Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 16

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Gardeners in British India to Category:Gardeners from British India

Nominator's rationale: either rename or delete per small cat Mason (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention. This is an example where you'd wish the convention was "in" but it isn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Triple merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent to Category:American people of Canadian descent

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization: 1 article category Gjs238 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Canadian-Jews and Canadians in general are conceptually separate groups. Canadian-Jews being a subgroup of both Canadians, but also Jews in general, as Judaism is generally considered an ethno-religion.

Ortizesp (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple merge to all parent categories so that the article stays in the tree of Canadian-Jewish descent, and nominate the siblings too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support triple merge Gjs238 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Actresses from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trvial intersection Mason (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there anything that can be done to stop @Johnpacklambert from disruptive category creation and removal? Mason (talk) 18:02, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge both to Category:Russian people of the November Uprising * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Russian Empire people of the November Uprising to Category:People of the November Uprising from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: either merge or delete per small cat Mason (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Russian people of the November Uprising which is the best populated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and parent Category:People from the Russian Empire. NLeeuw (talk) 03:53, 18 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. There was no participation, but the proposal is uncontroversial and technically qualifies for WP:C2D. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cincinnati Masters to Category:Cincinnati Open

Nominator's rationale: WTA-neutral language; follow-up to article move discussion. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:07, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. There was no participation, but the proposal is uncontroversial and technically qualifies for WP:C2D. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Indian Wells Masters to Category:Indian Wells Open
• Propose renaming Category:2001 Indian Wells Masters to Category:2001 Indian Wells Open

Nominator's rationale: WTA-neutral language; follow-up to move discussion. "2001 Indian Wells Open" gets 3,600 ghits, "2001 Indian Wells Masters" 2,300. (hope it's ok to bundle together, inlink should work) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An unnecessary and misplaced anchor prevented closure with WP:XfDcloser. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 24 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Murder in films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Murder in films" says in its description that it is for "Films that feature murder as a prominent plot element", which is also what "Films about murder" is. If a film features murder as a prominent plot element, then it is likely about murder, so it should go in "Films about murder", or it isn't about murder and shouldn't go in either category. QuietCicada (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chennai Metropolitan Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary/Over-categorization:

None of the other Metropolitan areas of Tamil Nadu Category:Metropolitan areas of Tamil Nadu have their own categories. Gjs238 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge to Category:Geography of Chennai per WP:C2F. If kept, rename to Category:Chennai metropolitan area per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge as CMA limits have increased five fold from 1197 sq kms to 5904 sq kms. Raghavan(Talk) 16:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge Gjs238 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only article in this category is Chennai metropolitan area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Diplomats from the German Empire to Category:Diplomats of the German Empire

Nominator's rationale: either rename to match how other categories style diplomats, or delete per trivial intersection Mason (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: keep. 14 members. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Engineers from the German Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial cat Mason (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, merge to Category:German engineers. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & populate Surely there were more than 2. The country existed almost half a century in relatively recent history. The last ones will have died in the early 21st century. NLeeuw (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support that if the category was populated. Mason (talk) 19:45, 20 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Expatriates in the German colonial empire to Category:People of former German colonies

Nominator's rationale: overlap Mason (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 04:03, 18 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from the German Empire to Category:People of the German Empire

Nominator's rationale: overlap Mason (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge, "from" is more common. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with the reverse for the reasons you state. However, I think then we should find a way to preserve the history of Category:People of the German Empire as that one is much older 2010-03-25, whereas Category:People from the German Empire is from 2023-02-06 and made by @Johnpacklambert. JPL has been a wikipedian long enough to know that creating overlapping categories is not helpful. Mason (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per Marcocapelle and the Category:People from the Russian Empire precedent and follow-ups. NLeeuw (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the reverse category wasn't tagged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 24 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Alt merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from the Free Imperial City of Hamburg to Category:People from the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg

Nominator's rationale: These are the same thing. Both were created in 1806 Mason (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt merge to Category:People from Hamburg. Note that Free Imperial City of Hamburg ended in 1806, it was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt merge to Category:People from Hamburg per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 04:06, 18 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Nerge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:French Senegal people to Category:French people of colonial Senegal

Nominator's rationale: overlapping cat Mason (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom but I think that Lamine Senghor should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from the British Western Pacific Territories to Category:British Western Pacific Territories people

Nominator's rationale: overlap Mason (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Journalists from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Journalists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:48, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Writers from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial inersection Mason (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Writers by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:50, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Translators from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Translators by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Police officers from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Police officers by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nurses from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Nurses by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Medical doctors from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Physicians by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Librarians from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Librarians by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lawyers from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Lawyers by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Educators from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Educators by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Singers from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Singers by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Musicians from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Musicians by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chess players from the British Empire to Category:Chess players

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Chess players by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Businesspeople from the British Empire to Category:Businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Businesspeople by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople from the British Empire to Category:Sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Sportspeople by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dramatists and Playwrights from the British Empire to Category:Dramatists and playwrights

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Poets from the British Empire to Category:Poets

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Poets by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historians from the British Empire to Category:Historians

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Historians by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scholars from the British Empire to Category:Scholars

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Scholars by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Painters from the British Empire to Category:Painters

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Painters by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Artists from the British Empire to Category:Artists

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Artists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:54, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Pharmacists from the British Empire to Category:Pharmacists

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Pharmacists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:54, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Naturalists from the British Empire to Category:Naturalists

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Naturalists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:54, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Agricultural researchers in British India to Category:Agricultural researchers

Nominator's rationale: trivial Mason (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, Category:Agricultural researchers does not exist and the article is already better off in Category:English bacteriologists. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Supoort delete Mason (talk) 13:46, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Male actors in British India to Category:Male actors from British India

Nominator's rationale: overlap Mason (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Actors in British India to Category:Actors from British India

Nominator's rationale: overlap Mason (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mathematicians from the British Empire to Category:Mathematicians

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Mathematicians by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:54, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Astronomers from the British Empire to Category:Astronomers

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Astronomers by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:54, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scientists from the British Empire to Category:Scientists

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Scientists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Engineers from the British Empire to Category:Engineers

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Engineers by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Academics in British India to Category:Academics from the British Empire

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the single article is already in Category:Academic staff of Presidency University, Kolkata. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Actors from the British Empire to Category:Actors by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Surveyors from the British Empire to Category:Surveyors

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Surveyors by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Academics from the British Empire to Category:Academics

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the single article is already in Category:Academic staff of the University of Mauritius. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bankers from the British Empire to Category:Bankers

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Bankers by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Inventors from the British Empire to Category:Inventors

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Inventors by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:56, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Foresters from the British Empire to Category:Foresters

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection Mason (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Foresters by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:56, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Racially motivated violence against European Americans to Category:Racially motivated violence against white Americans

Nominator's rationale:

The incidents in this category relate to people targeted for violence for being white, not necessarily because of their European ancestry. One of the victims of the Zebra murders was an Arab immigrant from Jordan who was perceived to be white. I see incidents of people being targeted due to perceived whiteness based on skin color and physical features. I don't see incidents of anybody shooting up an Oktoberfest or the Highland games because of a specifically anti-European agenda. "White" is both broader and more accurate than "European" in this context. I would add that a great many people of color in the US have European ancestry, but would very likely not be targeted by terrorists who specifically attack white-skinned people. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, also per White Americans. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Princes of royal blood (Russia) to Category:Princes from the Russian Empire
• Propose merging Category:Princesses of royal blood (Russia) to Category:Princesses from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge, the difference between the two pairs of categories is unclear, an explanation on the category page is lacking. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prince" is just "prince", there are thousands of them, with a variety of surnames[1]. "Prince of the royal blood" (literally "Prince of the Imperial Blood") is a title specifically for members of the Imperial House of Romanov, great-grandsons of emperors and their descendants, children of grand dukes of Russia. See ru:Князь императорской крови. ONLY Romanovs. Their number is strictly limited, about 30 were born between 1885 and 1917, see list List of Princes of Russia (it should be renamed more accurately). --Shakko (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shakko: this is confusing. "Prince" in English language normally means a male member of the royal or imperial family, so obviously they should all be Romanovs in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• what can I do? it is the tradition of terms in English language to translate Russian titles for centuries. 1) There is simply "prince" (knyaz) - there were simply a lot of princes in the Russian Empire, all of them are descendants of medieval princes (heads of state) of the period of feudal fragmentation. After the unification of these small principalities into one Tsardom, they retained the title, but not the power (similar to Germany). Their number is countless, exceeding thousands. It's more like Scottish laird, than a prince from a fairy tale (son of a monarch). 2) There is also "Grand Duke" (velikiy knyaz), a title for the children and grandchildren of the emperors of the Russian Empire. Why they were called “dukes” and not “princes” in English is unknown to science, but this has been going on for centuries. Were only about 70 of them from 1721 to 1917[2] 3) And finally, there is the discussed "prince of the royal blood" (knyaz imperatorskoy krovi). These are children and grandchildren of №2. Circa 30[3]. Simply special title like British Princess Royal. Member of Imperial house of Romanov can't be simply "prince" anyway, he should be "Grand Duke" or "prince of the royal blood". This was the hierarchy of titles in the Russian Empire. And I’m not yet telling you about the Russian princes before 1721 (the emergence of the empire), everything is even more complicated there. --Shakko (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shakko: thank you for this explanation, that is very helpful. In fact, hardly any of the articles in Category:Princes from the Russian Empire or Category:Princesses from the Russian Empire refer to them as princes and princesses of so-and-so. Presumably these categories should be renamed to Category:Nobility of the Russian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• merge is not right. "Prince" (not Imperial) was normal popular title[4]. Also the were counts[5], barons [6] and thousands noble families without titles[7]. But indeed it is up to English wiki, if you wish to not keep them here separated. --Shakko (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Businesspeople from the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg to Category:Businesspeople from Hamburg
• Propose merging Category:Musicians from the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg to Category:Musicians from Hamburg

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between occupation and a short period in which Hamburg was a fully independent state (1806-1871). Dual merge, also to Category:People from the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg if that category is kept, see discussion further below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 14:06, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jewish Canadian anti-racism activists to Category:Jewish Canadian activists

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one person, on an overly narrow intersection of characteristics. While the proposed merge target is fine, I'm not seeing a compelling reason why one person would need a special "anti-racism activists" subcategory to segregate her from all the other Jewish activists. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, very narrow intersection indeed. Initially I thought of a triple merge to all parent categories, but then discarded that idea because the article is not about anti-racism per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Russian and Soviet military radars to Category:Russian military radars and Category:Soviet military radars

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with related categories, categorization at the level of individual state. Disambiguation, because the Soviet Union has 12 successor states, and it’s wrong to imply that the Russian Federation is the only one that counts by maintaining categories that equate the RF and USSR.  —Michael Z. 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Should we also split Category:Women in the Russian and Soviet military and its main article Women in the Russian and Soviet military? I've written a bit about the Russian Federation last year. I've found it to be very different after 1991 from Soviet times, but there were also great differences between the Yeltsin and Putin eras. I would be in favour of such a split. We might even have to split it in three: Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Russian Federation. It's not all the same thing. NLeeuw (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Category:Women in the Imperial Russian military is already split, so a three-way split (Imperial, Soviet, Federation) makes sense. NLeeuw (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PPS: Other follow-ups:

  • Category:Lists of Russian and Soviet military personnel
  • Category:Russian and Soviet military-related lists
  • Category:Lists of Russian and Soviet military units and formations
  • Category:Ethnic Poles in Russia and the Soviet Union
  • Category:Ethnic Lithuanians in Russia and the Soviet Union (I suppose this includes the vast majority of all ethnic Lithuanians during the Cold War, so how useful would a Category:Ethnic Lithuanians in the Soviet Union even be?).
  • Category:Ethnic Ukrainians in Russia and the Soviet Union (same question?)
  • Category:Russian and Soviet Navy bases (I think we should exclude all articles that are merely about places which contain naval bases and are not articles about those naval bases themselves. E.g. Bechevinka is in, but Aden is out).
  • Category:Soviet and Russian fighter aircraft

  Most of the related child, parent or sibling categories are already split into Imperial, Soviet, and Federation eras. NLeeuw (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes to all.  —Michael Z. 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, successors of the Russian empire on their own territory include also Finland and Poland. There are several good reasons to keep all these three historical states separate.  —Michael Z. 05:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, it should become a container category for the Soviet Union and for Russia. When split, a "see also" note should be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I could agree with the latter. NLeeuw (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See also all for all 15 Soviet republics? Picking out one would not be NPOV, by stereotyping people in the category who are not so defined.  —Michael Z. 13:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • See discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree with having a container category that falsely privileges the RF by equating it with the USSR while discounting the existence of former Soviet colonies. Subjects covered include radar installations in Estonia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, including Russian-occupied Ukraine that Russia claims is Russia. It sets a bad precedent to create categories like this: we’re trying to eliminate WP:BIAS while revising categories, not cement it.  —Michael Z. 05:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "discussion above" is now discussion below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nom. No reason why Russian and Soviet should be merged while Ukraine and Kazakhstan are separate -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at CFDWM.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 04:37, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with the 2011 Christchurch earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:OCASSOC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg to Category:People from Hamburg

Nominator's rationale: Hamburg is still officially the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg therefore this category is fairly redudant Mason (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the category appears to be meant for the period 1806-1871 when Hamburg was a fully independent state. We might consider renaming, but I will not oppose the nomination either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be open to a rename to make that clearer. Mason (talk) 20:45, 18 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Russian and Soviet polar explorers to Category:Russian polar explorers and Category:Soviet polar explorers

Nominator's rationale: same argument as [8] this recent split of Category:Russian_and_Soviet_emigrants

>“Russian and Soviet” is not a nationality. People of fifteen nationalities may have been formerly Soviet, and there’s no reason to equate the Russian Federation with the Soviet Union. This should lead to the splitting of subcategories. Mason (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dentists from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small cat and not a meaningful intersection as far as I can tell Mason (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a trivial intersection. Other British Empire occupational categories (except colonial officials) may be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Grand Duchesses from the Russian Empire to Category:Grand duchesses of Russia

Nominator's rationale: overlapping/redudant Mason (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per List of grand duchesses of Russia and the target is going to be speedily moved to Category:Grand duchesses of Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Already moved. Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated to reflect renamed target cat Mason (talk) 20:46, 18 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Princesses from the Russian Empire to Category:Russian princesses

Nominator's rationale: overlapping cat Mason (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, the target contains lots of articles that do not seem to belong there, while the nominated category contains articles that do belong. No objection to a clean-up but that better happens first. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am striking my oppose, and instead support the nomination, because both categories do not contain Romanov princesses. The categories contain noblewomen. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_16#Category:Princes_of_royal_blood_(Russia) further above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Princes from the Russian Empire to Category:Russian princes

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category Mason (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, the target contains lots of articles that do not seem to belong there, while the nominated category contains articles that do belong. No objection to a clean-up but that better happens first. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am striking my oppose, and instead support the nomination, because both categories do not contain Romanov princes. The categories contain noblemen. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_16#Category:Princes_of_royal_blood_(Russia) further above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Avant-garde from the Russian Empire to Category:Avant-garde artists from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: I'm not 100% sure what to do with the category. It should either be deleted/merged as an unnecessary intersection or renamed to be sensical. Mason (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, we do not have Category:Avant-garde artists either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Grand Dukes from the Russian Empire to Category:Grand dukes from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: they're the same category. Notably, they were made by the same person. Mason (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Creator JPL has meanwhile become a bit notorious. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. I'm kinda surprised that I hadn't come across JPL before now. (I'll be going through more of their categories today. And I apologize in advance if I make some merge suggestions that aren't clean, like the princesses category.) Mason (talk) 12:35, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mountain climbers from the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small cat and not a meaningful intersection as far as I can tell Mason (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. --Bduke (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The creator's entire basis for these seems to be that if the person was born at a time when their country was still technically a colony of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country in its own right (i.e. any Canadian who was born before 1867, any Australian who was born before 1901, any New Zealander born before 1907, etc.), then they were suddenly somehow citizens of a single transnational polity — but that's not at all how the British Empire worked: even as "colonies", Canada and Australia and New Zealand still existed, still had our own governments, still had our own demonyms for our own people, and on and so forth, and we were never "just British" at all.
  However, I should note that I have previously caught instances of JPL removing Canadians from any "Canadian X" categories, so that they were categorized only as "from the British Empire" or "from British North America" or whatever other sometimes-redlinked and sometimes-misspelled nonsense he was attempting. So some caution is needed to ensure that nobody gets accidentally denationalized by this because JPL had removed the person from an appropriate Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or whatever else category — a person who isn't in any such category should obviously be readded to one, but this category can otherwise just be removed as unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Municipal police chiefs of the Russian Empire to Category:Police chiefs from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: same reasoning as Category:Russian municipal police chiefs Mason (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed Burkhard Christoph von Münnich from the category, chief of police is not a defining characteristic of that article. Delete the category as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, this category is empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 17 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Diplomats from the Russian Empire to Category:Diplomats of the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping cat Mason (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge feel free to file a separate rename proposal for the target if necessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Politicians from the Russian Empire to Category:Politicians of the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT Mason (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We might want to consider a reverse merge, as "from" seems to be more accurate of a reflection for nationality Mason (talk) 21:36, 19 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Explorers by country of origin to Category:Explorers by nationality

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT Mason (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 16 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chicago Bears draft picks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a non-defining category. See similar CfD discussions on sports draft pick categories here, here, here, and here for examples. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• NBA and NHL teams have categories for their draft picks. I think NFL teams should too. I don't see why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.27 (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. – sbaio 03:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 16 September 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.