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:American people of Dutch Antillean descent and Category:Saba people. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American people of Saba descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:People of Saba descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this category for people descended from people who lived on this small island. The subject did not explicitly claim this heritage. Article should be upmerged to a category where a navigational purpose is served. SFB 23:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Although formally the Dutch Antilles no longer exist, it seems like Category:People of Dutch Antillean descent is still actively used and then I think this would be the more appropriate category to upmerge the people of Saba descent to. I guess it would be a bit odd to merge them to Category:People of Dutch descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge or Delete American Subcat/Neutral on Parent Category Not sure how to handle the devolution of the Dutch Antilles, but I can't sanction 2 categories to house 1 article when 1 is plenty. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not need every possible descent category. No indication that this was a defining characteristic of the person involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2014 (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: upmerge to categories for films by year and Tamil films by decade. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per a previous discussion, I figure it's finally time to nominate Category:Tamil films by year and all its sub-categories for deletion. The articles in these categories can be upmerged to the year categories and to the sub-categories of Category:Tamil-language films by decade. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OVERCAT and (for most of them) WP:SMALLCAT. I guess a merge into "by Decade" is feasible although some will still be smallcats. The other option is to merge any that aren't already there into Category:Tamil films. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous consensus. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge of content into the Tamil-language film by decade categories and the films by year categories. The year categories do have significant content after the 1950s though so categorisation by year is not entirely unreasonable for those. SFB 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if the rationale is WP:SMALLCAT, per second line of SFB. Actually there is no rationale given so one needs to guess if this was really the reason for nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale is that there have been other discussions about categorization by year, which have resulted in those categories being deleted. See this discussion and this one. The current nomination was prompted by this discussion, and some of these might fall into WP:SMALLCAT, but once they are upmerged that will no longer be an issue. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussions that you are referring to are lacking a reasonable sense of trade-off as to when it is and when it is not appropriate to intersect. In this case, with one of intersect categories containing 76 articles (I just clicked one randomly now), it is actually most reasonable to have intersect categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Per Marnette.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and purge any that are not in the Tamil language. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lugnuts, Marnette, et al. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge per nom. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:27, 6 December 2014 (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 resulting in keep for Category:People of Madeiran descent, Category:People of Réunionnais descent and Category:People of Mahoran descent; merge the others. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People of Madeiran descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Propose deleting Category:Madeiran diaspora
• Propose deleting Category:American people of Madeiran descent
• Propose deleting Category:Brazilian people of Madeiran descent
• Propose deleting Category:Canadian people of Madeiran descent
• Propose deleting Category:South African people of Madeiran descent
• Propose deleting Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Madeiran descent
• Propose deleting Category:Venezuelan people of Madeiran descent
• Propose deleting Category:Réunionnais diaspora
• Propose deleting Category:People of Réunionnais descent
• Propose deleting Category:Togolese people of Réunionnais descent
• Propose deleting Category:French people of Réunionnais descent
• Propose deleting Category:American people of Réunionnais descent
• Propose deleting Category:Mahoran diaspora
• Propose deleting Category:People of Mahoran descent
• Propose deleting Category:French people of Mahoran descent

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of "descent" categories is gather people of a shared ethnic or national descent. None of the above proposed categories has an ethnic or country basis. In effect, they are no different to something like Category:People of Lancastrian descent. I think expanding the "by descent" tree to include non-ethnic and sub-national identities is not a positive move - an ethnic and national basis reflect the way real-world communities generally organise themselves and develop over time (e.g. people claim Scottish heritage, not Glaswegian heritage; Chinese people gather in Chinatowns, not Liaoningtowns). See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_27#Category:Dominican_Republic_people_of_Lazian_descent. SFB 18:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on Parent Cat and American Subcat/Upmerge or Delete All Other Nominations No opinion on grouping people by sub-national category but most of these subcategories run afoul of WP:NARROWCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative suggestion:

• Keep Category:People of Madeiran descent; Category:People of Réunionnais descent and Category:People of Mahoran descent
• Merge the other Maderian categories into Category:People of Madeiran descent; and likewise with the others.

These are island communities, which are likely to have developed a distinct heritage from the mother country, but they are small polities, so that we should not allow even a dual category. The dual categories may additionally need to be upmerged to the appropriate national category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that approach as an improvement to all these small cats. No opinion on whether the parents are valuable though. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmanageable "descent" categories. Even if some island had some distinct heritage from the mother country (like Long Island or Manhattan or Nantucket in the United States, perhaps), just because one of someone's far distant ancestors came from that island doesn't define that person. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Those from the Madeiras are Portuguese, and should be in relevant Portuguese categories. What next Category:Australian people of California descent?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:People of Madeiran descent; Category:People of Réunionnais descent and Category:People of Mahoran descent; merge the others into these three per Peterkingiron. All three of these can generally be regarded as legitimate nationalities in the same way that Puerto Rican and American can be viewed as somewhat distinct. The "California descent" analogy in inapposite here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:39, 9 December 2014 (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) 02:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People killed by the United States Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A recent creation which was empty and now has one article. No doubt there could be thousands, however, "people killed by whom" is a bad means of categorization because the articles would have little in common. Targeted killings, executions, deaths in battle, accidental killings, all by the same 200-year old organization(s) really have nothing in common but for some synthesis or subjectivity. Consider various folks who would be categorized here to see how disparate they'd be Mary Surratt (executed for Lincoln's assassination in 1865 by the US Army), Eddie Slovik, (executed for desertion in 1945), Roland Freisler (Nazi show trial judge killed in air raid), Lawrence O'Bryan Branch (Confederate general killed in action), Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese admiral targeted killing in action), etc.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. People should be categorized by what they are notable for (e.g. being a Japanese admiral), but not for this (and other) how-they-died characteristic. DexDor (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too broad and involves killed combatants, friendly fire, unintentional civilian deaths, intentional civilian deaths, etc. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you very rational editors please put Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces on your watchlist because that is going up for deletion when this is done.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:12, 29 October 2014 (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 22. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NON-DEFINING and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I don't think the original manufacturer is defining for products that were modified with after-market changes. In this case, everything in this category is a modified Volkswagen Beetle and is also in Category:Volkswagen Beetle, which I created before I noticed this category. There is no similar category for other automakers. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobile. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but maybe rename: One of these rationales is just WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST; there was never any category of anything that was similar to any other category of anything until we created them, and we would never create categories except in big groups if this rationale were actually applicable. OVERLAPCAT is not even remotely similar to this case ("Category:Volkswagen vehicles with four wheels" would be such an example). I tried to get behind NON-DEFINING (I started drafting this as a "weak support"), but on closer inspection, I can't. Being both a case of vehicle modification in general, and a Volkswagen mod in particular, are in fact both defining characteristics of the items in the category (or at least the ones I'm familiar with - it's possible one or another is miscategorized). It's not categorization by manufacturer of the original vehicle, it's categorization by the common name of the vehicle group to which the mods apply; the sort of name led to by those criteria just coincidentally is the same. This case is a good example of a subcat, because there are so many mods that fit this category; it's an unusually popular kind of mod, and has been for over 40 years. Other subcats of Category:Vehicle modification (vans, motorcycles) are more general, but a) one for cars would be OVERLAPCAT, and b) if there were lots of articles about Ford mods in particular for some reason, that would be a valid subcat, and even if there were quite a number of articles in the motorcycles category, and a notable number of them were about Harley-Davidson mods in particular, it would be reasonable to create a subsubcat for that. There is no "do not name categories after companies or product lines" principle at CfD. The sheer number of VW entries will simply inspire someone to subcategorize them again later, if the cat. were deleted. If it were, the articles should be categorized in Category:Vehicle modification as well as Category:Volkswagen Beetle, if applicable (some may be non-Beetles). If none are non-Beetles and the cat. is kept, it could be renamed Category:Volkwagen Beetle modification to match the parent better, or Category:Volkswagen modification otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation of why you created the category. If this is deleted, I agree that the contents should be upmerged to Category:Vehicle modification (they are all already in Category:Volkswagen Beetle). RevelationDirect (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have just notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and asked them to comment here. – Fayenatic London 06:50, 10 December 2014 (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.