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) 01:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mayors of Stillwater, Minnesota to Category:People from Stillwater, Minnesota and Category:Mayors of places in Minnesota

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town, unlikely to have many notable mayors, so the is category unlikely to expand. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Mayors are not all inherently notable under WP:NPOL just for existing as mayors, so it's not a foregone conclusion that any "Mayors of specific town or city" category always has any viable prospect of being expandable enough to earn the "realistic potential for growth" exemption from SMALLCAT — which means that we don't create categories of this type until at least four or five mayors of that place already have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:41, 14 March 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.

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hindu monasteries by country to Category:Hindu monasteries

Nominator's rationale: This is an unneeded layer of categorization. It contains only Category:Hindu monasteries in India. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator Ididntknowausername (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm guessing the reason this category even exists is to exclude the article Hindu Monastery of Africa from Category:Hindu monasteries in India--Prisencolin (talk)

I'm not sure I understand. Hindu Monastery of Africa is just in Category:Hindu monasteries; having Category:Hindu monasteries by country has no effect on that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the editor who created the Africa article was intending to create more articles in the future, like an article on a hypothetical Hindu monastery in Kenya, but never got around to it, .--Prisencolin (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a totally unneeded intermediate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 18 March 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.

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) 01:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Canadian labour movement to Category:Labour movement in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. User:Namiba 21:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination Zarasophos (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:42, 14 March 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.

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. ✗plicit 00:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No specific action recommended Category:Kennedy family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Curious to see what CFD thinks of this category in light of a proposal to exclude categorizations based on surname. --Prisencolin (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Where is the proposal to exclude categorizations based on surname? Can you link to it? (My initial reaction is that this seems like a POINT nomination, but I'm keeping an open mind.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm doing this entirely within CFD procedures, which allows for any discussion not limited to renaming, moving, and deletion etc. Anyways the proposal is here: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#Parents,_grandparents,_relatives.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That discussion is more about heritage categories than family categories. They are not quite the same thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per Kennedy family, this appears to be for a particular family not anyone with the last name of "Kennedy". IF it was the latter, I would favor deletion based on WP:SHAREDNAME but this specific family seems pretty defining in the articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Arnold Schwarzenegger is included in this category, even though Arnold is not mentioned at all in the article Kennedy family.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He was married to a niece of John F. Kennedy. I agree that this is questionable to include in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion, the rationale appears to be based on a misunderstanding. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't it confusing to all but insiders that a very special American upper class family is exclusively meant? While Kennedy is a surname of a lot of prominent personalities in UK and US. --Just N. (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this category were all folks named Kennedy it would be deleted per WP:SHAREDNAME. We have repeatedly deleted such categories Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_16#Category:Kohanim a category that contained virtually anyone with a surname Cohen/Cohan/Kohan or similar. And even wider categories are often deleted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country. My personal preference is that "family" categories such as this relating to the family of the president of the US be handled in interlinked templates because after a certain period, mere (purported) descent from someone notable loses its prestige. I, too, am concerned that the nomination is WP:POINTy and the nominator is trying to bolster a position on categories he/she likes, I won't "!vote" delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly rename. I have to admit that I find it hard to believe that this could confuse people, but with Ted dead, a Kennedy trounced in the 2020 Democrat senate primary in Massachusetts, and other recent events I guess maybe there is a rising generation that does not know the Kennedys as past people did. The people here all have a clear familial relationship. There are notable American Kennedy's like current Louisiana senator John Kennedy (Louisiana politician) and former US Secretary of the Tresury and later special representative of the first presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints David M. Kennedy as well as many others who are not put in this category. It is not randomly including several generations off relatives as the Romney family article once did. Whether people related only by marriage should be included is something worth considering, however this is a clear family. I am open to suggested better names as well, but the category is valid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed Joseph Gargan. Gargan's mother was a sister of Rose Fitzgerald who married Joseph P. Kennedy and was the mother of John F. Kennedy. He thus in no way descended from Kennedy's. Nor was he married to a Kennedy. Just because he is a relative does not make him part of the family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Other people by married are Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy, widow of John F. Kennedy Jr, Mark Baily (writer), married to I think one of Joseph Kennedy's daughters, Andrew Cuomo, who was married to a Kennedy but they divoerced, William Cavendish, Marquese of Hartington, who married one of JFK's sisters in May 1944, and was killed in military action in Sep. 1944.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are 347 sub-categories of Category:Political families of the United States. One is the based on an unsourced article Wells-Grant-Bennett Family. Which if you look it at basically boils down to starting with Senator Robert F. Bennett of Utah, and taking the fact his father was a Senator, his mother's father was a prominent person, his mother's mother's brother was a governor of Utah, her father had political office, and then tacking in any other close relative who had office, without considering the size of the families involved (Bennett's mother's birth was used to imprison her father of charges of "unlawful cohabitation", even though he was of the belief the Harrison pardon made him unprosecutable for pre-1890 plural marriage, his father-in-law had a large number of wives and children, the total number of people in this family is very large, and overall there are more who were notable outside than inside politics).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How do we have 347 categories but only 104 articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 18 March 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Books of the Heian Period to Category:Heian-period books

Nominator's rationale: rename in the spirit of WP:C2C, similar to Category:Kamakura-period works, Category:Muromachi-period works and Category:Edo-period works but in this case for books instead for works. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewname per nom To match other categories of this type. Dimadick (talk) 21:02, 12 March 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American politicians of Hakka descent to Category:American politicians of Chinese descent and Category:American people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Australian politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Australian politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Australian people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Burmese politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Burmese politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Burmese people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Cambodian politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Cambodian politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Cambodian people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Dutch politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Dutch politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Dutch people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:French Polynesian politicians of Hakka descent to Category:French Polynesian politicians of Chinese descent and Category:French Polynesian people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Guyanese politicians of Hakka descent‎ to Category:Guyanese politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Guyanese people of Hakka descent‎
• Propose merging Category:Hong Kong politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Hong Kong people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Indonesian politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Indonesian politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Indonesian people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Singaporean politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Singaporean politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Singaporean people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Surinamese politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Surinamese people of Chinese descent and Category:Surinamese people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Taiwanese politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Taiwanese people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Thai politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Thai politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Thai people of Hakka descent
• Propose merging Category:Trinidad and Tobago politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Trinidad and Tobago politicians of Chinese descent and Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Hakka descent

Nominator's rationale: merge as a rather trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' ethnicity in another country. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep in principal, the connection of Hakka ethnicity to politcs is well documented. [1] [2] [3] [4]. The topic of the last paper posits that the Hakka "saved" China, so the influence of the ethnic element cannot be overstated.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't have objections to merging the categories with 5 or fewer people, which frankly seems to be nearly all categories listed. The Taiwan category definitely need to be kept because Hakka politics is a significant political issue.[5]--Prisencolin (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Taiwan category (and maybe also Hong Kong), support merging the rest. The specific ethnic grouping is not significant in the wider diaspora, but is very likely so within Chinese territories. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. "Descent" categories are contrary to WP:OCEGRS and other guidelines (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right", I've literally listed at least 6 sources which demonstrate this, and somehow you're bold enough to just copy paste the same generic reply every single time. The lack of WP:BEFORE is concerning to say the least.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prisencolin: one can find six references that Okies and Arkies are important in the population movements in the US, but alas the fact that some folks in California can trace some ancestor to Oklahoma or Arkansas is not defining for those folks. I do not think vague ancestry or descent categories define anyone and I think they run afoul of many of WP's policies, guidelines, etc. I have posted that and it bears repeating so I repeat it because some people may be new to the topic and haven't read my position. In addition, I'm frankly tired of your misstatements and purported concerns regarding things that have nothing to do with what you're talking about. WP:BEFORE applies to nominating articles not categories; despite your bandying it about you seem to have failed to realize that. Educate yourself. Second, everyone has commented based on various proposals to either delete or merge made about. Third, why you seem to hound me with your concern with WP:BEFORE "to say the least", when I haven't even nominated anything seems to be harassing - what other things I do concerns you other than our disagreement on content. You were warned not to harass people at WP:ANI. I remind you again. In addition, why don't you create an essay in your namespace defending your position rather than responding to everyone's position with which you disagree? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I replied to most of your post on talk page. As far s "I do not think vague ancestry or descent categories define anyone" goes, the intersection of Hakka people and politics is widely attested like I started above. It's not particularly vague in most cases, and particularly in Chinese society, people don't have multitudes of national origins which they can discernibly identify with; this is the parallel to American ethnic heritage you seem to allude to. I agree with some of your sentiment that many ancestral categorizations are bad, but you're just making a WP:POINT here and saying everyone should be deleted regardless of circumstance.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can hardly find any sources for people either on this encyclopedia or external sources that even describe them as "Okies" (except Woody Guthrie). Whereas we have plenty of sources associating Lee Teng-hui[6] or Tsai Ying-wen[7] as Hakka.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Taiwan, apparently Hakka have become a separate ethnicity on their own in Taiwan, rather than merely having Hakka ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure if that's actually proper procedure because there was a !vote for deletion of every category nominated. I'm not sure that nomination even of a single nominated page can be withdrawn unless there's unanimous consensus to do so. That was my experience from a past AFD at least.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is up to the closer of the discussion to determine if there is enough support for each of the categories. In theory it may happen that although I am withdrawing the Taiwanese category that there is still enough consensus to delete that one too. But I honestly do not expect that to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, trivial intersection. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATA, specifically WP:IDL.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the Hakka are a distinct ethnicity with in the larger Chinese ethnicity, like Scots or English are a subgroup of British or Sicilians to Italians (not good analogies I know, but you get the point). WP:NONDEF in my opinion does not apply here. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Inter&anthro: For the sake of disclosure, Category:American people of Sicilian descent was recently deleted. I'm not sure why the entire tree wasn't put up for deletion though.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Hakka is a linguistic group, thus probably ethnic. We have been deleting a lot of Chinese provincial categories, but possibly in some cases unwisely. Traditionally these languages have been called "dialects", but in fact most are distinct languages. This should also apply to Cantonese; Hokkien (which has a disapora throughout southeast Asia, including Indonesia, where most of the overseas Chinese are Hokkien speakers, not Mandarin. As an analogy, I expect we have ethnic categories for Native Americans. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the Hakka are a distinct ethnicity with in the larger Chinese ethnicity. WP:NONDEF in my opinion does not apply here. --Just N. (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is beside the point. The question is not whether Hakka is an ethnicity. The question is whether should specifically categorize (1) politicians (2) outside China (3) whose ancestors were of Hakka ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 14 March 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.

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) 01:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sheikhupura Cricket Association cricketers to Category:Sheikhupura cricketers

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary split. Störm (talk) 19:55, 10 March 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.

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) 01:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Motor Toon Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles and no potential for expansion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:49, 10 March 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Radio programs by broadcast network to Category:Radio programs by network or station

Nominator's rationale: Followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 24#Category:Radio programs by station, where there was some support for the idea of renaming this category but no new name was decided on before the other category was deleted — but the same problem, that the distinction between a radio "network" and a radio "station" isn't always a clean and unambiguous one, is still applicable here. There's a sharper line in North America (yet that didn't stop network categories like CBC or NPR from being categorized as "stations" anyway, meaning the difference still isn't actually as transparent as one would think) — but in much of the rest of the world it's fuzzier and more subjective, as national "networks" may not actually have local "stations" offering local programming separately from the centralized programming, and thus the terms often just get used interchangeably for the same thing. We've already agreed that there wasn't much value in having separate "station" and "network" trees here, but the network category should probably still be renamed to more clearly encompass both terms, so that we don't get sucked into unproductive arguments about whether any individual service is really a "network" or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 10 March 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.

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) 01:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gay royalty to Category:LGBT royalty
• Propose merging Category:Bisexual royalty to Category:LGBT royalty

Nominator's rationale: The royals in both categories are known to have had same-sex relations (at least sufficiently known that their inclusion in the category is not contested). I'm not sure of the benefit of having separate categories, and deciding Trajan was gay but Hadrian was LGBT, etc. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. We have a longstanding consensus that we do not want every "LGBT" category to be quadrantized into separate "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual" and "transgender" subcategories as a matter of course — it's permitted in cases where a common "LGBT" category would be extremely large and needs to be chunked out for size management purposes, but not as an automatic feature of every "LGBT" category that exists at all. And especially for historical figures like Trajan or Hadrian, who lived and died long before contemporary 21st-century language about LGBT identities came into effect, it can be incredibly difficult and arbitrary to determine whether a person would have been more accurately described as gay or bisexual. A person might, for example, have been strictly gay but married a partner of the opposite sex for public appearances anyway, or they might have been bisexual but for whatever reason their same-sex relationships ended up better-documented (e.g. their private sex lives mostly didn't get written about apart from one public "scandal" over a same-sex dalliance that might have been the exception to the rule.) So if the distinction isn't always clear or unambiguous in the first place, and the base LGBT category isn't large enough that it needs to be diffused for size, then there's no call for quadrantizing people into subcategories. Note as well that I've added the "bisexual royalty" category to this discussion as it's subject to the same issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, and per Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support @Bearcat: still with the neologisms? *shudders* Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- It is likely (with historical cases) that they were in fact bisexual. For cases in British history (e.g. Edward II and James I), all we have is a strong suspicion that a favourite was in fact a partner. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge largely per above, and the distinction between who is gay or bisexual or queer, especially for historical monarchs, can be a iffy question at times. This proposal helps eliminates much of the potential trouble. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:07, 14 March 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.

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: procedural close, nomination has been moved to WP:CFDS. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please move Category:Burial monuments and structures in Dominican Republic to Category:Burial monuments and structures in the Dominican Republic. I'm shure, the current title is in wrong syntax/style ... or?

Renameing all links to this Cat, I can do, if you want ...

Can someone explain me, why I don't have the permission to do this cat-move self ...?

• I have speedied the above request. (There was no cfd tag.) Oculi (talk) 16:52, 10 March 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.

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) 01:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Chonburi (city) to Category:People from Chonburi Province
• Propose merging Category:People from Nakhon Ratchasima to Category:People from Nakhon Ratchasima Province

Nominator's rationale: In Thailand, when a database item, news piece, or other source mentions that someone is from Chonburi, it is most likely referring to the province, not the town that serves as the provincial centre. Most of the items here appear to be miscategorised, as hardly any sources actually make the distinction. No other Thai provinces but these two are broken down this way. Paul_012 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support/Comment provinces in Thailand are usually named after their capital from what I can tell, so the nominator is correct in that regard. What concerns me though is that these categories of prople from (insert Thai Province) is that a lot of these categories are becoming quite large, with 20+ entries. It may be practical at some point to add category:people from (insert Thai city) to prevent overcrowding in the province categories. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Thai address system follows a province's division into districts and subdistricts (and doesn't really tell whether a place is inside or outside city limits), the more logical method to break down these categories will probably be by district, though I'm not sure if it would be very useful. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support' --Just N. (talk) 18:02, 14 March 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Women human rights defenders to Category:Women human rights activists

Nominator's rationale: The entire Category:Human rights activists tree currently uses activists, though the main article is now at Human rights defender. There may be a case to consider for renaming the category tree, but until then, this category should be consistent with the others. Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Consistency is usually helpful, plus "activist" seems to be a more neutral and discriptive term than "defender". Inter&anthro (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. It's important for the category tree to have as much consistency as possible, so that the location of any given category is predictable to users who don't already know all the nooks and crannies of the category tree. I'm not convinced by the discussion at Talk:Human rights defender that led to that page being moved, as I'm failing to grok the distinction between an "activist" and a "defender" that the participants think they're making — you don't have to "defend" a human right that isn't vulnerable, so the distinction between "defending" a human right and "advocating for" a human right is...opaque, I guess would be the polite way to put it (as opposed to just calling it straight up bullshit)? But even if somebody actually wants to propose renaming the parent category to "defenders" instead of "activists", so long as it is still at "activists" this category doesn't have any unique and/or gender-dependent reason to be out of phase with the parent. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this is a case of conflicting consistencies. The current name is consistent with the main article, the proposed name is consistent with the category tree. It is not entirely obvious that the latter should be prevail over the former. Ideally the article title should be renamed to "activists" as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the name change sounds better, but I really don't know about "activists" categories. Our own article activism (to which activist redirects), defines the concept "consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct, or intervene in social, political, economic, or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived greater good." So activists are basically anyone on any side of any issue. Who isn't an activist by that definition. So anyone who "impedes" civil rights is a civil rights activist. I hear Orval Faubus rolling in his grave. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Opoose Humanrights are always vulnerable. Human rights defenders is the much better choice. Existing activist cat trees should be renamed as well. --Just N. (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they really shouldn't, because "defenders" simply is not the standard term in actual use to describe what these people do. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 17 March 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.

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) 01:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Legend of Legaia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains two articles with no potential for expansion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I have checked the contents and in this case there is no need for a merge. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:07, 14 March 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.

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) 01:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Genji (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, small with little potential for expansion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I have checked the contents and in this case there is no need for a merge. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:08, 14 March 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.

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) 01:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Riddim Ribbon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT; only 2 game articles with little potential for expansion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I have checked the contents and in this case there is no need for a merge. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:09, 14 March 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Board of Aldermen of the City of St. Louis to Category:Members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen

Nominator's rationale: To go with the recently renamed page St. Louis Board of Aldermen, for the same reasons provided in that move request. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:09, 14 March 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.

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) 01:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Germanium chemistry to Category:Germanium

Nominator's rationale: No other element category is subdivided in this arbitrary and wholly redundant manner. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also Category:Silicon chemistry to Category:Silicon
• Category:Tin chemistry to Category:Tin

• Comment: There's also Category:Silicon chemistry and Category:Tin chemistry, all created by the same editor. (None for carbon or lead though.) --Paul_012 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged the two and added them to this discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Very unclear what the distinction is supposed to be. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:11, 14 March 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.

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) 01:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use VandalSniper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper is marked as ((historical)) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:12, 14 March 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.

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) 01:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Military Merit Order (Württemberg)

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Military Merit Order (Württemberg)‎

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)

The German Kingdom of Württemberg gave out the Military Merit Order (Württemberg). The recipients fall into three categories:

• 1 Leaders of Allied States/Countries: Alexander II of Russia, Ludwig III of Bavaria, William II of the Netherlands, Prince Charles of Prussia who are not remotely defined by this award.
• 2 Local Leaders: The articles for Prince August of Württemberg and William II of Württemberg do not treat it as defining.
• 3 Actual Soldiers: This one seemed the most likely to be defining since it's the stated purpose of the award but the WWI soldiers like Julius von Bose,Friedrich Ehmann, Erwin Rommel just mention it in passing with other honours.

There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:13, 14 March 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.

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) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of the Pleiades (Iran)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)

When female foreign leaders other high ranking guests visited Imperial Iran or vice versa, the Order of the Pleiades (Iran) was given out as souvenir. Margrethe II of Denmark, U.S. First Lady Betty Ford, and Princess Irene of the Netherlands are not remotely defined by this award. (There are also several domestic female royals who already in cats like Category:Pahlavi princesses.) Ther wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:13, 14 March 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.