Nominator's rationale: Historic Scotland is the old/previous name of Historic Environment Scotland. Atomdestroyers (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains redirects, and no other known existing articles to populate this category with, therefore the category is effectively redundant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These two categories hold the same articles so we just need one. Creating a clear and NPOV name is challenging though since these incidents don't involve being "arrested" in any conventional sense, not all of the people were deported, and none of the agents have been charged or convicted of crimes, so "detained" seemed like the only term left. (Totally open to alternative renames though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I completely agree they should be merged, and am not sure how I ended up creating two different cats that are so similar. I'll go through the diffs to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Second, I agree thatCreating a clear and NPOV name is challenging. I made a suggestion here, but it's even longer.
Third, I'm not sure I agree that the title should get as specific asby U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement vs. something likeby U.S. immigration officials because in some of the instances (e.g. Detention of Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez) the arrest and detention were by FL highway patrol and then a local jail as far as I can tell. In other cases (not in this category, but related) all agencies are denying that they participated (e.g. Rumeysa Ozturk) but there were clearly law enforcement offers acting as immigration officials. What do you think?
Beyond those two examples, even internal ICE functions are outsourced to for-profit operators so GEO Group operates many of their detention centers and Eastern Air Express flies many of their deportations. I'm not sure if it's precise to call employees of other agencies and private companies "immigration officials". But my name is also imperfect since the citizens are all being detained upon behalf of ICE but not necessarily by ICE. (I'm good with either name, or a different one, so long as we go down to one category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems reasonable for maintenance purposes to categorize actual redirects (whether "shortcuts" or not) that are to template namespace, but isn't this already done somewhere, using an rcat template? I don't see any point, though, in trying to categorize "shortcuts" since people disagree on what qualifies. Pretty often I find {{R from shortcut}} on redirects that are not actually shorter than the real page names they resolve to, so I remove that rcat template. I can't see a maint. purpose in trying to categorize redirs by a term people subjectively disagree about or misinterpret, especially since functionally (i.e. for maint. purposes) there is no difference between a "shortcut" redir and a non-"shortcut" redir. Plus, this cat. is simply not used, so even if a purpose could be imagined for it, it's not serving that purpose and is just chaff. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, it is generally far more common to use "populated places" instead of "places" and using both in parallel is merely confusing. Places that are not populated can simply go in geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename and re-parent to the Works tree. Normally "in fiction" categories contain "works set in", "fictional people" and "fictional locations". But in the above case there are only works. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd argue that there are enough differences between people who are described as "anarchist" between centuries that this is actually a useful distinction. I know there's some overlap, but it seems the same to me as 21st-century writers and 20th-century writers. Jessamyn (my talk page) 19:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We divide writers by century because we can go back to antiquity and middle ages. If writing would have started in the 19th century we would probably also not diffuse them by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)00:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on pruning the category? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]