Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 22

 &lt; January 21 January 23 &gt;

Cultural depictions of monarchs
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Cultural depictions of monarchs

Category:Kazakh aviators

 * 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: dual merge to Category:Ethnic Kazakh people from the Soviet Union and Category:Soviet aviators. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Kazakh aviators to Category:Ethnic Kazakh people and Category:Soviet aviators
 * Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity and occupation. The merge target was selected based on the content of the articles. Mason (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support with caveat. Ethnic Khazaks mainly live in Khazakstan. I suspect we do not need an ethnic category at all, or if we do then only for Khazak minorities abroad. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, I already added all the folks who fit into the Khazakstan category. Mason (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support with the same caveat as Marcocapelle. In fact, it seems that all members of this category are for WWII aviators, at a time when Kazakhstan existed within the Soviet Union. I would suggest placing such articles in both and  (the later if they are not already in e.g. ). Ethnicity is irrelevant to aviation, and I do not support Category:Ethnic Kazakh people as a target. Place Clichy (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The second merge target should then become Category:Ethnic Kazakh people from the Soviet Union instead of Category:Ethnic Kazakh people. That is still without prejudice to a future deletion of that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That target should probably itself be renamed to, like its siblings in Category:Soviet people by ethnicity: , etc. Place Clichy (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * second this Jjazz76 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For that rename see this follow-up discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2024 (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:British expatriates in Ireland
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:British expatriates in Ireland

Category:Women and education
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Women and education

Category:Revolts

 * 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) Qwerfjkl  talk  17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Revolts to Category:Rebellions
 * Nominator's rationale: Revolt is a redirect of rebellion and the terms are often used as synonyms. User:Namiba 18:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2024 (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:Communism-based civil wars
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Communism-based civil wars

Category:Sitcom actors
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Sitcom actors

Category:Institutions named after women

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Institutions named after women to Category:Places and organizations named after women
 * Nominator's rationale: I recently created this category with a few examples manually added so far. To broaden the scope I believe the renaming would be helpful. Regarding the acceptability of the category: I believe it could be considered a defining characteristic for these organizations and places since the characteristic is very uncommon due to the heavy skew in the places named after people, against women. Given this skew, one could argue that it typically deserves a mention in the intro paragraph. Any feedback regarding this would also be appreciated. in case you would like to comment on the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk • contribs)

Relisting comment: I've just tagged teh category. Pinging the category creator Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete by WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete classic WP:SHAREDNAME, categorizing articles by their names instead of defining aspects. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Thanks for relisting. I have read the comments, and I am still of the opinion that keeping this category and renaming as I have proposed makes most sense. A place or organization being named after someone is more than just a shared name. It is especially more important and interesting if they are named after a woman. I realized this better when I tried to find examples of such places and organizations. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you mean "more than a shared name"? Namesharing is the only thing that these articles have in common, haven't they? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle I mean, for two organizations having the name Florence Nightingale: their relationship feels more like that of the Jackson family than two random Jacksons. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I only see one article in the category with Florence Nightingale in the name. And no, it has nothing to do with family, just with names. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of categories is to aid in reader navigation, and I'm stumped at who would want an easier connection with fewer clicks between, say, Sabiha Gökçen International Airport to Eleanor Roosevelt High School (Maryland). No objection to a list article outside of the CFD process though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Looking at List of places named after people, I think a sub-list of places named after women would be justifiable. But that would be for populated places, not institutions. A list of institutions named after women would be enormous, and neither complete, manageable or useful. (Consider e.g. Marie_Curie and Beatrice Tate School.) Anyway, that would if anything be a suitable topic for a list, not a category. Delete. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:48, 24 January 2024 (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:Cultural Heritage of early modern times of South Korea
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Cultural Heritage of early modern times of South Korea

Category:Fictional high school students

 * 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) Qwerfjkl  talk  19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Fictional high school students to Category:Fictional adolescents
 * Propose merging Category:Fictional middle school students to Category:Fictional adolescents
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, in many countries a distinction between middle school and high school does not even exist, and it is a rather trivial distinction anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many works of fiction are focused specifically on high school or middle school as a topic, and this is a defining trait for characters in such works. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this nomination? AHI-3000 (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The concept is nearly synonymous with adolescence in most works set in the 20th or 21st century. Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. There's usually nothing particularly defining about this since it's not particularly special for someone of that age to be a middle school or high school student. Categories must focus only on defining aspects of a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Fictional secondary school students, or delete per RevelationDirect. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 12:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge. The notion of middle school / junior high school is just not consistent from one country to the other. Fictional works tend to be adapted to the target culture when translated for better understanding, especially when they target a young audience. Therefore, the same characters of Attacker You!, High School! Kimengumi or Captain Tsubasa will find themselves in different types of school when adapted in several countries and languages. Place Clichy (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (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:Fictional magic schools
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Fictional magic schools

Category:Examinations and testing in fiction
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Examinations and testing in fiction

Category:Spanish writers in the United States

 * 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: split. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Spanish writers in the United States to Category:Spanish expatriates in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Can't find a similar category to this. Merge with expatriates parent cat since they are likely already in Spanish writers subcat. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Mason (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:American writers of Spanish descent, similar to the sibling categories in the Hispanic parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle, I don't think they are American. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn't checked all articles and by sheer coincidence mainly noticed articles that would qualify for Category:American writers of Spanish descent. Then split between Category:Spanish expatriates in the United States and Category:American writers of Spanish descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Split category per @Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2024 (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:Revolutionaries from the Russian Empire

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Revolutionaries from the Russian Empire to Category:Russian revolutionaries
 * Nominator's rationale: Following brief discussion at . I assume it was created when categories like "Fooian people" became "People from Foo", but this one is problematic. The people in this category are (or should be) Russian, not simply from the Russian Empire, which would also include many Polish, Ukrainian, etc revolutionaries (which I hope we can agree should not belong in a subcategory of "Russian revolutionaries"!). Furthermore, the existence of this category promotes overcategorization, since many of its members were active both before and after 1917. The category simply needs to be merged upward to its parent. asilvering (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Mason (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are descriptions of two different things and shouldn’t be merged into a single category that would result in potentially labelling many people of non-Russian identity or ethnicity as “Russian” just because some tsar’s army conquered their country. The empire was a régime that controlled many countries, and we should not be making changes that favour a historical bias that academia is in the process of shedding. If anything, the other category should be split into ethnic Russian and from the Russian Federation categories. —Michael Z. 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac sorry, I missed this comment before. I find it perplexing - removing some of that historical bias is precisely what I am suggesting. I do not believe that Polish, Ukrainian, etc revolutionaries should be in this category. It is strange to call these people "from the Russian Empire"; I do not believe that is how they were identified historically, nor by historians. The decolonization that Slavic studies is attempting is in this same vein; here is a quote from that article Many scholars say the Russian state receives too much focus in academia at the expense of the colonized nations, regions, and groups, including Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, as well as ethnic minority communities in Russia itself.. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So I guess you’re proposing a change in the defined scope of the category, where I only perceived a change in name. That’s fair, but some editors will reasonably want to categorize people according to the state where they were born and lived, possibly for their entire lives. IMO people can and should also be categorize people by their country even if it lacked statehood and belonged to an empire, and the nation they were a member of or paid allegiance to.
 * In either case, “Russian X” is IMO ridiculously ambiguous and will never well serve either readers or editors. We should use clearly labelled categories like X from Muscovy, X from the Russian Empire, X from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, X from the Russian Federation, ethnic-Russian X, etcetera. —Michael Z. 03:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Being from the Russian Empire and being Russian are two different things. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, it is very unlikely that the category only contains ethnic Russians. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle then we should find those ones and remove them from the category - do you see any? -- asilvering (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At a glance, I've spotted a few Polish ones, and again, I don't think it really makes sense for this category to exist at all, and it's not so difficult to remove those ones from the category either after or in advance of a merge upwards. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And what about Ukrainians, Georgians etc.? In fact I do not think it is a good idea to remove any of them at all, as they presumably all were revolutionaries against the Russian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're arguing in favour of a different kind of category, one based on what the revolutionaries were fighting against. We have those already: they're things like Category:Decembrists. -- asilvering (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Russian means Russian nationals (i.e. Russian subjects), the term should not be restricted to people of Russian ethnicity. An article can be placed in duplicate categories (e.g. both and ) if they are primarily described in reliable sources as Poles within the Russian Empire. Place Clichy (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't expect that reliable sources would ever call Polish people in the Russian Empire "Russians". They will be called "Polish people in/of/from the Russian Empire". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you find a reliable source that calls someone a "Polish person from the Russian Empire"? -- asilvering (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * a late answer, but e.g. is introduced as a a Russian officer and active participant of the Decembrist revolt (1825) while he was a Polish subject of the Russian Empire.  (1879–1938) is a Polish and Russian revolutionary activist, a Soviet government official and one of the founders of the Cheka., a participant in the 1863 January Uprising, is described as Russian and Polish. , a leader of Warsaw who sided with the Russians in the January Uprising, is a Russian general.  (1776–1855) is a Russian general of Polish descent who distinguished himself during the Napoleonic Wars. Famous explorer  (1839–1888) is a Russian geographer of Polish descent.  (1819–1883), from Turku in then-GRand-Duchy of Finland, is a Russian lieutenant-general of Finnish descent.  (1856–1892) is defined as a Russian revolutionary and political prisoner, while also belonging to hereditary Polish nobility.  (1870–1908) is a Russian revolutionary while being a Lithuanian Jew from Kaunas. Etc. So yes, people from Poland, Lithuania or Finland when they where parts of the Russian Empire are routinely defined as Russian, especially if they were in public or military service it seems, but also in politics or revolutionary activities. Place Clichy (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * note that in the discussion below there is support for the merge proposal under the condition that these articles are not moved under the Russian category. That is the sort of thing that will happen when using an ambiguous name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. This category definitely seems unnecessary to me, overlapping with other categories to the point of over-categorisation. I just want to make sure if/when the merge happens, that we aren't sorting all the Polish and Ukrainian revolutionaries into the "Russian revolutionaries" category. Care needs to be taken with the merger. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to go through it. When I nominated this, I don't think there were any. A great many people have been added by the category's creator since the nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is exactly because of the latter why I am opposing. There is no point in splitting revolutionaries against the same Russian Empire government by an attribute that is not relevant. Note that User:Place Clichy supports the nomination under the opposite condition. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Fictional humans
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting fictional humans
 * Nominator's rationale: The very notion of this category is flawed and overbroad. It is quite simply not necessary, because a character being a fictional human is the default, whereas them being inhuman is an exception. That's not to get started with why this is categorized under "fictional apes". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. From the very beginning I intended this category to only be a container category for subcategories, not articles, so that it won't become too broad in scope; hence why the original name for this category when I created it was Category:Fictional humans by type. Also humans are indeed great apes, it's a fact that can't be disputed. I don't know what exactly you are arguing for here. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that it's a container category, it's that it's problematic as a category period.
 * Humans are technically primates, but common sense is that people would not be searching for humans as a subcategory of primates outside of a scientific context. It is exceedingly odd when done in a context of fictional characters.
 * Both these decisions appear to be motivated by a desire to make direct duplicates of real-life scientific categories/classifications while totally ignoring the distinction between how things are treated in real life vs. fiction. Real life and fictional categories cannot and should not perfectly match up, because they're two different things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zxcvbnm Is that really your only gripe with this category? It's also a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by species and Category:Fictional humanoids. But what you stated isn't even a proper justification for deleting it. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose, this deletion will leave the subcategories orphaned. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They're all already in other categories, I'm not sure what will be orphaned here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I notice that all subcategories are somewhere else in Category:Fictional characters too, except Category:Fictional black people. As the latter subcategory has been nominated for deletion, I will strike my oppose. But if Category:Fictional black people is kept, it should still be added somewhere in the tree of Category:Fictional characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Category:Fictional black people still exists, so if Category:Fictional humans is deleted then Category:Fictional black people should get Category:Fictional characters as its new parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The main category should be . One of the reasons why categorizing characters as humans is a problem, besides the above, is the always possible plot twist when a character you assumed was human turns out to be something else. In other words: if it's animal (or elfic etc.) you know (and the character will be defined as such from the start), if it's human you don't know. Place Clichy (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a container category, it's meant for subcategories, not individual character pages. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Still. Place Clichy (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Place Clichy: Still what exactly? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I still consider that the character of this category is not defining, regardless of it being a container category. Place Clichy (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose "because a character being a fictional human is the default" It is far from common in several fictional settings, including much of the fantasy genre. Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Further comment, if the category is kept then Category:Fictional displaced people and Category:Fictional homeless people can still be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep We can safely assume that many speculative fiction characters are not human, and should not belong in any of the subcategories. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Fictional human races
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: split to Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Fictional species and races. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Fictional human races to Category:Fictional species and races
 * Nominator's rationale: I've come to think that this category is too heavy an overlap to exist. When we say "fictional race", from a standpoint of humans, a humanoid race is the default. If we want to further specify, there are categories for that. But there's no need to specifically categorize groups of humans. This can be diffused to Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Fictional species and races depending on the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternate merge/split Category:Fictional human races into both Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Human-derived fictional species. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Which targets? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Split to Category:Fictional ethnic groups and Category:Fictional species and races per nom. In addition I would expect that Category:Fictional species and races can be limited to Category:Fictional species but that is probably for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I am ok with Category:Human-derived fictional species as the second split target instead of Category:Fictional species and races. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2024 (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.

Indigenous peoples of Europe
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. Unclear whether the "indigenous" label is subjective or not. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Indigenous peoples of Europe to Category:Ethnic groups in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:Indigenous activists of Europe to Category:Minority rights activists
 * Propose merging Category:Indigenous peoples of Russia to Category:Ethnic groups in Russia
 * Propose merging Category:Indigenous peoples of Ukraine to Category:Ethnic groups in Ukraine
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, the history of Eurasia is full of peoples migrating for thousands of kilometers and assimilating with other peoples to other peoples. It is impossible to tell which peoples are truly indigenous. At best we can tell which groups are ethnic minorities, but that is what the "Ethnic groups" tree is for anyway. For example, the Crimean Tatars are here, of whom their ethnicity emerged only since the 13th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Indigenous peoples are not just “ethnic minorities.” They are the subjects of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, are designated as such by UN member states (the law of Ukraine designates three such peoples), and have certain protected rights different from those of “ethnic minorities.” Eliminating these categories should not be done on a regional basis and based on the random opinions that history is hard and the supposed indeterminability of “truly Indigenous,” and distastefully bad logic about Crimean Tatars (a stereotypically colonial statement casting doubt on the legal rights and very validity of a national group that’s been subject to genocide and persecution for centuries). —Michael Z. 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: See also. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge. The indigenous label is never used consistently in Europe. It is a risky game to call which ethnic groups are indigenous and which are not. Terms like ethnic groups and minorities are much more reliably used in academia in the European context. Main article Indigenous peoples and main Category:Indigenous peoples clearly define the term as linked to societies that have been overwhelmed by modern colonization, which is the case in Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania and the Americas but not Europe or Asia. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I propose to keep Category:Indigenous peoples of Europe, mention on its page that this is about having a legal status as indigenous, and have these three Ukrainian peoples in there, as well as Category:Nenets people, Category:Vepsian people and Category:Sámi in Russia, three peoples in European Russia with the same assignment. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging. Some ethnic groups in Europe are legally designated as Indigenous (including the Crimean Tatars). The Sami, Nenets, the many groups defined in Russia as Indigenous, etc. Erasing that distinction by merging the categories is unhelpful in my view. XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Indigenous languages of Europe
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. In line with the above nomination. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting indigenous languages of europe
 * Nominator's rationale: Do you know what's in common between, and ? They are indigenous languages, according to some editors. Follow-up to : the term indigenous is not a pertinent descriptor for these European languages, which are no more or no less indigenous than other neighbouring languages. Simple deletion (no merger) as all content is already correctly categorized e.g. in  and . Place Clichy (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An Indigenous language is the language of an Indigenous people. It may have legal status as such, and may be subject to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such a deletion proposal should be made on a global basis and require an RFC. —Michael Z. 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a connection to be made between the and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the specific European context, there are a number of ethnic or linguistic minorities, such as the Basques, Catalans, South Tyroleans, Turks of Western Thrace etc. but it is better to describe them as minorities than indigenous. BTW Slavic and  (incl. Turkish) are not in the minority. Place Clichy (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This should be closed consistently with the above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 22:26, 31 January 2024 (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:Fictional characters who can manipulate probability
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate probability

Church of Ireland by country
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Church of Ireland by country

Category:Fictional characters with extrasensory perception
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: keep. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with extrasensory perception to Category:Fictional espers
 * Nominator's rationale:

Rename for conciseness, since that is the common name for such powers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not an obviously common name, and would be confusing. Mason (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose. The word "esper" seems uncommon. It does not currently appear in the the text of the extrasensory perception article. "Category:Fictional characters with ESP" would be somewhat concise and more common; though not matching the name of the parent topic, that could be explained as WP:NATDAB. jnestorius(talk) 17:56, 22 January 2024 (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:War video games
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:War video games

Category:Mythological Greek royalty
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mythological Indian royalty to Category:Royalty in Indian mythology
 * Propose renaming Category:Mythological Greek royalty to Category:Royalty in Greek mythology
 * Nominator's rationale: parent is Characters in Greek mythology by occupation Mason (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and also rename all these categories accordingly:
 * Category:Mythological Indian royalty to Category:Royalty in Indian mythology
 * Category:Mythological Indian monarchs to Category:Monarchs in Indian mythology
 * Category:Queens in Hindu mythology to Category:Queens in Indian mythology
 * Category:Princes in Hindu mythology to Category:Princes in Indian mythology
 * Category:Princesses in Hindu mythology to Category:Princesses in Indian mythology
 * AHI-3000 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Hindu versus Indian renames. Mason (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Smasongarrison: I just thought that "Indian" would be more broadly inclusive than just "Hindu". AHI-3000 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While that seems well-intentioned, I'm not sure that there's a significant amount of non-Hindu mythology that's distinctly Indian. Most of India's other major religions originated elsewhere, or have little or no mythology associated with them, at least as the term is commonly understood in English.  While there's some mythology associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (some adherents might object to the term), none of these are distinctly Indian, or have mythology connected to India.  Zoroastrianism is primarily rooted in Persia.  Baha'i, also rooted in Persia/Iran, is a modern fusion of Islam and Hinduism.  Sikhs and Jains don't really seem to have any mythology in the traditional sense; Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, and to the extent that Indian Buddhists incorporate deities in their practices—and not all do—they are usually Hindu deities.  Some of the other religions are variants of Buddhism, often developed elsewhere.  I do see a few indigenous or tribal religions, but they seem to have very small numbers of adherents, and it's not clear whether they have distinct mythologies involving royalty.  That said, "Hindu mythology" probably would be fine as a title.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * on the other hand, is there not Hindu mythology that's not related to India, but to, say, the Khmer Empire or Bali? In India, we do have Meitei mythology and . That said, I believe that Hindu mythology is a fine title and does not need renaming to Indian mythology. Should be placed in, which should therefore be removed from ? Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like a valid point. I looked through the religions listed in the table at the top of "Religion in India" to see whether there were distinctly Indian but non-Hindu mythologies, and did not see this one listed, presumably because the number of adherents listed (235,000) would constitute a religious minority of only 0.016% of India's population, given the 2023 estimate.  That's relevant, but not necessarily determinative.  There could also be others.  I'm generally in favour of more categorization, not less; so if there are enough individuals to be worth distinguishing mythological Meitei royalty from mythological Hindu royalty, then the proposed title change from "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mytholdy" makes sense.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">T--C 15:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep these but merge in subcategories. There is a good deal of content in this tree, but too many layers before one reaches them.  This is probably mainly a matter of upmerging monarchs.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Peterkingiron is right, the articles in Category:Mythological Indian monarchs should be moved further down to Category:Kings in Indian mythology and thereafter Category:Mythological Indian monarchs can be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.

American college football bowl seasons
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23American college football bowl seasons

Category:Edo literature
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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.

Relisting comment: 3 members. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging edo literature to Category:Edoid languages
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: A very inappropriate nomination. There are several categories that grew from a single member to 10s and 100s. This category is likely going to grow and I see this inappropriate. There are several other things I am going to write about that will fit into this category. Also, the Edoid languages category is not even related to the concept of Edo literature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If articles appear we can always recreate the category. For now it is a matter of a crystal ball whether that is going to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support merge as its unhelpful for navigation in its present state. I see nothing about this nom that is inappropriate. Mason (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This category now contains two members and a subcat and as such my Keep rationale stands. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose - The category is clearly ineligible because it has members. Merging it to Edoid languages does not in my own view add any value rather it removes and it doesn't make sense either—to me. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep This could use further subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge for Now The oppose/keep votes all hope that more content emerges and I do too. Per WP:MFN, let's merge for now with no objection to recreation later when more content emerges. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Roman Catholic theologians
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic theologians to Category:Catholic theologians
 * Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent to Category:Catholic religious workers, there is no distinction between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology. If this goes ahead, I will nominate the subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that there are a number of important distinctions between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology... First and foremost the position of the Holy Spirit within the trinitarian structure, no? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that is Eastern Orthodox, that is something different. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My Maronite friend disagrees, he says that you are presenting the Catholic Church's position but many Eastern Catholics don't agree. Of course that is just hearsay, I would love to see a source for the claim that there is no distinction between the theologies. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no source for Eastern Catholic theology because it does not exist. Of course individual people may not agree with everything that their church teaches, but that it is not what theologians categories are about. Even theologians may not agree with everything that their church teaches. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If one exists and the other does not there is a massive distinction between the two. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I mean to say that there is no separate Roman or Eastern Catholic theology. E.g. there is one Catholic catechism. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is merely an observation as it's not a subject I will pretend to know anything about, but  exists, if this makes a difference.  -- wooden  superman  13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Old Catholic Church is a different church than Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So are the Eastern Catholic churches... They're different churches from the Catholic Church. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that is absolutely wrong. The Catholic Church consists of the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconding this comment. should remain separate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename as nom. Old Catholic theologians are very often Catholic theologians or priests who parted from the Catholic Church on topics such as papal infallibility. Ignaz von Döllinger is an example among many. So Catholic doctrine and debates over it are at the heart of what defines an Old Catholic theologian, it is not different. There is ample reason to put them in a parent . As for Eastern Catholic theologians, while they adhere to the theology of the Catholic Church, they are just not Roman Catholics. Place Clichy (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think that it is helpful to make the distinction between types of catholicism for diffusion purposes. Mason (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So does this mean you would agree to make a parent of  and ? Re: Eastern Catholic theologians, I don't think there are enough articles to populate a separate hierarchy (especially with a double century/nationality structure), but they can be placed directly in the parent Catholic theologians category in the absence of a more specific one. Place Clichy (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that they'd both be parented by Category:Catholic theologians. My concern is more about ways to diffuse the very large Category:Roman Catholics by century, which this rename would impact. Mason (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Tajikistani people by occupation and location
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 both. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Tajikistani people by occupation and location to Category:Tajikistani people by location
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navifation Mason (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Alternatively this category and its subcategory may be just deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggesting this as an alternate proposal: –Aidan721 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Tajikistani sportspeople by location to Category:Tajikistani sportspeople
 * Propose deleting Category:Tajikistani people by occupation and location
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Category:Tajikistani sportspeople by location is empty. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete both following Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_11. (I have checked that the others in that nomination did not leave other loose ends like this one.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:07, 24 January 2024 (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:Chess gambits
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: merge. Weighing up the previous discussion in addition to the arguments here, I think there is consensus to merge this. The primary dispute is whether Gambits are categorised arbitrarily, with the arguments in favour being stronger. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  20:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Chess gambits to Category:Chess openings
 * Nominator's rationale: As pointed out in several places on wikipedia, chess opening terminology is inconsistent and not a useful basis for classification. The Queen's Gambit arguably is not a gambit, the Two Knights Defence, which usually involves the sacrifice of a pawn, arguably is. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, if some articles do or do not belong in the category then that should be discussed at article talk pages. Generally these openings are described as gambits. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no value in subcategorizing chess openings in this way. Far more useful to have all openings in the same category. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently there are both Chess opening and Gambit which means that so far the community has deemed these two topics worth having their own article. This means that having two categories is also fine. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing this proposal, see discussions below.  Bruce leverett (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit. If people generally don't accept the c4 pawn in the Queen's Gambit and then hang on to it, it doesn't mean that it's not a gambit, there are lines where White just can't win it back. Also, I think that making it a non-diffusing category, as Bruce leverett pointed out, makes sense.  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Chess opening nomenclature is a matter of tradition, not systematic classification. It arose haphazardly. The Queen's Gambit is definitely not a "gambit", White can even regain the pawn immediately by 3.Qa4+ (though it's not the best move). Several lines that *do* involve actual sacrifice of material don't have the word "gambit" in their name. This is why names of openings are not a useful guide to their classification, and subdividing chess openings into different classes on wikipedia is a bad idea. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had guessed that you had used a syntactic, rather than semantic, classification of openings. I don't think this is necessarily the best classification, but I am glad that we are on the same page w.r.t. making it non-diffusing.
 * In pre-Wikipedia chess literature, a gambit was any opening variation that starts with a sacrifice of material. This would include Fried Liver Attack and Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation.
 * I have no trouble classifying Queen's Gambit as a gambit. In variations like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6, White has sacrificed a pawn, and it seems to have happened on move 2.  But the Catalan opening leads to similar positions with Black hanging onto a pawn on c4.
 * I see that Queen's Gambit Declined is classified as a gambit, whereas Slav Defense is not, but they are both defenses to the Queen's Gambit (siblings, so to speak). This is potentially confusing.  I am not sure how this can be fixed in a non-confusing way.  Should the responses to a gambit be classified as gambits?  Then that would include Slav Defense.  Or should they not be so classified?  Then that would include Queen's Gambit Accepted and Queen's Gambit Declined, not to mention Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bruce leverett: We can also create a subcategory related to Queen's Gambit opening variations and include there Slav Defense and other openings.  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)K
 * What would be the point of that? How would such a category improve the encyclopedia?  Quale (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Alternatively if Category:Chess gambits is kept then Category:Chess openings should be non-diffusing as suggested by Bruce leverett.  If the parent cat is non-diffusing then I don't care do too much what others do with a gambits subcategory, although some of the suggestions here are embarrassing for an effort trying to produce and maintain a serious encyclopedia so I'll explain a bit.  The chess openings category has existed for 20 years (since 2004); the chess gambits category for two weeks (since December 26, 2023).  The WP:CHESS community could have created a gambits subcategory at any time if it thought it was useful, but tellingly it did not.
 * The suggestion that a chess gambits category should contain chess opening articles whose titles contain the word "Gambit" is shockingly poor for multiple obvious reasons. 1) Some chess gambits including important lines such as the Marshall Attack do not include the word "Gambit".  2) The names of chess openings are not defining characteristics, and categories are supposed to be defining characteristics.  You might just as well create a category Names of US states that end in "ia".  3) Because chess opening names are not defining characteristics there is no main article for chess opening names containing the word "gambit".  You can observe that list of chess gambits does not use this definition of gambit which is found nowhere except on this discussion page.
 * A different suggestion is that editors could have pointless arguments on multiple chess opening article talk pages whether the article belongs in a gambits category. The only people competent to make this determination are experienced chess players and they are telling you right here that they have no interest in doing that.  It serves no purpose; the problem is entirely artificial.  It was created only because someone decided to change the categorization of chess opening articles in a way that is not helpful and was not desired by the editors who actually do constructive work on these pages.  Just the fact that it can be difficult to know whether a page belongs in the category is a sign that it is not helpful.  When it's too hard for a reader to know whether a page is in a category then that category might not be good, especially when it serves no purpose.
 * Finally, although the "chess opening gambit" usage is common even with chess experts, strictly speaking it is chess opening variations that are gambits rather than the openings themselves. In common parlance "chess opening" is often used to mean "chess opening variation" (and similarly "opening" for "opening variation"), but this is the kind of shorthand experts often use in many fields because there is no chance of confusion when speaking to other experts.  (Worse still there is no clear division between an opening and a variation.  In many cases the distinctions were made centuries ago before chess was studied in a systematic way.)  In many cases we have articles on the gambit variations, but in other cases we don't and the gambits are discussed in the parent opening article.  You could decide that the parent articles don't go in the gambits subcategory even though they discuss gambits, or you could create redirects for all the gambit variations and put the redirect pages in the gambits category.  It would be simpler to go back to December 25 when there was no gambits category.  Because it is actually opening variations that are gambits this classification is much better suited to a list, and we already have list of chess gambits.  (That list article has other problems and is frustrating to chess editors, but those issues are different than the ones with the gambits category). Quale (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Given that for 20+ years of wikipedia history this category didn't exist, the default assumption should be in favour of the status quo, not in favour of the newly intoduced and imprecisely defined category. This new category will lead to pointless arguments about what is or isn't a "gambit", and for what purpose? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MaxBrowne2: This category existed before, under the name of "Gambits", but was removed recently. I created this category and only after that I checked the Gambits category, I even posted a question on the Help desk, but didn't get an answer on what to do: Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_26  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that we should look to our sources, i.e. to chess literature. I have seen quite a few opening books and references that classify the openings as "queen's pawn games", "king's pawn games", or "flank openings", or similar terminology.  So I could hardly object to three categories like those.  On the other hand, I do not recall any opening reference with a separate section for gambits, and searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess.  It looks like by creating a "gambits" category we are breaking new ground, which explains why it is so difficult.  I am considering striking my earlier vote in favor of one to support. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bruce leverett: searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess - What about this book "Gambit Chess Openings" by Eric Schiller, 2001 from the Gambit article?  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not the first time this has come up. Experienced chess editors really don't want this category. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21 MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not have a copy of Schiller's book, nor was I able to find a review of it online, although Tony Miles wrote a famous two-word review ("Utter crap") of one of the companion volumes, "Unorthodox Chess Openings". I would reserve judgment, for now. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the syntactic classification, i.e. categorizing openings by their name, is ridiculous.  And, in agreement with, I see that it's difficult to impossible to arrive at a good semantic classification.  The fact that I disagreed with him over the classification of Queen's Gambit is an illustration of this, but there are many other examples. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The very fact that chose to reintroduce this category despite knowing that an almost identical category had previously been rejected by the community shows a lack of respect for WP:CONSENSUS. By the way it is irrelevant that the closer of the previous CfM (a long term admin with AGF and CIV issues) has since been banned; if you're going to bring that up, so has the prolific sock-puppeteer who created the former category "Gambits". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MaxBrowne2: The very fact that Deltaspace42 chose to reintroduce this category despite knowing that an almost identical category had previously been rejected by the community. On the Helpdesk post, I said that I learned about the previous deletion only after I created the category.  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'll strike that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose per Marco. This category can certainly be misused, but that is not a reason to get rid of it. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 17:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete There is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit is classic WP:SHAREDNAME * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not quite, it does not only share the name but also - or rather, primarily - shares the characteristic of a gambit. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment For reference, here is a link to the discussion of the Gambit category from 2018 (the result was that it was deleted).


 * It was claimed that WP:NONDEF applied, i.e. that "gambitness" is not a "defining characteristic". In the present discussion, we have already seen examples in which even experienced players do not agree whether or not an opening is a gambit.  These are not obscure variations, but are generally well-known openings. I can give more examples, if anyone is interested.


 * It was also claimed that WP:ARBITRARYCAT applied, because there are a number of notable openings or variations of openings, that do not have "gambit" in their names, although they look like, smell like, and taste like gambits; there are other openings and variations that have multiple names, some of which use the word "gambit" and some of which do not. I can give examples of these situations, if anyone is interested.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The result of the 2018 discussion presumably hinged on the arguments that were presented. If we want to overturn that result, I would presume that the discussion must start by refuting those arguments.  When a question like this is once answered, it should stay answered, unless something has gone terribly wrong.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Support Changing my position, as per discussions above. My earlier proposal to make the category non-diffusing is the best lipstick for this pig; the category would still cause more problems than it would solve.  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2024 (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:Superhero schools
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: split. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Superhero schools to Category:Fictional schools
 * Nominator's rationale: Selective merge to Category:Fictional schools, with the subcategories being purged entirely. There are not enough individual schools here to justify a separate category. Alternatively, rename to Category:Fiction about superhero schools and upmerge the actual schools, while making the parent category Category:Fiction about schools. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Disperse in the tree of Category:Fiction about schools, since most articles aren't about a school but rather about a film or series etc. It is fine if an article belongs in Category:Fictional schools but most articles don't, and should be moved to siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Split to Category:Fictional schools and Category:Fiction about superhero schools. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 12:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Split to Category:Fictional schools and Category:Fiction about superhero schools per, but I think in practice this can simply be renamed to Category:Fiction about superhero schools with a few members also being added to Category:Fictional schools if they are not already in it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Split per FL. I agree that the easiest way to do this would be to rename Category:Superhero schools to Category:Fiction about superhero schools and then do the rest manually. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:35, 30 January 2024 (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:Faculty by art school
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose renaming to
 * Nominator's rationale: parent categories, including Category:Academic staff by university or college, and most children (except U.S. ones) have been renamed to use academic staff instead of faculty, which is ambiguous. These categories, which are location independent, should probably use the same generic term. Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Mason (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename per precedents. (I added "by music school" which was tagged but not listed.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:03, 24 January 2024 (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:FLaMme artists
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting flamme artists
 * Nominator's rationale: As best as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't categorize actors by agent/agency. Gjs238 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Guideline WP:PERFCAT explains why this is a bad idea. Place Clichy (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, artists can easily move from agent to another, it is not a defining characteristic of the artist. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2024 (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:FLaMme
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: merge to Category:FLaMme artists. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:FLaMme to Category:FLaMme artists
 * Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Serves no use. It's only content, subcategory Category:FLaMme artists, can stand on its own or also be deleted. Gjs238 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Equally fine with me Mason (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2024 (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:Mount Vernon Seminary and College alumn
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mount vernon seminary and college alumn
 * Nominator's rationale: Typo, redirected to . We generally don't keep redirected categories for unlikely typos, however they are not eligible for speedy deletion under the present criteria. Place Clichy (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, it should be speediable per WP:C2A. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2024 (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:Crave original programming
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Crave original programming

Category:The Movie Network original programming
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:The Movie Network original programming

Category:People involved in plagiarism controversies
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) Qwerfjkl  talk  18:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting people involved in plagiarism controversies
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 11, of which this is essentially the same thing but less defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about merge to academic scandals? Mason (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge people to a category about the scandals themselves? That wouldn't exactly work. Nor is plagiarism necessarily related to academia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * keep - this was last discussed in 2006 which was 17 years ago. also "people involved in plagiarism controversies" is far more verifiable than plagiarists, which assumes some sort of judgement of guilt.
 * more generally a very useful tag anytime a plagiarism controversy happens, which is like every year or so. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's verifiable, but it's not defining to simply be accused of plagiarism. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * why not? Jjazz76 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, we normally categorize people by conviction, but this is not a crime that results in many court cases, so it remains more a matter of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Marcocapelle.--User:Namiba 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Marcocapelle. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (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:Works involved in plagiarism controversies
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Works involved in plagiarism controversies

Category:Crave (TV network) original programming
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Crave (TV network) original programming

Category:Fictional guilds
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30%23Category:Fictional guilds

Category:English cricketers of the 21st century
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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:21st-century English cricketers. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:English cricketers of the 21st century to Category:21st-century English cricketers
 * Nominator's rationale: I see no reason that this category should be formatted so differently Mason (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. And does anyone know what's going on with the siblings in Category:English cricketers by era? –Aidan721 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No idea, but my guess is it has to do with rule changes (but that's total speculation). @Omnis Scientia might have some insights, as they're more familiar with sports categories. Mason (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Smasongarrison, @Aidan721, they are divided by eras - more specifically by styles of play AND rule changes; hence the very specific years. I checked further and a previous Cfd voted strongly to keep. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks –Aidan721 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2024 (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:professional shogi players
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Retired women's professional shogi players to Category:women's professional shogi players
 * Propose merging Category:Retired professional shogi players to Category:professional shogi players
 * Propose merging Category:Deceased professional shogi players to Category:professional shogi players
 * Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersections. We don't have other "professional" player categories like this. Also no need to intersect with whether the person is alive or dead. Mason (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge As an irrelevant intersection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2024 (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:Tao Yuanming
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tao yuanming
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There's only two pages in this category: the writer and their notable fable, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (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:Women's cricket in South America
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Women's cricket in South America to Category:Women's cricket by country
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer with just one child (Brazil). Women's cricket categories are organized by country, there is no other continent-level category. Place Clichy (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I added an additional sub-category. However, still support just deletion now (since the additional child shouldn't be merged and the Brazil cat is already in the target). –Aidan721 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just delete per Aidan721. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2024 (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:Tsuchimikado clan
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tsuchimikado clan
 * Propose deleting taga clan
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this clan. Delete for now, as it's unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The only article in Category:Tsuchimikado clan was a religious organization rather than a person. I have merged that article to Onmyōdō, so now it is empty. Dekimasu よ! 03:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, Category:Tsuchimikado clan is empty now. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2024 (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:Horror films by region
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories are just for continent and country/nationality container categories, a useless additional layer. Place Clichy (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

> >  etc. > >  etc. > etc.
 * My intuitive reaction would be to Oppose this, but maybe I missed something. Why is it useless according to you?. I am only expressing my view about films (not fiction in general), but Category:Cinema by country subsumes various film genres. Why would this one be an issue? What do you mean by just for continent and country/nationality? Sorry if it's obvious, but for me, it's not. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  12:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (edited after having read the kind explanation below)
 * categories are only useful as a tool for helping navigation. This proposition does not delete any content, it just moves it a little bit to make it easier for users to find what they're looking for. Most topics are organized in the following fashion:
 * Currently, these categories look like this, which is generates one more useless click for the user to find the content (imho):

>     >  >  etc. > >  etc. > etc.
 * Nobody is actually looking for the container categories themselves (the ones called ... by ...), but they are mandatory to avoid the root category for becoming too large. However, containers of containers are, in most cases, useless. Place Clichy (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood.Thanks. I had missed something. Will amend my !vote. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  14:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It does indeed seem to be an unnecessary layer. The nomination makes sense. Thanks.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe this means support (making it clearer for the discussion closer). Place Clichy (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  15:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge as not useful. If not merged, rename to "by location". – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:55, 24 January 2024 (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.

Americas
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Propose merging to
 * Nominator's rationale: overlapping scheme, the only content is related to either North or South America. Follow-up to, . Place Clichy (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per long precedent. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge, it would have been different if there were a substantial number of articles covering both continents simultaneously, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support like precedents. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:53, 24 January 2024 (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:Ethnic Montenegrin people
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: merge to Category:Montenegrin people. (non-admin closure) <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 00:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Ethnic Montenegrin people to Category:Montenegrin people
 * Nominator's rationale: Near-empty non-defining category. There is actually much debate whether Montenegrins actually constitute a separate ethnicity, and there wouldn't be much content to place here rather than in the target category and its children. Place Clichy (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (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.