Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 25 January 27 >

January 26[edit]

Category:Anshan (Persia)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. The eponymous article already contains the same category assignments of the nominated category (and more). The subcategory page already contains a link to the eponymous article so no information is lost. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2021 (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:Arcadia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: there was a clear consensus to rename. Option A (as nominated) had the most support. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arcadia is ambiguous, see the recent RM, the article was moved to Arcadia (regional unit). The base name should become a DAB with Category:Arcadia, California, Category:Arcadia (Odessa), Category:Arcadia, Wisconsin and Category:Arcadia quadrangle. There was an opposed speedy, see Category talk:Arcadia#Opposed speedy move request due to the fact that some of the tree may be for the region rather than the regional unit so using "Peloponnese" to disambiguate would cover both of those and avoid any confusion of which region a particular article or category is for. Its possible that this should indeed be moved to Category:Arcadia (regional unit) so you can !vote A, use "Arcadia, Peloponnese", B, use "Arcadia (regional unit)" or C use "Arcadia (region)". Please note that if you think this should be kept as is then you should probably start a new RM to move the regional unit back to the base name since categories are generally not more ambiguous than articles and are often less so such as Plymouth/Category:Plymouth. In any case it was clearly shown that there isn't a primary topic over the huge number of other uses. Pinging users who contributed to the speedy discussion @Marcocapelle, Place Clichy, and Cplakidas:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer option A as nominated. It nicely covers the region and the regional unit without becoming too explicit about (administrative) borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Therefore, we don't care about them for category naming. Tripoli, Greece is the capital. Whomever participated in the RM didn't pay any attention to our official naming conventions.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the recent move authorized a move to Arcadia (modern region); why wasn't that done? If anything, the categories for the modern region should be given that name as approved in the RM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The current articles are Arcadia (regional unit) and Arcadia (region). Which discussion are you referring to? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably Talk:Arcadia#Requested move 30 November 2020 where I proposed using "Arcadia (modern region)" but Ortizesp pointed out that (regional unit) was constant with those in Category:Prefectures of Greece and no one rejected this even though it was pointed out that the proposed title was analogous with Arcadia (ancient region). Arcadia (ancient region) was shortly after moved to Arcadia (region) with the reason "the region is still extant". I think moving to (regional unit) was a correct reading of consensus but if needed maybe there should be another RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I also have the same misgivings on the RM raised by Place Clichy below. That aside, perhaps renaming them to match the outcome of the RM with the understanding that it doesn't become an argument against another RM (ohhh, but the categories will then have to change, or ohhh, it matches the categories). Otherwise, keep as is and let things sort out. I do note that the ancient is a subset of the current but in the "modern region" not sure why it need be since the RM showed that they are different and opposing concepts; another flaw in the RM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It could probably be possible to merge the articles about the region and the administrative unit into a single one, seen that they are in fact the same place. In many articles about Greece there is often extensive content available about places in Ancient Greece, sometimes more so than their modern equivalent, therefore there are often articles with this focus. That was the case of Arcadia (ancient region) before it was renamed to Arcadia (region). It is a bit weird though, as if we would have separate articles about the German region of Bavaria and the German Land of Bayern. Place Clichy (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The term Arcadia unambiguously refers to the region in Greece as the primary topic. There was a RM (slightly flawed imho) because content about this Greek region is weirdly spread over several articles: Arcadia (regional unit) (renamed from Arcadia in the process), Arcadia (region) (renamed from Arcadia (ancient region)) and Arcadia (utopia) (the fantasized version of the Ancient region). However these concepts refer to the exact same geographic area. Disambiguation is therefore not necessary for the category. Also note that the nominator's first motivation as expressed in the RM was the short-lived presence in the news last year of British retail Arcadia Group when it filed for bankruptcy, which is pure recentism, and most probably itself named after the Greek region. Place Clichy (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arcadia" certainly doesn't unambiguously refer to the region in Greece given as notd the page views stats and larger number of uses. In fact if you look at the views[[1]] now you can see that the regional unit only has 2,037 views while the utopia has 10,284, the one in California has 9,004, the region has 3,731, the play has 3,524, the band has 3,212, the place in Florida has 2,648 and the company has 10,559. As I've said if you want to reverse that start a new RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot really consider page views as the main or sole criterion for popularity of a term. Otherwise the Arcadia Group would be so popular that we would all know what it is without having to look it up. It may be very popular in the UK but I can guarantee you that this popularity does not extend abroad. Open any dictionary at Arcadia and they will tell you that it is 1°) a region in Greece and 2°) a utopian myth named after the region: Oxford, Collins. A Scholar search I did in the course of the speedy move request showed that 8 out of 10 answers seem to be about the utopian myth, itself named after the region. That's a surprising popularity if you ask me, but it seems that it has become quite a reference point in Anglo-American culture. Whatever is the result of the poorly-argued 4-editor RM, there is clearly no need to create a disambiguation category for the Arcadia Quadrangle on Mars, the neighborhood in Ukraine and the towns in California and Wisconsin, which are all named in reference to the Greek place anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY page views statistics are generally criterion but as I noted in the nom Google, Images and Books don't only or mostly show this also even if most other uses derive from this one as noted there being the original isn't determinate. And as you've said 8 out of 10 results for Scholar are for the utopia meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Arcadia is currently the disambiguation page. That is in accord with WP:NC and WP:DPT. The place in Greece is no longer the most common usage of the term.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom The region of Arcadia is indeed located in the Peloponnese peninsula, and should be disambiguated by other ancient locations with that name. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow as ambiguous. My preference is Category:Arcadia, Greece. A disambiguator is sometimes needed for a category where the article has none, classically Birmingham, West Midlands, whose article is Birmingham. I am not sure the outcome of the article rename was the ideal one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Don't fail to see that Arcadia is also a possible location name elsewhere in Greece or anywhere in the world AND also a topic (land of desire) in romantic poetry! --Just N. (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is clearly too ambiguous in its current state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2021 (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:Ancient queens regnant[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In principle a queen regnant and a woman ruler are two separate things; in practice these two categories overlap very closely. "Ancient queens regnant" has been being slowly emptied in favour of the "Ancient women rulers by century" categories (not daughter categories) for some time. Furius (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should be a combined nomination, as it really isn't sure there is consensus for merging Ancient kings. Consider this a Procedural oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge given the travails of picking leaders in ancient times and the agnatic primogeniture favored from time to time, gender here matters. I dislike the blurb in the queens category that limits it to women with the title of "queen". All these titles were in some ancient tongue and whether convention determines to translate something as "queen", "empress", or something else isn't defining of the office held. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We should respect the difference of cultures and not "translate" and "equalize" titles too much. A "queen regnant" is not synonymous with a female monarch, just like male monarchs is not synonymous with the title of "king". They should not be treated differently by somehow equalizing all women who ruled in their own right as queens. If female monarchs is the issue, the category would have been named "Ancient women monarchs" instead. Even female monarchs in Europe could be monarchs without having the title of queen. Men and women should not be treated differently here. The legitimate gender difference (that not all queens were monarchs) is already adressed by having different categories for queen regnants and queen consorts. I can see a reason for keeping it since there is also a category of Ancient queens consorts.
I am more or less neutral, but if the category remains, it is important that the name should be respected. Women who ruled, regardless if they ruled as monarchs or as regents and regardless of their title, will always have a place in Women rulers by century. If this category remains, it should only contain queens, while other female monarchs should be placed in the ruler-category. --Aciram (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as a "king" or "queen", though? This seems a very difficult judgement to make (and one can't include references for inclusion in a category on a wiki page). The Greek Basileus and Basilissa are generally translated into English as "king" and "queen", but they are also the main terms used the Roman and Persian emperors and empresses in Greek texts. We maintain a pretty strict distinction between Greek "kings" and "tyrants" on wiki, but most Greek sources use the titles interchangeably. Hatshepsut and other female Pharaohs are in a daughter category of this one even though she was titled nswt bty and pr ("king" and "pharaoh," not queen). Zenobia is generally referred to as "queen" in modern sources and requires a whole section of her article to clarify the nature of her title - she is not in this category, but in Category:Empresses regnant. Furius (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — we should respect the differences of cultures and not categorize by differences in translation. They all are women, and they all are rulers, and they all should be WP:NOTABLE for that uncommon intersection.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Women rulers" also includes regents. They do not have the same scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (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:Madan Puraskar winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with Category:Books by award. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:44, 26 January 2021 (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:Damsels in distress[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an original research character type opinion for the characters listed. WP:NOTDEFINING for the characters as an attribute and not mentioned as such in the articles. WP:CATVER Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2021 (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:Former member states of the United Nations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contrary to what the name subjects, this category is filled with former political regimes of countries that are still members of the U.N., e.g. Estado Novo (Portugal), Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990), French Fourth Republic, Third Czechoslovak Republic (one of 4 entries for Czechoslovakia), Cambodia (1953–1970), both History of Cuba (1902–1959) and Republic of Cuba (1902–1959), Pahlavi dynasty etc. If kept, it should probably be restricted to countries explicitly mentioned at Member states of the United Nations § Former members: Republic of China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Federation of Malaya (predecessor of Malaysia and Singapore), Tanganyika and Zanzibar (predecessors of Tanzania), Soviet Union, United Arab Republic (short-lived union of Egypt and Syria), Yemen and Democratic Yemen, Yugoslavia. These are all past countries which saw splits or mergers that resulted in significant changes in UN membership. Place Clichy (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, the defining characteristic is that they have amalgamated or fragmented since formation of UN, the defining characteristic is not that they deliberately decided to leave the UN. It is a wholly trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is totally not relvant. In a lot of these cases what really happened is that a nation went through a significant change of government. Except some, like the end of Franco's rule in Spain was so peaceful I am not sure including it here makes any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2021 (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:Political parties in Egypt that have former NDP members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The National Democratic Party (Egypt) (NDP) was the ruling political party in Egypt from 1978 to 2011, with 1.9 million members. I am not sure if it is WP:defining for a political party to consider that it has members who previously were in another party. E.g. we do not have Italian political parties that have former members of Christian Democracy, German political parties that have former Nazi members, Iraqi political parties that have former Baathist members, Mexican political parties that have former PRI members, to take other examples of former dominant parties, both in dictatorships and democracies. WP:ATTACK is also worth considering (a way to project shame on these organizations through the past affiliation of some of their members). Place Clichy (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a political party qualifies for this if it has at least one former NDP member (or maybe two, in plural). This is a nonsense criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete political parties are often full of people who have migrated to them from other parties; particularly true in countries with more than two political parties. Nearly every party founded after the inception of the country has people who were affiliated with some other political party before (rare is the case, I should imagine, that a newly founded party has no-one from a prior party, i.e., they were all neophytes). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and commentary of Carlossuarez46. --Just N. (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete considering the size of the NDP (almost 2 million) it would almost be more interesting to have Category:Politicial parties in Egypt lacking former NDP members. Also remember categories are permanent. So if I formed a political party in Egypt and somehow had 2 NPD members admitted, but realized it and decided I did not like that, and expelled them, I would still fit the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2021 (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.

Accidents and incidents by airline[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: improve English, and follow the structure of both Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline and Category:Airlines of Africa etc. Place Clichy (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Moreover it could become "airlines based in" instead of "airlines of", similar to "companies based in". But of course that applies to the whole "airlines of" tree, not just to the above categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also agree with Marcocapelle's observation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Better defined scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming if Marcocapelle's proposal 'based in' is added! --Just N. (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (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:Defunct airlines of Yugoslavia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Airlines by former country. This is another former country were there is no reason to differentiate between airlines and defunct airlines. Place Clichy (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2021 (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:Jewish biochemists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Most of the articles dont even mention the subject being Jewish. Do we need a wider discussion about Category:Scientists by ethnicity? I can see that in many occupations ethnicity is relevant, but I dont see that for scientists. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicity does not impact on pharmacology, and this does not belong in Category:Pharmacologists by nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I feel that we have some people copy-pasting categories from Hebrew Wikipedia without taking a look at our policies, and/or who act as if Jewish was a nationality, which it is not. Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Jewish chemists. In principle I agree with the nomination, but because Category:Jewish chemists has not been nominated, the articles should not be removed from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exploratory. I'd like to know want people think about other parts of Category:Scientists by ethnicity. I cant say that I am very keen on ethnic categories generally, so I would happily remove all the scientific ones. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By default I will support that. (But there might be some exceptions.) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2021 (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:Former members of The Durham Revue[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: option A, merge. A list of the contents is on the talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the Durham Review is a student sketch comedy group at Durham University (UK), without a main article. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the importance of the group, I do not think that we categorize professional actors by the former theatre company they played for, much less amateur actors by the university drama club they were in. If kept, fix the capitals. Place Clichy (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC. While some actresses and actors may remember their time fondly and learn some key skills in their college days with student theatre, that's why we have the alumni categories. We shouldn't categorize by every extracurricular activity, class, or scholarship. (If kept, by all means rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RevelationDirect. (If kept, rename per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- There are 18 such people who should not be list in the generality of alumni. However, notable performers sometimes started their careers as students; and that is worth recording in WP, but it fails WP:PERFCAT so that it should not be a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete alike Peterkingiron's convincing speech. --Just N. (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the alumni cat. This borders on a performer category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2021 (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:Medieval Jewish physicians of Italy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. All the articles are already in appropriate parts of Category:Italian Jews. Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Triple conjunctions are a bad idea. Quadruple conjunctions are plain evil. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS no indication that Jewish physicians practiced differently than their gentile counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quadruple intersections are evil. If they are notably Jewish, and notably Italian physicians, they will already be in those categories.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (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:Sportspeople by cause of death[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: reverse merge, keeping Category:Sportspeople by cause of death (and placing it in Category:Causes of death by occupation). Consensus seems to be that this is just as good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only item in the parent, so upmerge to parent.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2021 (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.

Small categories by cause of death[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Philosophers, Category:Priests, Category:Scientists, and Category:Writers, respectively. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these has only a single subcategory, already categorized under another "by occupation" subtree in the same container.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge is reasonable only because it makes the bot do the right thing, where the editors failed. Still, I'm leary of constantly merging.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An added layer not useful. Presumably, all philosophers in the subcategories of the nominated one (executed and murdered remain) are somewhere else to be found in the philosophers tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Merge per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter: no, the content consists of two subcategories that are not somewhere else to be found in the philosophers tree. So merge is really important here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Categories by cause of death are not typically subcategorizes by the profession of the deceased. The subcategories should be relocated. Dimadick (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2021 (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.

Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Emigrant is a noun, meaning "one who leaves one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere."
  2. Migrant, a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No this is a truly bad idea. We do not categorize emigrants by ethnicity, we categorize them by the polity they leave.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • JPL, your shenanigans have lost all credibility with me. "We" wikipedians have rarely (if ever) used the definition of polity that you ascribe. We use the terms that people commonly use(d) about themselves. When the Moscovites overran Finland, the Finnish did not suddenly think, "I'm now a Russian Empirian, I'll give up my language and culture." If you've got citations to the contrary, you'll need to produce them in your tenditious arguments.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We categorize people by the country they are citizens or subjects of. These categories are not about language or culture by citizenship and who you are subject to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed. JPL, you make a lot of nominations that are overly picayune like this. Please slow down and re-think how you do these things. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in addition, Finns in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland (1809–1917) even sort of had their own Finnish citizenships, and non-Finnish people from other parts of the Russian Empire couldn't just walk in without a permission. Translated from fi:Suomen_kansalaisuus#Historiaa: Grand Duchy of Finland had a passport office in St. Petersburg, which received and resolved applications from Russians and "other" foreigners to travel to Finland, or even to settle. Very often, imperial orders restricted the issuance of passports to Russians, when some emperors did not think it was so necessary to travel to Finland. Instead, the Finns, under the Emperor, were allowed to travel and reside in Russia as freely as the Russians themselves. 85.76.100.225 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, both articles belong in a migrants to Latvia category. Finland was just an intermediate stop for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck after further discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is down to only 2? I wonder who has been purging the articles.... In any case, the articles say they had estates throughout the Baltic. Sadly, it may be time to just delete.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice in Google that the category used to have 21 articles. One example of a purge is [2] by User:Johnpacklambert but I can't figure out what happened to the 18 others. It would be helpful to know this, in order to have a proper discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​Here are the edits, roughly from
21:05, 11 December 2020 diff hist −51‎ Mikhail Berens ‎ removed Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland using HotCat current
to
21:29, 11 December 2020 diff hist −51‎ Category:White Russian emigrants to Finland ‎ removed Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland using HotCat
87.95.206.253 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that's seriously against the rules. JPL is the nominator, so we can assume has read the instructions. I've restored my original !vote, although it will be difficult to restore the category content. So, what should we do: ANI or RFC?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, it appears we had a discussion based on incomplete data. Nominator should have revealed that he heavily purged the category shortly before the nomination. I have no issue with someone else starting a completely fresh discussion after the otiginal content has been restored. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those articles were people who did not arrive in modern Finland until after the Russian Empire fell. Thus categorizing them as imperial Russian emigrants/Russian Empire emigrants is not easily defensible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am reading Nikolai Yudenich and he went into exile to France rather than Finland. The purging itself may well be justifiable, the lack of transparency is not. And generally, as you removed Imperial Russian, you should have replaced it by Russian.Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Russian emigrants refer specifically to those who leave after 1992. So now, these imperial Russian cannot be replaced with Russian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that "Russian emigrants" must be limited to emigrants from the Russian Federation. There were Russians before 1992. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Emigration is defining people not by ethnicity but by national connection. There was no Russian nation in 1990 to be emigrating from, just the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's one point of view, but it's not necessarily correct. The Soviet Union was a federation of republics, one of which was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The people in this republic can fairly be referred to as "Russian people". The Soviet Union promoted the view that these republics were sovereign states. For instance, at Stalin's insistence, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic were given seats in the United Nations that were separate from that of the Soviet Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, Stalin killed many more people than Hitler, so we do not treat his false ideas as fact. The reality was that the Soviet Union was one united government and we should categorize according to this reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Agree with GOF that people from the Russian SFSR may well be considered to be Russians, unless they are explicitly of another ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "Stalin killed many more people than Hitler, so we do not treat his false ideas as fact" That's got to be one of the greatest CFD arguments I have witnessed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Russian emigrants to Finland. There are two articles in the category; both individuals moved to Finland in 1916 to escape the deteriorating situation in Russia, and during this time Finland was beginning the process of breaking away from the Empire. I think that the individuals can justifiably be considered Russian emigrants to Finland. I agree in principle that Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland should not exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by Timrollpickering to Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to Finland as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This could include migrants to Finland under Swedish rule and to the Kingdom of Finland (1918). Only the Grand Duchy of Finland was actually located within the Russian Empire. Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except we lack any articles on people who migrated from the Russian Empire to Swedish Finland. Although if they did they probably should be in the emigrants to Sweden category. However as I said we have no identified article on such a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Same thoughts as Dimadick (Finland was part of Sweden too; almost 100 years during the Russian Empire era) and Marcocapelle (procedural oppose). Also, as the Grand Duchy of Finland (GDF) was an autonomous (possessing its own government and constitution) part of the Russian Empire, it had its own immigration policies; e.g. from 1819 to 1918, Russians had to apply for a permit from the Finnish Passport Office in St. Petersburg before they were allowed to visit the GDF. Non-Finnish people couldn't work as civil servants in the GDF or be in the military of the GDF without becoming Finnish first. Also, Category:White Russian emigrants to Finland (11 pages) should be the category's subcategory, but it was removed when the category was completely emptied before it was CfD'ed (see Marcocapelle's comments). --Kliituu (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should White Russian emigrants be a sub-cat? Inherently they leave after the Russian Empire has fallen. Categorizing them as leaving a place that no longer exists makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all other "White Russian emigrants to x" categories are categorized like that: 27 categories at the moment. Those are also categorized as Soviet emigrants, even though most White emigres left Russia between 1917-1920 and the Soviet Union didn't exist before 1922. Didn't some White emigres manage to leave the Russian Empire during the February Revolution but before the abdication on 15 March 1917 when they became stateless? I'm not sure if there's any better categorization solution to those stateless people, as Category:Russian emigrants is for emigrants from the Russian Federation, and so on. --Kliituu (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • They should probably be categorized in both the Empire and Soviet categories, for ease of navigation, if nothing else. "Empire" and "Soviet" aren't going to apply perfectly to each individual in the White Russian categories, but if we worried about that, neither category would be a parent, and that would hinder navigation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2021 (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.

Imperial Russian people of Polish descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you mention some examples? I did not encounter issues like this when I sampled. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by Timrollpickering to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Polish descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2021 (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.

Imperial Russian people of Baltic German descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Baltic German people of the Russian Empire. – Fayenatic London 18:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(late addition) In fact Category:Baltic German people of the Russian Empire is better than nom's proposal, more concise. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Category:Baltic German people of the Russian Empire. Clearer scope. In practice, most of these people were from Estonia and Latvia, as explained in the main article on Baltic Germans. Dimadick (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as hard to qualify as English people of Frankish descent, or Mexican people of Catalan descent. Even the main Baltic Germans article explains these were initially interlopers who ruled over the native serfs, but there were no women. Such things dilute after a generation, let alone centuries later in the Russian Empire.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion The people involved clearly saw themselves as Baltic Germans, and are generally categorized as such. Livonia (where the largest number of the Baltic-Germans lived) came under the control of Russia only in 1710, although the transfer was not fully recognized until 1721. That only applies to Swedish Livonia, Polish Livonia only came under control of the Russian Empire in 1772. In 1721 Peter the Great declared German the official language of Livonia. the Baltic German people of Livonia were as much a distinct ethnic group as were the German people of Bohemia. For the record we do have Category:Mexican people of Catalan descent. The comparison to English people of Frankish descent, is just plain not workable. Baltic-Germans clearly saw themselves as a distinct ethnic group in Livonia and to a lesser extent other governorates along the Baltic coast. Ethnicity is not about descent, but about your culture, and the German speakers of the area were clearly a distinct ethnic group from the Lativian speakers, the Estonian speakers and the more recent migrants in who were Russian speakers. The statements above comflict with our article on Baltic German's which states they were the ruling class and the middle class of the Baltic provinces. That they may have often had some Estonian and Latvian ancestry is irrelevant, because we do not categorize by race, and so it is how they perceived themselves, not some ephemeral "blood of Latvianess" or "blood of Estonianess" as opposed to "blood of Germanness" that matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE 2nd !vote without removing the first (unsigned) !vote.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, we do not categorize citizens by language.
  1. There is no "Latvian" race. There is no "Estonian" race. There is no "German" race.
  2. I used Category:English people of Frankish descent as an example of ridicule. While the English were ruled by the Franks, and the ruling class language was "French", we don't categorize them as such.
  3. I used Category:Mexican people of Catalan descent as an example of ridicule. For goodness sake, categorizing somebody because they may (or may not) have a smidgin of "blood". For example, Montserrat Oliver – no mention of Catalan or French in the article, but categorized as of Catalan and French descent, based upon her birth name: Montserrat Lourdes Socorro Oliver Grimau.
  4. Any person who comes to another place and marries the indigenous people, their children are indigenous by definition. Many generations later, their descent is not notable. Especially when it is being used as the equivalent of ruling caste. What next, Untouchables?
We need to go back to our WP:EGRS roots, and curb this nonsense.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your interpretation of who is indigenous reeks of racism. It does not accord with how understanding of ethnicity have always worked. The fact is there are people who are nationals of Mexico who identify with their Catalan ethnicity, and your holding their very existence up to ridicule is very rude and inconsiderate. The fact of the matter is that the people here would in general identify themselves as by ethnicity German. Arguably we could group them in a general Category:Ethnic German people of the Russian Empire or whatever exactly we want to call it, but the history of their hundreds of years of speaking, writing and functioning as a German over class above the Latvian and Estonian peasantry, are very different than the settler Volga Germans and other often Protestant refugee German populations so there is a key reason to see these people are as distinct ethno-cultural group, and not to view all ethnic Germans living in the Russian Empire as one unified people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by Timrollpickering to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Baltic German descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (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.

Imperial Russian people of Georgian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I note that this currently contains one Georgian prince and a subcat of Georgian generals. However, unlike the Baltic German case above, there is no ethnic "Georgian people" hierarchy, but only "People from Georgia" or "People of Georgian descent". A clearer consensus would therefore be required to move this out of the descent hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by Timrollpickering to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Georgian descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2021 (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.

Imperial Russian emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Delete Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the Thirteen Colonies, as the category has been emptied during the process of this discussion. I wish we could find a way to stop the emptying of categories during a CFD discussion of whether to keep, merge or rename them because it wastes the time of editors who take a moment to offer their opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above still applies if kept. But meanwhile I no longer support keeping the category, see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That main discussion is here. I agree that we should follow the results reached there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- "Imperial/Empire" is redundant. "Thirteen Colonies" necessarily means before 1776/83. Accordingly it is unnecessary to say more than "Russian". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not true. In the target Russian modified the Empire not the person. We also have Category:1883 establishments in the Russian Empire. The best way to use these categories is to limit Russian to people and things connected with the modern nation state. To use if for anything earlier is just not in the long run a justifiable use. In the 19th-century Russian Empire a large number of its subjects were not in any way Russian, the would identify by ethnic monikers. If we got back further we get into people who are claimed by multiple modern ethnic groups, so we use in some categories Rus'.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not needed, not necessary, not changing. The current name is appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose British North America (1783-1907) refers to a completely different region and era. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by Timrollpickering to Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the Thirteen Colonies as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no recollection of any other article being here. It would be nice if it was easier to see what had been in a category in the past. All I can say is that the one person who is here may actually have more been a Russian Empire emigrant to Germany and then a German emigrant to the Thirteen Colonies. The line between that and being a Russian Empire expatriate in Germany and then being a Russian Empire emigrant to the Thirteen Colonies is fuzzy, and our article on him does not provide much detail. A big question is was he just born in St. Petersburg and shortly after moved to Germany, or did he just go to Germany for his education. Add to this the fact that it is not clear from the article if the person in question would have considered himself ethnically German or Russian, and it is a tough article to categorize. Someone may want to search additional sources for more insight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He used to have a German surname, the place of birth may have been entirely accidental. Under these circumstances the category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless some editor has created a new, 4th category on this subject, this decision has been made as the existing category has been emptied. Are there any pages to be placed in a category like this? Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liz, I think the category contained only one article and it was removed from the category during the discussion per the discussions immediately above. I think it's safe to delete the category as empty and close this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2021 (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.

Imperial Russian people of Tatar descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete, so reverse merge (which has already happened, as has the renaming from "imperial"). – Fayenatic London 08:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by Timrollpickering to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Tatar descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete both & If kept, reverse merge — now we have the problem that the latter is contrary to the established naming convention.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is only "contrary" to established naming convention because an interloper came in with 11th hour junk observations after I had done the huge work of nominating over 100 categories writing each rename nomination and after it had sat for over a month with no one suggesting any other course. I am tired of lazy interlopers breaking up my work. The new targets are too long and awkward. The original target was simple and straightforward. I am tired of getting attacked for not doing over 100 nominations, having no one help me, and having a disruptive administrator at the last minute impossing his own views on the process and forcing a new name that is worse than anything else. There is no respect or appreciation on Wikipedia, only rudeness and bullying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PKI and GOF have a fair objection to a straight deletion, so merge should be the outcome instead of deletion, and the Russian category should be nominated in a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new convention is horrible and was imposed in an 11th hour over stepping by an administrator who destroyed the huge amount of work I put into this nomination process. It is bad enough I get constant hate attacks from people for trying to improve Wikiepdia, but to have my hard work destroyed this way at the last minute by people who want to make it as hard as possible to properly categorize people who were connected with the Russian Empire in proper categories is just plain discouraging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Category:People of the Russian Empire of Tatar descent as intersection of Category:People of the Russian Empire and Category:People of Tatar descent. This is the obvious name. Oculi (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently we have Category:People of the Russian Empire of Tatar descent and Category:Tatar people of the Russian Empire. I actually think having both categories is justified. Just as we have Category:Native American people and Category:American people of Native American descent. The former is for someone like Larry Echo Hawk, the later for someone like Terri Hatcher (but almost certainly even it should exclude Elizabeth Warren).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (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:Impeachment of Donald Trump[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The resultant category could be nominated for deletion, if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is more than one impeachment (the first and second). "Impeachment" seems to imply a singular impeachment. I'd argue that we should change the category name to "impeachments".

The category was likely originally created when there was a singular impeachment of Trump.

While a parent category is titled "Impeachment in the United States", this is because the category is named for the process of impeachment, rather than any events of impeachment. This category, "impeachment of Donald Trump", however, is named for specific impeachments. SecretName101 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — WP:SMALLCAT, this is a mess. We don't need a parent category with only 2 subcategories, 1 article, and no likelihood of expansion. Just categorize the two impeachments separately, as they are already in several such categories. Currently, these are 2 cycles, and that needs to be fixed:
First impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 3 P)
Trump–Ukraine scandal‎ (1 C, 20 P)
First impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 3 P)
Trump–Ukraine scandal‎ (1 C, 20 P)
...
Second impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 4 P)
2021 storming of the United States Capitol‎ (2 C, 11 P)
Participants of the 2021 Capitol storming‎ (6 P)
Second impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 4 P)
2021 storming of the United States Capitol‎ (2 C, 11 P)
Participants of the 2021 Capitol storming‎ (6 P)
...
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept/Merge if Not I'll defer to others as to the need for this level of categorization but I'm with Marcocapelle on plurals and not removing the current article from the tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons category is already plural so indeed rename if kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom There are two impeachments, not one. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2021 (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:COVID-19 pandemic on USS Theodore Roosevelt[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just one page in this subcategory; can't this be upmerged to Category:Aircraft carriers involved in the COVID-19 pandemic? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:35, 26 January 2021 (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:Recipients of the Czechoslovak Military Order for Liberty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
I had trouble finding information on the Czechoslovak Military Order for Liberty in English but this Czech site describes it as a post-war award for WWII resistance members and those (Soviet?) soldiers that liberated the country. 1 of the 4 members of this category fought fascism in the Spanish Civil War and is multiple categories for that service. The other 3 are already in Category:Czech resistance members and, unfortunately, also all are in Category:Resistance members killed by Nazi Germany. Being a member of the Nazi resistance is absolutely defining which is why we categorize by it; also receiving this award after the war for that same service is redundant and non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (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:Recipients of the Belarusian Democratic Republic 100th Jubilee Medal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Belarusian Democratic Republic 100th Jubilee Medal was given out in 2018 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the republic in 1918. I'm not sure how widely the award was distributed but the articles in this category are people who were already very prominent like President Stanislav Shushkevich, Ambassador Stefan Eriksson, or Nobel Prize winning writer Svetlana Alexievich whose articles tend to mention the award in passing with other honours. There is already a list right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_26&oldid=1011692354"