which shows that the 19th-century spies is the correct category. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 24 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 transgender people by occupation

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 all as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 15:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:English transgender people by occupation to Category:English transgender people
Propose merging Category:Scottish transgender people by occupation to Category:Scottish transgender people
Propose merging Category:Welsh transgender people by occupation to Category:Welsh transgender people
Propose merging Category:Cuban lesbians by occupation to Category:Cuban lesbians
Propose merging Category:Icelandic lesbians by occupation to Category:Icelandic lesbians
Propose merging Category:Uruguayan lesbians by occupation to Category:Uruguayan lesbians
Propose merging Category:Serbian lesbians by occupation to Category:Serbian lesbians
Propose merging Category:Bulgarian lesbians by occupation to Category:Bulgarian lesbians
Propose merging Category:Peruvian gay men by occupation to Category:Peruvian gay men
Propose merging Category:French bisexual people by occupation to Category:French bisexual people
Propose merging Category:Peruvian lesbians by occupation to Category:Peruvian lesbians
Propose merging Category:Nigerian lesbians by occupation to Category:Nigerian lesbians
Propose merging Category:Australian transgender people by occupation to Category:Australian transgender people
Propose merging Category:Trinidad and Tobago LGBT people by occupation to Category:Trinidad and Tobago LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Tanzanian LGBT people by occupation to Category:Tanzanian LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Senegalese LGBT people by occupation to Category:Senegalese LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Samoan LGBT people by occupation to Category:Samoan LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Paraguayan LGBT people by occupation to Category:Paraguayan LGBT people
Propose merging Category:North Korean LGBT people by occupation to Category:North Korean LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Panamanian LGBT people by occupation to Category:Panamanian LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Latvian LGBT people by occupation to Category:Latvian LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Luxembourgian LGBT people by occupation to Category:Luxembourgian LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Liberian LGBT people by occupation to Category:Liberian LGBT people
Propose merging Category:Nepalese LGBT people by occupation to Category:Nepalese LGBT people

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now; only one category in each. Mason (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 31 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 British Empire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 1#Category:Expatriates from the British Empire

Category:Naturalised subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain

Propose merging and rename merge Category:Naturalised subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain with Category:Naturalised citizens of the United Kingdom and rename to Category:Naturalised British subjects

Nominator's rationale: merge and then rename to Naturalized British subjects because these two categories are overlapping where regime doesn't make a difference Mason (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. This also has the advantage that the idea of "citizenship" wasn't embraced in Britain until the 1940s. I also like the -z-, which is fine in British spelling as well as standard in American. However, there is surely the problem that the parent category is Category:Naturalized citizens by country, and "British" doesn't supply a country. GB was a country and the UK is one. What I would not want to see is the next step of moving to a UK category, when the UK only dates from 1801 but in Wikipedia categories has a nasty way of moving back in time, sonetimes as far as the Middle Ages. Moonraker (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, that's an excellent point. I hadn't really considered the parent country category. Hmmmm, I was basing the name off of the child category Category:Naturalized British subjects in Canada‎ but you're right that that would probably have some annoyingly messy downstream category consequences. Mason (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename as nom. Re Wikipedia categories moving back in time, Wikipedia categories are organized both historically and geographically, and there's not really a way around it. If that gives us the occasional anachronism, so be it. The Stuarts are part of British history, and the Hohenstaufens part of German history. Place Clichy (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But anachronisms distort facts, and they also multiply. Surely if they can be avoided by treading carefully they are best avoided. Moonraker (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This one is fine as it is and is consistent with the other categories in the tree. Certainly do not use "Naturalized". We always use the "s" form for British topics on Wikipedia as far more common in modern British English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bermudian LGBT people by occupation

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:Bermudian LGBT people. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bermudian LGBT people by occupation to Category:Bermudian LGBT people

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now; only one category in it Mason (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 24 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 Basketball Association (2000–present) venues

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) House Blaster^talk 15:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American Basketball Association (2000–present) venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The ABA 2000 is a semi-professional league and these arenas are not primarily known for its games. They are multi-purpose arenas. User:Namiba 01:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCVENUE. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 24 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.