Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 26



Category:Anshan (Persia)

 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting anshan (persia)


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. The eponymous article already contains the same category assignments of the nominated category (and more). The subcategory page already contains a link to the eponymous article so no information is lost. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — WP:SMALLCAT
 * Delete The city was significant, but we lack separate articles on its history or people. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Arcadia

 * 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: there was a clear consensus to rename. Option A (as nominated) had the most support. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Arcadia to Category:Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Arcadia to Category:Buildings and structures in Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Propose renaming Category:Geography of Arcadia to Category:Geography of Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Propose renaming Category:Landforms of Arcadia to Category:Landforms of Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Arcadia to Category:Populated places in Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Propose renaming Category:History of Arcadia to Category:History of Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Arcadia to Category:People from Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Propose renaming Category:Sport in Arcadia to Category:Sport in Arcadia, Peloponnese
 * Nominator's rationale: Arcadia is ambiguous, see the recent RM, the article was moved to Arcadia (regional unit). The base name should become a DAB with Category:Arcadia, California, Category:Arcadia (Odessa), Category:Arcadia, Wisconsin and Category:Arcadia quadrangle. There was an opposed speedy, see Category talk:Arcadia due to the fact that some of the tree may be for the region rather than the regional unit so using "Peloponnese" to disambiguate would cover both of those and avoid any confusion of which region a particular article or category is for. Its possible that this should indeed be moved to Category:Arcadia (regional unit) so you can !vote A, use "Arcadia, Peloponnese", B, use "Arcadia (regional unit)" or C use "Arcadia (region)". Please note that if you think this should be kept as is then you should probably start a new RM to move the regional unit back to the base name since categories are generally not more ambiguous than articles and are often less so such as Plymouth/Category:Plymouth. In any case it was clearly shown that there isn't a primary topic over the huge number of other uses. Pinging users who contributed to the speedy discussion .  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Prefer option A as nominated. It nicely covers the region and the regional unit without becoming too explicit about (administrative) borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Arcadia, Greece — to match Category:Arta, Greece; Category:Drama, Greece; Category:Marathon, Greece; Category:Thebes, Greece; Category:Tripoli, Greece. WP:NCPLACEDAB: "Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient." There are no other places named Arcadia in modern Greece. Peloponnese is not a country.
 * Note that there are several other places at Arcadia though none of them appear to be called "Arcadia" today.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Therefore, we don't care about them for category naming. Tripoli, Greece is the capital. Whomever participated in the RM didn't pay any attention to our official naming conventions.
 * That is also well possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the recent move authorized a move to Arcadia (modern region); why wasn't that done? If anything, the categories for the modern region should be given that name as approved in the RM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The current articles are Arcadia (regional unit) and Arcadia (region). Which discussion are you referring to? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably Talk:Arcadia where I proposed using "Arcadia (modern region)" but Ortizesp pointed out that (regional unit) was constant with those in Category:Prefectures of Greece and no one rejected this even though it was pointed out that the proposed title was analogous with Arcadia (ancient region). Arcadia (ancient region) was shortly after moved to Arcadia (region) with the reason "the region is still extant". I think moving to (regional unit) was a correct reading of consensus but if needed maybe there should be another RM.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I also have the same misgivings on the RM raised by Place Clichy below. That aside, perhaps renaming them to match the outcome of the RM with the understanding that it doesn't become an argument against another RM (ohhh, but the categories will then have to change, or ohhh, it matches the categories). Otherwise, keep as is and let things sort out. I do note that the ancient is a subset of the current but in the "modern region" not sure why it need be since the RM showed that they are different and opposing concepts; another flaw in the RM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It could probably be possible to merge the articles about the region and the administrative unit into a single one, seen that they are in fact the same place. In many articles about Greece there is often extensive content available about places in Ancient Greece, sometimes more so than their modern equivalent, therefore there are often articles with this focus. That was the case of Arcadia (ancient region) before it was renamed to Arcadia (region). It is a bit weird though, as if we would have separate articles about the German region of Bavaria and the German Land of Bayern. Place Clichy (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. The term Arcadia unambiguously refers to the region in Greece as the primary topic. There was a RM (slightly flawed imho) because content about this Greek region is weirdly spread over several articles: Arcadia (regional unit) (renamed from Arcadia in the process), Arcadia (region) (renamed from Arcadia (ancient region)) and Arcadia (utopia) (the fantasized version of the Ancient region). However these concepts refer to the exact same geographic area. Disambiguation is therefore not necessary for the category. Also note that the nominator's first motivation as expressed in the RM was the short-lived presence in the news last year of British retail Arcadia Group when it filed for bankruptcy, which is pure recentism, and most probably itself named after the Greek region. Place Clichy (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Arcadia" certainly doesn't unambiguously refer to the region in Greece given as notd the page views stats and larger number of uses. In fact if you look at the views[] now you can see that the regional unit only has 2,037 views while the utopia has 10,284, the one in California has 9,004, the region has 3,731, the play has 3,524, the band has 3,212, the place in Florida has 2,648 and the company has 10,559. As I've said if you want to reverse that start a new RM.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot really consider page views as the main or sole criterion for popularity of a term. Otherwise the Arcadia Group would be so popular that we would all know what it is without having to look it up. It may be very popular in the UK but I can guarantee you that this popularity does not extend abroad. Open any dictionary at Arcadia and they will tell you that it is 1°) a region in Greece and 2°) a utopian myth named after the region: Oxford, Collins. A Scholar search I did in the course of the speedy move request showed that 8 out of 10 answers seem to be about the utopian myth, itself named after the region. That's a surprising popularity if you ask me, but it seems that it has become quite a reference point in Anglo-American culture. Whatever is the result of the poorly-argued 4-editor RM, there is clearly no need to create a disambiguation category for the Arcadia Quadrangle on Mars, the neighborhood in Ukraine and the towns in California and Wisconsin, which are all named in reference to the Greek place anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY page views statistics are generally criterion but as I noted in the nom Google, Images and Books don't only or mostly show this also even if most other uses derive from this one as noted there being the original isn't determinate. And as you've said 8 out of 10 results for Scholar are for the utopia meaning.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — Arcadia is currently the disambiguation page. That is in accord with WP:NC and WP:DPT. The place in Greece is no longer the most common usage of the term.
 * Rename per nom The region of Arcadia is indeed located in the Peloponnese peninsula, and should be disambiguated by other ancient locations with that name. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename somehow as ambiguous. My preference is Category:Arcadia, Greece.  A disambiguator is sometimes needed for a category where the article has none, classically Birmingham, West Midlands, whose article is Birmingham.  I am not sure the outcome of the article rename  was the ideal one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Don't fail to see that Arcadia is also a possible location name elsewhere in Greece or anywhere in the world AND also a topic (land of desire) in romantic poetry! --Just N. (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename This is clearly too ambiguous in its current state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Ancient queens regnant

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Ancient queens regnant to Category:Ancient women rulers
 * Nominator's rationale: In principle a queen regnant and a woman ruler are two separate things; in practice these two categories overlap very closely. "Ancient queens regnant" has been being slowly emptied in favour of the "Ancient women rulers by century" categories (not daughter categories) for some time. Furius (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure. We have Category:Kings and Category:Rulers, why wouldn't we have the same for women? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Seems like that would be next on the chopping block.
 * Then it should be a combined nomination, as it really isn't sure there is consensus for merging Ancient kings. Consider this a Procedural oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge given the travails of picking leaders in ancient times and the agnatic primogeniture favored from time to time, gender here matters. I dislike the blurb in the queens category that limits it to women with the title of "queen". All these titles were in some ancient tongue and whether convention determines to translate something as "queen", "empress", or something else isn't defining of the office held. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: We should respect the difference of cultures and not "translate" and "equalize" titles too much. A "queen regnant" is not synonymous with a female monarch, just like male monarchs is not synonymous with the title of "king". They should not be treated differently by somehow equalizing all women who ruled in their own right as queens. If female monarchs is the issue, the category would have been named "Ancient women monarchs" instead. Even female monarchs in Europe could be monarchs without having the title of queen. Men and women should not be treated differently here. The legitimate gender difference (that not all queens were monarchs) is already adressed by having different categories for queen regnants and queen consorts. I can see a reason for keeping it since there is also a category of Ancient queens consorts.
 * I am more or less neutral, but if the category remains, it is important that the name should be respected. Women who ruled, regardless if they ruled as monarchs or as regents and regardless of their title, will always have a place in Women rulers by century. If this category remains, it should only contain queens, while other female monarchs should be placed in the ruler-category. --Aciram (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What counts as a "king" or "queen", though? This seems a very difficult judgement to make (and one can't include references for inclusion in a category on a wiki page). The Greek Basileus and Basilissa are generally translated into English as "king" and "queen", but they are also the main terms used the Roman and Persian emperors and empresses in Greek texts. We maintain a pretty strict distinction between Greek "kings" and "tyrants" on wiki, but most Greek sources use the titles interchangeably. Hatshepsut and other female Pharaohs are in a daughter category of this one even though she was titled nswt bty and pr ("king" and "pharaoh," not queen). Zenobia is generally referred to as "queen" in modern sources and requires a whole section of her article to clarify the nature of her title - she is not in this category, but in Category:Empresses regnant. Furius (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge — we should respect the differences of cultures and not categorize by differences in translation. They all are women, and they all are rulers, and they all should be WP:NOTABLE for that uncommon intersection.
 * Oppose "Women rulers" also includes regents. They do not have the same scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But regents have their own subcategory anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose as is. This proposal would remove them from and I do not see a reason for that, unless this is part of a larger restructuring of these categories. I agree that the term of Queen for ancient times is applied on very different situations and may be an imperfect translation of totally different titles. In order to partially solve this problem, maybe we could rename to, patented to both  and . Place Clichy (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Madan Puraskar winners

 * 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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Madan Puraskar winners to Category:Madan Puraskar-winning works
 * Nominator's rationale: To match with Category:Books by award.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CAPTAIN MEDUSA  talk  18:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Damsels in distress

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting damsels in distress


 * Nominator's rationale: This is an original research character type opinion for the characters listed. WP:NOTDEFINING for the characters as an attribute and not mentioned as such in the articles. WP:CATVER Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: For these characters, it is usually stated in the articles directly. It is also incredibly defining for various characters like Princess Peach, Olive Oyl, and Princess Daphne. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, many articles do not even bother to mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete better handled in the article damsel in distress as a sourced list; what is categorized as black and white (in-or-out) isn't so and sources can differ on the roles each character plays at various times in various contexts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: this was this previously deleted per Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 10. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete WP:CSD.
 * Keep This is the defining role for most of the articles currently included. Dimadick (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not have adequate 3rd party sources justifying this categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Former member states of the United Nations

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting or purging former member states of the united nations
 * Nominator's rationale: Contrary to what the name subjects, this category is filled with former political regimes of countries that are still members of the U.N., e.g. Estado Novo (Portugal), Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990), French Fourth Republic, Third Czechoslovak Republic (one of 4 entries for Czechoslovakia), Cambodia (1953–1970), both History of Cuba (1902–1959) and Republic of Cuba (1902–1959), Pahlavi dynasty etc. If kept, it should probably be restricted to countries explicitly mentioned at : Republic of China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Federation of Malaya (predecessor of Malaysia and Singapore), Tanganyika and Zanzibar (predecessors of Tanzania), Soviet Union, United Arab Republic (short-lived union of Egypt and Syria), Yemen and Democratic Yemen, Yugoslavia. These are all past countries which saw splits or mergers that resulted in significant changes in UN membership. Place Clichy (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, most countries in are simply former states disestablished after 1945. Republic of China is the only truly relevant country here, but we do not need to have a category for one country. If kept certainly purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete membership in the UN is not by the regime in power but the nation-state; the French Fourth Republic was no more a member of the UN than the Nixon Administration. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but heavily purge -- With the exception of Taiwan, these are states that have amalgamated or fragmented since formation of UN. Changes in regime do not amount to leaving or joining UN, being merely a change in who runs a country and thus holds the UN seat.  A category with the more limited scope that I am suggesting will be useful, with  as its main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the defining characteristic is that they have amalgamated or fragmented since formation of UN, the defining characteristic is not that they deliberately decided to leave the UN. It is a wholly trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This is totally not relvant. In a lot of these cases what really happened is that a nation went through a significant change of government. Except some, like the end of Franco's rule in Spain was so peaceful I am not sure including it here makes any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Political parties in Egypt that have former NDP members

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting political parties in egypt that have former ndp members


 * Nominator's rationale: The National Democratic Party (Egypt) (NDP) was the ruling political party in Egypt from 1978 to 2011, with 1.9 million members. I am not sure if it is WP:defining for a political party to consider that it has members who previously were in another party. E.g. we do not have Italian political parties that have former members of Christian Democracy, German political parties that have former Nazi members, Iraqi political parties that have former Baathist members, Mexican political parties that have former PRI members, to take other examples of former dominant parties, both in dictatorships and democracies. WP:ATTACK is also worth considering (a way to project shame on these organizations through the past affiliation of some of their members). Place Clichy (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, a political party qualifies for this if it has at least one former NDP member (or maybe two, in plural). This is a nonsense criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete political parties are often full of people who have migrated to them from other parties; particularly true in countries with more than two political parties. Nearly every party founded after the inception of the country has people who were affiliated with some other political party before (rare is the case, I should imagine, that a newly founded party has no-one from a prior party, i.e., they were all neophytes). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and commentary of Carlossuarez46. --Just N. (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete considering the size of the NDP (almost 2 million) it would almost be more interesting to have Category:Politicial parties in Egypt lacking former NDP members. Also remember categories are permanent. So if I formed a political party in Egypt and somehow had 2 NPD members admitted, but realized it and decided I did not like that, and expelled them, I would still fit the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Accidents and incidents by airline

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Nominator's rationale: improve English, and follow the structure of both and  etc. Place Clichy (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Moreover it could become "airlines based in" instead of "airlines of", similar to "companies based in". But of course that applies to the whole "airlines of" tree, not just to the above categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support also agree with Marcocapelle's observation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Better defined scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support renaming if Marcocapelle's proposal 'based in' is added! --Just N. (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Defunct airlines of Yugoslavia

 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Defunct airlines of Yugoslavia to Category:Airlines of Yugoslavia
 * Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 14. This is another former country were there is no reason to differentiate between airlines and defunct airlines. Place Clichy (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  There are no current airlines of Yugoslavia. Dimadick (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- Since Yugoslavia is defunct, its airlines are inevitably defunct. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support although for the record I am unconvinced that we should have seperate categories for extant and defunct airlines at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Jewish biochemists

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jewish biochemists


 * Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Most of the articles dont even mention the subject being Jewish. Do we need a wider discussion about Category:Scientists by ethnicity?  I can see that in many occupations ethnicity is relevant, but I dont see that for scientists.  Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting jewish pharmacologists


 * Nominator's rationale: Ethnicity does not impact on pharmacology, and this does not belong in Category:Pharmacologists by nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete both. I feel that we have some people copy-pasting categories from Hebrew Wikipedia without taking a look at our policies, and/or who act as if Jewish was a nationality, which it is not. Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Jewish chemists. In principle I agree with the nomination, but because Category:Jewish chemists has not been nominated, the articles should not be removed from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exploratory. I'd like to know want people think about other parts of Category:Scientists by ethnicity.  I cant say that I am very keen on ethnic categories generally, so I would happily remove all the scientific ones.  Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By default I will support that. (But there might be some exceptions.) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete a biochemist's ethnicity or religion is trivial per WP:OCEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both without merging WP:OCEGRS. If they are notably Jewish, and notably chemists, they will already be in those categories.
 * No they will not already be in those categories when editors have applied WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete both without merging per WP:OCEGRS. --Just N. (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both in neither case is the intersection of religion/ethnicity and occupation defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Former members of The Durham Revue

 * 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: option A, merge. A list of the contents is on the talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A: Propose merging to
 * Option B: Propose renaming to
 * Nominator's rationale: the Durham Review is a student sketch comedy group at Durham University (UK), without a main article. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the importance of the group, I do not think that we categorize professional actors by the former theatre company they played for, much less amateur actors by the university drama club they were in. If kept, fix the capitals. Place Clichy (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC. While some actresses and actors may remember their time fondly and learn some key skills in their college days with student theatre, that's why we have the alumni categories. We shouldn't categorize by every extracurricular activity, class, or scholarship. (If kept, by all means rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per RevelationDirect. (If kept, rename per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Listify then delete -- There are 18 such people who should not be list in the generality of alumni. However, notable performers sometimes started their careers as students; and that is worth recording in WP, but it fails WP:PERFCAT so that it should not be a category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Listify then delete alike Peterkingiron's convincing speech. --Just N. (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to the alumni cat. This borders on a performer category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Medieval Jewish physicians of Italy

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Medieval Jewish physicians of Italy to Category:Medieval Italian physicians and  Category:Medieval Jewish physicians
 * Propose merging Category:17th-century Jewish physicians of Italy to Category:17th-century Italian physicians and Category:17th-century Jewish physicians
 * Propose merging Category:18th-century Jewish physicians of Italy to Category:18th-century Italian physicians and Category:18th-century Jewish physicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Not defining. All the articles are already in appropriate parts of Category:Italian Jews.   Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete Triple conjunctions are a bad idea. Quadruple conjunctions are plain evil. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OCEGRS no indication that Jewish physicians practiced differently than their gentile counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete quadruple intersections are evil. If they are notably Jewish, and notably Italian physicians, they will already be in those categories.
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Sportspeople by cause of death

 * 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: reverse merge, keeping Category:Sportspeople by cause of death (and placing it in ). Consensus seems to be that this is just as good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Sportspeople by cause of death to Category:People in sports by cause of death
 * Nominator's rationale: This is the only item in the parent, so upmerge to parent.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle but it should be executed differently. Category:People in sports by cause of death should be merged to Category:Causes of death by occupation and Category:Deaths in sport in order to keep Category:Sportspeople by cause of death in the tree of Category:Sportspeople. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears that the two trees "sportspeople" and "people in sports" is distinguished between competitors in the former, and the (mostly) off-the-pitch rest (owners, officials, etc.). How most of the rest die is unlikely to be related directly and notably to the sport, so I'm not sure why this oughtn't be a reverse merge? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes reverse merging is also possible provided that the parent categories of Category:People in sports by cause of death are manually copied to Category:Sportspeople by cause of death. The bot does not handle that automatically. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The dichotomy is pointless. That some People in sports are not actually participants on the field is likely superfluous to the cause of death. Metaphorically, they all die in the same plane crash. The actual subcategories are very specific.


 * 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.

Small categories by cause of death

 * 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, , , and , respectively. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting philosophers by cause of death


 * Propose deleting priests by cause of death


 * Propose deleting scientists by cause of death


 * Propose deleting writers by cause of death


 * Nominator's rationale: Each of these has only a single subcategory, already categorized under another "by occupation" subtree in the same container.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This layer is not aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Category:Philosophers by cause of death to Category:Philosophers and so on for the other nominations. There is no reason to remove the content from every occupation category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A merge is reasonable only because it makes the bot do the right thing, where the editors failed. Still, I'm leary of constantly merging.
 * Editors did not fail at all. They applied WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. An added layer not useful. Presumably, all philosophers in the subcategories of the nominated one (executed and murdered remain) are somewhere else to be found in the philosophers tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Merge per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter: no, the content consists of two subcategories that are not somewhere else to be found in the philosophers tree. So merge is really important here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Categories by cause of death are not typically subcategorizes by the profession of the deceased. The subcategories should be relocated. Dimadick (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to Finland
 * Nominator's rationale The main gripe is that you cannot emigrate within the same polity. While Finland was a part of the Russian Empire, people moved to it regularly in the course of employment, as government officials, and for other reasons. There is no way to easily classify anyone as a permanent migrant. The actually content here seem to have gone to Finland just after it declared indepdence, as the Russian Empire was falling, and actually it seems after the Empire fell, so this is actually a bad category in both cases. It is for the same reasons that people who moved from Lucknow or Delhi to Dhaka or Karachi before 1950 will not be classed as Category:Indian emigrants to Pakistan even if they technically managed to cross the border after the border was created. For those who may have moved from the Russian Empire to what is today Finland between 1721 when the empire was born and 1812 when Finland was annexed, they should be in Category:Russian Empire emigrants to Sweden (once it gets renamed) since that is the actual polity they were moving to. As it stands no one who did that has been put in that category, we may have no articles on people who did that, so it may be inmaterial, but there is no reason to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete  Moving within the same country is not emigration. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Rathfelder. Moving within the borders of a country isn't notable or defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment By the way, are other "x emigrants to x's autonomous region y" categories any different (e.g. Category:Chinese emigrants to Hong Kong (maybe rename to Category:Chinese emigrants to British Hong Kong?), Category:Danish emigrants to the Faroe Islands, Category:Danish emigrants to Greenland, Category:Israeli emigrants to Palestine, etc.)? Shouldn't those also be deleted for the same reasons if this one gets deleted? 85.76.100.225 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, in fact I am shocked we have them, well with the possible exemption of Category:Israeli emigrants to Palestine, since at least if you move to the Gaza Strip you go beyond what is in any way Israeli control. If you went from the Galilee to the West Bank in 1960 that would be emigrating to Jordan but is a different issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a thing. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Russian emigrants to Finland. If they were of Russian ethnicity, and they permanently moved their residence, they were emigrants:
 * Emigrant is a noun, meaning "one who leaves one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere."
 * Migrant, a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No this is a truly bad idea. We do not categorize emigrants by ethnicity, we categorize them by the polity they leave.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * JPL, your shenanigans have lost all credibility with me. "We" wikipedians have rarely (if ever) used the definition of polity that you ascribe. We use the terms that people commonly use(d) about themselves. When the Moscovites overran Finland, the Finnish did not suddenly think, "I'm now a Russian Empirian, I'll give up my language and culture." If you've got citations to the contrary, you'll need to produce them in your tenditious arguments.
 * We categorize people by the country they are citizens or subjects of. These categories are not about language or culture by citizenship and who you are subject to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. JPL, you make a lot of nominations that are overly picayune like this. Please slow down and re-think how you do these things. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, in addition, Finns in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland (1809–1917) even sort of had their own Finnish citizenships, and non-Finnish people from other parts of the Russian Empire couldn't just walk in without a permission. Translated from fi:Suomen_kansalaisuus: Grand Duchy of Finland had a passport office in St. Petersburg, which received and resolved applications from Russians and "other" foreigners to travel to Finland, or even to settle. Very often, imperial orders restricted the issuance of passports to Russians, when some emperors did not think it was so necessary to travel to Finland. Instead, the Finns, under the Emperor, were allowed to travel and reside in Russia as freely as the Russians themselves. 85.76.100.225 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, both articles belong in a migrants to Latvia category. Finland was just an intermediate stop for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck after further discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This category is down to only 2? I wonder who has been purging the articles.... In any case, the articles say they had estates throughout the Baltic. Sadly, it may be time to just delete.
 * I notice in Google that the category used to have 21 articles. One example of a purge is by User:Johnpacklambert but I can't figure out what happened to the 18 others. It would be helpful to know this, in order to have a proper discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the edits, roughly from
 * 21:05, 11 December 2020 diff hist −51‎ Mikhail Berens ‎ removed Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland using HotCat current
 * to
 * 21:29, 11 December 2020 diff hist −51‎ Category:White Russian emigrants to Finland ‎ removed Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland using HotCat
 * 87.95.206.253 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's seriously against the rules. JPL is the nominator, so we can assume has read the instructions. I've restored my original !vote, although it will be difficult to restore the category content. So, what should we do: ANI or RFC?

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by to Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to Finland as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
 * Procedural oppose, it appears we had a discussion based on incomplete data. Nominator should have revealed that he heavily purged the category shortly before the nomination. I have no issue with someone else starting a completely fresh discussion after the otiginal content has been restored. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of those articles were people who did not arrive in modern Finland until after the Russian Empire fell. Thus categorizing them as imperial Russian emigrants/Russian Empire emigrants is not easily defensible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am reading Nikolai Yudenich and he went into exile to France rather than Finland. The purging itself may well be justifiable, the lack of transparency is not. And generally, as you removed Imperial Russian, you should have replaced it by Russian.Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Russian emigrants refer specifically to those who leave after 1992. So now, these imperial Russian cannot be replaced with Russian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "Russian emigrants" must be limited to emigrants from the Russian Federation. There were Russians before 1992. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Emigration is defining people not by ethnicity but by national connection. There was no Russian nation in 1990 to be emigrating from, just the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's one point of view, but it's not necessarily correct. The Soviet Union was a federation of republics, one of which was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The people in this republic can fairly be referred to as "Russian people". The Soviet Union promoted the view that these republics were sovereign states. For instance, at Stalin's insistence, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic were given seats in the United Nations that were separate from that of the Soviet Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Stalin killed many more people than Hitler, so we do not treat his false ideas as fact. The reality was that the Soviet Union was one united government and we should categorize according to this reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with GOF that people from the Russian SFSR may well be considered to be Russians, unless they are explicitly of another ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Stalin killed many more people than Hitler, so we do not treat his false ideas as fact" That's got to be one of the greatest CFD arguments I have witnessed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Russian emigrants to Finland. There are two articles in the category; both individuals moved to Finland in 1916 to escape the deteriorating situation in Russia, and during this time Finland was beginning the process of breaking away from the Empire. I think that the individuals can justifiably be considered Russian emigrants to Finland. I agree in principle that Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Finland should not exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This could include migrants to Finland under Swedish rule and to the Kingdom of Finland (1918). Only the Grand Duchy of Finland was actually located within the Russian Empire. Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Except we lack any articles on people who migrated from the Russian Empire to Swedish Finland. Although if they did they probably should be in the emigrants to Sweden category. However as I said we have no identified article on such a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same thoughts as Dimadick (Finland was part of Sweden too; almost 100 years during the Russian Empire era) and Marcocapelle (procedural oppose). Also, as the Grand Duchy of Finland (GDF) was an autonomous (possessing its own government and constitution) part of the Russian Empire, it had its own immigration policies; e.g. from 1819 to 1918, Russians had to apply for a permit from the Finnish Passport Office in St. Petersburg before they were allowed to visit the GDF. Non-Finnish people couldn't work as civil servants in the GDF or be in the military of the GDF without becoming Finnish first. Also, Category:White Russian emigrants to Finland (11 pages) should be the category's subcategory, but it was removed when the category was completely emptied before it was CfD'ed (see Marcocapelle's comments). --Kliituu (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should White Russian emigrants be a sub-cat? Inherently they leave after the Russian Empire has fallen. Categorizing them as leaving a place that no longer exists makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost all other "White Russian emigrants to x" categories are categorized like that: 27 categories at the moment. Those are also categorized as Soviet emigrants, even though most White emigres left Russia between 1917-1920 and the Soviet Union didn't exist before 1922. Didn't some White emigres manage to leave the Russian Empire during the February Revolution but before the abdication on 15 March 1917 when they became stateless? I'm not sure if there's any better categorization solution to those stateless people, as Category:Russian emigrants is for emigrants from the Russian Federation, and so on. --Kliituu (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They should probably be categorized in both the Empire and Soviet categories, for ease of navigation, if nothing else. "Empire" and "Soviet" aren't going to apply perfectly to each individual in the White Russian categories, but if we worried about that, neither category would be a parent, and that would hinder navigation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Imperial Russian people of Polish descent
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Imperial Russian people of Polish descent Category:People of the Russian Empire of Polish descent to category:Russian Empire Polish people
 * Nominator's rationale Since Poland was an integral part of the Russian Empire, Polish people freely moved throughout the Empire, residing in St. Petersburg, Moscow or Kiev does not make one less Polish, so the idea this category is perpetuating is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
 * Delete another "descent" category without any indication of why this is notable, how much %, how recent, or any other objective inclusion criteria much less reliable sourcing for their heredity (which, assuming no adoption in one's family tree, can only be certain on the female side, and only assumed on the male side). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Disperse to Category:People from Congress Poland and subcats, as overlapping. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue will be that some of these people lived basically all if not all of their lives in places like Moscow or St. Petersburg. If we do not want to categroize we should just plain delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. In those particular cases it is a matter of descent after all and then we should not rename the category (or we might merge it to Category:Russian people of Polish descent). But still we should move articles to Category:People from Congress Poland and subcats insofar appropriate and that applies for the majority of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not merge to Category:Russian people of Polish descent. Polish residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg in 1850 would not have seen themselves as Russian, and their move out of primarily Russian areas should not be treated as an emigration. They were equally subjects of the Russian Empire in Moscow or Warsaw, and we should not create artificial distinctions based on events long after their deaths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you mention some examples? I did not encounter issues like this when I sampled. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Polish descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
 * Oppose The proposed new title is confusing. I would suggest Category:Polish people of the Russian Empire as clearer. Dimadick (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — If they didn't become Russian people, they remained Poles. Then they weren't of Polish descent. This just seems a non-notable pointless intersection category.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, support the idea of populating the subcategory Category:People from Congress Poland. The rest is dubious hair splitting per mixed ethnicity. AFAIK we categorize primarily by nationality(citizenship), which is stable will defined way, with exceptions for ethnicities without eponymic country (e.g in the past), "non-titular nations", such as Jews or Kurds. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed title is confusing. If kept, it should be renamed to Polish people of the Russian Empire. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Duplicate


 * 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.

Imperial Russian people of Baltic German descent
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Baltic German people of the Russian Empire. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Imperial Russian people of Baltic German descent Category:People of the Russian Empire of Baltic German descent to Category:Russian Empire Baltic Germans, this is an ethnic group within the Empire so this form makes most sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
 * Delete for the same reasons as my comments on the Polish equivalent above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename as proposed. It is too clunky, IMO, and I'm not sure why "people" is being removed from the name. Maybe . Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also okay with this alternative rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (late addition) In fact is better than nom's proposal, more concise. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to . Clearer scope. In practice, most of these people were from Estonia and Latvia, as explained in the main article on Baltic Germans. Dimadick (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, as hard to qualify as English people of Frankish descent, or Mexican people of Catalan descent. Even the main Baltic Germans article explains these were initially interlopers who ruled over the native serfs, but there were no women. Such things dilute after a generation, let alone centuries later in the Russian Empire.
 * Oppose deletion The people involved clearly saw themselves as Baltic Germans, and are generally categorized as such. Livonia (where the largest number of the Baltic-Germans lived) came under the control of Russia only in 1710, although the transfer was not fully recognized until 1721. That only applies to Swedish Livonia, Polish Livonia only came under control of the Russian Empire in 1772. In 1721 Peter the Great declared German the official language of Livonia. the Baltic German people of Livonia were as much a distinct ethnic group as were the German people of Bohemia. For the record we do have Category:Mexican people of Catalan descent. The comparison to English people of Frankish descent, is just plain not workable. Baltic-Germans clearly saw themselves as a distinct ethnic group in Livonia and to a lesser extent other governorates along the Baltic coast. Ethnicity is not about descent, but about your culture, and the German speakers of the area were clearly a distinct ethnic group from the Lativian speakers, the Estonian speakers and the more recent migrants in who were Russian speakers. The statements above comflict with our article on Baltic German's which states they were the ruling class and the middle class of the Baltic provinces. That they may have often had some Estonian and Latvian ancestry is irrelevant, because we do not categorize by race, and so it is how they perceived themselves, not some ephemeral "blood of Latvianess" or "blood of Estonianess" as opposed to "blood of Germanness" that matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * NOTE 2nd !vote without removing the first (unsigned) !vote.
 * In general, we do not categorize citizens by language.
 * There is no "Latvian" race. There is no "Estonian" race. There is no "German" race.
 * I used Category:English people of Frankish descent as an example of ridicule. While the English were ruled by the Franks, and the ruling class language was "French", we don't categorize them as such.
 * I used Category:Mexican people of Catalan descent as an example of ridicule. For goodness sake, categorizing somebody because they may (or may not) have a smidgin of "blood". For example, Montserrat Oliver – no mention of Catalan or French in the article, but categorized as of Catalan and French descent, based upon her birth name: Montserrat Lourdes Socorro Oliver Grimau.
 * Any person who comes to another place and marries the indigenous people, their children are indigenous by definition. Many generations later, their descent is not notable. Especially when it is being used as the equivalent of ruling caste. What next, Untouchables?
 * We need to go back to our WP:EGRS roots, and curb this nonsense.

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Baltic German descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
 * Your interpretation of who is indigenous reeks of racism. It does not accord with how understanding of ethnicity have always worked. The fact is there are people who are nationals of Mexico who identify with their Catalan ethnicity, and your holding their very existence up to ridicule is very rude and inconsiderate. The fact of the matter is that the people here would in general identify themselves as by ethnicity German. Arguably we could group them in a general Category:Ethnic German people of the Russian Empire or whatever exactly we want to call it, but the history of their hundreds of years of speaking, writing and functioning as a German over class above the Latvian and Estonian peasantry, are very different than the settler Volga Germans and other often Protestant refugee German populations so there is a key reason to see these people are as distinct ethno-cultural group, and not to view all ethnic Germans living in the Russian Empire as one unified people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Emphatically Delete — if anything the newish name is worse than all the other alternatives. This is a racist category assuming a German race, ubermensch who rule over slavic peasantry, even though after centuries any distant German ancestry has been attenuated beyond notable recognition. The ethnicity of a grandparent is rarely notable. In this case a paternal great-great-great grandparent, based upon a German surname.
 * No, that is not correct. People were considered German based on cultural and language. They were a clearly cultrally distinct group. We should recognize this by categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not a culturally distinct group, any more than many rulers of England have a Germanic heritage (sometimes not so distant).
 * Super strong keep This is no more "racist" than Category:White South Africans. Both categories reflect the reality of how people think of themselves. Race is a non-biological concept. What we categorize in all cases is by ethnicity, and the Germans in the Baltic provinces clearly saw themselves as Germans. Anyway we will keep Category:Baltic-German people in all cases after this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , from what I can see, this is your third !vote in this discussion. Maybe you could consolidate a bit and let us know what you want done? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter part of the discussion can be resolved by purging people from the category who were not born in the Baltics. I agree with JPL that many of these people belong to stay in the tree of Category:Baltic-German people. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep at Category:People of the Russian Empire of Baltic German descent as intersection of Category:People of the Russian Empire and Category:People of Baltic German descent. This doesn't appear any more objectionable than . Oculi (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Imperial Russian people of Georgian descent
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. I note that this currently contains one Georgian prince and a subcat of Georgian generals. However, unlike the Baltic German case above, there is no ethnic "Georgian people" hierarchy, but only "People from Georgia" or "People of Georgian descent". A clearer consensus would therefore be required to move this out of the descent hierarchy.  – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Imperial Russian people of Georgian descent Category:People of the Russian Empire of Georgian descent to Category:Russian Empire Georgians
 * Nominator's rationale I am ok with the proposed form or with people at the end. The key is that Georgia was controlled by the Russian Empire. These will in large part be ethnic Georgians who were subjects of the russian Empire, no matter where they lived, so we should reflect that in the category name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
 * Delete for the same reasons as my comments on the Polish equivalent above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename as proposed. It is too clunky, IMO, and I'm not sure why "people" is being removed from the name. Maybe . Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also okay with this alternative rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Georgian descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
 * Rename to . Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Georgian people of the Russian Empire. Delete, having taken the time to actually read all 5 of the current articles, this is another spurious intersection. One had unacknowledged illigitimate Georgian ancestry. Another was actually expelled and in opposition to the Empire, clearly not considered part of the Russian Empire. After purging, only one (1) article might remain. WP:SMALLCAT.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still Delete, and If kept, rename to Category:Georgian people of the Russian Empire better matching naming conventions. Currently only 1 article and 1 subcategory. WP:SMALLCAT.
 * If not kept, merge to Category:People of the Russian Empire by ethnic or national origin (this applies to the subcategory only) and to Category:Russian people of Georgian descent (both article and subcategory). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep at Category:People of the Russian Empire of Georgian descent per everything else in Category:People of Georgian descent. Oculi (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Imperial Russian emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Delete Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the Thirteen Colonies, as the category has been emptied during the process of this discussion. I wish we could find a way to stop the emptying of categories during a CFD discussion of whether to keep, merge or rename them because it wastes the time of editors who take a moment to offer their opinion. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the Thirteen Colonies to Category:Russian Empire emigrants to British North America
 * Nominator's rationale emigrantion is a polity to polity issue. So Russian Empire is a better name here. We should also categorize by polities as they then existed, and British North America is a better name, since there is no reason in 1769 to treat differently a person moving from St. Petersburg to St. Augustine, to Boston or to Montreal. They all would then be moving into British North America, and the changes wrought 20 years later that made this into 3 different polities have no effect on their actions in 1760.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose dealing with this category in isolation. has other subcategories;  does not now exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to oppose. In no way does this editor actually show that this is a bad move. This will have to be renamed anyway, so we might as well rename it right. This attempt to force the consideration of a whole tree is an intensely overbearing insistence on creating more work to get any change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it's "valid". It's my opinion, I'm a Wikipedian in good standing, and I explained why I hold it. I also oppose the proposal on the merits, as I believe splitting immigrants to pre-Confederation Canada and the Thirteen Colonies is a good idea given the number of articles we are dealing with across the trees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the rest of the tree has been nominated for renaming, so that is no longer a valid complaint.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Imperial Russian to Russian Empire, less ambiguous. For the other part of the nomination, renaming 13 Colonies to British North America, the outcome of the main discussion should be followed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above still applies if kept. But meanwhile I no longer support keeping the category, see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by to Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the Thirteen Colonies as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
 * That main discussion is here. I agree that we should follow the results reached there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- "Imperial/Empire" is redundant. "Thirteen Colonies" necessarily means before 1776/83.  Accordingly it is unnecessary to say more than "Russian".  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true. In the target Russian modified the Empire not the person. We also have Category:1883 establishments in the Russian Empire. The best way to use these categories is to limit Russian to people and things connected with the modern nation state. To use if for anything earlier is just not in the long run a justifiable use. In the 19th-century Russian Empire a large number of its subjects were not in any way Russian, the would identify by ethnic monikers. If we got back further we get into people who are claimed by multiple modern ethnic groups, so we use in some categories Rus'.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not needed, not necessary, not changing. The current name is appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose British North America (1783-1907) refers to a completely different region and era. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — WP:SMALLCAT only 1 remaining article. Do Not Rename, contrary to established naming conventions.
 * Which other articles were previously here? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no recollection of any other article being here. It would be nice if it was easier to see what had been in a category in the past. All I can say is that the one person who is here may actually have more been a Russian Empire emigrant to Germany and then a German emigrant to the Thirteen Colonies. The line between that and being a Russian Empire expatriate in Germany and then being a Russian Empire emigrant to the Thirteen Colonies is fuzzy, and our article on him does not provide much detail. A big question is was he just born in St. Petersburg and shortly after moved to Germany, or did he just go to Germany for his education. Add to this the fact that it is not clear from the article if the person in question would have considered himself ethnically German or Russian, and it is a tough article to categorize. Someone may want to search additional sources for more insight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He used to have a German surname, the place of birth may have been entirely accidental. Under these circumstances the category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Unless some editor has created a new, 4th category on this subject, this decision has been made as the existing category has been emptied. Are there any pages to be placed in a category like this? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the category contained only one article and it was removed from the category during the discussion per the discussions immediately above. I think it's safe to delete the category as empty and close this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Imperial Russian people of Tatar descent
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 to delete, so reverse merge (which has already happened, as has the renaming from "imperial"). – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Accidentally speedy renamed G6 by to Category:People of the Russian Empire of Tatar descent as part of Imperial Russian people, although it was not included in that nomination.
 * Rename Category:Imperial Russian people of Tatar descent Category:People of the Russian Empire of Tatar descent to category:Russian Empire people of Tatar descent
 * Nominator's rationale While I fully believe we should have a category name Category:Russian Empire Tatar people or Category:Tatar people in the Russian Empire or Category:Tatar people from the Russian Empire or Category:Tatar people of the Russian Empire, an examination of the contents of this article shows none of the people here were ethnic Tatars, they were subjects of the Russian Empire with Tatar ancestry but not themselves Tatars. I am not strongly wedded to the idea that we need this category and will not oppose deletion, but am not sure we need deletion either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete both. You meant merge? You just created the latter category 6 days ago.
 * Delete both another "descent" category with the usual problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete both, we do not need descent categories for ethnicities within the same country, this is a simple matter of assimilation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But we do have Category:American people of Native American descent. Whether we need that may be a different issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly renamed) or Merge to Category:Russian people of Tatar descent. Tartar is one of a number of ethnicities within the Russian Empire.  How significant ethnic background is will vary, but should not be dismissed out of hand.  However, I do not see the point in dividing this by period.  The first person I looked at was certainly active before the Revolution, but was later a victim of Stalin.  Tartaristan is part of the Russian Federation, but there have probably always been more Tartars beyond its boundaries than within.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom Defining category, but it is currently not clear that these were residents of the Russian Empire, and not affiliated with its reigning dynasty. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but if deleted, merge to Category:Russian people of Tatar descent. I don't think there's a good reason to single out the "Imperial Russians" for deletion as long as Category:Russian people of Tatar descent exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still Delete both & If kept, reverse merge — now we have the problem that the latter is contrary to the established naming convention.
 * It is only "contrary" to established naming convention because an interloper came in with 11th hour junk observations after I had done the huge work of nominating over 100 categories writing each rename nomination and after it had sat for over a month with no one suggesting any other course. I am tired of lazy interlopers breaking up my work. The new targets are too long and awkward. The original target was simple and straightforward. I am tired of getting attacked for not doing over 100 nominations, having no one help me, and having a disruptive administrator at the last minute impossing his own views on the process and forcing a new name that is worse than anything else. There is no respect or appreciation on Wikipedia, only rudeness and bullying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PKI and GOF have a fair objection to a straight deletion, so merge should be the outcome instead of deletion, and the Russian category should be nominated in a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The new convention is horrible and was imposed in an 11th hour over stepping by an administrator who destroyed the huge amount of work I put into this nomination process. It is bad enough I get constant hate attacks from people for trying to improve Wikiepdia, but to have my hard work destroyed this way at the last minute by people who want to make it as hard as possible to properly categorize people who were connected with the Russian Empire in proper categories is just plain discouraging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep at Category:People of the Russian Empire of Tatar descent as intersection of Category:People of the Russian Empire and Category:People of Tatar descent. This is the obvious name. Oculi (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently we have Category:People of the Russian Empire of Tatar descent and Category:Tatar people of the Russian Empire. I actually think having both categories is justified. Just as we have Category:Native American people and Category:American people of Native American descent. The former is for someone like Larry Echo Hawk, the later for someone like Terri Hatcher (but almost certainly even it should exclude Elizabeth Warren).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As an example of a person who clearly fits in this category is Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov, who had known and recognized Tatar ancestry, but was not ethnically Tatar per se, and also was Baltic German.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Impeachment of Donald Trump
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. The resultant category could be nominated for deletion, if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Impeachment of Donald Trump to Category:Impeachments of Donald Trump
 * Nominator's rationale: There is more than one impeachment (the first and second). "Impeachment" seems to imply a singular impeachment. I'd argue that we should change the category name to "impeachments".

The category was likely originally created when there was a singular impeachment of Trump.

While a parent category is titled "Impeachment in the United States", this is because the category is named for the process of impeachment, rather than any events of impeachment. This category, "impeachment of Donald Trump", however, is named for specific impeachments. SecretName101 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — WP:SMALLCAT, this is a mess. We don't need a parent category with only 2 subcategories, 1 article, and no likelihood of expansion. Just categorize the two impeachments separately, as they are already in several such categories. Currently, these are 2 cycles, and that needs to be fixed:
 * First impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 3 P)
 * Trump–Ukraine scandal‎ (1 C, 20 P)
 * First impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 3 P)
 * Trump–Ukraine scandal‎ (1 C, 20 P)
 * Second impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 4 P)
 * 2021 storming of the United States Capitol‎ (2 C, 11 P)
 * Participants of the 2021 Capitol storming‎ (6 P)
 * Second impeachment of Donald Trump‎ (1 C, 4 P)
 * 2021 storming of the United States Capitol‎ (2 C, 11 P)
 * Participants of the 2021 Capitol storming‎ (6 P)
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the cycles, and this is ready to be deleted.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the cycles, and this is ready to be deleted.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If kept, rename as obviously plural. If not kept, merge at minimum to Category:Donald Trump controversies and Category:Impeached Presidents of the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to merge anywhere, subcategories already in Category:Trump administration controversies and Category:Impeached Presidents of the United States.
 * The article is in neither Category:Donald Trump controversies nor Category:Impeached Presidents of the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is already in subcstegories (mentioned below).

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename if Kept/Merge if Not I'll defer to others as to the need for this level of categorization but I'm with Marcocapelle on plurals and not removing the current article from the tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to merge anywhere, its only article already overcategorized in 15 categories, including Category:Trump administration controversies and Category:Impeachment in the United States.
 * Those two can be removed after the merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two subcategories should be kept, as they are most specific.


 * The Commons category is already plural so indeed rename if kept.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom There are two impeachments, not one. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:COVID-19 pandemic on USS Theodore Roosevelt
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: speedy merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:COVID-19 pandemic on USS Theodore Roosevelt to Category:Aircraft carriers involved in the COVID-19 pandemic
 * Nominator's rationale: Just one page in this subcategory; can't this be upmerged to Category:Aircraft carriers involved in the COVID-19 pandemic? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy merge per WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Recipients of the Czechoslovak Military Order for Liberty
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Czechoslovak Military Order for Liberty
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
 * I had trouble finding information on the Czechoslovak Military Order for Liberty in English but this Czech site describes it as a post-war award for WWII resistance members and those (Soviet?) soldiers that liberated the country. 1 of the 4 members of this category fought fascism in the Spanish Civil War and is multiple categories for that service. The other 3 are already in Category:Czech resistance members and, unfortunately, also all are in Category:Resistance members killed by Nazi Germany. Being a member of the Nazi resistance is absolutely defining which is why we categorize by it; also receiving this award after the war for that same service is redundant and non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note I copied the current contents right here so no work is lost if anyone can find reliable sources in order to establish notability for a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:OCAWARD. --Just N. (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete more junk over categorizations by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Recipients of the Belarusian Democratic Republic 100th Jubilee Medal
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Belarusian Democratic Republic 100th Jubilee Medal
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * The Belarusian Democratic Republic 100th Jubilee Medal was given out in 2018 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the republic in 1918. I'm not sure how widely the award was distributed but the articles in this category are people who were already very prominent like President Stanislav Shushkevich, Ambassador Stefan Eriksson, or Nobel Prize winning writer Svetlana Alexievich whose articles tend to mention the award in passing with other honours. There is already a list right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Background We previously deleted a similar Canadian award right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:OCAWARD. --Just N. (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete more junk overcategorizations by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.