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: Non-defining intersection between occupation and gender. I don't see translation having a gendered component. This is a related follow-up to [1]Mason (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. As I stated in the prior discussion, I wasn't too attached to the need for subbing translators by gender — the only other country that has any siblings is India, and even then only for women — but the issues around these were different enough from the issues around the other batch (which hinged on whether subbing Canadian translators out by province of residence was necessary or not) that it didn't make sense to bundle these in with that, but they're still not necessary. If there were comprehensive schemes in place of subcategorizing all translators by gender, I wouldn't mind this so much, but it clearly isn't a thing that Canada has a special Canadian-specific need for if virtually no other country is doing it. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would certainly say that gender can have an impact how things are phrased in translation, just like male and female authors write things differently (I can often guess, but I haven't done a blind test so don't trust me haha). I'm reminded of the fact that Mary Ann Evans began her literary career as a translator of Das Leben Jesu, but felt compelled to adopt the male pseudonym George Eliot to avoid the negative bias against female writers and translators at the time. But, is this significant enough to need to categorise translators by gender? Or do we think the original author's gender has much more creative influence than the translator? In practice, I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat: English Wikipedia indeed has a rather limited Category:Male translators by nationality tree, and none for women. By contrast, Commons has huge c:Category:Female translators and c:Category:Male translators trees. Whether C is overcomplicating things, or acknowledging how defining gender can be in translations in a way English Wikipedia fails to do, I don't know. I guess I'm neutral on this proposal. Incidentally, I changed target 1's parent Category:Canadian non-fiction writerstoCategory:Canadian writers, because translators can obviously also translate fiction. NLeeuw (talk) 14:57, 25 April 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:People with major depressive disorder[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.
Delete/Merge I don't think it makes sense for us to categorize based on if people meet the DSM/ICD-criteria for a disorder (which is exactly what this wording would suggest). Both of "with depression" and "with mood disorders" are more vague and therefore better in this regard. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least delete the fictional subcategory, this contains characters who are colloquially depressed, not characters who have a MDD diagnosis. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 23 April 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 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 characters by political orientation[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:split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just what you think. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom.Mason (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette(Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Agree that the proposed categorization scheme makes more sense. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split It makes sense to me, because there are activists on several different causes, and not all of them are overtly political. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 14 May 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: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers. Mason (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette(Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 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: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay. Mason (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.)Mason (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger. Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Do not mergeCategory:Non-binary lesbians, I'm unsure on the gay people cat but I think non-binary lesbians is a relevant category to have and is not trivial. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral. Mason (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette(Let's talk together!) 22:36, 22 April 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: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette(Let's talk together!) 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Delete with no objection to recreation should there be content to populate it with. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:08, 23 April 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: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613, over 800 years later than this. Accordingly, this doesn't need to exist for just one story, but it's never going to contain more, so Category:794 works is more than sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories (Chuanqi) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that one thing exists to file in it, and would require at least five things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to point out you did not address any of my questions. I will take this to mean that you are dropping the arguments you made above and instead offering new arguments.
Second, I would like to point out that the very first item in the "Do's" of WP:CATDD is to Use the most specific categories possible, as per WP:CATSPECIFIC.
The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories.
The assumption here is that this category is inherently bound to only contain one entry. There is nothing about the category label—short stories in a specific year—that entails this. It just happens to have one entry right now. Despite what many people on Wikipedia seem to believe, there is no minimum number of entries (>0) that any category must contain at a given point in time in order to be worth keeping, and this is especially true when it functions as part of a broader categorization system, as this category does in relation to Category:Short stories by year.
As for the implicit conclusion of this claim, that this category is not useful, I counter that it is eminently useful to anyone interested in knowing which short stories were written in the year 794. Just because you personally don't find utility in that doesn't mean it doesn't have utility to someone else; that's why I created it in the first place, because in fact I was trying to figure out what the earliest short story is (on Wikipedia at least) and realized Category:Short stories by year is woefully incomplete for anything before the 17th century. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Are you arguing we should also delete the category Category:Short stories by year and all subcategories? If you aren't arguing for this, then your position is incoherent; if the other subcategories in that category are useful in relation to each other, then this category is also useful in relation to them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. None of the comments above cite even a single Wikipedia policy in favor of deletion, just the subjective and unwarranted beliefs that (1) because the category has only one member now, it will necessarily always have one member and (2) such categorization is not useful. I would like to note that (1), even if true, if not justified by policy; there is no Wikipedia policy that says singleton categories cannot exist, and plenty of such categories do exist especially when they function in the context of a broader system of categorization, as this category does in relation to Category:Short stories by year. As for (2), any cogent argument that this category is not useful would necessarily apply to all other members of Category:Short stories by year. I remind everyone that this categorization system is useful not just because it lets people see what other works were written in the same year as a given short story, but also because it permits a relative chronological ordering of short stories in general. That is, the utility of this category, and all others like it, lies not just in the ability to navigate within, say, Category:794 short stories but also between the categories pertaining to different years. Thus, this category makes complete sense in the context of an existing and accepted system of categorizing short stories, and there is no logical or consistent reason to delete this category but not the others. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "because the category has only one member now, it will necessarily always have one member": no such suggestion has been made. If the number of articles increases we can always recreate a category upon need. (2) "such categorization is not useful": it does not aid to navigation, to be more precise. Categories exist precisely to serve navigation, per WP:CAT. It is going to be very cumbersome if you need 20 mouse clicks to move up and down in the tree to find a few other articles about ancient short stories - you cannot expect an ordinary Wikipedia reader to do that. Therefore a millennium category is a very good idea. Categorization does not serve just to create a repository of subcategories (in the spirit of WP:NOTDIR). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 29 April 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: This mixes up Cypriots who are (Cypriot-)Turkish by ethnicity (but do not necessarily live in Northern Cyprus or have an NC passport), and people who are born in or residing in the territory of limited-recognised Northern Cyprus. We might even have to split it in three ways, for people who have a Northern Cyprus "nationality" / passport. Whatever we decide, the current category (tree) is mixing up ethnicity, residence and nationality; we should unweave them somehow. NLeeuw (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split, people living in Northern Cyprus aren't necessarily Turkish Cypriots and vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 23 April 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: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists. Bluetik (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, it should certainly be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so the category I created is broader in two senses:
it includes people who are neither academics nor writers, eg: Know Your Enemy is a podcast, and Ernie Lazar is an important researcher, but wasn’t known for his writing.
then also, yes, correct it’s additionally broader in that it would include right-wing and far-right (eg MMFA which spends time watching Fox News, Rick Perlstein writes a lot about the National Review).
I’d love to learn how to merge (guessing under WP:Overlap), but still new here, so happy to leave it to a more experienced editor, or wait for consensus from more repliers Bluetik (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you for identifying that! Bluetik (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the category content is mainly about American conservatism, so if not deleted that may be included in the rename as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 22 April 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. ✗plicit 00:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNederlandse Leeuw, I don't think the categories for Scholars of Greek are suitable for speedy renaming as the categories contain a mixture of scholars of Greek language and literature. Also Latin is the other classical language and there is no Category:Linguists of Latin. TSventon (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon I discussed thus with @Fayenatic london in another thread (about Category:Grammarians of Persian), he thought it was a good idea. It's virtually impossible to study the literature of a language without also studying the language itself. (I've been studying Old East Slavic as an amateur lately, because I want to write about Rus' chronicles on Wikipedia). Also, Category:Latinists exists; it currently serves the same function as a Category:Linguists of Latin would. NLeeuw (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw, I have looked at the content of the categories and am suggesting that these categories are not suitable for speedy renaming. I am happy for the CfD admins to accept or reject my argument. Studying the literature of a language generally involves studying the language itself, but some academics focus more on literature and others on liguistic topics and this is reflected in our categories. Category:Latinists exists and has a Greek counterpart, Category:Hellenists. TSventon (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm not convinced this makes them unsuitable for speedy renaming, but we'll see. Otherwise I'm happy to move to full, although I think it's unnecessary. NLeeuw (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this kind of discussion is better held at a full CfD than here. Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A? NLeeuw (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other. P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian". P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too, Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @Fayenatic london or @Marcocapelle could explain further? NLeeuw (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 22 April 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: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush (Castilleja). ~ Dissident93(talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See request to reopen and relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support unnecessary disambiguation. - Altenmann>talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for Indian Paintbrush. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right? * Pppery *it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 April 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:16th-century Chilean people 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:28, 22 April 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:People with non-binary gender identities[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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Congenital amputees
