Category:People with acquired Guyanese citizenship
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.
Nominator's rationale: I don't think any of the articles in this category actually belong here. They all appear to be birthright citizens (per
Guyanese nationality law#Acquiring Guyanese nationality, having a parent with Guyanese citizenship is enough for citizenship regardless of one's place of birth). Upmerging is not needed, because they are all already in subcategories of
Category:Guyanese people. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Political posters of Italy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:dual merge. –
FayenaticLondon 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose As it is, it's a convenient way to tie it into both European posters and the politics of Italy. It's the politics of Italy that's the much stronger connection. Admittedly it's near-empty, because we generally avoid hosting media on WP, but it's also a good tie to Commons, where we have many more items. I don't see any advantage to this merge, other than a rather pointless nod to SMALLCAT. It also singles out Italy (or is the plan, as usual, to remove all countries here, one by one?) when the other countries have very few images in their similar categories.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dual merge. The category isn't helpful with only a page in it.
Mason (
talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are only a handful of Medieval medical doctors from India. I think we should upmerge for now until there's a critical mass
Mason (
talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Indian in "Indian people" may or may not be associated the modern Republic of India.
185.104.63.112 (
talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand that point you are trying to make. No one is saying these doctors are from the modern Republic of India.
Mason (
talk) 21:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Indian people by century feeds ultimately to Category:Indian people and thereupon Category:India (and not any other modern-day successors). Are these physicians Indian if we are to equate India with the ROI?
185.104.63.112 (
talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, so I think I now understand what's happening with your dispute over Hong Kong versus China. That's not how nationality works for nesting. So there's no built-in assumption with categories that people nested in India are necessarily citizens of the modern nation of India.
Mason (
talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per nomination and change Indian to South Asian.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 11:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Renaming Indian to South Asian would require a broader discussion. The current nomination is about a much smaller issue.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like one of the entries is about a doctor who was Bengali.
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
So what? All Bengali people were Indian people until 1947. It is not a mistake that
Chakrapani Datta is currently in Category:11th-century Indian people.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with the alternative target.
Mason (
talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional characters by political orientation
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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection dual upmerge; the category description is part of the job of being an academic. The description says says: "Indian scientists who contribute their scientific publications, among others in scientific journals and magazines, in biology, chemistry and physics, and so on. authors who write scientific books etc, may be categorized in the related scientific fields at Category:Indian science writers."
Mason (
talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just delete, articles are already in more specific academics categories if applicable and ought to be in
Category:Indian science writers if that is applicable. If anyone wants to volunteer to check more than 400 articles manually in order to find very few articles that aren't properly categorized yet then by all means, but I don't think we should make that a requirement.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Good point. Delete is fine with me.
Mason (
talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Welsh bisexual people by occupation
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (underpopulated) occupation in here, which is not helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:War criminals by nationality
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.
Nominator's rationale: These are the same thing. Am I missing something? If I'm not, I'm happy to add the rest of the categories to the list.
Mason (
talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Im ok with keeping.
Mason (
talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:LGBT asexual people
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.
Support a merger as well. The fact these were created WITHOUT much discussion is deeply unfortunate and needs to be reversed. I would also say that the said user needs to be warned.
Historyday01 (
talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison No, they aren't. There are plenty of asexuals who identify also as lesbian, gay, bi, or transgender. There are plenty of asexuals who identify as cis and heteroromantic / straight. Wikipedia should not erase queer asexuals. Being both queer and asexuals is a non-trivial intersection, a minority within a minority. There's a reason that terms like homoromantic and biromantic are used in the asexual community; because asexuals queers exist. Likewise, it is flat out false that all intersex people are LGBT. There are plenty of intersex people who identify as cisgender heterosexuals. Being both intersex and LGBT is likewise a meaningful and defining intersection of two oppressed identities.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Seconding this. I've gone through and checked, and all the members of the "Asexual gay men" category are already in other branches of the "Gay men" category tree, so they only need to be merged to "Asexual men"
ForsythiaJo (
talk) 20:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep asexual gay men, merge the rest, per Marco. --
MikutoHtalk! 23:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is "Keep asexual gay men" in line with what Marco says? A triple intersection like this is a tough sell under EGRS.
Mason (
talk) 00:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep is not in line with what I said.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I misread and confused with another commenter in the intersex thread saying "...with exception of...". Anyways it's not a triple intersection essentially, since both identities can complement each other. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, already covered by LGBTQIA terminology and shouldn't be othered in the category trees.
Suonii180 (
talk) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your error stems from the misunderstanding that is how we consider LGBT as encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus. It just hasn't been renamed because consensus for what to rename it to (LGBT vs LGBTQ vs LGBTQ+ and so on) has been difficult (you can find a whole lot of history of rename discussions at
LGBT.
Since Asexual, Aromantic and and Intersex are inherently part of that community umbrella, it is redundant to say that someone who is Asexual is also LGBTQIA+ with a different category, hence the categories you created misrepresent this and imply that they were not already part of the umbrella by othering them out.
Raladic (
talk) 14:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, per nom assuming the nominator meant to say "asexual" and not "intersex" (AFAICT all of the categories listed above are about "asexual", not "intersex"); in any case, I support ditching the weird "LGBT asexual" categories (either merging them per nom, or just removing them if the articles are already better categorized in other ways as Marcocapelle suggests).
-sche (
talk) 02:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:LGBT aromantic people was an empty category due to be deleted on Sunday. Why did you make it part of this CFD discussion when it was already going to be deleted? Did you not see the CSD tag on the page? LizRead!Talk! 07:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose People who "who reject a sexual preference label" are very explicitly not defining themselves as LGBT, so that subcat doesn't belong in the LGBT category. Second, not all asexuals identify as L, G, B or T. Plenty of asexuals are cisgender and identify as straight or heteroromantic. Erasing queer asexuals is homophobic and transphobic. Being both queer and asexual is a relevant intersection.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please see the above comment by
Raladic "LGBT [i]s encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus." No one is erasing queer people or asexual people with these categories. As a queer person, I appreciate your concern about representation. However, I think calling the current category homophobic and transphobic is missing the point.
Mason (
talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison We could avoid the debate over whether all asexuals and all intersex people are LGBT by merging the LGBT asexuals and LGBT intersex people categories, but keeping the categories for people who specifically identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. As a non-heterosexual and non-cisgender member of the LGBTQ community, representation is indeed my concern. Thank you. Although, wouldn't people who reject a label by definition also be rejecting an LGBT label?
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 22:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your rhetorical questions.
Mason (
talk) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison There's a single question. Why should people who reject a label be labeled as LGBT, per your baffling insistence that no label = LGBT? That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose a merger, but would be fine with simply deleting the "by sexuality" category. I can't support a merger, because the categories, as named, have different scopes, and I'm not talking about the question of whether LGBT includes B, or L, or A, or whatnot, I'm talking about the other category: heterosexuality (for example) is a sexuality, but not (in most cases) "LGBT", so "Wikipedians by sexuality"—as presently named—is scoping itself to somethng broader than "LGBT Wikipedians". However,
"Heterosexual Wikipedians" has been deleted for not being related to improving articles, and "Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label" says (for better or worse) that it's only for LGBT-aligned people, so I see that there's nothing but LGBT sexualities to go in the "by sexuality" category, making it useless/redundant to the "LGBT Wikipedians" category, so I am fine with just deleting the "by sexuality" category.
-sche (
talk) 02:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
-sche:in this case, technically, a merger and a deletion is almost the same, because all subcategories except the last one are already in the target. So deletion in contrast to merge just translates as "don't put Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label under
Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Transgender women by sexual orientation
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 (in the updated nomination).
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, the first two are redundant category layer with only a few subcategories. The last is an odd mix of very unrelated subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is defining. There's no reason to erase gay/lesbian and bi people within the trans community. Being both queer (sexually) and trans is a double minority. It is relevant and defining, not a trivial intersection.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No one is erasing being both a gender and sexual minority. The merging of the category places both elements on equal footing in the main category rather than isolating each.
Mason (
talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing is erased, people can be part of multiple, separate categories as is already the case.
Raladic (
talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - the
genocidal massacre article doesn't offer a firm number-based benchmark and it could be rightfully stated that any sizeable massacre is genocidal. As such, that categorization also opens the gates for
original research.
Brandmeistertalk 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. All content is also somewhere else in the tree of
Category:Massacres so a merge is not needed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Sexism
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory each.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose:
Category:Sexism by country in general provides easy navigation for related article per country. Having one article in a cat is not a solid ground for merger or deletion especially as most of these countries in the nom has very low coverage here, which can be improved rather than erased. In general I do not think the merger will improve anything but will limit the reader access to the entries from this countries at
Category:Sexism by countryFuzzyMagma (
talk) 10:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wollaton Wagonway
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Conservative" has a party-political meaning in the United Kingdom and is therefore an inappropriate description for what is known as Masorti Judaism in the UK. For instance, in the bio on Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman, who is a prominent member of Masorti UK, he should be categorised as a British Conservative Jew, but that doesn't sit easily with him being also a prominent member of the British Labour Party.
Headhitter (
talk) 09:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I note that main article
Conservative Judaism says Conservative Judaism (known as Masorti Judaism outside
North America). The UK is outside North America, so Masorti Judaism makes sense for this catname.
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Eastern European diaspora 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.
Support per nom.
-sche (
talk) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indo-Bangladesh joint production films
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.
Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a slightly different name of a category previously deleted per
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Category:American-Canadian joint production. Films that are joint productions of more than one country are certainly categorized for each relevant country on its own, but do not get special "X+Y joint production" categories -- since there are close to 200 countries in the world and all of their film industries engage in some degree of multinational coproduction with other countries' film industries, scaling this out to its logical endpoint would require the creation of between 30 to 40 thousand categories for every possible combination of two countries. And then we would have to start catting for three-country, four-country and five-country combos too, which is just an untenable nightmare.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, per nom, and joint production is also a trivial characteristic of a film.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Academics of the College of the Resurrection
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.
Comment. But the parent category is
Academics by university or college in England. Staff has a *very* different meaning. From looking at the contents, these people are academics. If anything, I think that other categories should be renamed to reflect that these folks are academic staff/faculty.
Mason (
talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I update my vote to oppose.Mason (
talk) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article move. Article's name is now 2023 Al Haouz earthquake.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, redundant category layer, there is nothing in the category but the main article and the above subcategory. If kept of course rename, then it is a simple matter of
WP:C2D.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Rename or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment If deleted, it'll leave the subcat as the only one without a main category. But I'm still for renaming. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 23:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The subcat still has three other parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More participation would be very much appreciated :) If there is no further participation by next week, I think a rename (per
WP:C2D) with
no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion is the appropriate close. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename. I think that there's now just enough to support a category, but I don't feel strongly.
Mason (
talk) 19:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People with acquired Guyanese citizenship
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.
Nominator's rationale: I don't think any of the articles in this category actually belong here. They all appear to be birthright citizens (per
Guyanese nationality law#Acquiring Guyanese nationality, having a parent with Guyanese citizenship is enough for citizenship regardless of one's place of birth). Upmerging is not needed, because they are all already in subcategories of
Category:Guyanese people. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Political posters of Italy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:dual merge. –
FayenaticLondon 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose As it is, it's a convenient way to tie it into both European posters and the politics of Italy. It's the politics of Italy that's the much stronger connection. Admittedly it's near-empty, because we generally avoid hosting media on WP, but it's also a good tie to Commons, where we have many more items. I don't see any advantage to this merge, other than a rather pointless nod to SMALLCAT. It also singles out Italy (or is the plan, as usual, to remove all countries here, one by one?) when the other countries have very few images in their similar categories.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dual merge. The category isn't helpful with only a page in it.
Mason (
talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are only a handful of Medieval medical doctors from India. I think we should upmerge for now until there's a critical mass
Mason (
talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Indian in "Indian people" may or may not be associated the modern Republic of India.
185.104.63.112 (
talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand that point you are trying to make. No one is saying these doctors are from the modern Republic of India.
Mason (
talk) 21:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Indian people by century feeds ultimately to Category:Indian people and thereupon Category:India (and not any other modern-day successors). Are these physicians Indian if we are to equate India with the ROI?
185.104.63.112 (
talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, so I think I now understand what's happening with your dispute over Hong Kong versus China. That's not how nationality works for nesting. So there's no built-in assumption with categories that people nested in India are necessarily citizens of the modern nation of India.
Mason (
talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per nomination and change Indian to South Asian.
121.202.28.169 (
talk) 11:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Renaming Indian to South Asian would require a broader discussion. The current nomination is about a much smaller issue.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like one of the entries is about a doctor who was Bengali.
61.244.93.97 (
talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
So what? All Bengali people were Indian people until 1947. It is not a mistake that
Chakrapani Datta is currently in Category:11th-century Indian people.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with the alternative target.
Mason (
talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional characters by political orientation
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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection dual upmerge; the category description is part of the job of being an academic. The description says says: "Indian scientists who contribute their scientific publications, among others in scientific journals and magazines, in biology, chemistry and physics, and so on. authors who write scientific books etc, may be categorized in the related scientific fields at Category:Indian science writers."
Mason (
talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just delete, articles are already in more specific academics categories if applicable and ought to be in
Category:Indian science writers if that is applicable. If anyone wants to volunteer to check more than 400 articles manually in order to find very few articles that aren't properly categorized yet then by all means, but I don't think we should make that a requirement.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Good point. Delete is fine with me.
Mason (
talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Welsh bisexual people by occupation
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (underpopulated) occupation in here, which is not helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:War criminals by nationality
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.
Nominator's rationale: These are the same thing. Am I missing something? If I'm not, I'm happy to add the rest of the categories to the list.
Mason (
talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Im ok with keeping.
Mason (
talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:LGBT asexual people
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.
Support a merger as well. The fact these were created WITHOUT much discussion is deeply unfortunate and needs to be reversed. I would also say that the said user needs to be warned.
Historyday01 (
talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison No, they aren't. There are plenty of asexuals who identify also as lesbian, gay, bi, or transgender. There are plenty of asexuals who identify as cis and heteroromantic / straight. Wikipedia should not erase queer asexuals. Being both queer and asexuals is a non-trivial intersection, a minority within a minority. There's a reason that terms like homoromantic and biromantic are used in the asexual community; because asexuals queers exist. Likewise, it is flat out false that all intersex people are LGBT. There are plenty of intersex people who identify as cisgender heterosexuals. Being both intersex and LGBT is likewise a meaningful and defining intersection of two oppressed identities.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Seconding this. I've gone through and checked, and all the members of the "Asexual gay men" category are already in other branches of the "Gay men" category tree, so they only need to be merged to "Asexual men"
ForsythiaJo (
talk) 20:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep asexual gay men, merge the rest, per Marco. --
MikutoHtalk! 23:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is "Keep asexual gay men" in line with what Marco says? A triple intersection like this is a tough sell under EGRS.
Mason (
talk) 00:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep is not in line with what I said.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I misread and confused with another commenter in the intersex thread saying "...with exception of...". Anyways it's not a triple intersection essentially, since both identities can complement each other. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, already covered by LGBTQIA terminology and shouldn't be othered in the category trees.
Suonii180 (
talk) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your error stems from the misunderstanding that is how we consider LGBT as encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus. It just hasn't been renamed because consensus for what to rename it to (LGBT vs LGBTQ vs LGBTQ+ and so on) has been difficult (you can find a whole lot of history of rename discussions at
LGBT.
Since Asexual, Aromantic and and Intersex are inherently part of that community umbrella, it is redundant to say that someone who is Asexual is also LGBTQIA+ with a different category, hence the categories you created misrepresent this and imply that they were not already part of the umbrella by othering them out.
Raladic (
talk) 14:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, per nom assuming the nominator meant to say "asexual" and not "intersex" (AFAICT all of the categories listed above are about "asexual", not "intersex"); in any case, I support ditching the weird "LGBT asexual" categories (either merging them per nom, or just removing them if the articles are already better categorized in other ways as Marcocapelle suggests).
-sche (
talk) 02:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:LGBT aromantic people was an empty category due to be deleted on Sunday. Why did you make it part of this CFD discussion when it was already going to be deleted? Did you not see the CSD tag on the page? LizRead!Talk! 07:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose People who "who reject a sexual preference label" are very explicitly not defining themselves as LGBT, so that subcat doesn't belong in the LGBT category. Second, not all asexuals identify as L, G, B or T. Plenty of asexuals are cisgender and identify as straight or heteroromantic. Erasing queer asexuals is homophobic and transphobic. Being both queer and asexual is a relevant intersection.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please see the above comment by
Raladic "LGBT [i]s encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus." No one is erasing queer people or asexual people with these categories. As a queer person, I appreciate your concern about representation. However, I think calling the current category homophobic and transphobic is missing the point.
Mason (
talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison We could avoid the debate over whether all asexuals and all intersex people are LGBT by merging the LGBT asexuals and LGBT intersex people categories, but keeping the categories for people who specifically identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. As a non-heterosexual and non-cisgender member of the LGBTQ community, representation is indeed my concern. Thank you. Although, wouldn't people who reject a label by definition also be rejecting an LGBT label?
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 22:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your rhetorical questions.
Mason (
talk) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison There's a single question. Why should people who reject a label be labeled as LGBT, per your baffling insistence that no label = LGBT? That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose a merger, but would be fine with simply deleting the "by sexuality" category. I can't support a merger, because the categories, as named, have different scopes, and I'm not talking about the question of whether LGBT includes B, or L, or A, or whatnot, I'm talking about the other category: heterosexuality (for example) is a sexuality, but not (in most cases) "LGBT", so "Wikipedians by sexuality"—as presently named—is scoping itself to somethng broader than "LGBT Wikipedians". However,
"Heterosexual Wikipedians" has been deleted for not being related to improving articles, and "Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label" says (for better or worse) that it's only for LGBT-aligned people, so I see that there's nothing but LGBT sexualities to go in the "by sexuality" category, making it useless/redundant to the "LGBT Wikipedians" category, so I am fine with just deleting the "by sexuality" category.
-sche (
talk) 02:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
-sche:in this case, technically, a merger and a deletion is almost the same, because all subcategories except the last one are already in the target. So deletion in contrast to merge just translates as "don't put Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label under
Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Transgender women by sexual orientation
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 (in the updated nomination).
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, the first two are redundant category layer with only a few subcategories. The last is an odd mix of very unrelated subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is defining. There's no reason to erase gay/lesbian and bi people within the trans community. Being both queer (sexually) and trans is a double minority. It is relevant and defining, not a trivial intersection.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No one is erasing being both a gender and sexual minority. The merging of the category places both elements on equal footing in the main category rather than isolating each.
Mason (
talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing is erased, people can be part of multiple, separate categories as is already the case.
Raladic (
talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - the
genocidal massacre article doesn't offer a firm number-based benchmark and it could be rightfully stated that any sizeable massacre is genocidal. As such, that categorization also opens the gates for
original research.
Brandmeistertalk 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. All content is also somewhere else in the tree of
Category:Massacres so a merge is not needed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Sexism
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory each.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose:
Category:Sexism by country in general provides easy navigation for related article per country. Having one article in a cat is not a solid ground for merger or deletion especially as most of these countries in the nom has very low coverage here, which can be improved rather than erased. In general I do not think the merger will improve anything but will limit the reader access to the entries from this countries at
Category:Sexism by countryFuzzyMagma (
talk) 10:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wollaton Wagonway
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Conservative" has a party-political meaning in the United Kingdom and is therefore an inappropriate description for what is known as Masorti Judaism in the UK. For instance, in the bio on Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman, who is a prominent member of Masorti UK, he should be categorised as a British Conservative Jew, but that doesn't sit easily with him being also a prominent member of the British Labour Party.
Headhitter (
talk) 09:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I note that main article
Conservative Judaism says Conservative Judaism (known as Masorti Judaism outside
North America). The UK is outside North America, so Masorti Judaism makes sense for this catname.
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Eastern European diaspora 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.
Support per nom.
-sche (
talk) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indo-Bangladesh joint production films
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.
Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a slightly different name of a category previously deleted per
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Category:American-Canadian joint production. Films that are joint productions of more than one country are certainly categorized for each relevant country on its own, but do not get special "X+Y joint production" categories -- since there are close to 200 countries in the world and all of their film industries engage in some degree of multinational coproduction with other countries' film industries, scaling this out to its logical endpoint would require the creation of between 30 to 40 thousand categories for every possible combination of two countries. And then we would have to start catting for three-country, four-country and five-country combos too, which is just an untenable nightmare.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, per nom, and joint production is also a trivial characteristic of a film.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Academics of the College of the Resurrection
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.
Comment. But the parent category is
Academics by university or college in England. Staff has a *very* different meaning. From looking at the contents, these people are academics. If anything, I think that other categories should be renamed to reflect that these folks are academic staff/faculty.
Mason (
talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I update my vote to oppose.Mason (
talk) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article move. Article's name is now 2023 Al Haouz earthquake.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, redundant category layer, there is nothing in the category but the main article and the above subcategory. If kept of course rename, then it is a simple matter of
WP:C2D.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Rename or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment If deleted, it'll leave the subcat as the only one without a main category. But I'm still for renaming. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 23:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The subcat still has three other parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More participation would be very much appreciated :) If there is no further participation by next week, I think a rename (per
WP:C2D) with
no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion is the appropriate close. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename. I think that there's now just enough to support a category, but I don't feel strongly.
Mason (
talk) 19:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.