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 and dabify. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Arabic alphabet to Category:Arabic script

Nominator's rationale: No need to have such a subcategory. Consistent with others scripts. Pepyss (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect, as the current name is a likely search term. Add the parent of the nominated category onto the target page. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and convert to dab page, it may also lead to Category:Arabic alphabets. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Albanians in Montenegro to Category:Montenegrin people of Albanian descent

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2C, consistency with established category tree names (WP:CATNAME#Heritage). Griboski (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason I created the category is for the purpose of being able to distinguish between ethnic Albanians in Montenegro and ethnic Montenegrins of Albanian origin (Petar Perkolic, Camil Sijaric). Lumping them all together into "Montenegrins of Albanian descent" feels like an inaccurate representation of their respective identities.Alltan (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The category applies for both cases. A person who is a Montenegrin citizen and of Albanian ancestry belongs in the category Montenegrin people of Albanian descent, regardless of whether they just arrived there or their Albanian ancestry goes back several generations. This is generally done for all ethnic origins in a given country. --Griboski (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would this apply to people of Albanian origin who may not consider themselves as such AND are citizens of Montenegro? Say for example Marko Miljanov, Avdo Mededovic and Jakup Ferri. All these were Albanian origin, but would it be fair to say they are nothing more than Montenegrins of Albanian descent? Any user who would see say Andrija Radovic and Ali Pasha of Gusinje would be rightfully confused. I believe a second category is very much warranted.Alltan (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S, take a look at the category "Serbs of Montenegro". It usually sits right next to "Montenegrin people of Serbian descent".Alltan (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd add "Albanians in Montenegro" to Miljanov? That makes less sense considering his background/identity as Serb. I did notice there were specific categoric splits in some cases. I just wasn't sure about the purpose of the additional category. Given the overlap, I assumed it would be a replacement for the category tree since nearly all of those who were added were citizens of Montenegro of Albanian descent. It seemed like an overcategorization. --Griboski (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 29 articles under the category "Montenegrin people of Serbian descent", while the "Serbs of Montenegro" one includes around 244. I appreciate your concern, but as I said, there has to be a certain level of distinction between the above mentioned figures, regardless of their Albanian origin. On Miljanov, it would not be accurate at all to describe him as an Albanian in Montenegro. He was however of direct maternal and paternal Albanian origin, therefore the "Montenegrins of Albanian descent" would be, relatively, fitting. I believe all these factors give merit to keeping the category.Alltan (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, some articles such as Bljedi Bardic may be moved from one category to the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge The Albanian population is an ethnic population, not one that migrated, so I think "descent" does not quite work. Descent works in the Americas with populations that have migrated, but does not work with ethnic groups who have no clear connection to a place. Albanians as a people and Albania as a country are interelated topics, but you need no ancestor who ever lived in modern Albania to be Albanian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• True but one can also (no longer) be part of the ethnic Albanian community and still having Albanian ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge In Montenegro, there is a clear distinction between Albanians in Montenegro and Montenegrins of Albanian descent. Albanians are a constitutionally recognized minority in Montenegro, they are not just Montenegrin citizens of Albanian descent. The term Montenegrin of Albanian descent is mostly used for ethnic Montenegrins who have some - recent or distant - Albanian origin. When this term is used in a conversation, all participants know that the person to whom they're referring is not an Albanian in Montenegro but an ethnic Montenegrin or at the very least a non-Albanian, Montenegrin citizen.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If anything Reverse merge -- This ought ultimately to be a linguistic (or ethnic) category. It should not be a descent category, which normally refers to the descendants of expatriate. Most of the population of Kosovo is ethnic Albanian, and I suspect there is similarly a minority in Montenegro, who have likewise always been there. There may be a case for us to Keep both if someone can provide a clear boundary between the two, which may be difficult. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reacting to User:Peterkingiron. In theory that difference is not difficult to make: Montenegrins of Albanian descent are people in Montenegro who emigrated from the country Albania to the country Yugoslavia or Montenegro, or whose parents or grandparents did so. In practice that detail of information may be lacking in the articles, but if so Category:Montenegrin people of Albanian descent would naturally become empty. Again, just check this article by article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per perviously established consensus concerning similar categories, such as this discussion. Either that or the scope of Category:Albanians in Montenegro should be changed, such as being for Albanian villages or culture in Montenegro and not biographical articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the rationale in the previous discussion is complertely unrelated to this discussion. In the previous discussion there was (apparently) a distinction in migrants between full and partial ancestry, while here we discuss ancestry of migrants versus ethnicity (i.e. non-migrants). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2022 (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 to Category:Song recordings produced by Sin (music producer) to be consistent with the below nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Song recordings produced by Sin to Category:Song recordings produced by Sin (?)

Nominator's rationale: It needs disambiguating from the deadly sins, but as the person doesn't have an article not sure of the options, (songwriter), (composer), (record producer). Richhoncho (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The songs are not in English; there are only two items (usual minimum 5); no main article on Sin (person). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually there are 5. Richhoncho (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there's no minimum role per WP:SMALLCAT. Nor had being an English subject been a requirement. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator. OK It was a hot day yesterday and we all make mistakes, so no harm done, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply and the language of the songs in the category is not defining for not having a category. The nomination is to disambiguate from Sin, and on further reflection I suggest Category:Song recordings produced by Sin (record producer). It would be good to have input from the creator of the cats, they were notified.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Song recordings produced by Sin (music producer) per ja:Sin (music producer) (or '(record producer)' if this is the usual dab in en wiki). It is not clear to me whether there is scope for expansion or whether ja wiki has more material. Oculi (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:35, 16 August 2022 (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 to Category:Songs written by Sin (music producer). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Sin to Category:Songs written by Sin (?)

Nominator's rationale: It needs disambiguating from the deadly sins, but as the person doesn't have an article not sure of the options, (songwriter), (composer), (record producer). Richhoncho (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The songs are not in English; there are only two items (usual minimum 5); no main article on Sin (person). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's no minimum role per WP:SMALLCAT. Nor had being an English subject been a requirement. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator. OK It was a hot day yesterday and we all make mistakes, so no harm done, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply and the language of the songs in the category is not defining for not having a category. The nomination is to disambiguate from Sin, and on further reflection I suggest Category:Songs written by Sin (record producer). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Songs written by Sin (music producer) per ja:Sin (music producer) (or '(record producer)' if this is the usual dab in en wiki). It is not clear to me whether there is scope for expansion or whether ja wiki has more material. Oculi (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As nominator I can support Occuli's suggestion. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Oculi, Special:Search/Category: intitle:"(record producer)" and Special:Search/Category: intitle:"(music producer)"
   ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:35, 16 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Models of the Russian Empire to Category:Models from the Russian Empire
• Nominator's rationale "Models of" is a phrase that in common usage means a smaller scale representation of something. I know this is not what the "model" her means, but I think the current name is a little confusing, and since we already have some categories that use the "from" form, I think it is reasonable to use that form here as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, removing ambiguity, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now: within Category:Models by nationality, only the current entities Georgia and Northern Ireland use "from". The current standard is to use "Fooian" in most cases, "from" for Georgia to avoid ambiguity, "from" for Northern Ireland (see Category talk:People from Northern Ireland), and "of" for former empires etc. The alternatives for Russian Empire were therefore resolved as "of the Russian Empire" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 3#Russian Empire people, with a few exceptions using "from" only where the word "of" would give a misleading construction. There were follow-up discussions which endorsed this outcome. IMHO it is (i) far-fetched to consider that people would be misled by "Models of", and therefore (ii) undesirable to differ from the parent "People of" and the sub-cat "Artists' models of the Russian Empire". – Fayenatic London 21:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel my actual point about title ambiguity is not addressed at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 16 August 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Artists of the Russian Empire to Category:Artists from the Russian Empire

Nominators rationale all the sub-cats use the from form. This is probably because with painters, illustrators etc. the confususion of subject and location as the intended meaning of "of" is quite high. However I could see people interpreting this to mean "people who created art connected to the Russian Empire" instead of the intended "people who created art who were resident in or nationals of or subjects of the Russian Empire". I also think the target is in general a better overall name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, removing ambiguity, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Four of the sub-cats were renamed per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Sculptors of the Russian Empire, Illustrators of the Russian Empire etc. The other subcat "Women artists" was recently created by the nominator. Although "Painters of" is ambiguous, I am doubtful that "Artists of" would be misunderstood. It would be better to make a trial nomination at the top level than to add further inconsistencies where there is little ambiguity. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, from is superior to the possessive of. --Mvqr (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Engineers of the Russian Empire to Category:Engineers from the Russian Empire
• Nominator's rationale when we say someone is an engineer of something, we often mean that they did the engineering actions to create it. While this might be a truly irregular formation for creating a politcal unit, I have seen people use "engineer" in such an abstract sense. Basically we need to renamed this for the same reason that we renamed the architect category to Category:Architects from the Russian Empire, because that was also a place that the "of" could confuse, same with Category:Painters from the Russian Empire and Category:Explorers from the Russian Empire, although those cases illustrate much more likely confusion. Hmm, is it Category:Illustrators from the Russian Empire?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, removing ambiguity, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all these Russian ones. "of" is misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now for the same rationale as #Models of the Russian Empire, above. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No answer is given as to why we should ignore the clear ambiguous meanings involved in saying someone is an "engineer of" something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I too have seen that abstract usage, I very much doubt that this category name would be misunderstood. The same goes for "Models of". – Fayenatic London 13:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, from is superior to the possessive of. --Mvqr (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ballpoint pen art to Category:Ballpoint pen artists

Nominator's rationale: rename and reparent per actual content of the category. Apart from the main article they are all biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fwiw, there's Spirograph there too. Not sure what is "best" here, so I'm neutral. "Artists" are narrower, the current name allows for adding for example works of art, not that I know of any with articles atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 16 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Punjabi cinema to Category:Cinema of Punjab, India

Nominator's rationale: The name "Punjabi cinema" is confusing. We have two Punjab in India and Pakistan. We have the category Category:Cinema of Punjab for whole Punjab Region (including India and Pakistan) That's why I suggest to rename it to "Cinema of Punjab, India" You can rename it to "Pollywood" also because we have category "Lollywood" for Pakistani Punjabi Cinema. But Pollywood also means Peshto Cinema. Mehedi Abedin 23:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is Category:Punjabi cinema because of the main article Punjabi cinema for cinema in the Punjabi language, not because of a connection to any geography; compare with Category:Telugu cinema and similar categories/articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: I understand why you oppose. But even you are right many people will wounder that which Punjab the category is about? That will be confusing. For example, we have Category named "Cinema of West Bengal" that makes Bengali cinema. But we don't have category named "Bengali cinema". Why? Because Cinema of Bangladesh makes Bengali cinema and having a category of Bengali cinema will create confusion. The same apply for Punjabi cinema related categories. It will be best if we can rename and convert the category to "state cinema based category" instead of "language cinema based category". No other country make Telegu cinema. So having Category:Telugu cinema will not create confusion. The example given by you is out of the main concern. Mehedi Abedin 23:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It shouldn't be renamed, this is part of Category:Cinema by culture. Rather a separate Indian subcategory should be created as part of Category:Cinema of India by state or union territory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the main article Punjabi cinema states explicitly "This article is about the Punjabi language film industry in India", and in my opinion should be renamed as it is ambiguous. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While the article may be limited to India, it is unlikely that the term is limited to India. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree entirely; which is why the article (and its category) should both be renamed. I expect there is Punjabi cinema outside Asia. Oculi (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 16 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Curaçao expatriates in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Curaçao expatriate sportspeople in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is an invalid category: Curaçao is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, no other sovereign state involved in this situation Crowsus (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In contrast to above I cannot find a proper source for regulation of migration from Curaçao to the Netherlands. If deleted, the subcategory should be deleted too, I have tagged that one too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible keep -- These are separate polities separated by the Atlantic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This government document links to the individual requirements for mainland Netherlands citizens going to the islands, but states "If you want to relocate to the Netherlands from Aruba, Curaçao or St Maarten, you don't have to meet any conditions" so it appears it is not a mirror image situation. My impression is that the requirements for Dutch people would be very much a formality, and other information I have found in respect of visas (eg here) is that citizens of Curaçao etc are Dutch citizens with the same passport and travel rights as those from the mainland. But agree its not a clear cut situation. Crowsus (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See my further comment in the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 16 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dutch expatriates in Curaçao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is an invalid category: Curaçao is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, no other sovereign state involved in this situation Crowsus (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about this. Dutch people need to have a residence permit to settle here [1]. I think the status of Curaçao is more comparable to membership of the British Commonwealth than to Scotland. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Dutch emigrants in Curaçao as this maintains the intent of the category without using incorrect wording. While expatriate specifically implies leaving one's home country for another, emigration includes those who moved from one part of their home country to another with special administrative status. Other categories exist under this precedent, such as Category:Chinese emigrants to Hong Kong. Sam Walczak^Talk/_Edits 18:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Might keep -- Curaçao was a Dutch colony, so that it is effectively a separate polity from the mother country. I think it is self-governing, somewhat like British overseas territories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont think you can be an expatriate in your own country, but you can certainly migrate from one part of it to another. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While it is obvious that you can't be an expatriate in your own country, the question is whether or not these two islands are still "the same country" as the Netherlands. The perception in the Netherlands is that, with the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles in 2010, Curaçao and Aruba became independent countries (with a few shared facilities) while the other four islands remained Dutch. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 16 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aruban expatriates in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I believe this is an invalid category: Aruba is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, no other sovereign state involved in this situation Crowsus (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be Closed to match outcome of Curaçao category (above). The considerations are exactly the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 16 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Brittany to Category:Breton people

Nominator's rationale: The anchor article is Bretons. Clearly not everyone "from Brittany" is ethnically a Breton, but I dont think it is realistic to try to distinguish them from each other, and the existing subcategories dont succeed in doing so. The headnote and the article define Bretons primarily by geography. NB maybe the merger should be the other way round. But I dont think we should have the two categories unless there is a clear distinction, which I dont think is possible. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative: containerize Category:Breton people, this category makes sense as an ethnic and historical category (as opposed to Category:People from Brittany which categorizes people based on current geography). But Category:Breton people should not have articles directly in it, the articles are neither related to ethnicity nor to the medieval duchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, one may well argue that Category:Breton people by occupation and most of its subcategories should be renamed to "from Brittany", similarly to e.g. Category:Sportspeople from Centre-Val de Loire. After that rename, Category:People from Brittany by occupation can be reparented. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- The Breton language is unimportant as a factor, so that I am not sure how the two categories can be distinguished. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added some explanatory text on the page of Category:Breton people to clarify the distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the Category:People from Brittany and its many subcategories [should] refer to the administrative region, which has as much 'right to exist' independently as a category as those for every other French region. If it is felt that the distinction between things relating to traditional, cultural language-based Brittany (i.e current Category:Breton culture‎ etc) and those relating to modern-day, administrative, non-necessarily-Breton-in-nature Brittany is not clear enough, then consideration could be given to re-naming the latter Category:People from Brittany (administrative region) or similar - that would use the same phrasing as Category:People from Occitania (administrative region). As mentioned above, Category:Breton people by occupation should be looked at. Some of the subcats there relate to 'old Brittany', but many are mostly or entirely modern-day people living in the region, i.e Breton scientists, Breton businesspeople‎, Breton musicians, Breton artists and Breton writers - those of the relevant vocation from an older, pre-France period can be distinguished as such by the existing 'Xth century Breton people' ‎category, and if a significant portion of their work refers to Breton culture/language, there are indicative categories for that too. It would be more straightforward to re-name/re-purpose these smaller categories than the original proposal, although I believe we are thinking on the same lines in wanting to tidy this up. Crowsus (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is a distinction between the geographic region, and the ethnicity. Dimadick (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I dont think the distinction between the geographic region, and the ethnicity is apparent in the articles. Most of the biographies just say where the person was born or worked. It's not clear what ethnicity means in this context. People move to Brittany. How long do they or their ancestors have to be there before they are regarded as Bretons? I think the most workable solution is that they should all, apart from the historical categories, should be renamed to "from Brittany"Rathfelder (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2022 (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, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the Freies Deutsches Hochstift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category not needed; being a member of the Freies Deutsches Hochstift does not mean a person dedicates anything towards the FDH. Medarduss (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, just membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Medarduss has now tagged the categpry for speedy deletion under WP:G7. TSventon (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2022 (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 to Category:Railway stations in Great Britain served by Govia Thameslink Railway. bibliomaniac15 18:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Thameslink railway stations to Category:Thameslink railway stations and Category:Railway stations served by Great Northern

Nominator's rationale: I originally merged both these categories to enforce the original intent of this category, however, some stations in this category that are served by Thameslink are not served by Great Northern, and vice versa, and gives confusion to those searching within this category for stations in a specific company. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is part of Category:Railway stations in Great Britain by train operating company so it seems that the current category is correct, isn't it? It might be renamed to Category:Govia Thameslink railway stations though. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's already categories for the other two companies within Govia Thameslink: Southern and Gatwick Express. RfD is not the place to discuss category creation; WP:GOFORIT. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Then they may be nominated for merger. Which also makes sense because it is one franchise. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: WP:UKRAIL has been notified of this discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A subcategory of Category:Railway stations in Great Britain by train operating company has to be called Category:Railway stations in Great Britain served by Govia Thameslink Railway. Additional categories for brand names might make sense though. --PhiH (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also okay with Category:Railway stations in Great Britain served by Govia Thameslink Railway. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can also agree with this category, but stations would also have to be split into individual WP:SUBCATs for the four services under the company, since no station is covered by all four parts of GTR. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Railway stations in Great Britain served by Govia Thameslink Railway. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:10, 24 August 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 13:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Songs about Dubai to Category:Songs about cities and Category:Dubai in popular culture
• Propose merging Category:Songs about Johannesburg to Category:Songs about cities, Category:Songs about South Africa and Category:Culture of Johannesburg
• Propose merging Category:Songs about Kyiv to Category:Songs about cities and Category:Culture in Kyiv
• Propose merging Category:Songs about Sarajevo to Category:Songs about cities, Category:Songs about Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:Culture in Sarajevo
• Propose merging Category:Songs about Seoul to Category:Songs about cities, Category:Songs about South Korea and Category:Works about Seoul
• Propose merging Category:Songs about Yerevan to Category:Songs about cities and Category:Yerevan

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one or two articles in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT --Richhoncho (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2022 (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.