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. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming:
  • Category:Archbishops of Cape Town to Category:Anglican archbishops of Cape Town
  • Category:Bishops of Bloemfontein to Category:Anglican bishops of Bloemfontein
  • Category:Bishops of Johannesburg to Category:Anglican bishops of Johannesburg
  • Category:Bishops of Port Elizabeth to Category:Anglican bishops of Port Elizabeth
  • Category:Bishops of Pretoria to Category:Anglican bishops of Pretoria

Nominator's rationale: These are all places where the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches both have bishoprics with the same name. The change is to distinguish them in line with common practice in this hierarchy. htonl ( talk) 22:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support - per nom. Oculi ( talk) 23:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:16th-century British architects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:17th-century British architects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Anachronism - there was no UK until 1707 Le Deluge ( talk) 19:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- These are merely container categories and thus fairly harmless. From 1603, there was a single monarch (with two Parliaments), so that the existence of the 17th century category at least is not totally ridiculous. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Harmless but misleading. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete these categories are clealry anachronistic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries to Category:Files ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries

Nominator's rationale:

1. Images -> files is because all files are not images but all images are files.

2. If something is in the public domain, then it goes without saying that it is ineligible for copyright, so to write "Public domain images that are ineligible for copyright" seems to be unnecessary. Jonteemil ( talk) 15:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

There was also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 1#Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries but it didn't really touch on the renaming, more on whether it should be deleted or not. Jonteemil ( talk) 15:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. -- MGA73 ( talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support, but should there also be a comma before the but? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Could that be US instead of United States just in order to shorten the term? Other ideas to reshape it to be more like *short and crisp*? -- Just N. ( talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Austrian sailplanes to Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian sailplanes per adjusted nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian sailplanes to Category:Austrian sailplanes
• Propose merging Category:Austrian sailplanes to Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian sailplanes

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. The only content here is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1970s Austrian sailplanes, which is already in the target category and definitely not Austro-Hungarian. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Actually, this is part of a larger set of aircraft categories mostly populated by automated templates. After doing a number of changes on these templates, I now suggest keeping only the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian foo-type aircraft categories for consistency with the larger set and for better navigation. Place Clichy ( talk) 13:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge, as noted there is nothing Austro-Hungarian in here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Economic history of the Holy Roman Empire to Category:Economy of the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: All about the Holy Roman Empire is history. This category will be better defined using the pattern of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Economies by former country rather than that of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Economic history by country. For comparison, see e.g. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Economy of the German Empire, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Economy of the Weimar Republic or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Economy of East Germany. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Rename It's all history in this case and this follows the standard. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Apparently I created this category, long time ago. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Aba to Category:Anglican bishops of Aba (cf Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Aba, Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Abakaliki)

• Category:Bishops of Aba Ngwa North to Category:Anglican bishops of Aba Ngwa North
• Category:Bishops of Abakaliki to Category:Anglican bishops of Abakaliki

Rationale - both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have many dioceses in Nigeria and there is a considerable overlap in the names: see ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Nigeria by diocese. Moreover the dioceses are all of the form Anglican Diocese of Zonkwa; see ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Church of Nigeria dioceses. A similar recent cfd for Ghana ( 2021 May 13#Anglican bishops in Ghana) resulted in 'rename'. Oculi ( talk) 14:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support all these. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support all, for consistency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support wherever there is a conflict of name, but we should not change them for the sake of doing so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 16:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Marketing research companies by country to Category:Market research companies by country
• Propose merging Category:Marketing research companies of Brazil to Category:Market research companies of Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Marketing Research companies of the United States to Category:Market research companies of the United States

Nominator's rationale: we probably do not need a by-country hierarchy for just 2 companies, which duplicate a well-established hierarchy. "Market research" seems to be actually more defining according to the Brazilian company's article, while the article about the American company, which does customer experience and surveys, never cites "marketing research" outside of its infobox. Place Clichy ( talk) 13:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strongly Oppose: In the United States, Market Research and Marketing Research are quite distinct. In other countries, the same service unit may do both. To merge the by-country and include USA is inappropriate, since the whole point of the categorization is to allow finding articles; this merge would confuse things. Pi314m ( talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Besides the Strange Use Of Capitals, if this notion is defining for these organizations they may be placed at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Marketing research. There is just no need to create a by-country hierarchy of categories for so few articles, and stranded categories with a lonely article are the opposite of allowing better finding articles. However by looking at these articles they do not seem to be strongly defined by this notion. Place Clichy ( talk) 19:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

If the distinction is defining, it might justify 1 separate category for 2 articles. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge as nominated. Whatever the valid distinctions between sub-fields of marketing, 3 categories for 2 articles doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge, largely overlapping scope. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose To people with no background in the field of economics it seems to be a synonym. But no, it is indeed a defining difference which notion is used: Market research vs. marketing research — What’s the difference? So Pi314m and RevelationDirect are right: No merge possible! -- Just N. ( talk) 17:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I was OK with a merger but the follow up question is whether we want 3 categories for just 2 articles (or only 1). - RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• The question for this category of companies is not whether the different terms exist but whether companies consistently specialize in one or the other. As there is only one company in the US category which is about a company that specializes in neither of the two, the answer is clearly no. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge there is no clear evidence that the notion that the market/marketing specialization difference is enough to be defining. There is also no justification for having a 3 category tree with just 2 articles total. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters with moustaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Feels like a WP:TRIVIALCAT to me, although I can sorta see that it is sorta-vaguely WP:DEFINING for some. Still - delete. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:NONDEFINING category. These are the type of trivial categories I used to create when I was new to Wikipedia. These characters are not solely notable for possessing a mustache and for most entries, it is not slighty significant to their character such as with Lando Calrissian or Gomez Addams. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ SomeBodyAnyBody05: For characters where having a moustache is more WP:DEFINING to their characters, such as Omni-Man, Ron Swanson and Ned Flanders, would that be fine? Milkine ( talk) 20:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly trivial (and I can't believe Snidely Whiplash isn't here). - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ RevelationDirect: Snidely Whiplash is there. Milkine ( talk) 20:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and WP:NONDEFINING. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete as trivial to most of these characters. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Dominican Republic people of Cantonese descent to Category:Dominican Republic people of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of the Dominican Republic. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in the Dominican Republic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support - Chinese suffices. Oculi ( talk) 00:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support -- Just N. ( talk) 17:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Dutch people of Hakka descent to Category:Dutch people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:Dutch politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Dutch politicians of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of the Netherlands. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in the Netherlands. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Guyanese people of Hakka descent‎ to Category:Guyanese people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:Guyanese politicians of Hakka descent‎ to Category:Guyanese politicians of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of Guyana. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in the Guyana. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Mauritian people of Hakka descent to Category:Mauritian people of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of Mauritius. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in the Mauritius. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Mexican people of Taishan descent to Category:Mexican people of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of Mexico. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in Mexico. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:South African people of Taishan descent to Category:South African people of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of South Africa. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in South Africa. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Surinamese people of Hakka descent to Category:Surinamese people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:Surinamese politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Surinamese politicians of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of Suriname. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in Suriname. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Hakka descent to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:Trinidad and Tobago politicians of Hakka descent to Category:Trinidad and Tobago politicians of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are ethnic Han Chinese people sorted by language group of their ancestors. The latter is rather irrelevant as these people are now nationals of Trinidad and Tobago. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_2#British people by Chinese sub-ethnicities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support. It makes no sense to sort people by the language group of their ancestors. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support The language was likely not maintained by descendants in T&T. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment (applying to this and several others above). I note that my objection to the British precedent was not accepted. This may be appropriate in lands far from China, but there is a considerable diaspora of Chinese from Hokkien (and perhaps other southern provinces) throughout southeast Asia, who do not necessarily speak English and may still speak their specific Chinese dialect. We should not be merging these with Han Chinese. Equally, many emigrants from Hong Kong are Cantonese, speaking that dialect (language) not Han Chinese. All were subjects of the Chinese Empire but that does not make them all the same: Scots are not English (though British) and similar points may be made as to other ethnicities. We normally allow categories with 5 members. In this case I would suggest that we should keep such categories if they have (say) 15 members. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Although it is not the main point of the nomination, most of these categories happen to be smallcats too. Only three of these categories reach between 5 and 8 articles while many contain only one article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:People indicted for crimes to Category:People charged with crimes
• Propose merging Category:People indicted for international crimes to Category:People charged with international crimes

Nominator's rationale: These are mostly overlapping categories. An indictment is a type of criminal charge. So the nominated categories are subcategories of the target categories. There is not much point in keeping the distinction alive in category space, because for categorization purposes I don't think it's that important whether a charge is proceeded on by indictment or a less serious process like complaint, information, or citation. For international crimes the distinction is fairly irrelevant as charges are always pursued on indictment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge -- Indictment is a stage in the criminal process, after charge. The precise procedure will vary from country to country, but charge will cover it all. I would suggest a headnote to exclude those convicted, so that this is for those whose trial is pending, or who died before trial or are fugitives. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It varies by jurisdiction. In some, indictment comes after the charge, but in many, an indictment is the charge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Prisoners sentenced to death to Category:People sentenced to death

Nominator's rationale: These are mostly overlapping categories. The target category is slightly broader than the nominated category, since people can be sentenced to death in absentia, for instance. I don't think there's a good reason for keeping the distinction between these two alive in category space. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge Not worth keeping for a slight difference. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Mental states in Csikszentmihalyi's flow model ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think being in Csikszentmihalyi's flow model is a defining characteristic of Anxiety, Apathy, Arousal, Boredom, or Relaxation (psychology). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Mystical Seven (Missouri)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:TRIVIALCAT)

The Mystical Seven (Missouri) is one of several not-so-secret societies at University of Missouri, in this case they induct 7 people each year. Mere membership is rarely defining and that's the case here: of the 6 biography articles, 2 mention the membership in passing ( 1, 2) and 4 don't mention it at all ( 3, 4, 5, 6). The category contents are now all listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗ plicit 00:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose Deleting Category:Illuminati members

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COP, WP:OR, and WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:TRIVIALCAT)

There's two issues going on here because, as the Illuminati articles explains that this term can refer to several organizations, both real and fictional. About half the articles I looked at, like Jens Baggesen and Rudolph Zacharias Becker, make no mention to the organization so there may be off Wikipedia sources, rumor, or WP:OR involved. The other half were members of a real Bavarian organization but, like most memberships, it's non-defining like with Jacob Friedrich von Abel and Karl Friedrich Bahrdt. None of these articles seemed defined by this (alleged or actual) membership. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. If kept, rename to Category:Bavarian Illuminati members and purge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is fringe material that can only be OR. As the Illuminati were a secret organisation, nobody can determine for sure who were the members, if they existed at all. As nominator explains, it can therefore not be defining. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Nune Yesayan albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with one redirect for an album with no information about it in the target article beyond being part of the artist's discography. Unhelpful category for navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. ✗ plicit 10:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 to Category:People charged under the Espionage Act of 1917
• Propose renaming Category:Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 to Category:People convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917

Nominator's rationale: Category names usually use "people" rather than "persons". ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Persons redirects to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:People. A related category already uses people: ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:People acquitted under the Espionage Act of 1917. A borderline C2C, perhaps. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Rename Clearer, and seems defining to the articles, which are generally not BLP. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Should not US appear in title? Is "of" necessary? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • No and yes. See the article name Espionage Act of 1917. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Most of the contents of Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation doesn't specify a country in the article names. Not sure if that reflects WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a regional bias, or both but it's an issue for WP:RMs- RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Alt rename to Category:People charged under the US Espionage Act of 1917. Otherwise it would be confusing for all users that are not US citizens or historians. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Is there another "Espionage Act of 1917"? Just because a reader is not familiar with the subject when they first see it doesn't mean it needs to be disambiguated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • It's not about disambiguation but to give respect to the fact that English language Wikipedia is global. Non-American users should have orientation at first sight that's about American law history. -- Just N. ( talk) 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • By proposing a disambiguating term you have made it about disambiguation. But in any case, if we start down that path there are plenty of other categories that aren't readily understood by everyone on first glance. We follow the main article name for convenience and consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, we usually categorize by conviction only. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• rename per nom as category names usually use "people" rather than "persons". The rest of the discussion above is not relevant to helping out the name of this category and this law, which was often used for political persecution, not actual acts. Hmains ( talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.