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 (the target category existed at the time the discussion was closed). Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all Catholics. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they were all Catholics, but is it even necessary to add that in the category name? This is in a century before the Reformation had taken place and medieval Germans weren't Eastern Orthodox. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to fit in the well established Category:Roman Catholic theologians, which goes back to the 11th century. I do agree that it doesnt seem helpful to call West European Christians Roman Catholic before the reformation, but my suggestion to do this on a country basis - so we would only use Catholic or Roman Catholic from the time when there was some other possibility - didnt get anywhere. Perhaps we should try again? Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support They are synonymous, but Being Catholic is defining in the 15th-century. If we did ever find a theologian who was Eastern Orthodox who in some way could be defined as a 15th-century German, it would make little sense to group him with the Catholic theologians. The target is accurate, and fits in the larger tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 2 June 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge, the two categories apparently have the same scope, they contain nearly the same collection of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 24 May 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.
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I was wrong. There are a couple of Protestants. I withdraw these. I'll move all the Roman Catholics and then think about what to do with the residue. Perhaps we need Spanish Protestant theologians, though I dont think there are enough to divide by centuries. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably there is no need to do anything with the residue, they can just stay where they are now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 24 May 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.
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.
Either option is an improvement. If A, purging will be necessary. For example, Maloji Bhosale does not fit. On the other hand option B perhaps goes against WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support option A, and perge any who it does not apply to. Categorization by polity is the best course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 2 June 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.
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Academy Award winners and nominees by race or ethnicity[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.
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content, these are lists; and we do not categorize by race. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Really just a truth in advertising change to reflect current contents. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. If there was a policy to avoid the word race in most of its uses I would happily subscribe to it. Racism does exist, but races do not. Place Clichy (talk) 09:56, 25 May 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge, the two categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are not any Marathi people who are non-Hindu saints in this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You probably intend to say, there aren't any Marathi people who are non-Hindu saints in this category, because that is exactly the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC) - Meanwhile fixed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 25 May 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.
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.
Delete: It's me who created this category in line with its counterpart category "21st-century male musicians", without realizing that the counterpart appears as "women musicians" rather than "female musicians". That said, this is indeed a duplicate. Maybe we can consider making male-female/men-women consistent, if need be. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7, above user is creator and sole contributor. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category is empty. LizRead!Talk! 01:23, 25 May 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.
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.
Axenfeld syndrome is a rare genetic disorder which affects the development of the teeth, eyes, and abdominal region but the only article in this category is Jade Etherington. Ms. Etherington is defined by being a Paralympic athlete with a vision impairment but we already have Category:Paralympic athletes with a vision impairment so this category seems redundant in that particular case. The growth potential here is very limited because of the rareness of this syndrome: except for the namesake Dr. Axenfeld, I didn't see any other biography articles linking to this disorder. No objection to re-evaluating if we ever get up tp 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-mortal diseases are hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 24 May 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.
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.
Prosopagnosia or "face blindness" is a medical condition where the eyes functional normally but the brain has trouble recognizing faces and, according to that main article, 2.5% (1 in 25) of the generally population has it. This condition is clearly integral to portrait artist Chuck Close but the defingness of this category ends right there.
Multiple citations rely on a single source of a Top Ten clickbait gallery of celebrities, albeit a source that is reliable in other contexts. Other category entries are based on celebrities self identifying as being face blind in interviews, like with Steve Wozniakright here. The category contents are now listified right here for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining for most people (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-mortal diseases are hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 24 May 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.
