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. Though I would argue that the set of "people who edit Wikipedia for fun" is a subset of "people who are nerds". (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Princes of Vladimir to Category:Princes from Kievan Rus', Category:Medieval Russian royalty, and Category:People from Vladimir-Suzdal

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Upmerge to parents.

NLeeuw (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People with non-binary gender identities to Category:Non-binary people

Nominator's rationale: To be more objective. The current title became unnecessary since every non-binary biography is diffused into subcategories. I can understand that not every person with a non-binary gender identity self-identifies as non-binary personally, and that the list uses this phrase in the title, but we name Category:Non-binary writers, not Category:Writers with non-binary gender identities. And the names would be too big. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominated. Raladic (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Funcrunch (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Has anyone notified the relevant wikiprojects? Mason (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a gadget to do so? I thought rmCloser worked. I think I saw @Qwerfjkl mentioning one. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MikutoH, I have a script, User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFD, for tagging CfD pages and notifying the category creators, but not for notifying wikiprojects. I can't imagine many wikiprojects would need to be notified, so a manual notice is probably what I'd go with in this case. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. If there is no further participation within a week, we should be all set to rename as nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Makes sense and thanks. Jessamyn (my talk page) 01:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I don't think we use "people with [x]" for any self-applied label, so this reads very very weird. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:28, 1 May 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:New Zealand Rātanas to Category:Rātana people

Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Rātanas. Pinging participants there @Grutness, @Marcocapelle, @HTGS. Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this way it is clearer that it is a biographical category. And it is too obvious that it is about New Zealand people, that does not have to be added to the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - that would be a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Worth considering that “Ratanas” is also ambiguous between followers of the man, and his family and descendants. Hopefully the new name is fine with encompassing both? Categories for certain NZ families with many notable figures are not uncommon. And thank you for the ping ☺️ — HTGS (talk)

• Family (if not followers) should be covered by a Category:Rātana family if there are enough of these articles. But if all notable family members are followers then we will not need such a category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (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. (Noting that OP proposed keeping the category in the nomination.) (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose keeping Category:Intersex lesbians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Since its siblings (Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex gay men) were nominated for discussion, I bring it here for consensus. Merge or keep? --MikutoH ^talk! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion should be closed in line with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_7#Category:Intersex_transgender_people, the other intersex discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @MikutoH and Marcocapelle: what are your current thoughts on this category? For ease of reference, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people resulted in Category:Intersex gay men being kept (technically there was no consensus on that category; I would recommend you read the close as it was fairly complex) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Wikipedians by sexuality was closed as merge. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As Category:Intersex gay men still exists, then Category:Intersex lesbians should be kept too. Personally I still think it is a trivial intersection but apparently there is no consensus about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2024 (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 Fine. I guess I'll close this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:First Nations drawing artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Inuit drawing artists to Category:Inuit artists
• Propose merging Category:Native American drawing artists to Category:Native American artists

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation? Mason (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Firstly, we should never localize by using just "First Nations", a term large numbers of our readers won't be familiar with. Secondly, whilst I recognise issues mentioned above, I don't think we want a new overall category for "drawing artists" or even "graphic artists". In most traditions, few artists worked exclusively in drawing. "Artists" is enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, First Nations people are absolutely categorized. See Category:First Nations people and its numerous subcats. Yes, numerous fine artists do specialize in drawing (pen and ink, graphite, pastels, etc.). Seems like some familiarity with the subject at hand should be valued in these conversations. Not everyone understands Category:Axiomatic quantum field theory but we don't upmerge it. Yuchitown (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

  They may be, but they shouldn't be! "of Canada" needs to be added for our many (cough) NON-CANADIAN readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The term "First Nations" is widely known throughout the U.S. and the difference between Native Americans (used for the Indigenous peoples of the US) and First Nations (used for Indigenous peoples of Canada) is quite clear. The term "First Nations", also is used in Australia, another English-speaking country, although other terms are used there as well. It may not be as commonly used in the UK, but I don't think that should rule out its use as a category. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And are Australian artists going to be added here? Or American ones? You say the term is "clear", but I repeat it is not globally well-known. What do you think our vast numbers of Indian readers will make of it? Or doesn't that matter? If a term is essentially only known in North America, and Australia where it means entirely different people, it should NOT be used in a category name. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since we're supposed to continue discussion after the relisting, I'm responding here to Mason request. Like I said in my "oppose", there isn't a good term for artists who specialize in drawing. Draftsman has gender issues. Graphic artist is widely used, especially in regard to Inuit artists (examples at Inuit Art), but is confused with graphic design. Illustrator suggests an image to support text as opposed to a free-standing work of art. Sometimes the Inuit artists who primarily draw and whose work is made into prints are lumped in with printmakers but are not the same person making the print. Inuit drawings are a well-established subject of literature. Drawing artist is an easily understood compromise. Yuchitown (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
• Oppose merge - I find the term "Drawing artist" awkward, I've always used the gender neutral "Draftsperson", but some may think of that awkward as well. Nevertheless, it's an important category to retain because there are artists who work primarily in drawing media. As Yuchitown explains above, Graphic artist often gets confused with Graphic design; it is also confused with etching which a printmaking process. Any thoughts on Draftsperson? Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm totally find with replacing "drawing artists" in the category names with "draftspeople." Yuchitown (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

  I noticed that "Draftspeople" is used in this article: List of Indigenous artists of the Americas Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I say above, I don't see any need to go beyond plain "artist", especially as some carved etc, but if we must "graphic artist" is best - "draftspeople" will puzzle many readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned before, graphic artist gets confused with graphic designer. If we are going for understandable "drawing artist" is pretty clear. But the proposal to delete/merge was made 26 days ago, and yours was the only vote to "delete/merge." Yuchitown (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

  Apart from the nom. And there are only 2 opposes. But your rationale makes very little sense. In fact you give no reasons for not deleting/merging, but go straight into renaming arguments.

  Johnbod, do you prefer "draftsmen" to "draftspeople"? I'm not opposed to the gendered term since it is in widespread use, but I do think draftspeople is more appropriate and inclusive. I agree with Yuchitown that "graphic artists" gets confused with graphic designers and the more commercial sense of the term rather than the fine arts. The term graphic artists is also used for printmakers. I'm also not opposed to leaving it as "drawing artists" since there is no ambiguity as to the meaning. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm firm that we should have any such categories - if Rembrandt, Guercino etc can do without them, I don't think we should start a whole new type of category for these guys. I repeat, "artists" is fine. "Drawing artists" is a made-up term we shouldn't use. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The equivalent categories for those artists do exist: Rembrandt is in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Dutch draughtsmen and Guercino could be added to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Italian draughtsmen. The ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Draughtsmen category tree, with 10 subcategories by nationality, is the one for "drawing artists". "Draughtsmen" as a term has met with some disapproval – there have been attempts to rename it in 2020 and in 2024 – so renaming these categories to "First Nations draughtsmen", etc., would be presumably be a non-starter. I could accept "draftspeople" for these three categories if we do want to incorporate them into a category tree with other artists who draw (or who drew) – I'm not finding any usage of "drawing artist". Ham II (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American drawing artists has been around since 2011, and no one previously had a problem with it. Rembrandt, Guercino, etc. aren't Indigenous artists of the Americas so have a different art history with different access to supplies. Can this please close as no consensus? It's been a month. Yuchitown (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[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. No opposition for a month. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1610 establishments in the Mughal Empire to Category:1610s establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1610 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1613 establishments in the Mughal Empire‎ to Category:1610s establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1613 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1619 establishments in the Mughal Empire to Category:1610s establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1619 establishments in Asia and Category:1610s establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1626 establishments in the Mughal Empire to Category:1620s establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1626 establishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1632 establishments in the Mughal Empire to Category:1630s establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1632 establishments in India

Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note Category:1754 establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1748 establishments in the Mughal Empire are untagged, and I don't have time to tag them right now. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 30 April 2024 (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 This discussion has been open almost two months with neither side making any progress toward convincing the other one, time to put it out of its misery. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Neo-Latin writers to Category:Writers in Neo-Latin
• Propose renaming Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity to Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin
• Propose renaming Category:Classical Latin-language writers to Category:Writers in Classical Latin
• Propose renaming Category:Old Latin-language writers to Category:Writers in Old Latin 
• Propose renaming Category:Renaissance Latin-language writers to Category:Renaissance writers in Latin
• Propose renaming Category:Medieval Latin-language writers to Category:Medieval writers in Latin

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.

The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.

    We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".

    The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. "late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.

    I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.

    it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.

    I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?

    I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.

    Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin

    Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin

    Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Books in Latin": it isn't incorrect, to my understanding, as a thing can be in a language. There may be an implied "is". Perhaps the omission of "is" feels natural in contractions ("the book is in Latin" vs "the writer is in Latin", doesn't work). Perhaps it is also because writers can change their language, so one can't say a writer is "in" a language. At some point one has to ask what "sounds" right; I feel it doesn't. Jim Killock (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that contractions normally omit a part of the verb "to be" rather than some other verb. However "Neo-Latin writers" is clearer because NL is an adjective not a noun, so the phrase does not need a verb. Jim Killock (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 30 April 2024 (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: Manually merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Child amputees to Category:Amputees

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between kind of disability and age. Mason (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My response here is roughly the same as my response to congenital--

My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that child amputee status (this is a person who has an amputation that occurs AFTER they are born but before they are an adult) is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.oandplibrary.org/alp/chap31-01.asp, https://www.waramps.ca/ways-we-help/child-amputees/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0030589820321490, https://www.independentliving.org/donet/51_international_child_amputee_network.html

This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with child (as compared to adult amputation or congenital amputation) is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/12nfcrl/adults_who_had_their_amputations_as_very_young/, https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/15j1kp2/looking_for_support_child_lost_a_finger/).

There is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly child amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., coming up in the introduction) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that child meets the required threshold of defining.

Another criteria for defining category is that it is in the lead to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Defining). This is the case with many entries in this category, reflecting the fact that many members of this category are on Wikipedia because of their advocacy or involvement in activities related to their childhood amputation. Some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaela_Lulea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_O%27Riordan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Mullins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisako_Nakamura

Etc.

I want to emphasize here the importance of not collapsing child and congenital into one category because of, again, the relevant community's differentiation in these two groups' experiences, as well as how medical research has coalesced on these differences (you will notice that child amputees are not included in the congenital amputee page, for instance). Note this follows Wikipedia's criteria of categorization in so far as categories should be as specific as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don%27ts Calculatedfire (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand that you have experiences with this community, however, we don't typically have categories that distinguish people by what stage of development they were disabled. I am extremely sympathetic, but the examples you give are people who are defined by the intersection of their activism while having a disability, not that they were amputees during their childhood. Please review other categories for children. Mason (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth reviewing the comments on the discussion for the congenital amputee conversation as they apply here too, e.g., regarding these distinctions not being "trivial" Calculatedfire (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge, trivial intersection between type and starting age of disablement. People will need to get used to missing a limb irrespective of their age. Most articles are already in a Category:Amputees by nationality subcat so a plain merge will lead to a lot of duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge to Category:Amputees by nationality. --Aldij (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian disc golfers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value, compare Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_golf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I created it as I was creating the userbox and following the pattern of another sport's userbox. I didn't realize this as ancient history! WidgetKid (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:13, 30 April 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Writers of government reports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining Mason (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The single article is about a politician, that is the defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Canadian imperialists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non defining category, with a very large wall of text on the category page that effectively says as much Mason (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a category per nom. Possibly the wall of text can be converted to an article, if properly sourced. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:German speculative fiction translators to Category:Speculative fiction translators and Category:German translators
• Propose merging Category:Ukrainian speculative fiction translators to Category:Speculative fiction translators and Category:Ukrainian translators
• Propose merging Category:Greek speculative fiction translators to Category:Greek translators and Category:Speculative fiction translators
• Propose merging Category:Swedish speculative fiction translators to Category:Speculative fiction translators and Category:Swedish translators
• Propose merging Category:Spanish speculative fiction translators to Category:Speculative fiction translators and Category:Spanish translators

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. There's only one (or two) people in each of these categories which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:20, 6 May 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim scouts to Category:Los Angeles Angels scouts
• Propose merging Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim personnel to Category:Los Angeles Angels personnel

Nominator's rationale: Merge per precedent. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these are the last categories with the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:25, 6 May 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualification (CAF) to Category:Beach Soccer Africa Cup of Nations

Nominator's rationale: This category's main focus is on the competition whose actual title is the proposed one and not made up. C2C or C2D aren't applicable here since one would look at the category page and see no focused main article. But I want full discussion on this. Intrisit (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom, these tournament articles are named "X Beach Soccer Africa Cup of Nations" after all. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. GiantSnowman 18:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:20, 6 May 2024 (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:Assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I will list at WP:CFDWM for follow-up. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Executed assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to Category:Assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Nominator's rationale: Broaden the category name. Is there really a need to distinguish between assassins who were executed and those who were not? Mason (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if renamed, this category should be removed from all of its parent categories except Category:Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Hence the articles should be individually added back to those categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mehedi Abedin 22:30, 1 May 2024 (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 to Category:Wikimedians and Category:Indonesian Internet celebrities. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Indonesia Wikimedians to Category:Indonesian Wikimedians

Nominator's rationale: All other categories use "Indonesian". I would speedy rename but I can't figure out how to with Twinkle. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Wikimedians and Category:Indonesian Internet celebrities, the Wikimedians tree isn't so well populated that it would require diffusion by nationality. If not merged, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Marcocapelle, although it was a surprise to me that Wikimedians are a sub-cat of celebs. – Fayenatic London 09:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The next level in the tree is Category:People related to the internet, I guess celebreties is fine then. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Panamitsu: How do you feel about a merge? (And while I am here, speedy renaming is one of the options in the drop-down menu where you select which XfD venue you want to use. Click "XfD" and it should be under Deletion discussion venue.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I support a merge. I see, thanks for the Twinkle tip! ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment There have over time been some bizarre Indonesian category titles (spelling and grammar), and the lack of adequate scrutiny and effort to clarify into correct English is very prevalent. It is quite disturbing to see wikimedians in an internet celebrity tree, another very weird legacy that should have been cleaned up ages ago. I would prefer to see Indonesian Wikimedians any time. I neither support or not support the change, but simply wait to see more problematic category titles emerge into this forum... JarrahTree 07:54, 9 May 2024 (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.