Category:Physicians from the Republic of Genoa[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: overlapping category where the intersection between regime and occupation and nationality isn't defining Mason (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this rename: Category:16th-century Genoese people should be renamed to Category:16th-century people from the Republic of Genoa Mason (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that this type of categorization can be academically accepted. It's a complex issue from an archival perspective, which has been studied for many years and needs to be approached rigorously and without haste. Let me try to explain using a very similar example. Italy and Italian citizenship only exist from 1861 onwards. Moreover, modern Italy only exists from 1946. Yet, no one would ever dream of saying that Leonardo da VinciorRaphael were not Italian (in fact, both biographies unequivocally state them as "Italians"). Why? The reason is simple: there's a distinction between the people (that is, that set of individuals with a historically shared culture, traditions, and customs) and administrative divisions. These are two entirely different aspects, both importan, but in different ways and with different meanings. Both categorizations have the encyclopedic dignity to exist, but for different purposes.
The same can be said about the Genoese (a population with specific tradition, history and customs, recognized by dozens of authoritative academic sources and different from the Italians), I could suggest this book for example.
@Teatroge: it is not clear to me whether you support or oppose the nomination, or whether you support or oppose my later comment. Marcocapelle (talk)
@Marcocapelle: I'm sorry, I can become verbose at times since English is not my mother tongue. :-) I believe renaming the Category:16th-century Genoese people in that way is incorrect (oppose). Following the rationale of the proposal, it's similar to the Category:16th-century Neapolitan people, Category:16th-century Venetian peopleorCategory:16th-century Sicilian people. This was the name for the citizens of that administrative unit, and also, many populations in the world have existed before the respective nation was administratively founded (Italian people are the best example: Italy has only existed since 1861 but even Dante Alighieri, born in 1265, was already Italian). Thus, the current category seems appropriate; renaming it would be wrong. If we want to rename that category, we have to decide a general standard beforehand. Rather, I think it would be more appropriate to populate the category we are talking about and maybe create similar ones for additional activities (only when appropriate and with enough articles available), which I could also do if there are no deletions 'hanging over the situation'. :-) I did a brief search among the articles and found a couple more suitable for the category. Is it better now? --teatroge (dm) 01:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Yes, you're right. I'll be happy to continue the conversation wherever you prefer.
In the meantime, you can read a short reply to your point in this hidden box :-)
I used the general term "administrative unit" to be as comprehensive as possible. By that term, I simply meant to refer to any organized human entity with some form of statutory organization, rules, and hierarchies (be it a nation, a federation, a municipality, a republic, a fiefdom, a commune, a tribe). Tying a population (such as the Genoese, Italians, etc.) exclusively to these kinds of organizations is a simplification that can be applied in some cases but not in others. It needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The situation of the Italic populations is just one example; however, this applies to many other populations in Latin America, Northern Europe, and Asia, among others. The further back in time you go, the more evident this becomes. Regarding the Genuati, for instance, who are the earliest historically known inhabitants of Genoa, there are certain records dating back to 117 BC. In the following centuries, they are referred to as Genoese (especially after their encounter with the Romans), but obviously, they cannot be framed within any specific administrative unit, although they fall under the category of Genoese exactly as the people of Republic of Genoa, and what about, then, the Repubblica Genovese (1814-1815)? This also applies to the Helvetii, the Quechua, the Jews, the Inuit, etc. In short, it is a complex topic. :-) I apologize for this short off-topic!
Delete. I believe that attempting to categorize people by the myriad of small states of feudal and early modern Europe (and, in the case of Italy and Germany, until 1861/1871) is dangerous and borderline useless. In any case, intersecting them with occupations is tricky and a can of worms. Even more so if it is done in a hit-and-run fashion of creating a poorly-defined category, adding a lone article and moving. Back to basics: we define topics and people by their defining characteristics. In the cases at hand, the physicians there are primarily defined as Corsican, and Genoese in the case of the 2 that were added since this nomination started. That's how they should be categorized, because that's how reliable sources consider them. There are parent categories such as Category:People from the Republic of Genoa (the previous name People of the Republic of Genoa may have been in fact better) where some articles can be put if needed only (i.e. if they are strongly associated with that state). Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: I agree that the previous name People of the Republic of Genoa was better. About the sentence "attempting to categorize people by the myriad of small states of feudal Europe", the Republic of Genoa lasted from 1099 to 1797 (and from 1814 to 1815), longer than the majority of nations currently existing in the world. But please help me to understand your suggestion: would you categorize those physicians in Category:Genoese physicians and Category:Corsican physicians? In this case I agree, It seems a good idea to me. --teatroge (dm) 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking I agree with you that we do not have an imperious need to intersect occupations with every local geography. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb. It's not about localism or geography; rather, it's about adhering to reliable sources and maintaining a WP:GLOBAL perspective. I agree that this principle applies specifically when referencing state entities or populations with a documented centuries-old history, as supported by academic sources,[1][2][3][4] and not to every tiny village the size of a cute little ant. :-) Dante Alighieri has always been identified as Italian, if for no other reason than being considered the father of the Italian language, which was the first element of cultural unification for the country. On the other hand, Christopher Columbus, throughout his life, never called himself as Italian (instead, depending on the context: Genoese, Portuguese, or Spanish). Should we remove from that article the "Category:Italian explorers of North America"? Of course not. Should we remove "Category:16th-century Genoese people" of course not. Should we list him in a Category:Genoese explorers? If there were enough articles to populate it, yes. The fact that a category is not (yet) widely used right now doesn't make it incorrect. It reminds me a bit of WP:DEFUNCTorWP:NOEFFORT criterias. :-) We have Category:Native American people by occupation or the whole Category:People by ethnicity and occupation thanks to good reasons and good references, in my opinion. ;-) --teatroge (dm) 06:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genoese is not an ethnicity though, and not considered as such at any period in history. It also has the issue that it ambiguously refers to either the city of Genoa, or the centuries-old Republic of Genoa, a case that's far for exceptional (see Venetian, Roman, Bavarian etc.). although this ambiguity is not the same depending on the context (e.g. in the context of 16th-century Corsica, an occurrence of Genoese would be rather transparently a reference to the Republic, not the city). The way I suggest out of this is apply moderation, and place the many articles relative to the Republic of Genoa in Category:People from the Republic of Genoa and century-based categories (which we have in principle only for countries, not regions or cities), and not break down these categories in as many child categories we would have for, e.g. Italy, unless absolutely necessary. By absolutely necessary I mean when a topic is both clearly (not marginally) considered a topic in its own right in reliable sources and that the volume of articles makes it more convenient for navigation to have a dedicated category. A typical example would be Venetian painting and Category:Republic of Venice artists, which are arguably more a topic in its own right that Genoese medecine. Also, I don't think that WP:GLOBAL implies that every polity that ever existed on the face of Earth would have rights to be equal with modern nations in terms of nationality categories, especially if there was never really a corresponding nation (think of the Free Territory of Trieste or the Free City of Danzig). In fact, even for present-day independent nation-states, categories for people by occupation and nationality are far from equal: Spain has 91 such categories while East Timor has 21. Such categories are (and should be) created only when there's a need for them and when they're helpful, not for the sake of them. Place Clichy (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: Very convincing arguments, I must say. Thank you for addressing them that well and for the time spent. I do agree with almost everything you said. I still have a few thoughts. Firstly, pardon, I wanted to refer to the Category:Indigenous peoples, which indeed applies to the Genoese. I did not meant to refer to ethnic characteristics (which are, in any case, an extremely debated topic), my fault. Secondly, the broad categories Category:16th-century Genoese people seem fully consistent with the criterion you described here (which I support). The Genoese of that period was extremely significant on a global level, so much so that the century spanning from 1500 to 1600 is known in Spanish historiography (even more than Italian one) as "El siglo de los genoveses" ("the century of the Genoese"). As a second option, I would still use the older Category:People of the Republic of Genoa ("of", not "from"), which is far more precise. Lastly, since I agree with you I also think it is undeniable that over the last two thousand years, three or four populations settled in the Italian territory has been significantly relevant worldwide (Roman, Venetian, Genoese). But again, yes, those are RARE exceptions for which a broad category, except for cases of significant cultural relevance, it may be sufficient. Thanks. --teatroge (dm) 13:23, 10 November 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 and clap loudly. There are no many such expatriate sportspeople categories from places that are not nations that it's embarrassing. Place Clichy (talk) 02:49, 4 November 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.
Oppose, I did populate the category with 3 new items; I really encourage other participants of the discussion to check more troughly the subject before nominating/voting. For example Zbarazh Castle was in the parent category.Marcelus (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: It either needs to be renamed or deleted, as there are no family members in the category. I couldn't find any English language pages for the category. Mason (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:Catholic high schools in the United States by state or territory[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: Territories need to be added. The commons cat already includes territories. This will put this category in line with other wikis. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a kinda "I stand in the way" argument. And it can be seen the other way around: the root for U.S. categories is Categories by state or territory of the United States, and although a number of categories in this tree still use by state, they get regularly nominated here for renaming to by state or territory. I guess you just cannot make it a prerequisite to manage the renaming of potentially thousands of categories at the same time (unless you intend to manage that yourself), because that usually ends in a WP:TRAINWRECK and also because WP:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Every nomination or batch thereof in this direction is a good step. Place Clichy (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. However, I don't think we should change ortoand because that seems like a fairly unique scenario that we can just note in the category page. Mason (talk) 22:06, 10 November 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: "from city" doesn't require people to be born in Dundee. I think that these are overlapping categories, contrary to what the category description states: "This category is for poets with a strong association with Dundee in Scotland, but who were not originally from the city. For poets born in Dundee see Category: Poets from Dundee" Mason (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while that is true, I wonder if there is a threshold for how close the association has to be for it to be from? Mary Brooksbank and William McGonagall spent substantial parts of their lives in Dundee so I personally would not have any objections to them being in a "From Dundee" category (as long as the born in text is removed). On the other hand Thomas Hood only spent a few years in Dundee, but they were influential to his career as a writer in the long term. To an extent the same could be argued of Rachel Annand Taylor. Thus I am not sure they would fit in a "From Dundee" category and so I am not sure a full merge would work - it may be that some articles would be best to be removed from the merged category. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan[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.
Keep. This format is consistent with the fact that words Assyrian and Syriac are often used one for the other, sometimes synonymous but also sometimes covering different realities depending on context. In fact, choosing SyriacorAssyrian often denotes various POVs so it's better to use both, but if they are the same thing then Assyrian and Syriac means nothing (you wouldn't say Dutch and Netherlandish, or Greek and Hellenic). An alternative may be "... of Assyrian or Syriac descent." Place Clichy (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit hesitant about this nomination exactly because of the reason that Place Clichy pointed out. Probably using "or" is a good compromise. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought for a time, but see how Talk:Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden is filled with discussions on how some parts of the community there don't recognize themselves under the name Assyrians but prefer other terms (SyriacsorArameans), although they acknowledge that there all belong to the same group. Similar debates on Talk:Assyrian–Chaldean–Syriac diaspora. Therefore I acknowledge that writing "Assyrian/Syriac" or ""Assyrian or Syriac" is needed as a local break from the wider convention, at least for Sweden. Place Clichy (talk) 21:01, 9 November 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.
DeleteasWP:PERFCAT. Note that I'm also adding a sibling category for actresses to the nomination, as it's subject to the same issue as its male counterpart — but the problem is that while these categories both assert that they're meant for performers whose careers have been associated nearly or entirely exclusively with horror films and not for every actor who's merely been in horror films once or twice as a minor part of a more multigenre career, that's virtually unmaintainable: since people regularly add articles to whatever categories they think applicable and walk away without checking for any usage notes to see if they're doing it wrong, it would be literally impossible to adequately manage these categories to ensure that they were staying within the lines. (Also, Adrienne Barbeau is noted much more for Grease and Maude than for her appearances in horror films, and while Jamie Lee Curtis certainly had the "scream queen" reputation early in her career that's hardly what she's best known for in 2023 anymore.) Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:English expatriates in Taormina, Sicily[edit]
Category:Indigenous people in German South West 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.
Keep: This cat was recently created by me, in response to the existence of Category:Colonial people in German South West Africa. Not all members are people from German South West Africa, for instance Zacharias Lewala was South African. This is a new category, haven't had the time to go through all possible members yet, but my guess is that there are many more. Moreover, often the sources do not give the birth place, only what they did in their lifetimes. And then there is the problem (described at Talk:History of Namibia#Pre-colonial name?) that South West Africa applies to the period both before and after German colonialisation, which leads to inconsistencies in the categorisation.
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:Noble families in the British Isles[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: These seem to me to be overlapping categories. I think that the intention is to distinguish between ireland and the uk Mason (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality gets a bit funky the further one goes back across the history of the British Isles. Some families, like Uí Ímair, are in Ireland, Scotland, and England at many points, and also pre-date the Anglo-Normans. It would be a bit anachronistic to try to fit them into a modern "United Kingdom" or "Ireland" box. It would make a good bit more sense here for the supercategory to be Category:European noble families rather than Category:Noble families by nationality. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)22:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Painters from the Republic of Venice[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.
There's plenty of content which meets the definition, and Venetian painting is very much defining. The question is then: do we need a category for the state, or are we satisfied with having painters categorized by their city in Italy and their artistic movement? Frankly I don't know. Place Clichy (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation[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: The name of the division is outdated as Fox is no longer associated with 20th since the latter's merger with Disney in 2019. SlySabre (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this be appropriate categorization for TV series that existed before the merger? Maybe this should be kept as a subcategory not outright renamed. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's fair, considering that there are two separate categories for both "Category:20th Century Fox films" and "Category:20th Century Studios films", which despite being the same studio, differentiate the two eras. SlySabre (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of Scotland[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.
I'm in support of the alternative of deleting for the child category, but I'd still like the merge with a redirect the parent category. Mason (talk) 23:34, 2 November 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 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.
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 overwhelming majority of biographies in this category are unsourced and unprovable. Per WP:BLPCAT, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." I've spent considerable amount of time and energy sorting articles with reliable sources but these are very few and far between. The common argument in favor of keeping this category on an article is "everyone knows person X is African-American". This is, of course, not how we use categories but it is virtually impossible to stop. Moreover, the vast majority of basketball players from the United States are likely African-American, so as to make it non-defining. Per WP:EGRS, this is not been recognized "as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" given the preponderance of African-Americans in all levels of basketball for decades. Note: this category was nominated for deletion in 2017 but no consensus was reached."User:Namiba16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the argument that being in the majority makes a group non-defining. However, I think that the defining intersection is african-american sportspeople rather than basketball per se. There's a lot written about the fact that sports is a form of upward mobility for african americans. Mason (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the vast majority of American basketball players are African-American, that's not a defining characteristic. The team you play for, the titles you win, and for segregation-era the kind of league you played in are defining factors, but not that one. Place Clichy (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was also discussed in 2020. I'm still not sure what to do with this category, but in practice, we usually don't see any cited sources that explicitly say a given player is African America. Yes, we can verify that a historically significant player like Bill Russell is African American. But can we do the same for, say, John ThomasorChris Carr? Of course, broader categories like Category:African-American sportspeople have the same problem. Zagalejo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Should the consensus here result in deletion, it might be worthwhile to open up all of the sibling and parent cats in the category tree for a mass-CfD since there'd be a precedent. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:12, 10 November 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 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.
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:delete, the Carolingian Empire was multi-ethnic, it was no longer meaningful to distinguish who was originally Frankish. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 2 November 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:Histories of cities in Great Britain[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: Not convinced this half-step is required. The majority of other categories relating to the United Kingdom go straight from England/Wales, etc. to UK without an intermediary GB step. It just adds an extra layer to the tree for no apparent reason (Before anyone mentions it, BTW, yes, I realise some of these histories with include pre-UK events, but if we're judging by that measure some of them are also long enough for them to be included in categories like Category:Histories of cities in Wessex/Mercia etc, which would be equally unnecessary). Grutness...wha?02:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, all of the cities are currently in the UK - and that's how all other countries are categorised. See my comment on this in the nomination. Similarly, we don't have Cat: History of cities in the Principality of Moscow or Cat: History of cities in West Germany. Grutness...wha?01:55, 8 November 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/2023 November 11#Fictional people by descent
