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. ✗plicit 05:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Foreign Service brats
• Nominator's rationale In the previous discussion of the deletion of Category:Military brats this was listed as one thing we do not categorize people by. The occupation of the person's parents is not a very defining thing. Beyond this, the category is needlessly Amero-centric. If this is a notable thing, then why are we only including Americans, and not all children whose parents were in any foreign service?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. By the way I guess that only Americans make this a notable thing, the expression "foreign service brat" does not exist in other languages I know, you would need a long explanation to describe the concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually have never heard the term, and I was good friends with a son of Gerrit W. Gong, who since he (the son) grew up in part in both Taiwan and China while his father was there on US government assignments (special assistant to the ambassador and such) he would have qualified. I have heard the term "military brat". However, the Gong cases illustrates another issue. My friend spent at most 5 years outside the US and at least 13 years in the US of his time as a minor, yet almost that whole time his father was more or less connected to the US government. During the first few years Gong may have worked full time at Johns Hopkins. A good portion of people in the foreign service work in the US, so they are not all abroad. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps the article should be deleted too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as as the nom of military brats.--User:Namiba 14:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As a UK person I have heard the term 'military brat' but not 'Foreign Service brat'. In any case neither seems to be defining. Oculi (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I might have !voted to keep military brats, but it's hard to argue for keeping this more obscure term/grouping with that gone. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Although I like the humor that created this category I don't judge it a serious contribution to our encyclopedia. Well, sometimes I miss good humor around here - producing more smile and less argy-bargy. --Just N. (talk) 14:38, 18 July 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:B-Line bus to Category:B-Line (Vancouver)

Nominator's rationale: Current name is ambiguous, see B Line. This matches the name of the current primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with no main article to take a cue from, this seems easier to navigate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The long and winding listing per wiki poses the question why only now? --Just N. (talk) 14:42, 18 July 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. bibliomaniac15 18:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Regiments of the Neapolitan Army to Category:Kingdom of Naples (Napoleonic) and Category:Military history of Naples

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle the page SHOULDN'T be merged, the regimental category should and needs to stay, as it has nothing to do with the "political category". For instance, would you merge Category:French regiments of the Ancien Régime and Category:France? No, because they're neither the same nor similar in the manor for which is being used in these category. So, it should stay and NOT be merged. I have more articles coming for Naples soon which will expand the category.. J-Man11 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Neapolitan Army clearly says it was the primary land defence and offence force of the Kingdom of Naples (my italic). Of course it has something to do with the political category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. If User:J-Man11 or others creates a total of more than 10-20 new articles on the subject of regiments of the Kingdom of Naples, the question can always be reopened. Otherwise his argument here falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL - we cannot categorize by the promise of more articles in the future, we must categorise on what is there now.

In addition, armies are a function of their states and simply would not exist if the state did not exist. Basic axiom of state system since the Treaty of Westphalia; User:J-Man11 ought to review Westphalian sovereignty. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 14:44, 18 July 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tulsa Oilers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category for a minor league hockey team contains only 1 article. User:Namiba 14:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:C2F, one eponymous article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:C2F. --Just N. (talk) 14:45, 18 July 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, merging is not needed considering that the article has already been added to appropriate other categories (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:5th-century bishops in Bavaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Bavaria did not exist in the 5th century. It was part of the Roman province of Rhaetia or Germania Superior. There is a single article so SmallCat also applies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator I think Laurel Lodged is right. Should the article go in Category:5th-century bishops in the Roman Empire‎? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

Way ahead of you my friend. Had already placed it there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Roman Empire category, but it looks like de facto delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above discussed. --Just N. (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Raetia, the Roman province where he was a missionary bishop. Ideally, the target would be a people of sub-cat, but there is none yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Peterkingiron: I've now added that person to Raetia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:33, 21 July 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. I have checked that the contents are in other "physical chemists" categories where this is stated in the article text. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jewish physical chemists to Category:Jewish chemists

Nominator's rationale: Too detailed for an intersection of ethnicity and occupation. Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:OCEGRS, Jewish physical chemists is not a notable topic in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Jewish chemists is a unique topic in its own right, but a merge is fine for now.--User:Namiba 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This category seem to be part of a batch copied from Hebrew Wikipedia without consideration for conventions in the English Wikipedia, as discussed e.g. here. Creators/copyists seem to act as if Jewish was a nationality, which it is not. Other "nationality" categories from the same batch: Category:Jewish biophysicists, Category:Jewish bacteriologists, Category:Jewish botanists, Category:Jewish agronomists, Category:Jewish systems scientists, Category:Jewish microbiologists, Category:Jewish neuroscientists, Category:Jewish psychologists (a WP:G4 recreation), Category:Jewish theatre directors, Category:Jewish theatre people, Category:Jewish musicologists, Category:Jewish archaeologists and more. Place Clichy (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would happily take them all into Category:Jewish scientists. I've read lots of these articles and I dont think even one of them suggests that being Jewish affected their scientific work.Rathfelder (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As for Rathfelders statements: being Jewish historically has been strongly affecting social status, and if sensitive social status dosen't affect scientific working, that would contradict all social psychology research. --Just N. (talk) 15:13, 18 July 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. ✗plicit 02:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT Roman Catholic bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A category full of original research and speculation. It is doubtful whether all of the bishops in this category identify as gay or bisexual, especially those from centuries ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom; categories shouldn't be based on speculation, which seems to be the case for nearly all (or all) of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't one enough for the category? Rembert Weakland is an out gay Catholic bishop. natemup (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose, Catholic bishops are obviously not in the position to come out as LGBT and for bishops living centuries ago LGBT is an entirely anachronistic term. But those are issues of the entire LGBT people tree. Bishops should not be singled out before a broader discussion has taken place. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishops are being singled out because this is the category that was created, deleted and then recreated. I think you should check out the bios of the men listed here. Some are from the 16th century and others were accused of having a same-sex relationship of short duration. I'm not sure if their lives warrant being described by a 21st century concept like LBGT as if that sums them up or whether they should be classified based on their implied sexual preferences. I'm not saying that a broader discussion should not happen but this is the category that is under debate today and I don't think this discussion should be delayed months or even years into the future when this larger discussion gets started.

I should also state that I know gay priests and that probably gay bishops exist, too. But the question is whether these specific individuals, placed into this category, should be defined as LGBT on Wikipedia when that is not how they self-identify. I think, for these individuals, it's imposing an identity on to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The outcome of a broader discussion may be renaming or splitting. A deletion of this category right now would hamper that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "But those are issues of the entire LGBT people tree" I'm not so sure if that's true. The nominated people might be a unique case within the tree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For example Category:Medieval LGBT people. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't one enough for the category? Rembert Weakland is an out gay Catholic bishop. natemup (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is Category:LGBT bishops. Can we at least not consider bishops of all persuasions together? (The nominated category was deleted earlier because it was empty, not after discussion.) Oculi (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Am less inclined to delete LGBT bishops since some Protestant denominations do not oppose their clergy coming out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too built on original research. Some of these entries are for people from a time when no one would have conceived of themselves according to these terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't one enough for the category? Rembert Weakland is an out gay Catholic bishop. natemup (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Many of the justifications posted here seem to imply a certain kind of impossibility of an LGBT Catholic bishop, as though the Church forbids that clergy admit being homosexuals or whatever else. No such official prohibition exists, and it's clear enough from the indiscretions of various bishops that they were in fact sexual minorities. Others (like Rembert Weakland) have outright admitted they are gay. natemup (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't read my comments. I know gay Catholic priests and that there are probably gay Catholic bishops. The question is whether they would self-identify themselves as LGBT which is a modern nomenclature and whether this could be considered defining. I hold the same view towards Category:Medieval LGBT people which isn't tied to Catholic clergy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one bona fide, verified, out, self-identifying gay Catholic bishop. It's not a hypothetical. It's been cited above. The info has been live on Wikipedia and in the category from the get-go. This deletion proposal is ludicrous. natemup (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it , this article is offense to both lgbt people and Catholics, you have pedophiles like mcccarick on the list . Pedophila is not homosexuality and most gay people are not pedos (nor ar most pedos gay) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudmanOut (talk • contribs)

• • The issue is more complex than you acknowledge. By most accounts sex between men and boys counts as homosexual relations, without regard to age difference. Beyond this, you are confusing medical and legal terms. Pedophilia is technically sexual attraction to pre-pubescent males, but most of the accusations of sexual abuse of minors that have come forth have involved post-pubescent victims. In the case of McCarrick although he was removed for sexual abuse of minors, the major issue with him was misusing his power to obtain sexual favors from seminarians, who are adults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the category is good and right. And there are LGBT Roman Catholic bishops worldwide and in history. --188.96.230.225 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the relationship between being LGBT and belonging to (Catholic) clergy is a topic in itself, I do not think that there is a special relationship for bishops in regards to other clergy. Category:LGBT Roman Catholic clergy and Category:LGBT Roman Catholic priests are sufficient to cover the topic. This past discussion is noteworthy. Place Clichy (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, if the category is deleted, Rembert Weakland should be added to Category:LGBT bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If there is only one person in the category that clearly identifies as LGBT, then SMALLCAT applies. As Marcocapelle says, the one genuine member of this category should be ved to the parent cat. Sionk (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've looked through the 11 entries and found none suspect of original research. Most of the people here who want it deleted just want to shoot the topic to the moon. Well, I don't see no real good reason to do so. BTW I don't like partisans of both extremes to bring political ideology combat into Wikipedia! --Just N. (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All 11 @Justus Nussbaum:? Including Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte? Does any source say that he self-identified? Does any source consist of anything but hearsay? Was he even a bishop? Not every cardinal was a bishop. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He has probably been a bishop after all, his name appears in the list of bishops of the Ancient Diocese of Mirepoix. But in the broader context of the discussion this is of course trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one item in the category. The other ones are alleged or never came out, and per WP:CATLGBT policy should not be inserted in this category if they did not come out as LGBT or self-identify, or if there is a scholastic consesus to define them as such. The only page that meets the criteria is Rembert Weakland. But beyond that, I see no need for this category since LGBT Catholic Clergy exists as category and there's no need for a specific one for bishops. This seems like Wikipedia:Overcategorization and WP:OCEGRS. Eccekevin (talk) 18:18, 9 August 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.