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: Only two categories in here, which is not super helpful for navigation. There's not a parent category for Education fraud, so I think that this category should be repurposed
Mason (
talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support for now, but as a matter of fact I think the whole tree can go. We do not have an article on
Education fraud and in this tree there are only two articles directly about fraud,
Bogus colleges in the United Kingdom and
Trump University which may well be moved to an education controversies category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – it was easy to populate the US sub-category, as there were more education-related articles in its parent about fraud, and others findable by a search. It is the UK category which is weaker, containing articles on regulators (
one of which I have removed) mentioning fraud prevention, rather than on frauds; I suggest that it should be nominated after this for a selective merge, purging regulators, only moving the single article on bogus colleges up to the parent. –
FayenaticLondon 15:17, 3 December 2023 (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.
@
Marcocapelle, if this is the case then I would like to take back my initial "oppose" vote.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy. People who are from Bohemia, a geographical location, is different than people who are Bohemian. Clergy/rabbis/etc. may be German or Ukrainian, or Bohemian and be from Bohemia without being necessarily Bohemian, so the whole thing needs to be clarified at a greater length and with more consultation than is fitting for speedy renaming.
Jahaza (
talk) 02:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom (or else, for rabbis specifically, rename to "in" Bohemia, at least avoiding Bohemian).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:23, 2 December 2023 (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:Arab people of Asian and African descent
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.
Delete per nom. There are significant minorities in most of these countries who do not define themselves as Arabs (e.g. Copts in Egypt, Kurds in Iraq & Syria, Kabyles/Berbers in Algeria) so this category scheme is just wrong.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:34, 3 December 2023 (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: This new name would not only be shorter, but also parallels well with its real-life counterpart,
Category:Spree killers.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom (or if some articles definitely fit "rampage" better than "spree" then split the category).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:34, 2 December 2023 (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:The New Jedi Order
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 and merge those with "Jedi" in the title to
Category:Jedi. Some of the categories are already empty at time of writing.
(non-admin closure) –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 17:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Every category in this nomination contains only 1 article. They are categories for Star Wars book series where the individual book articles have been merged/redirected to the now only remaining article.
Mika1h (
talk) 18:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Could be speedy merged under C2F: One eponymous page if you identify a merge target
Mason (
talk) 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support in principle per nom. But shouldn't they be merged to
Category:Jedi rather than plainly deleted?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:38, 2 December 2023 (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 from the United States by state
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.
I don't agree about a full merge, as "by location" also includes subcats for regions and populated places, but some content can be moved. As for insular areas, they have their own hierarchy, and I would like to modify my nomination to including Puerto Rico and other insular areas where there is not enough content to make an "insular areas" category useful. –
FayenaticLondon 12:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, including the renaming of the many children categories. Note that besides Washington D.C. and present-day territories (which are all located on islands and therefore often referred to as insular areas), US-related categories also include content for historical territories before statehood and the uninhabited minor outlying islands.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support -- This prevents us needing a separate tree for DC and territories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:34, 10 December 2023 (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.
Split -- spies need splitting by nationality and target country. There is also the possibility of a Frenchman spying for Russia against USA, which would require three categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (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 Manchu 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.
Nominator's rationale:merge for now, only one article in the category. This nomination is without objection to recreate the category when multiple articles about fictional Manchu people are published.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I added that page to this category.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 19:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. @
AHI-3000 please explain WHY you oppose.
Mason (
talk) 22:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't agree with this concept of merging every category just because there's only one or two articles in it.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 22:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The fewer articles in a category, the fewer you can navigate to from one article to another in the same topic area. When you want to know something about a topic area it is more useful to have a few dozens of articles in a category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support As overcategorization. Wikipedia policy is to aim for as few categories as necessary, only creating categories when it would assist navigation. Such overspecific categories hinder navigation more than assist it.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 12:33, 3 December 2023 (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 British people by ethnicity
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.
No they don't, this is about characters' own etnicity, not about ancestors' nationality.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
What's the distinction between ethnic ancestry and national ancestry? You're the one who arbitrarily gutted this category of its subcategories.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 19:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
It is not about their ethnic ancestry but about their own ethnicity. A Jew is a Jew by himself (ethnicity), while someone in a Jewish descent category has Jewish ancestors but is not a Jew by himself. That is a big difference.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. This category layer does not improve navigation with just 2 children. Also, ancestry/descent is not the topic here. Fictional characters in fact rarely have an ancestry, although in the case of a select few fictional ancestors may be specified.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge as nominated per Place Clichy. HouseBlastertalk 02:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. This is an unnecessary level, merely housing 3 subcats.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (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 Brazilian people by ethnicity
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 two subcategories. There is no need to merge to
Category:Fictional people by ethnicity because the subcategories are already deeper down in that tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 22:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Not a useful navigation layer with just two children.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:45, 3 December 2023 (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:Iranian lesbians 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 no other categories in the parent, so this doesn't help navigation
Mason (
talk) 05:30, 1 December 2023 (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:Users willing to set up archiving
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:speedily renamed under
WP:G7. –
FayenaticLondon 12:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per standard naming conventions of starting user categories with "Wikipedians".
VegaDark (
talk) 01:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I have no problem with that. I can rename it right now if appropriate. - FlightTime (
open channel) 02:02, 1 December 2023 (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.