Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30

< December 29 December 31 >

December 30

XFL categories

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. If anyone wants to create disambiguation categories for any of these, it could be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:XFL Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:XFL venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:XFL templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:XFL teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:XFL players by team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:XFL players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:XFL coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: See also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Opposed_requests. XFL (2001) and XFL (2020) are separate but related leagues (the 2020 league is considered a "reboot" and "successor" to the 2001 league), but other editors said there should not be overall XFL categories. Each of these categories have separate 2001 and 2020 categories, so there is apparently no need for these container categories. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:XFL Championship and Category:XFL players by team, Disambiguate the rest. This amounts to categorization by shared name, which we don't do. Most of these will need to be converted to dab categories instead of outright deletion, I think. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep - they're two seperate leagues with the same owner and name. Also the fact the categories you mention exist is the point of disambiguation here - converting the categories to disambiguations would let an editor who doesn't yet know these are two seperate leagues find out when they attempt to "generically" categorize something. Or did you think I was !voting "split"? - The Bushranger One ping only
  • Delete or turn into dab pages, both solutions work fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2020 (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:Transcendental Meditation practitioners

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Transcendental Meditation practitioners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as trivial. The vast majority of those included in this category practice transcendental meditation as a hobby and as such it is non-defining. User:Namiba 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as to whether this list should be deleted but it is relatively presumptuous to assert that people do any kind of practice as a "hobby". Such a presumption is truly trivial and condescending. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way to tell if it's defining or not, and therefore pretty difficult to manage or edit; thus, a terrible use of a category. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would read the deletion nomination rationale as one for pruning of the category entrants rather than deletion. David Lynch, for instance, is a widely-known TM practitioner and advocate. He has founded the David Lynch Foundation for this specifically. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still a minor component of David Lynch's biography. By what criterion would you want to prune? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a defining category for almost everyone who does it, we do not need to categorize people by everything they did. What next Category:People who have done yoga?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete practicing TM is not defining, any more than most pastimes or occasion behaviors (Category:People who have dieted). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:HBO Family

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: upmerge to Category:HBO original programming, now that it has been purged, with thanks to Good Ol’factory. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:HBO Family to Category:HBO Family original programming and purging it of some articles
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be categorizing programming which has appeared on HBO Family. I suggest removing the articles which are not original to HBO Family and rename the category to be an original programming category in Category:Original programming by television network or channel. We don't categorize by network programs that appeared on a network but were not original to that network. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do not have an article on HBO Family, just a redirect. Should we keep the category? Dimadick (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good point. Additionally, several of the articles state that the program aired on HBO, without specifying HBO Family. Maybe it's best to delete and merge the appropriate articles to Category:HBO original programming? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge per nom. Support proposal of Good Olfactory. --Just N. (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge per nom. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs purge before destination will be clear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). I have purged the category of non–HBO original programming. Some of the remaining articles indicate that it was original to HBO, without saying it was original to HBO Family. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to think that the latter might be the best option here, given how the articles address this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Multiple Units of India

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: speedy rename WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename as per established Wikipedia capitalization. Gjs238 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (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.

American and Australian people of Shanghainese descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Shanghainese descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:American people of Shanghainese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
  • Upmerge Category:Australian people of Shanghainese descent to Category:Australian people of Chinese descent
  • Upmerge Category:Singaporean people of Shanghainese descent to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent added 8 January
  • Nominator's rationale As best I can tell, Shanghainese means people who live in Shanghai. The article on this informs us most such people in a broad ancestral view are recent migrants from elsewhere in China. Shanghai as a city has expanded a huge amount since 1880, in part from migration from elsewhere in China. This would be like Category:American people of Londoner descent, Category:American people of Parisian descent, Category:American people of Vienese descent, Category:American people of Sao Paulista descent, of any other category for people from a very large city. I only nominate the American and Australian categories, because due to other issues I am not sure we can treat the other two categories in the same way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the usual "descent" categories problems: User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories. Moreover, does one's ancestors passing through one specific city impart anything on their descendants. If so, then the innate uselessness of "descent" is proven because passing through one city changes the nature of their "descent" and, of course, adds another nuance: how long is one's ancestors being in Shanghai impart that special sine qua non that makes this notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. As much as I agree with Carlos, sadly this is how "American people" are currently categorized. As long as it is not a triple intersection, it is relatively harmless and easy to prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to John Pack Lambert: what are the "other issues" which stopped you also nominating the parent Category:People of Shanghainese descent and the siblings Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent, Category:Singaporean people of Shanghainese descent, since the rationale appears to apply equally to those? Unless this is explained, the nomination appears to lack integrity and to require relisting with the rest of the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 10:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london and Johnpacklambert: I have taken the liberty to add the Singaporean sibling, this should be treated the same way as the Australian and American categories. For Hong Kong it is different, the parent category is a container category, so rather than merging it should be a deletion proposal. I guess we'd better discuss that separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that parent Category:Hong Kong people of Wu descent (from regional Wu Chinese-speaking culture) is also a possible target for upmerge so as not to put content in a container category. However legitimate questions can indeed be raised if splitting categories for Chinese ancestry people (or any nation) by region or city is a good idea, and also if Chinese ancestry is defining for anybody from a place with overwhelming Chinese population, such as Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan. Regional Chinese subcultures in Hong Kong are probably a defining matter for cultural items, such as neighbourhoods, restaurants, museums, festivals, cultural associations etc. but not so much for biographies. Place Clichy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. John Pack Lambert's comparisons ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions. 219.73.73.176 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Wenzhounese descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Wenzhounese descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:American people of Wenzhounese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
  • Nominator's rationale As some may know, China has 56 recognized ethnic groups. Wenzhounese is not one of those 55. Wenzhounese is a language, but its speakers are ethnically Han Chinese. So here we are categorizing people by a language that their ancestors may have spoken. The problem is it seems we are placing these categorize based on no clear indication of this fact in the articles, and no one is demonstrating that people see themselves as a distinct group based on this shared characteristic in the United States. The notable Chinese American person I know of the mot Gerrit W. Gong I have no clue which of these categories he would be placed in, and I personally knew one of his sons. This is not how many American people of Chinese descent think of themselves, and the few who do it is not common enough to be categorizing by. I will support categories like Category:American people of Hui descent where we are categorzing by an actual ethnic heritage (although in the case of the Hui they are an ethno-religious group, they are Han Chinese who are ancestrally Muslim, how much this was conversion and how much it was intermarriage with Muslims merchants and other Muslim expatriates in China 1000 or more years ago, no one knows. Remember Aladin is set in China and Aladin is Chinese, even if the actually setting of Aladin as contained in the 1001 nights does not seem much like China, they explicitly say it is in China).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on Shanghai above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. As much as I agree with Carlos, sadly this is how "American people" are currently categorized. As long as it is not a triple intersection, it is relatively harmless and easy to prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection, this nomination lacks integrity as the rationale applies equally to the parent Category:People of Wenzhounese descent and the sibling Category:Hong Kong people of Wenzhounese descent, but they have not been nominated. Relist adding those. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. The issues in a category as it applies in a particular nation are different than broader categories. People need to end this character assasination. I am just sick and tired of people accusing me a maliciousness on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: by stating that "the nomination lacks integrity" I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Sibling categories should probably be upmerged or deleted with the same rationale. Place Clichy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. John Pack Lambert's rationale ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions. 219.73.73.176 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American people of Zhejiang descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Zhejiang descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:American people of Zhejiang descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
  • Nominator's rationale Zhejiang is a province of China. This would be like having Category:American people of Alberta descent, Category:American people of Rio Grande do Sul descent, and several other such categories. I see no reason to categorize in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on Shanghai above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. As much as I agree with Carlos, sadly this is how "American people" are currently categorized. As long as it is not a triple intersection, it is relatively harmless and easy to prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection, this nomination lacks integrity as the rationale applies equally to the parent Category:People of Zhejiang descent, but it has not been nominated. Relist adding parent. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. The issues in a category as it applies in a particular nation are different than broader categories. People need to end this character assasination. I am just sick and tired of people accusing me a maliciousness on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By stating that "the nomination lacks integrity" I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. John Pack Lambert's comparisons ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions. 219.73.73.176 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppory Not convinced that this needs a specific category. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American people of Wu descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Full consideration of Category:People of Wu descent and its other subcategories in a new nomination is strongly recommended. They should have all been nominated together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:American people of Wu descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
  • Merge Category:Australian people of Wu descent to Category:Australian people of Chinese descent added 8 January
  • Merge Category:British people of Wu descent to Category:British people of Chinese descent added 8 January
  • Nominator's rationale Yes, there are 56 recognized groups in China, but the Wu are not one of these. This is an extremely poor category as one can see from its explanatory heading "American people of Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai Han descent". Why then is this category not called Category:American people of Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai Han descent? I have no clue, but Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai is not an article. It is 3 articles. This is a total mess, and not justified at all. We should not subdivide people in this way, it is ludicorous. It would be like having Category:American people of East Anglia descent or Category:American people of West Midlands descent, or maybe even more accuately Category:Massachusetts Bay Colony people of East Anglia descent. We could find sources that would conceive of people in 1640 Massachusetts in this way, but it create a scheme that is just not justified in a broad encycloppedia, and that is exactly what this category is doing here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on Shanghai above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. As much as I agree with Carlos, sadly this is how "American people" are currently categorized. As long as it is not a triple intersection, it is relatively harmless and easy to prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection, this nomination lacks integrity as the rationale applies equally to the parent Category:People of Wu descent and the siblings Category:Hong Kong people of Wu descent, Category:British people of Wu descent, but they have not been nominated. Relist adding those. – Fayenatic London 10:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. The issues in a category as it applies in a particular nation are different than broader categories. People need to end this character assasination. I am just sick and tired of people accusing me a maliciousness on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By stating that "the nomination lacks integrity" I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london and Johnpacklambert: I have taken the liberty to add the Australian and British sibling categories to the nomination, they should be treated the same way as the American category. For Hong Kong it is different, the parent category is a container category, so rather than merging it should be a deletion proposal. I guess we'd better discuss that separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We do not generally split national ancestry categories by region (or dialect spoken), for any nation, as there would be no end to that. Regional Chinese subcultures in diaspora are probably a defining matter for cultural items, such as neighbourhoods, restaurants, museums, festivals, cultural associations, notable immigration movements etc. but not so much for biographies. Place Clichy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case I think "language spoken" is a better term to use. The languages of China are clearly fully distrinct. We do for the records have Category:American people of French-Canadian descent, but this reflects both the realities on the ground in Canada, and also how for quite some time these were a defined and distinct group in many areas of New England. I have a US born friend who was of French-Canadian descent and did not even speak English at all until he entered kindergarten. His parents were also born in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. John Pack Lambert's rationale ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions. 219.73.73.176 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American feminists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Asian-American feminists to category:American feminists of Asian descent
  • rename Category:Chinese-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Chinese descent
  • Rename Category:Filipino-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Filipino descent
  • Rename Category:Indian-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Indian descent
  • Rename Category:Japanese-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Japanese descent
  • Rename Category:Korean-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Korean descent
  • Rename Category:Taiwanese-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Taiwanese descent
  • Nominator's rationale These all are out of line with Category:American people of Asian descent, Category:American women of Asian descent, most of the subcategories by occupation and almost all of the sub-categories by nationality. The usual form is x people/x occupation of y descent. These will now conform with the norm for Category:American people of Chinese descent, Category:American people of Filipino descent, Category:American people of Indian descent, Category:American people of Japanaese descent, Category:American people of Korean descent and Category:American people of Taiwanese descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for every other country, this was changed to Booian of fooian descent. I will support this if you promise to tackle all the rest, but not otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I don't have a strong preference on the name format but the proposed one is clearly more prevalent, in the spirit of WP:C2C. (I favor further standardization but do not make it a condition for this discussion.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems on "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for goodness sake. Non-defining triple intersection. While seem to be more appropriately populated than "Arab-American" (below), many of them aren't "of fooian descent"; they are actual immigrants. Better to keep separate our immigrant and descent categories for easier pruning.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the two previous reactions but selectively merge to Category:American people of Chinese descent etc. for those articles that do belong there, instead of a plain deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not think that the viewpoint, theory or practice of some American feminists should be primarily defined or limited by their ancestry. If there is a distinct Asian American feminism movement, something which remains to be proven, people are not automatically associated with it by virtue of a Pakistani or Japanase great-grandparent. If kept, rename as nominated, and containerize the Asian category per this discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Arab-American feminists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Arab-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Arab descent
  • Nominator's rationale This will make it match the parent Category:American people of Arab descent, and the 5 sub-categories of that parent category that are not more specific manifestations of Arabness but subdivide by such things as occupation, such as Category:American writers of Arab descent and Category:American sportspeople of Arab descent. Plus the general standard is Booian people of Fooian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine with the outcome of the above Asian American categories, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — goes well beyond the usual problems. Articles include a half-Lebanese (not Arab), writing about Muslim feminism. And a notable Jew, writing about Jewish topics! Egyptians are not Arabs. Iraqis are not Arabs. This category must be very confusing to editors.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the two previous reactions but selectively merge to Category:American people of Arab descent etc. for those articles that do belong there, instead of a plain deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there does not seem to be a specific notion of Arab American feminism – unlike for instance Islamic feminism which deals with feminist topics in regards to Muslim countries and/or Muslim faith, which is a different topic. It is even a bit insulting to consider that the viewpoint, theory or practice of some American feminists would be defined or limited by their ancestry. If kept, rename as nominated. Place Clichy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the majority of American Muslims are not Arabs. Both South Asian and African-American Muslims outnumber Arab ones in the US. There are also Euro-American origin converts and their descendants, Chechen, Albanian, Bosnian, Turkish, Iranian, Senegalese, Gambian, Somali, Malaysian, Indonesian and Chinese-American Muslims, as well as some Latino convets to Islam and their descendants, and some other groups from other countries. Only about 20% of American Muslims are Arab, so we should not use these terms interchangeably. On the other hand the majority of American Arabs are Christians. This applies especially to people of Arab-descent. Arab Christians in the early 20th-century so heavily intermarried with the general Euro-American population that considering them a distinct group is at times highly questionable. Thus we have actresses like Terri Hatcher who was of Arab descent, but no one would argue this at all colors the roles she is given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely my point: while Islamic feminism is a topic (in regards to the relationship between women and Islam), Arab feminism, in regards to Arab ethnic identity, does not seem to be one. I guess we could hardly find anything common between a third-generation Arab American woman, a Lebanese Christian woman and a Sudanese woman (yes, Wikipedia categories considers them Arab as their country is in the Arab league). Place Clichy (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Combined Asian American Resource Project

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Combined Asian American Resource Project
  • Nominator's rationale This is an article masquerading as a category. The people who were connected with this it is not clear that it is in any way defining, or something worth categorizing. I have no objection to creation of Combined Asian American Resource Project as an article with the 4 of so people in the category added on as a list, but I see no reason it should be a category. If it is made an article, someone would have to find sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, @Matsujima: pinging category creator to give them a chance to turn this into an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another draft article in the category space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American female models

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, merging content to Category:American female models. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American skateboarders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist, but there was no consensus on whether it should be a merge or an outright deletion without a merge. I am defaulting to merge to retain the categorization information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Asian-American skateboarders to Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent (it is a non-diffusing sub-cat of Category:American skateboarders so there is no reason to upmerge there)
  • Nominator's rationale this is one of only 2 sports specific sub-cats of Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent. I think it at base runs afoul of our rules against categorizing by race. The parent may have that problem as well, but since most people are actually in ethnic specific sub-cats it is not as glaring a problem. This is so many intersections it is mind boggling. I also challenge anyone to create the article American skateboarders of Asian descent and write it based on reliable sources covering these people as a broad set, so the article will be more than just a list. I do not think it can be done, so I firmly believe this category violates ERGS guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a trivial intersection between occupation and descent. Normally I would have said also merge to Category:American skateboarders but I trust that nominator has checked that this is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, all 8 are already in the American skateboarders category. I did remove Bing Liu (filmmaker) because it did not seem he actually qualified for categorization as a skaeboarder at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As stated below, Asian Americans are defined as a panethnic group in Wikipedia. This category is equally as appropriate as established Category:Asian-American tennis players. --Wil540 art (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, this should at a minimum be renamed to category:American skateboarders of Asian descent to match the parents Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent, also Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation, the majority of its subcats, and Category:American people of Asian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it should be 'renamed Category:American skateboarders of Asian descent. I'm confused why Category:Asian-American tennis players is permissible but not skateboarders? --Wil540 art (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I'd thought there was an actual association for ethnic Asian skateboarders, but apparently that's merely speculation. How does an Asian skateboard differently than any other part of the world? If there were a large number of Korean American expatriates after the Seoul Olympics, better to listify.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • William Allen Simpson & John Pack Lambert - How is this different than: Category:Asian-American tennis players? It seems like skateboarding it getting picked on here because it is a younger and less recognized sport. Do you want me to make hyper specific categories like: American skateboarders of Thai descent as is done in the tennis players category? --Wil540 art (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the hyper specific categories would be far preferable to the totally banned categorization by race. However, no one has ever argued here that the tennis intersection is notable. All that we are arguing is that the skateboarding intersection is not notable. Sports intersections are considered on their own, not based on whether others such intersections exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Latinx-American skakeboarders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist, but there was no consensus on whether it should be a merge or an outright deletion without a merge. I am defaulting to merge to retain the categorization information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Latinx-American skateboarders to Category:Hispanic and Latino American sportspeople
  • Nominator's rationale For unexplained reasons this is the only sport specific sub-cat of the merge target. I see no justified reason to sub-divide one sport out of the parent, so we should merge it back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge as a trivial intersection between occupation and ethnicity, also merge to Category:American skateboarders. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I moved the category to: Category:American sportspeople of Latin American descent, I do not think it needs an upmerge. This category is equally as appropriate as established Category:American boxers of Latin American descent‎. Please do not delete it. --Wil540 art (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boxers category may likewise be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would have thought that "of Latin American descent" was a good norm. Any directly coming from Spain can be "of Spanish descent". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is kept it should be renamed to either Category:American skateboarders of Latin American descent or Category:American skateboarders of Hispanic and Latino descent. It has parents of both Category:American sportspeople of Latin American descent and category:Hispanic and Latino American sportspeople. This whole tree looks like a case of poorly chosen category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with a rename to Category:American skateboarders of Latin American descent. --Wil540 art (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — if they were of a notable ethnicity, they'd already be in the parent category. This is confusing, what with the parent moving during a discussion. Is there an association of such "skakeboarders"? (Yes, I'm poking fun at the nominator failing yet again to use the copy-and-paste standard templates that we refined over the years.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American male actors of Asian descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep as container category. This is without prejudice to a future nomination that includes the subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:American male actors of Asian descent
  • Nominator's rationale We deleted the parent Category:American actors of Asian descent. A big issue here is we categorize by ethnicity, not race. This will tend towards being a categorization by race. Some subcategories may be justicfied in specific ethnic situations (I am not convinced all existing sub-categories are justified, but that will be a seperate discussion because their existence is independent of having this parent). There is no reason to have this category without its parent and its sister Category:American actresses of Asian descent. I think the last deletion of the parent was before we split actor categories by sex. While the direct articles would need to be upmerged, the only direct article is already in Category:American male actors of Chinese descent as well, so functionally we can delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a container category, deletion serves no purpose because the subcategories will become orphaned. If not kept, merge to Category:American male actors by ethnic or national origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The subcategories here need this parent category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose — normally, I'd be in favor of deletion, but the nominator didn't do the effort. Finish the full nomination, and relist.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What full nomination. Category:American actors of Asian descent does not exist. What else should I have nominated? On the other hand I am not objecting to the daughter categories. Some of the specific ethnic intersections such as Category:American male actors of Chinese descent may be notable. That is a different issue. This is a de facto race category which is not allowed, that is a category covering an ethnic intersection, the ability of which to pass ERGS issues is seperate from the notability of this category. We have Category:American mobsters of Italian descent without having Category:American mobsters of European descent, so just because we have a potential daugther category does not mean we keep parent categories that would lead to incorect categorization by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not sure how this is a defining characteristic of the likes of Paul Anka, Tommy Chong, Patti LaBelle, Bob Saget, among all the others. Would this not fall under WP:PERFCAT? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (with a rethorical question). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had made a British category for the British version of the show, due to this category. So if the American category is deleted, then this should be deleted as well. Magitroopa (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear WP:PERFCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly violates our guidelines against performer by performance categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American farmers

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 Category:Asian-American farmers; rename Category:Japanese-American farmers to Category:American farmers of Japanese descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Asian-American farmers
  • Upmerge Category:Japanese-American farmers to Category:American people of Japanese descent
  • Nominator's rationale In theory I would nominate to upmerge, however the one article in this category is already in Category:American orchardists, a sub-cat of farmers, and Category:Qing dynasty emigrants to the United States (whether we should subcategorize Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States by the government that held sway in China when they emigrated is hard to say, I am not sure, but that is an issue for another time). This is an intersection of occupation and ethnicity that is non-defining. For the Japanese category, I do know that a large percentage of pre-WWII American of Japanese descent, especially in California were farmers, however I do not think this intersection of ethnicity and occupation is worth creating a seperate category for. In theory these are all already in Category:American farmers or a diffusing sub-cat, so there is no need to upmerge that way. I am about to go and make sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a trivial intersection between occupation and descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one is actually a notable intersection that has been written about extensively in the media, see [1][2][3][4][5] as some examples.--User:Namiba 14:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Japanese-Americans in agriculture has also been written about extensively, in part due to the highly discriminatory practices they suffered. See [6][7][8][9]. I would support renaming the category to Category:American farmers of Japanese descent.--User:Namiba 14:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I support User:Namiba's logic above. "Japanese-Americans in agriculture has also been written about extensively, in part due to the highly discriminatory practices they suffered." I would also support renaming the category to Category:American farmers of Japanese descent. --Wil540 art (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename for Japanese. Delete parent. The one article is on a man already categorised with a Chinese sub-ethnicity category, so that we lose nothing by that. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept these should be at a minimum renamed Category:American farmers of Asian descent and Category:American farmers of Japanese descent to match parents Category:American people of Japanese descent and Category:American people of Asian descent and the vast majority of the sibbling categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — if they were of notable descent, they'd already be in the appropriate descent category. There's no evidence of an ethnic-specific method of American farming. OTOH, there are many scholarly articles about racism in farming.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first, weak keep but rename the second to Category:American farmers of Japanese descent. I've been convinced that importation of farming techniques by farmers from a specific culture is a notable and defining factor in agriculture. However this is often related to first-generation immigrants rather than descendants. Also, this influence may be better covered by topic articles rather than biographies. The only content in the Asian parent besides the Japanese category is article Lue Gim Gong, who is a horticulturalist (and Chinese-born), not a farmer. Place Clichy (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American diplomats

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Asian-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats (in theory we should upmerge to Category:American people of Asian descent. In practice everyone will be in some more appropriate sub-category)
  • Upmerge Category:Chinese-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Chinese descent (I just added one person to this category, although he is also in the appropriate parents, Gerrit W. Gong. I also just added him to the diplomats category. As a special assistant to the US secretary of state, special assistant to the US state department and special assistant to the US ambassador to China, I am 100% convinced he is a diplomat. Gong passes notability for his contributions as an academic, he is also now notable as a member of the Quorum of the 12 of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I created an article on him just after he became a gneeral authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I still think all general authorities should be considered notable, especially considering how small some of the Episcopalian dioceses we let propel their bishops to notability are (some have under 3,000 total people under the diocese, Elder Gong as Asia Area President, one of the smaller areas of the Church by membership, still presided over roughly 150,000 people. He was also looked to as a spiritual leader by all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worldwide. Whether Gong's role before that as special assistant to the president of BYU for planning and assessment was a role involving actions leading to notability we do not need to decide)
  • Upmerge Category:Indian-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Indian descent
  • Upmerge Category:Japanese-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Japanese descent
  • Upmerge Category:Korean-American diplomats to Category:American diplomats and Category:American people of Korean descent
  • Nominator's rationale These categories should be sub-cats of Category:Diplomats by ethnicity a category that looks like it is likely to soon be deleted. Diplomats are defined by the nation that commissions them, so this categorization by ethnicity of descent (or in some cases partial descent, I am not sure the last applies here, it does not apply to Gong, but I have not reviewed the other articles) is not justified with diplomats. The grouping of these 4 together in this way to me also violates the rule that we categorize by ethnicity not race. People from China and India are not generally considered to be part of the same ethnic group (nor according to many theories of race are they the same racial group, since race has no biological reality and there is no one universally accepted way to define race, this is hard to say, some racial theories posit there are two main, distinct racial groups in India, largely theorized on linguistic lines, with the north dominated by one racial group, the south by a diferent, but Adivasi groups further north seen as remaining remnants of when the southern race dominated the whole sub-continent, and a few of the people in the north east region of India known as the seven-sisters states seen as being part of a third distinct race. Remember though to understand the 55 defined non-Han peoples of China you need to think of them as similar to racial groups in the US, so the world-wide count of races can easily exceed well over 100). Even if we were to want to go against the trends everywhere else, and our inability to create a well sourced article that treated the people in here as a cohesive group, I do not think you could write a well sourced article on American diplomats of Asian descent that was more than just a list article, we should at a minimum rename these as Category:American diplomats of Asian descent to make this both conform to the standard Foo people of Booian descent scheme, and because the current name is ambiguous on its surface. It could also in theory mean Asian diplomats of American descent, Chinese diplomats of American descent, etc. Also since diploimats in the main serve from one country to another, the category Category:Chinese-American diplomats might be some editors be misidentified to mean either Chinese diplomats serving in the US or any American diplomat serving in China, or it could even by someone be misidentified as a multi-purpose parent to multiple categories including people Category:Ambassadors of the United States to China and Category:Ambassadors of China to the United States. Some will say "but Mr. Lambert, that is not how we do categorization". True, but Category:Russian-American people when it existed was so ambiguous that we had both people from the United States with Russian ancestry and Americans who moved to Russia put in the cateogry, which is a big reason we changed to the format Category:American people of Russian descent (we also at least in theory have Category:Russian people of American descent). In this case accuracy always trumps any common name considerations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as trivial intersections between occupation and descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Each of the subcategories has enough articles to keep. Category:American diplomats of Asian descent. This is relevant because their ethnic background may well have a positive effect on their ability to do their jobs. I have not looked at the articles here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is quite a bold statement. Please provide evidence to support it. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If their ethnic background meant they spoke the native language at home, that would be clearly be helpful. (But we don't categorize diplomats by language in general right now.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As trivial intersection. By definition, these people or representing one nationality to another nationality. Adding ethnicity on top (which often coincides with nationalities) is both non-defining and would be confusing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on December 26, 2020 we deleted the in theory needed parent of this category Category:Diplomats by ethnicity, so it appears we do not categorize diplomats by ethnicity anymore either. Plus the claim "if their ethnicity meants they spoke the language at home" ignores 1-that is a supposition that is not always the case, and even less often is sourced, 2-that these diplomats do not neccesarily serve in areas that correspond to their ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do decide to keep these we should rename them to Category:American diplomats of Asian descent, Category:American diplomats of Chinese descent, Categeory:American diplomats of Indian descent etc. The last is heavily needed since common usage is going to make it very easy for people to confuse the current one with American-Indian dipolmats (which may be Category:Native American diplomats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — if they were of notable descent, they'd already be in the appropriate descent category. Admixture of ethnicities poses a problem for editors, because the only way it would be defining would be "anti-descent". Taking the position that non-descent somehow makes the diplomat less effective is untenable and fairly repugnant.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian-American Biblical scholars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Some proposed categories were discussed. One or more of these can be pursued if editors think they would be meaningful categories within the categorization guidelines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Asian-American biblical scholars to Category:American biblical scholars
  • Nominator's rationale I content that no one could write a reliable sourced, GNG meeting article on Asian-American biblical scholars that was more than just a list. This is not an intersection that has received widespread scholarly study as a phenomenon, and so we should not be categorizing by it. Although it is supposed to be a non-diffusing category not all the people here are in the parent category. There is no need to merge to Category:American people of Asian descent because every single article is in an appropriate sub-cat thereof (all of these people have only one identified Asian form of ancestry, and all 14 are either Chinese, Korean or Japanese, evidently there are no American Biblical scholars of Vienamese, Filipino, Indian, or any other Asian ancestry, although this may be because scholar articles under cover emerging and recent people. We also may actually have articles on such Biblical scholars that were not put in this category for whatever reason as well. This to me is a non-justified triple intersection (occupation + nationality + ancestry). Some are, but this one is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, trivial intersection between occupation and descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has already had an upmerge from Category:Category:Korean-American biblical scholars and others, per a previous CfD, so I am slightly surprised of this discussion of another upmerge. To be honest, I am not entirely clear about how different people use and understand categorization, despite all the documentation.
Question: Instead of an umerge, would it make sense for a rename to something like Category:Asian-American biblical hermeneutics scholars or Category:Scholars of Asian-American biblical hermeneutics? The grouping of these individuals seems important, since the vast majority of these scholars have argued for an academic field of Asian-American biblical hermeneutics (and some for Korean American or Chinese American biblical hermeneutics), which would make for a GNG-meeting article. --Caorongjin (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Asian-American biblical hermeneutics scholars is a good idea, but then it would become a split, because half of the biblical scholars in this category have nothing to do with Asian-American biblical hermeneutics. And it would require a different kind of parenting. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that makes sense. The only ones who would probably NOT be in that category: Seyoon Kim, Walter Kim, Choon-Leong Seow, and Edwin M. Yamauchi. The remaining ten have clearly written about Asian-American biblical hermeneutics/interpretation. --Caorongjin (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Eastern Iranian languages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
    • Category:Northeastern Iranian languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Category:Southeastern Iranian languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are the only sub-branches of Category:Eastern Iranian languages. First off, there's no need to subcategorise at such a fine level of detail, as the parent category can have at most three dozen articles in it. More importantly though, there isn't likely to be any consensus found for one or another subcategorisation scheme: The very categories of Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian are not accepted by all linguists, and those linguists that do accept them, use them in different ways: for example, Yaghnobi and Ossetian are the only modern languages consistently listed as NE, with Pashto and the Pamir languages variously assigned to either one or the other group. It's best if all the articles in those two categories are instead placed directly under Category:Eastern Iranian languages. – Uanfala (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2020 (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.

Fictional Asian-American people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename or delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Fictional Asian-American people to Category:Fictional American people of Asian descent
  • Nominator's rationale This is the standard form we use for such intersections. For example the parent category is Category:American people of Asian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the current name aligns with some sibling categories in Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apart from the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories), here these are fictional people. Authors are free to make their characters of any ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, species, and mixes thereof. It's not defining - indeed, many characters don't have any such attributes specified so how can these be? These are fictional people, folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — as soon as I saw Category:Fictional European-American people, it was readily apparent that this entire scheme is non-defining. They aren't "of descent", as they aren't actual decendents of anybody. Let this be the initial precendent for deleting the whole kit and kaboodle.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, plain deletion is premature right now, because that would orphan the subcats. If not kept, move the subcats to Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Powerful keep - Deletion would be an extremely very bad idea because as Marco mentioned, it could jeopardize subcats and not all authors make their characters of any ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, species, and mixes thereof. Should the category be deleted, it could be somehow reformed as most people would say: "Burn it down and start over". SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Should also rename the following categories for consistency sake:
--Pihsdneirfsicigam (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is going to be really confusing per William. William's statement in a nutshell: Most are born in America and does not have any known ancestors unlike Donald Duck who is related to Scrooge McDuck of Clan McDuck. When it comes to the topic of descents, this can be really extremely confusing and possibly controversial. Also per Marco, it aligns with themselves. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a good idea to discuss all continental categories in conjunction though. Containerizing and merging to Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin is still an option for all of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename, not decided about deletion for now. The reason why, for real people, descent categories are better than Fooian Booian categories is precisely that descent from a specific parent ancestor is a fact that can be pointed upon, sourced, proven or disproved whereas the loose identification with an ethnic tag gives much room for interpretation. For a fictional character, it is quite the opposite: there will most often be no ancestor to descend from, but character definition will often be built on a set of identifications with generic character traits, starting with these ethnic tags. They work pretty well for this purpose, as fictional characters are identified with fictional character traits the way a real person can never be. However I am not sure that aggregation at the European or Asian continental level is meaningful. Place Clichy (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American librarians of Asian descent

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Asian-American librarians to Category:American people of Asian descent
  • Nominator's rationale This is a triple intersection category that I do not think is justified. Nor in fact does anyone else directly. You see, we have two organizations that seem to cover this, however one uses the Asian Pacific Islander formulation, which existed on the 1990 US census but has since been broken up. The other is the Chinese American Library Association. Asian descent should be capturing anyone whose ancestors came from Asia, and I can show where we have included Iranians in the category, so we are not conforing to the US census which defines Iranians as white. Plus ERGS rules say we categorize by ethnicity, the r is for religion. Asianess is not an ethnic group. As we can see from the Chinese American Library Association. In the 1930 census there were at least 4 racial groups, Hindi, Malay (Filipino), Chinese and Japanese. I think the few Koreans were subsummed under Japanese, Korea was controlled by Japan at the time, and there were so few Vietnamese and others from mainland South-east Asia in the US it is hard to know how they were counted. In the 1950, 1960 and 1970 censuses those from India were counted as white, under the false and depricated idea of a Caucasian race. There may be ways to argue a broadly defined East Asian ethnic identity in the US, but any ethno-cultural study will recognize there is a clearly distinct South Asian ethno identity, and the vast majority of Americans of either of these broadly defined ancestries will specifically identify in a much more clear way. Even the people from Hawai'i who are on average the most established in the US Asian Americans with often multiple generations of intermarriage with non-Asians, will identify their ancestry not as generic Asian, but as Japanese, Chinese, Filipino etc. For various cultural reason Detroit Public Schools delineates their Bangladeshi population distinct from their Asian population (they also count Romanians seperate from whites), The University of Wisconsin on its applications, at least when I applied back in 2008, had options under Asian for Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian and other Asian. On the nomination itself, I am not proposing upmerging to Category:American librarians because this is supposed to be a non-diffusing category. Also, in practice most of these people are already in one or more sub-cats of the target, so we need to do this move wisely in a way so they end up in the most appropriate sub-cat of Category:American people of Asian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle as a trivial intersection between occupation and descent. However delete because the merge target is a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with reservations Upmerging into a container category doesn't work. Not sure of the specifics of how to make sure everyone is put into the appropriate sub-cats, but that's what needs to happen. I hear what you are saying about the vagueness of the original category. How many people are we talking about here? Jessamyn (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Distinct category of an underrepresented professional group. Also, this nominator has a history of controversial decisions and nominations in this area, so I would respectfully suggest perhaps they leave race and gender category work for other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial nominations is where CFD helps bring consensus though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Asian Americans are defined as a panethnic group in Wikipedia. The relevant organization in the United States, Asian Pacific American Librarians Association, has defined for itself the group it serves as "Asian/Pacific American librarians". This category is equally as appropriate as established categories African American librarians and Hispanic and Latino American librarians. Skvader (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Changing my vote on this. While I understand the rationale presented, I am now viewing it in the context of other actions by the nominator and I don't think this is the right way to move forward as a resolution to the concern raised. Jessamyn (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with above. This category is equally as appropriate as established categories African American librarians and Hispanic and Latino American librarians. --Wil540 art (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a minimum this category should be renamed to Category:American librarians of Asian descent to conform with the parent Category:American people of Asian descent and a huge number of sibbling categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more open to this, but the title is either going to be out of sync with other subcats of Category:American people of Asian descent or other subcats of Category:American librarians. Better to leave it alone. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual problems with "descent" categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Asian Pacific American Librarians Association, matching main article WP:C2D. Normally, I'd agree with Carlos. But in this case there's actually an association, so it is considered WP:DEFINING by its members. We should always defer to what people call themselves.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to make it weird since I generally agree with you, but not all Asian-American librarians are going to be members of APALA so that might wind up being oddly inexact. Jessamyn (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just membership of an association is hardly ever a defining characteristic. We may keep a category for presidents of the association though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also do we want to categorize librarians by specific associations of librarians they were part of, down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're agreed there. In the US, at least, many national library organizations are part of the American Library Association umbrella, and I have no desire to see its hierarchy mirrored in category space! --BDD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Statements like "Asianess [sic] is not an ethnic group" are irrelevant. This is suitable for American librarians descending from any ethnic group with Asian origins (i.e., the continent of Asia), and matches other categories for American librarians by ethnicity. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our guidelines explicitly state we categorize by ethnicity not race. This is functionally a categorzation by race, which is forbidden.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which racial classifications put Arabs, Japanese, and Kazakhs together? This is geography-based categorization. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sanskrit declension

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Declension. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. I am unsure whether it also needs to be merged to the other parent Category:Declension. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double merge appears appropriate. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Apabhraṃśa-language literature

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Apabhraṃśa-language literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, contains one article about a poem. I do not foresee any viable merge targets, the one article is already in Category:Indian poems. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unlikely to grow as it's an extinct language. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sanskrit-language activists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. A dual merge is not needed, the one article is already in Category:Sanskrit revival. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Etimesgut Şekerspor footballers

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: rename as nominated.– Fayenatic London 22:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club changed its name many years ago. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Turanspor players in line with the new name and standard naming conventions, see this CFR. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, leave redirect, to prevent recreation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: it is standard to use 'players', see e.g. Category:Footballers in England by club, Category:Footballers in France by club, Category:Footballers in Belgium by club etc. etc. The Spanish category uses both, as do some South American countries - I don't know why - and seemingly Turkey, again for no good reason. GiantSnowman 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my only point was that the Turkish ones currently use "footballers", with only a few exceptions out of more than a hundred. I'm not opposing a rename to "players", it would just be good to have some discussion about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Turkish cats use "footballers", because Turkish clubs tend to be multi-sport organisations, not just football. Beşiktaş J.K., for example, is one of the most successful football clubs in the country's history but also competes in sports as diverse as basketball, wrestling, and rowing. So to have a cat called "Beşiktaş J.K. players" would not b specific enough...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory and ChrisTheDude: except, of curse, that the Beşiktaş J.K. article is about the football department, not the wider sports club - same with Turanspor, meaning that 'players' is correct. Galatasaray S.K. (football) is how it should be done for the big clubs that merit separate articles, though their category is also mis-named. GiantSnowman 12:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A rare 3rd time, as there is consensus about the renaming, but not the rename target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. 'Footballers' is clearly the convention in the 'Turkey' subcat. Oculi (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In some cases the category is "footballers" because these are multi-sport clubs. Where this is the case "footballers" is appropriate. Furthermore, since "football" is not in the club title, this will show what sport is involved. We would not need to do this for Manchester United FC players as they are obviously footballers. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. This is not "F.C.", so "F.C. players" isn't a good target matching recent precendent. The distinction is apparently not seriously important enough to gather much discussion, so let's just make the obvious change.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm sympathetic to the concerns of those who don't like to see the Turkish category out of sync with other countries. The situation with multi-sport clubs justifies it IMO. I'd rather see a broader discussion about whether to standardize, though there's no point in keeping this at the former name in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I've been meaning to bring something up, the most popular sport for all the big multisport clubs are always football, and I think Galatasaray, Fenerbahçe S.K. football clubs should be at base name, and Turkish club players brought in line with others. Would agree to a discussion to bring all Turkish clubs in line, not just Turanspor for these categories.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Screenplay (TV series)

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: rename to Category:ScreenPlay. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Screenplay (TV series) to Category:ScreenPlay (TV series)
Nominator's rationale: rename, "Play" is capitalized in the main article ScreenPlay. An alternative rename to Category:ScreenPlay per WP:C2D was opposed for speedy renaming as ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Jim Craigie, Armbrust, and The Bushranger: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) in any case there is consensus for a capital P. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with capital 'P' to match current main article ScreenPlay. If the article is moved, we'll just speedily move the category, too. No muss, no fuss.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey

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: It was difficult to find a consensus here, but I think there is one that is admittedly "rough". There seems to be consensus to rename Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey to Category:Mosques converted from churches in Turkey. There is no consensus to merge Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Ottoman Empire into that same category, so by default I am keeping the "Ottoman Empire", which results in Category:Mosques converted from churches in the Ottoman Empire. This is without prejudice to a nomination for Category:Mosques converted from churches in the Ottoman Empire which can focus more on the "what country to use" question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey to Category:Former churches re-converted into mosques by the Republic of Turkey
Nominator's rationale: Misleading category. None of the buildings included was a church at the time of becoming a mosque. All were museums. It would be as sensible to name this category "mosques converted from mosques by the Republic of Turkey" or "mosques converted from former mosques". The proper name should be something like "former museums converted into mosques by the Republic of Turkey" or "former churches converted into mosques" or "former churches converted into mosques converted into museums and back into mosque by the Republic of Turkey". Or somesuch. GPinkerton (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The churches were converted to mosques by the Ottoman Empire in the first place, I am not too sure of we need this additional category at all. If kept, then nominator has a point, but rather alt rename to Category:Mosques converted from former churches by the Republic of Turkey aligning better with the naming convention of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is certainly a trend for re-(re-)converting them in recent years so some category could exist. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- There are 3 buildings here. All three were once churches, but converted by Ottoman Turks to mosques. They were subsequently museums but recently reverted to mosques. I would prefer Category:Mosques converted from churches in Turkey. The fact that they have been church/mosque/museum/mosque is a matter of detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: It's more than a matter of detail. Most such buildings were made mosques in the Middle Ages, many long before the Ottomans, but the phenomenon of the secular republic reconverting some into museums is itself notable, and the fact that a wave of such decisons have been undone more recently deserves a category. There are four church-mosque-museums converted into mosques under the current president alone. The question is only how to word the categories of these different sets. GPinkerton (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if KeptYes, what we have is Category:Mosques converted from museums converted from mosques converted from churches in Turkey. Is that defining? I'll defer to others but I tend to hope not due to the name length but, if it is defining, that is the correct name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of the category, I am neutral as to a future name as long as it is retained. As the nominator correctly points out, "There is certainly a trend for re-(re-)converting them in recent years" in the Republic of Turkey. This appears to be contrary to the Republic's supposedly secular constitution. That makes the phenomenon notable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not in contradiction of the constitution, in which the administration of Islamic charities is a cabinet level ministerial position with government department. It is however decidedly political and possibly without due process for other reasons. GPinkerton (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is the Republic of Turkey the "converter" from a church to a mosque, or some pre-Republican actor or some local authority? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair question and Peterkingiron's alternative addresses this issue by proposing "in Turkey" instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, the Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Ottoman Empire should also be renamed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: with addition of second nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montenegro is attested to 1397. Only part was temporarily under Ottoman rule, and maintained significant independence. So all we need is matching Category:Mosques converted from churches in Montenegro.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple others, mostly in Greece, even one obscure case in France. I would rather keep "Ottoman Empire", modern European countries have nothing to do with conversion to mosques. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming/merging to Category:Mosques converted from churches in Turkey. This can obviously be a pretty contentious topic, so let's keep things concise and reflect three clear points: they were churches at one point, they're mosques now, and they're in Turkey. Getting into topics like who converted them and how often is a job for article space. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they aren't (all) in Turkey, please read the previous paragraphs. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Those not in Turkey should just go in similar categories for their respective countries. I would prefer to leave the question of who converted the buildings to article space. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But they already are in their respective countries. The Ottoman Empire was a country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a Category:Buildings and structures in the Ottoman Empire hierarchy, though. Categories are best for short, verifiable pieces of information like "where is this building?", not "under what jurisdiction was this building converted to another type of building"? --BDD (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Ottoman Empire is a history category, it is not primarily about the current state of these buildings. A significant number of them have meanwhile been converted back to churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Planners

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: rename to Category:Planners (games). No consensus on deletion. I would suggest any further discussion on the matter should be done together with other categories in the tree. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Planner is clearly ambiguous. This is a category for games in the planners group, so I suggest a disambiguator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category is based on a non-defining characteristic. There is no need to merge, articles are already in Category:Single-deck patience card games or Category:Double-deck patience card games. If kept, rename the category per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a pretty extensive sub-categorization scheme for Category:Patience games, the nominated category being one of them. Would it be right to just pick one off for deletion? I don't really know enough about the content to say whether these sub-categorizations are defining or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom if kept, no opinion if it should be kept but it is clearly ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we already have these games better categorized in other ways, this is an unneeded category. Down with category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Down with category clutter" is not a policy-based argument for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. As mentioned this is part of an extensive sub-categorization scheme and just picking one off would be, in a word, wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2020 (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.

Nazis who committed suicide by method

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as trivial triple intersections, the method of suicide was just a matter of what was at hand, it was not related to being a Nazi. In addition, but just for the Austrian categories, WP:SMALLCAT applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All I'm sure someone enjoyed creating these, but they're hard to navigate due to WP:NARROWCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as a first step.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all I have to admit I am unconvinced we need to categorize by the intersection of political party affiliation and method of death at all, but these are far too precise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, too specific. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I suspect (without having checked) that many of these were in the aftermath of WWII, in despair at defeat or to avoid a war crimes prosecution. In these cases the political affiliation is highly relevant. No objection to some upmerging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not intend to remove the tree of Category:Nazis who committed suicide, that is a definite misunderstanding of the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a first step and then see what they look like. The triple intersection of Nazi + Suicide + either method or location is too specific to make articles like Suicide among Nazis in Austria or Suicide among Nazis by firearm plausible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sanskrit language and history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sanskrit. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially a duplicate of the existing Category:Sanskrit category and daughters, created by an editor who was apparently unaware of their existence Le Deluge (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge per nom. Conceptually there would not be much objection to a Category:Sanskrit history, but for now there are too few history articles. A manual merge is more appropriate than an automated merge because a number of articles are already in some other subcategory in the Sanskrit tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2020 (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.

Mayors of places in Russia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While these places have likely had more than five mayors, most are non-notable. No objection to recreating any if we ever exceed expectations and reach 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2020 (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:Male actors who committed suicide

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Albanian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:American male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Argentine male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Australian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Austrian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Azerbaijani male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Bangladeshi male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Belgian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Brazilian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:British male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:English male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Male actors from Northern Ireland who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Scottish male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Welsh male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Canadian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Chinese male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Hong Kong male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Czech male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Danish male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Dutch male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Estonian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Filipino male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Finnish male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:French male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:German male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Hungarian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Indian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Israeli male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Italian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Japanese male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Lithuanian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Mexican male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Moroccan male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:New Zealand male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Portuguese male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Russian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Serbian male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Slovak male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:South Korean male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Spanish male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Swedish male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Swiss male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Taiwanese male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Yugoslav male actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per nom, but merge to Category:Male suicides because there is no discussion yet about whether or not gendered suïcide categories are kept. I guess that that discussion will start too within the next week. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All (or Upmerge) While they are known for both, the intersection does not seem defining. No objection to an upmerge to Category:Male suicides as an intermediate step. -RevelationDirect (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not inherently notable intersections, but if someone wants to (and can consistent with WP:SYNTH) write Suicide among male actors, Suicide among Yugoslav male actors and the like, and source them, no object to including this as a sourced list in those articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actresses who committed suicide

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:American actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Argentine actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Australian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Austrian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Azerbaijani actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Bangladeshi actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Brazilian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:British actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:English actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Scottish actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Welsh actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Canadian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Chinese actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Chinese opera actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Hong Kong actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Czech actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Egyptian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Filipino actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:French actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:German actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Greek actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Indian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Italian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Japanese actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Korean actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:South Korean actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Mauritian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Mexican actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Russian actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Swedish actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Swiss actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:Taiwanese actresses who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per nom, but merge to Category:Female suicides because there is no discussion yet about whether or not gendered suïcide categories are kept. I guess that that discussion will start too within the next week. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All (or Upmerge) While they are known for both, the intersection does not seem defining. No objection to an upmerge to Category:Male suicides as an intermediate step. -RevelationDirect (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I stated in the Category:Male actors who committed suicide above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pornographic film actors who committed suicide

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Pornographic film actors who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial quadruple-intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The intersection of the two does not seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not refute the "note" above; a news story about a death will invariably refer to the occupation of the deceased. If a suicide by a noted anime voice actor is written about in the papers tomorrow, it does not make "Anime voice actors who committed suicide" a needed category. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Death by suicide by a sex worker is not a defining characteristic. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I stated for the male and female categories above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grand Crosses of the National Order of the Ivory Coast

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Ivory Coast
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the National Order of the Ivory Coast
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit the Ivory Coast, or vice versa, the National Order of the Ivory Coast is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Emperor Akihito, Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, and Arthur Young (police officer) are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also a couple of Ivorian politicians in the category—1 & 2—but their articles just mention the award in passing, so it's not generally defining for them either,.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors which are listed right here. -RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of Over categorization by award guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
When an award consistently appears in the ledes of articles it's usually a good sign it's defining but, in this case, that is due to a single purpose IP editor (128.114.255.122) who added the award to the intros of every single article despite concern expressed by User:Swliv. The Right Livelihood Award is a peace award that self identifies as an alternative to the Nobel but, tellingly, the Nobel Peace Prize article makes no mention of this award. Even after the systematic editing above, this award is non-defining and here's how you can tell:
  • Greta Thunberg, the only Good Article here, demotes the award to a passing mention listed with other honours
  • Nasrin Sotoudeh, who won after 128.114.255.122's edits, mentions legally representing others who won the Nobel Peace Prize more prominently than personally winning this award.
The recipients are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No delete
I certainly pushed back some (as gently as I could) on aspects of the wide-ranging edit effort by the editor(s) from the IP number, a year-and-a-half ago (good find, RevelationDirect; took me some work and time to figure out any of it; thanks for leading me back to it). At that time I earned a sarcastic and, in part, puzzling rebuke for my trouble. That said, though, in response to the notification of today's effort, I looked also at the Goldman Environmental Prize -- which I've heard of with some (more) regularity; a little more my traditional area of interest -- and find both the full list in the Prize article and (at least for the one I checked basically at random, Chibeze Ezekiel) on the awardee's page. The effort to coattail on the Nobel doesn't bother me deeply, in either case. The Nobel is venerable and substantial but it's not 'holy' or 'perfect' in ways, itself; 2018 Literature is still prominent in my mind, and that's a small example; so I respect the effort to open up and broaden the pipelines and channels of recognition with, for example, the Award. In summary, I'm not feeling the need to delete Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates. I recognize enough names, and certainly recognize the effort behind the initiative (as I do with the Goldman), to lean pretty fully toward 'lenience', hence toward no deletion. I also though think I appreciate the effort of the delete initiative here and will engage further if the discussion develops further. I'm no specialist, so am open to the idea conceptually on a variety of grounds (though I also hope I'm not simply opening up the Goldman to a similar effort; that I would more readily and straightforwardly oppose).
I wrote the above paragraph before I saw Marcocapelle's endorsement of the delete proposal. I've left my 'holistic' effort to defend the Category untouched; however, I'll add a few more thoughts. First, the one honoree page I checked on the Award was chosen as someone I didn't know at all and my recollection is that the Award fit nicely as an important mark of Ezekiel's life and accomplishment to that date, i.e. arguably defining. A good many of the names were not known to me which would argue that the Award is more likely to have been defining at that point in a career. Another impression is that most of the honorees did have Wiki pages of their own. With the added defenses of 'time of career' and 'time of discipline' ('peace' does seem a little narrow of a characterization of the honorees I saw but that's another subject), those individual's pages argue strongly I think for the Category. I also think the effort to demote the Award based on Greta Thunberg is quite flawed. That the important young campaigner accepted the award is to me a strong argument in favor of categorization. My basis remains basically 'leniency' on a relatively nascent initiative in the world and its 'scheme of things' and in Wikipedia. But I'll add, finally, that I've now thought also of the way the 'genius awards' have gone in my view from a curious new effort to an important regular part of the way the world works (aimed also at, say, mid-career). I'm not going to do even a cursory look on Wikipedia at this, my second 'defense by comparison', but feel the MacArthurs would likely also affirm my no deletion recommendation. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is, probably obviously, a new-ish corner of Wikipedia for me. One curiosity: There's no mention of 'listification' on the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion; 'deletion' would seem a more useful header-word for the notification I received to join the discussion here. I appreciate the process and the header didn't misdirect me in any way -- I frankly hadn't even noticed the curious 'listif-' word at all until after posting the above. But this seems the best place and time to bring up the observation, to start at least. Next question: How broad is the notification 'net' of past editors of related subjects, in this process? I'll try to answer the question myself if someone else doesn't do it first. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Rather dramatically, I'd say, I've first found that Ekabhishek who established the Category doesn't have a similar notification to mine on their User talk page. Maybe with that I'll let my question stand now for anyone else who may wish to answer it. Thank you. Swliv (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, further work on this realm has led me to the proposed "conversion into a list named Right Livelihood Award#Laureates" as part of the template posted for this review process on the Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates page. That helps me understand 'listification' some more though my 'more useful' comment re: 'deletion', above, stands I think; maybe augmenting rather than replacing 'listif-'. Another bit from that Category page goes to a point I speculated about above: all, in fact, listed Award winners have their own Wikipedia pages. Of course I've had experience with one or more of the editors of I guess a good many of those pages but I am not overly affronted by relative newcomers to Wikipedia stumbling some in early going; I stumble still myself. As I think is clear from my already cited efforts in that regard with the IP-number editor(s), I try to welcome and encourage new editors. So I see that level of accomplishment -- Wikipedia pages for each; unless the individual articles themselves are somehow broadly and egregiously compromised in ways not yet cited here -- as an affirming note for my no delete recommendation. In another substitution of a real specific for a speculation of mine above, "environmental protection, human rights, sustainable development, health, [and] education" accompany peace as areas of attention for the R. L. Awards. Finally, for the record, Category:MacArthur Fellows (bigger of course, having started in 1981) also affirms my feeling about that awards program as another useful parallel to the Right Livelihood one. (It's not just a Nobel world; I know they're not saying 'MacArthur of ...' or 'Alternative Goldman ...' but that's also understandable.) 'Defining' happens at other than just the end of a career or the 'full acceptance' of an individual's contribution or a field's maturity. I feel more strongly, then, that MacArthur is helpful in considering opposing this proposed deletion/listification. I know some of this paragraph (firming up speculations, especially) could have been done as rewrites to my earlier postings; it seemed better not to start rewriting, now, though. Final p.s. Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the replies/further contributions below and, particularly, the non-rush to execution of the delete-consensus beyond my contrary vote. I tried an immediate response to the 'Short Reply' below -- in two draft rounds in fact -- and believe I do have more that's useful to say. However, I am only now able to start to get back to it all; and to look at it all with a bit of perspective/time-passed. If there's a little more forbearance, that'd be great. No guarantees from this end but I'm giving it a try. (I'm assuming there's been no execution. ...) Thanks and cheers. 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Nothing more likely right away. In any meantime, there are plenty of points left unaddressed so far in my comments above. All best. Swliv (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short Reply The editing guideline in WP:OCAWARD is pretty strict in response to widespread category clutter: "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." For instance, Ela Bhatt is in this category + five other award categories and I don't think they define her; rather they mostly just reflect what actually defines her like Category:Indian microfinance people, Category:Indian women's rights activists and Category:Cooperative organizers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example is Martin Green (professor), e.g. this source [10] lists four awards without any indication that the Right Livelihood Award is any more special than the other awards. And more importantly, the awards are only mentioned after a larger elaboration of Prof. Green's achievements in the development of solar power for which he rightfully is in an appropriate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the requirements for an award to be defining enough to the notability of the people receiving it to make it notable are very strict, this category does not meet that strict guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_30&oldid=1004061329"