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:People from Zamfara State by occupation[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.
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 from Gombe State by occupation[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.
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: Name change will have the benefit of broadening the scope of the category as right now the English families category is overflowing Mason (talk) 21:56, 21 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.
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 Austrian Empire in the United States[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.
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:Continental Basketball Association venues[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:Fictional Soviet people by ethnic or national origin[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:delete, many articles in the subcategories aren't Soviet fictional characters. The category may be restarted from scratch, but should only contain articles and no subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 21 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.
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:MIT Center for Theoretical Physics alumni[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.
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:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Bavaria to the United Kingdom[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.
That's fair. Happy to find a better solution for expatriates at the intersection of regeme and nationality. Do you think a reverse rename for the other categories so they all match "from Bavaria" would be a better approach? Mason (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note:@Johnpacklambert has added commentary/context on my talk page. The crux of his reasoning is: "Emigration is at heart a movement from one political unit to another, and so emigrant categories need to be tied to those politcal units." I disagree with him on this as I think that political unit is mostly not a defining intersection for people leaving a nation (obviously there are exceptions). Regardless, I think his perspective is worth considering. Mason (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the current category is by (then) nationality, the rename would turn it into by country division, which I wouldn't favor to have for emigrants. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 5 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete most. I am convinced that WP:TRAINWRECK applies here, but discussion-wide !votes are mostly in favor of deletion, and most nominations have not been specifically objected. Therefore, all of the nominated categories will be deleted, except for the following:
Fair question. I'm not withdrawing them; my intent was to make it easier for folks to decide about cases that are a tad larger. As my understanding was that part of @GiantSnowman's concern was that there was the risk of over deleting the categories that had grown. Mason (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a massive amount of overcategorization. Especially with few articles per family, all articles will link to each other directly (unless a very distant relationship) and a category does not add anything. Delete all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That was my thinking as well. Some of them might have grown a bit after the creaters were notified. (I'll check and note if any have grown...) Mason (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to do smaller bundles, if you'd find that helpful. My challenge was that I was going through Category:English families, and well, it's a really really big category. I thought it was less disruptive to bundle them all together. Mason (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories are here to help navigation, and only for that. Too many categories with little relevance do the opposite of that, whereas some direct links in a "see also" section, or in article body, do the job a lot better. Thanks to the nominators for sorting this out! Place Clichy (talk) 23:05, 22 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:Kingdom of Bohemia emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The first category is tricky. "Czech" would serve as ethnicity in this period, but one article is about an ethnic Jew and the other could be about a German Bohemian (that is not clear). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 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.
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 it really isn't worth distinguishing that this is when Finland was part of the Russian Empire. If not merged, it could be renamed Emigrants from the Grand Duchy of Finland Mason (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. Do you have thoughts on how to name these categories... for lack of a better word... better? I don't think that the inclusion of dates in the name is helpful/enlightening. Mason (talk) 12:11, 1 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 from the Hanseatic City of Lübeck[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.
Not overlapping, because Hanseatic City of Lübeck was the name of the area in the 19th century when it was an independent state, while Free City of Lübeck was the name when it was part of the Holy Roman Empire. In its current state, I would not object to merging the category to Category:People from Lübeck. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 12 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:British sportspeople in British India[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.
Oppose. The two articles in this category, Edward Lee French and Ernest Raikes, were an "English-born" policeman and an advocate that incidentally played for a cricket team based in Bombay called the Europeans. It is fair to assume that they considered themselves British in a British land, and the word expatriate seems a bit out of place. More widely, if we go and add the word expatriate, let's discuss it for all categories for colonial settlers of every country and every trade, not just one sportspeople category (see e.g. British people in colonial India and French people of colonial Algeria). For the sake of historical continuity and better navigation, I don't object to place this category in a parent Category:British expatriate sportspeople in India though (and Pakistan and Bangladesh, for that matter). Place Clichy (talk) 07:24, 28 September 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 convicted on terrorism charges[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: The category was speedied recently into the current name. You cannot speedy a category with thousands of entries. "Jewish surname" is not the same as "Surname of Jewish origin". The former means "Surname common among the Jews", the latter - surname originated in Jewish culture. "catmore" points to Jewish surname. The issue requires a thorough discussion. For example, KaufmannorGenovese are Jewish surnames but not surnames of Jewish origin. And many more. Probably the category must be diffused. In particular we have category:Yiddish-language surnames and category:Hebrew-language surnames, which, as I saw, overlap with this one. - Altenmann>talk16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the "X surnames" for different ethnicities were moved today by the JJMC89 bot to "Surnames of X origin" through the speedy rename process. This is just one of dozens. Maybe it should have been objected to at that stage of this renaming process. But there are many others which have been altered as well. LizRead!Talk!21:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sure you are aware that Jewish ethnicity is a rather unusual case. I could not object because the category was not on my watchlist. BTW, you know what? even the famous surname Soloveitchik is not of "Jewish origin": it originated in smartass brains of some Russian bureaucrat who was bored with the process of inventing surnames for the Jews in the Russian Empire, who didn't have any. - Altenmann>talk04:30, 21 September 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 Sons of Temperance was a moderately important temperance organization in the nineteenth-century but membership in it was non-defining for the careers of these notable figures. User:Namiba19:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through the articles, you will see that most of them highlight their temperance activism, some in a major way. I'm fine with removing any which do not do so.--User:Namiba15:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the appropriate national or state-based temperance activist category for those who had a significant relationship with the temperance movement. Therefore, I support deletion.--User:Namiba14:25, 10 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 There's no clear distinguishing characteristics between a "queer" organization and an "LGBT" organization. Half of the organizations simply seem to have queer in the title of the group. Ditto for literature, mass media, and magazines. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from what other commenters noted, one of my problems with this merger is that "queer organizations" wouldn't easily go into LGBT organizations category, while "queer literature" doesn't go into LGBT literature, nor does "queer-related mass media" to LGBT-related mass media, nor "queer magazines" into LGBT-related magazines. So, at its current form, I oppose this merge. Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for inclusion in any queer-related category is whether reliable sources use the term queer to describe the organization or work. This will typically coincide with whether the org or publication uses queer as a self-descriptor. There is nothing unusual or complex about that as a category scope.
Whether there is a sufficiently justified philosophical basis for the nuances of the distinction between queer specifically and LGBTQ+ more broadly is not Wikipedia's problem to solve. Some people, organizations, and works specifically identify as queer, and have reasons for doing so. One may take the view that they aren't good or sufficient reasons, and that the distinction is ultimately meaningless. Others will disagree. I don't think it would be appropriate for our category structure to endorse the view that the distinction is meaningless, because it would remove the ability for readers who are interested in the distinction to research queer topics.--Trystan (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It hasn't even been six months since the closure of the last time you proposed this. Proposing it again so soon, in a way that doesn't take any of the direction from the previous close, is not productive. There was no consensus last time for your view that queer and LGBT are simple synonyms, so no consensus for blanket merges on that basis. That doesn't seem like the type of thing likely to have changed in five months.--Trystan (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or delete per Marcocapelle if the merge were to only create useless redundancy. It just creates more confusion to attempt to split queer and LGBT+ categories, as, unfortunately, categories are not good for nuances. However, the specific positioning and identification of these media and organization can and must be explained in article body, with all the needed precision. Place Clichy (talk) 21:04, 1 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.
Keep - Actually, looking at this cat, I think it's worth keeping. I don't think there's a clean way to link to those categories in the article. - jc3718:31, 24 September 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: This category only had two child categories in it (16th-century FOO bishops in Prussia), that both belong in the parent category. I'm nominating it, and then moving the final category to 16th century in Prussia Mason (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There was no justification to remove the bishop subcategories..." Bishops in Prussia belong in the "in Prussia" category, as that is for countries. If the bishops were "Prussian" bishops, they'd belong in the Prussian people category. Mason (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I disagree strongly with that. Categories are for easy navigation between related topics and splitting overlapping people by country from people by nationality just makes navigation more difficult than necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts/perspective on this, @Marcocapelle. I need to think about this some more, as my perspective is that nationality and country for religious workers like bishops is important to distinguish as they don't necessarily overlap. I agree that we should make it easy to navigate between people in country and nationality people. The question is how to do that in a way that respects that distinction.
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. It seems weird to me to only keep Quakers, although certainly they were heavily involved with abolitionism (there's even an article on it), other denominations were too. Christians played a significant part in abolitionism so I’m actually against containerizing Christian abolitionists as well, although I recognize I might be too late on that. - Relinus (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People against and for slavery were Christians of all sorts of denominations, only Quakers were against it based on a consistent denominational point of view. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds almost like an argument that you don't need the Quaker category, except that the time period is important. For the rest one assumes it is useful to some people to be able to group together those in that denomination that were on the abolitionist side of the fence, and divide them from those coreligionists on the other side or those who stayed silent on this issue. For some of these denominations the internal debate would have been an important part of their history. ϢereSpielChequers09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the categories should be exclusively limited to people who were known specifically both as Christians and as abolitionists, and for using Christian theology to oppose slavery. It looks like there are a number of people in the categories who might not belong. (Take for instance Mark Twain in Presbyterian abolitionists, who’s religious views vacillated widely and was actually critical of organized religion and Christian theology at times.) However, there are also people who should be labeled as Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce, who wrote on abolitionism specifically from a Christian viewpoint; Elijah Lovejoy, a Presbyterian minister who was killed for his opposition to slavery; or Theodore Parker, a Unitarian minister who frequently preached on the topic and whose sermons later influenced Martin Luther King. (Unitarians by the way, like Quakers, were very frequently staunch abolitionists so quite a few of their ministers probably fit in this category.) Relinus (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quakers had a unique history of abolitionism, which is why that category should be kept. If evidence can be provided that the other Protestant sects also had a similarly unique history, then they should also be kept.--User:Namiba13:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not totally sure what more you’re looking for, it’s easy to find examples (see above) of individuals whose specific Christian beliefs informed their abolitionist stances, not just Quakers. It is very much a defining intersection for them. As ϢereSpielChequers has already pointed out, it is useful to be able to group them together by denomination, as it is an important part of their denominational history. If you want more evidence that the debate over slavery is an important part of each of these denominations' history, a quick Google search revealed the following: Baptist,[1][2][3] Congregationalist,[4][5] Methodist,[6][7][8][9][10] and Presbyterian.[11][12][13][14][15] I also came across other denominations including Evangelical,[16][17] Episcopalian,[18] Lutheran,[19][20] Unitarian,[21] and Christianity in general.[22][23][24][25][26][27] Again, those were all easy to find and I can find more if needed. I also just noticed there literally is a whole article on Wikipedia addressing the topic of Christian abolitionism. It seems to pretty clearly be an important intersection of history. Relinus (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The references are nice in order to know more about the topic, but they also confirm that none of these denominations collectively took a stance against slavery. Insofar individual people were against it, it was not because their denomination as a whole was against it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I’m not understanding where you're coming from. Would you mind explaining your position more or pointing me towards relevant wikipedia rules or precedent? Thanks. Relinus (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not denying there were anti-abolitionist Christians, far from it, some of the references I provided discuss them. I'm saying that's not a reason to delete the category, in fact it’s a reason to keep it. If the groups were synonymous and all Christians were abolitionists and all abolitionists were Christian, then that would be a reason to delete the category. It is precisely because you cannot assume one from the other that it is useful for those researching the topic to have a category to contain people who are both.
To give an example: we have a category for American abolitionists despite the fact that not all Americans were abolitionists and not all abolitionists were American. The category is important precisely because you cannot assume one from the other.
There are literally books written about the intersection between these two topics, and I think by this point I have clearly demonstrated that this is a topic that someone may be interested in researching, so deleting it would be doing researchers a disservice. - Relinus (talk) 04:23, 22 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.
That's going to be a somewhat different topic. Many judges in British India were civil servants who weren't "from" India and left when they retired. Jahaza (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the scope is different then some items need to be removed, and possibly the category has to be split. It is better done in a full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to suggest an alternative so that we can have lawyers from British India as well as expatriate lawyers in british india? Mason (talk) 21:14, 6 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.
IMO, "Homosexuality and bisexuality deities" is clearer. LGBT deities can be interpreted as deities associated with LGBT topics or deities who are LBGT.--RedtigerxyzTalk04:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does "homosexuality and bisexuality deities" even mean? The articles in the category barely touch upon the subject. This is probably better for a list, in which a detailed description can be given of any type of LGBT relationship. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, the phrasing "homosexuality and bisexuality deities" is very unclear and awkward English. Since we are clearly not talking about adjectives (Homosexual deities etc) and since homosexuality and bisexuality are not religions.. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deities are not restricted to M/F/intersex/hermaphroditic so "bi" in relation to have more than 2/3 genders is also off. LGBT deities also is unclear. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but I don't know where. There is indeed too much overlap here for two distinct categories to be viable, but "Homosexuality and bisexuality deities" is a grammatically untenable and unsupportable name for it, whereas "LGBT deities" doesn't work either because not every deity who is regarded as an LGBT symbol was actually depicted as LGBT themselves in the original mythology — so we only need one category here rather than two, but neither of the existing names is the right one for it, so the appropriate solution is to upmerge them both to a completely new name. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete both so to explain how the deity in question is associated with or related to LGBT/Homsexuality/Bisexuality/etc. Also, because we shouldn't be grouping deities of disparate mythologies together this way. The article LGBT themes in mythology seems to handle this much better than these categories, if anyone wanted to add any of these categories' members there, while also attempting to avoid WP:OR. - jc3711:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete both Both names are too vague. A list could better describe any non-OR relationship between these concepts and a given deity. Paul August☎15:01, 27 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.
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.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American University faculty and staff[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.
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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 31#Category:Heavenly attendants in Jainism
