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:split people from entirely different periods. The early modern category can be further populated with a 17th-century and 18th-century subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Dimadick (talk) 06:07, 31 December 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.
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.
Retain This category allows the inclusion of both African-American aviators and also African aviators. I understand the desire the desire to eliminate the trivial "intersection between skin color and occupation". Is it useful to have a category that includes both Africans, an Afro-Turk, and African-Americans? If not delete it. Pete unseth (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete unseth, the name is incredibly misleading. It isn't "Black aviators" but rather avitors from African countries as well as African-American aviators. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mixture of African diaspora and, most predominantly, African countries (an incorrect juxtaposition of ethnicity and nationality). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator and previous defender of this category, I see the point of those who want the category. I agree now, let somebody who knows how delete this category. Pete unseth (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category has been emptied prematurely. LizRead!Talk! 18:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm, hard to talk about a now empty cat, but seems WP:TRIVIALCAT and maybe narrow per above. Could be a list. Respublik (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2024 (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:Engineers from the Colony of New South Wales[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 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:South African non-fiction writers by century[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: Upmerge for now. There is only one century in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 17:40, 30 December 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:17th-century essayists by nationality[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: Upmerge for now. There is only one nationality in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 17:36, 30 December 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.
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: Upmerge for now. There is only one century in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:20, 30 December 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.
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: Upmerge. Only category in here is not typically considered an "artist" occupation. Mason (talk) 17:18, 30 December 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:1715 establishments in Isle de France (Mauritius)[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.
Support per nom Mason (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There is not consensus whether we should categorise them as "... of African descent", or delete the categories. There is also no consensus on how this applies to fictional characters. (non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, we do not usually categorize people by skin color, per WP:ETHNICRACECAT, so we shouldn't do that for fictional characters either. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but most of these characters are people of african ancestry, which is defining. So I think we should rename and purge the categories. Mason (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per above comment, see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these categories per Marco. Especially because I don't think we categorize individual real-life people as being "black", nor are there any counterpart categories for fictional brown people or white people either. Plus, this category also lumps together people of black African descent along with unrelated indigenous Australians and Papuans. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible proposal: rename this category to something along the lines of "Category:Fictional people of African descent", and remove the subcategories for Australian and Papuan characters from it. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support renaming to "people of African descent" (as an alternative to my Keep vote below), as most of the objections to the categories here hinge specifically on the wording "black people". Phediuk (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether or not this is a way that Wikipedia categorizes real people is not my concern here; I am focused solely on whether the topic of fictional black characters receives persistent, dedicated coverage from RSes, which is the foremost basis of any category's validity. Looking at just one subset of these categories, black video game characters, the answer is yes, and therefore, the categories should stay. Here are some examples from the first couple of pages of a Google search. I include only those articles that explicitly refer to black people or blackness in their titles:
The scholarly literature also turns up a spate of articles on portrayals of black people in video games. These are all from the first couple of pages of a Google Scholar search, and, again, I limited this selection solely to those articles that explicitly used the word "black" in a racial context in their titles:
Since black people in video games is a persistent topic of dedicated coverage from reliable sources, both mainstream and scholarly, a category is appropriate. Phediuk (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. If the sole objection to the category is the use of "black" rather than "African descent", then the categories can simply be renamed and any irrelevant examples purged. Per WP:ETHNICRACECAT, "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not. Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group, e.g. with African-Americans or Anglo-Indians." The vast majority of the entries in all of these categories refer to people of African descent, so they can easily be adjusted to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. Phediuk (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this category to Category:Fictional people of African descent, then remove any subcategories or pages that are not about characters with African ancestry (such as indigenous Australian or Papuan people). AHI-3000 (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic. "of African descent" would include Berbers and other people with light skin. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: We do not have an equivalent real-life category for individual "black" people, but we do have numerous categories about members of the African diaspora. AHI-3000 (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the proposed rationale has a soft consensus in the Archive Nr.6 to be not applicable to fictional characters. Potentially, the categories with people in the name could be changed to minimize confusion. Respublik (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — The Earwig (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Where possible, the categories of former nations are formatted as "People from the *state name*". Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will start with the parent categories in Category:Soviet people and, if there is consensus to change, I will add the categories within each one by one. Otherwise, this Cfd will become too big. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This rename has some pretty big downstream implications; would that mean that the child categories would have to be renamed as well? Actors from the Soviet Union etc? Mason (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current convention is in my understanding Fooian people for sovereign countries and People from Foo for country subdivisions. In this regard, foreign countries such as the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia etc. are indisputably sovereign states (and not e.g. colonies within an empire) although former ones, and have a clear unambiguous demonyn. I see no policy-based reason to treat them differently that present-day sovereign countries. Place Clichy (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:People from the Russian Empire for some reason, and the same form is used for a double handful of other empires among almost 100 “former countries and states” in Category:People by former country in Europe. These were empires composed of a large number of countries, and not nation-states nor UN member states, if we’re considering the definition of “country.” —MichaelZ. 18:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Category:Russian people is not for people from the sovereign state, but for people broadly Russian: “people born in Russia, of Russian descent, or who have a Russian background” and is in parent categories “by nationality,” and refers to the main article Russians about “an East Slavic ethnic group.”
Since Soviet is not an ethnocultural group but describes people having any ethnicity from a specific state, it seems to be in a different class of categorization than this.
I wish we could find a defining statement about these categories as a whole. —MichaelZ. 20:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding, ... from the Russian Empire was preferred to Imperial Russian because the latter is awkward and ambiguous with present-day Russia. Ottoman... was ambiguous with the Ottoman ruling family. None of this applies to Soviet. Place Clichy (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, same problem. Soviet people could refer to Homo sovieticus, to people from Soviet Russia (before the Soviet Union existed), to people from other Soviet states and state-like entities, or even to people that belong to a soviet (council). But “from the Soviet Union” is unambiguous. —MichaelZ. 07:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term American could refer to any person from the Americas but it already has a well-established meaning. Similarly the term Soviet has a well-established meaning. Mellk (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
American people are a well known national group. Soviet people are a historical group that don’t exist any more and the ideological concepts an extinct state. Not equivalent in terms of meaning and recognizability. —MichaelZ. 15:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
American identity is a geographical, political and national concept going back well over two centuries, and a defining quality of the Americans, regardless of the USA’s statehood. Soviet “nationality” (subjecthood) was invented in 1917 and 1922, and ceased to exist on January 26, 1991. Today Soviet people might describe those few subject to Soviet mentality, a completely different thing, less recognizable and requiring clearer disambiguation. —MichaelZ. 00:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not ambiguous. There is no ambiguity that these categories are about Soviet people between 1923 and 1991. Place Clichy (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What’s ambiguous is what does “Soviet people” even mean? It’s not the same as most other apparently similar categories. It’s not a nationality, ethnic, nor linguistic group, nor a political party, nor members of a soviet. This is not a familiar subject to most people, especially to readers born and educated after the USSR disappeared. “People from the Soviet Union” helps explain: better meets the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and precision. —MichaelZ. 19:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for this same reason AHI-3000 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Category_names#People_by_nationality, and CFD precedents for using "Soviet" which are listed via the Notes section there. Although that page says we use "People from" for former countries that have compound names, and "Soviet Union" is a compound name, that reference in WP:CATNAME to compound names is intended to mean places that lack a simple demonym that is not ambiguous. In this case, "Soviet" is sufficiently unambiguous as a demonym, so we use it in categories by nationality. – FayenaticLondon 16:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mellk, I hardly see a need for the relist here. Also, Soviet people is the main page. Respublik (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (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: Conversion from X in fictiontoFiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. This batch also contains some redundant layers that need to be merged. For the inheritance and poisoning categories, I am unsure whether to use the singular or plural form in the prepositional phrase. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, personally "about poisoning" and "about inheritance" sound better to me. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is to be read as "Support in principle". I have no objection to proposed modifications by other editors. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The distinction is meaningless. Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 31 December 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.
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: Conversion from X in fictiontoFiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. This time, I think it's time to scale up. There shouldn't be any surprises in this batch of 45 entries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because once you add "Films about" then it opens every film up to people complaining that a particular film is not 100% "about" a particular topic. The wording of these categories (as they are currently worded) allows for topics to be included that may not necessarily be the main focus of the films in question. Just because the Salvation Army appears in a work of fiction does not mean that the work is "about" the Salvation Army, for instance, and I guarantee that there will be an endless supply of similarly worded arguments by others in the future if these changes are made. It has already been happening with other categories for which this change was made. --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally agreed that "about" in this case means that it is a major plot element or topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "is not 100% "about" a particular topic" I can't think of a single film that is 100% about something, unless we are talking about short films with less than a minute in duration. Most films use subplots, character arcs, and changes in mood or setting. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This makes it clearer that the standard is that the articles should be defined by the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — The Earwig (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OVERCAT. Already part of Hindu deities Cat via individual deity categories. RedtigerxyzTalk 04:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this be relevant for someone who is specifically interested in forms? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an orthogonal subdivision to the categories about individual Hindu deities. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the motivation.★Trekker (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (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:Given names inspired by popular culture[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: This category and its ussage is incredibly vague right now, the vast majority of them are regular names from history which simply increased in popularity due to some popular piece of media or famous person, which does not remotely seem defining to me. Names increase in popularity due to cultural events all the time, its a perfectly normal and expected phenomenon for most names. ★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.. I’m not necessarily opposed to renaming the category but I don’t think this is necessarily the right name. There’s already a category called English given names invented by fiction writers. I was going for something that describes names that have greatly increased in usage due to its use for a single real life person or a single influential character. Names influenced by popular culture? Names that rose in usage due to popular culture? If someone can come up with a better name, please suggest one.
The issue is that I don't find the fact that a name has become more popular due to popular culture to be a defining characteristic, names always fluctuate in usage because of events in culture. A name might become more common in the 1800s because of a once popular novel, but 200 years later it may still be popular but not because of the book anymore. I'm sure the name Victoria became more popular because of Queen Victoria, but that doesn't mean most people who use the name now days mean to name their child after the queen or even think about her. Same with Gary (which you categorized with this category), I doubt the names continued usage is because parents all think of Gary Cooper.★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including its subcategory, it's simply too subjective to claim that X or Y name is inspired by pop culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what to do if there is an example of a very obviously invented name that is not from the English language?★Trekker (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aren't all names "invented" if you look back far enough? This classification isn't well defined enough for a category no matter what you call it. — The Earwig (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. A few different proposals here, this could do with renomination. (non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomimator's rationale: The term "reptilian" is rather vaguely defined by this category. It currently seems to consist primarily of articles about humanoid characters that look like reptiles. Therefore it is redundant. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The requisite article is called "reptilian humanoid". You'd have to be successful in a move discussion to "anthropomorphic reptile" before this merge would make sense. I would, however, support a rename to Category:Fictional reptilian humanoids as fairly uncontroversial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a reverse merge to the fictional reptilians category since it needs to be decided by a move discussion at the main article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? I am not suggesting any move of the reptilian humanoid article, it's not a prerequisite to this proposal. And tell me what's the difference between "humanoid reptile" and "anthropomorphic reptile"? And if you check both of these categories, there's a lot of overlap between Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles and Category:Fictional reptilians, so I don't think there's much of a real practical difference between them. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that category names should match article names. I don't necessarily oppose this rename idea, but articles are moved before categories are. In other words, it's more of a procedural oppose. You'd have to successfully argue that reptilian humanoids are predominantly referred to as anthropomorphic reptiles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a separate issue that's not directly relevant to this discussion. My point is that we do not need two categories that are both about anthropomorphic/humanoid reptile characters. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so reverse merge. The old category is more accurate to the existing title of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to reverse merge anything, this nomination isn't a debate on a particular article's title. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories must match the title of their parent article, we don't move the category before the article, in fact the opposite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no good reason to merge or rename any category here, "reptilians" refer to a very specific UFO conspiracy type character.★Trekker (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which members of this category are that "specific conspiracy type character". If there are none, I guess this is tacit support for its deletion as an unnecessary category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles for merging as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 30 December 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:Lists of unrealized projects by artist[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. Given the content of the category, it would need a more substantiative rationale for renaming. (non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 21:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I believe the nom is proposing two alternative rename targets, not a split. Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Article title should be left as is, since there are categories within several articles (and in possibly upcoming articles), which not only list a director's unrealized film projects, but also ones unrealized for literature and theater. Example: Quentin Tarantino's unrealized projects#Other projects. Not to mention the countless unrealized television projects that are listed on a majority of the pages in the category. Should those listed projects should be removed from the article just because they're not "films" then? Even from an unbiased standpoint, that seems twisted. I think it's best to leave it broad. An "artists unrealized works", generally speaking. I haven't looked into if there are any articles on the subject of unpublished novels by authors, but if so, I say we add those pages to this category as well. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I misunderstood User:Clarityfiend and the proposal is not meant as a split then my alternative rename is preferable as being more concise, but I do not oppose either of the original proposals per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:05, 30 December 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 in British North America[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: Expatriates in British North America is not defining, when there are more specific categories.Mason (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"British North America comprised the colonial territories of the British Empire in North America from 1783 onwards," which I don't think is helpful as a distinction for expatriates. They should be placed in a specific colony/terrority. If kept, this category should be containerized as people don't tend to be defined as "British North American". Mason (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last contribution incorrectly describes the scope of this category, as it includes for example Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies, not just Canada after 1763 and Nova Scotia after 1740s. This presents difficulty as the 13 Colonies were British colonies in North America and there is an overlap in date between them and what became Canada. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron I'm quoting directly from the wikipedia page on what British North America is.Mason (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, a too poorly populated category to have a difficult discussion about. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be quoting the article, but if so subcategories are being misused for Thirteen Colonies. Split into a "pre-confederation Canada" and "thirteen colonies": look at the content of English emigrants subcat. I have no objection in principle, but how do you propose to keep emigrants to New York from being placed (or misplaced) in the Brit N Am cat? Category names sometimes have to be more precise than articles. Classicvally the categories for Birmingham have to be at "Birmingham, West Midlands", to keep out Birmingham AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 30 December 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.
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: The present title is too vague as there have been several cricket teams called The Rest, including another one in India. The main article for this team is The Rest (Bombay) cricket team so inclusion of (Bombay) in the category title will disambiguate. Batagur baska (talk) 13:39, 30 December 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.
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:Manual merge because WP:OVERLAPCAT. Although there is a contested merger proposal for the article British Ceylon period, there is no justification for separate categories. The target already holds directly the chronology categories for the British period 1815–1948, and could take the other's place in Category:History of Sri Lanka by period. – FayenaticLondon 15:33, 30 December 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.
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 merge, or to purge. There is a weak consensus that the two categories are for distinct concepts. That this is an OPINIONCAT for biographies was insufficiently discussed to obtain consensus. (non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We already have a category for opposition to Israel, which is the anti-Zionism category. This new anti-Israeli sentiment category is superfluous. What is the difference exactly between anti-Zionist and anti-Israel sentiment? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, this is a completely unnecessary splitting. Also the creator of this nominated category seems to be pushing an agenda. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have created this category and here is my statement:
-Zionism: a Jewish-only idea for a Jewish state that only talks about Jews in the geographical Jewish homeland. Rejection of this Jewish-only idea: Anti-Zionist.
-Israel: A multidiverse country in today's world, which primarily has nothing to do with religion, where people of different origins live together side by side. It guarantees freedom for everyone. When you say: "I am against Zionists and Zionism", you are for example not addressing the Christians, Muslims and atheists who are Israeli citizens. When you advocate the destruction of all of Israel and its society, you don’t mention the religious element and therefore also address every Israeli citizen including the Muslims, Christians, Atheists and anyone who is not a Jew or who does not identify as a Zionist. Rejection Israel as what it is today and all of its society: Anti-Israeli sentiment. You couldn’t include Adolf Hitler into this for example. Another example is the BDS-movement, which definitely turns against Israel, but I wouldn’t call it an Anti-Zionist organisation. Furthermore (Anti-)Zionism is way older than the country of Israel as we know it today.
The topic is complicated, but there are differences. A subcat of Anti-Zionism would probably be the best solution. FPSalman (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Critisizing Israel and/or even being against its actions (aka anti-Isreal sentiment) is not the same as being anti-Zionist. You can fully support the idea that Jewish people deserve to have a country, and fully belive that Isreal in its current form is not a good country. As such, those to topics, while connected, are not the same. Isreal is a country that exists since 1948. Zionist movement existed for centuries.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing Israel and its policies is not "anti-Israeli". Israelis criticize their own government on a daily basis. Wanting a different administration in power is also not "anti-Israeli", nor is it "anti-Israeli" to want the Israeli government reformed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zionism is not a Jewish-only idea. The majority of American Zionists are Christians. There are also many Hindu Zionists in India. Those are two examples of the many non-Jewish Zionists worldwide. Many of the "Christians, Muslims and atheists" in Israel are Arabs/Palestinians and many are anti-Zionists. The idea that people who oppose the existence of the State of Israel have some kind of animosity against the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel is...an interesting idea, but one I've never heard before. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state; opposition to the Jewish state (anti-Zionism) is opposition to Israel. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are your sources for all of that? How do you know that “many” of the Arabs in Israel are Anti-Zionist? How comes that so many Arabs are in the Israeli army then? How do you actually define an “Arab” in the first place? Is a person who looks “Arab” and whose both parents are Jews from Morocco not “Arab”?
"Israel defines itself as the Jewish state; …" Source?
"The idea that people who oppose the existence of the State of Israel have some kind of animosity against the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel…" What are you talking about?
The massive problem with you Bohemian Baltimore is that you reject Israel’s right to exist. I don’t know how valuable your statements are.FPSalman (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Zionism are two seperate things. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't think there's a difference here at all. Place Clichy (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an additional new layer of the proposal: to purge biographies from the category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support both merging and purgingAHI-3000 (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger as there is a variability between the two categories. Anti-Zionism has a definition that may not be found for example in some sanctioned events. Respublik (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2024 (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: Upmerge for now. There is only one tribe in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep, an empty category now. LizRead!Talk! 20:19, 30 December 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.
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.
Merge Per nom. Honestly there is just too much of an overlap here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 4 January 2024 (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: Upmerge for now. There is only one category in here for each category. This unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:58, 30 December 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:Palestinian philosophers by century[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: Upmerge for now. There is only one category in here for each category which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 03:49, 30 December 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:Mandatory Palestine expatriates in Italian East Africa[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: Upmerge for now. There is only one person in this category. Probably because Italian East Africa existed for less than 4 years. Mason (talk) 02:34, 30 December 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.
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. — The Earwig (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two people in this family. It is unclear if they are even related, as neither links to the other. Mason (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the articles can be directly interlinked if appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 30 December 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.
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: Upmerge for now. There's no need to isolate this one page from the rest of north america Mason (talk) 01:57, 30 December 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:Wikipedia categories named after alcoholic drink companies[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 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: Upmerge for now. Only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I have nominated the subcategory too (see above). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The only subcategory was made 6 years ago, so it doesn't seem like new ones will be added. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:14, 30 December 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 7#Category:Sexuality in the Nordic countries
