Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25
November 27 >

November 26

[edit]

Category:Zambian women engineers

[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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Already in Zambian/Guinean engineers and women engineers cats. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2025 (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:Burmese women engineers

[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) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 16:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* Propose merging Category:Panamanian women engineers to Category:Panamanian women
* Propose merging Category:Paraguayan women engineers to Category:Paraguayan women
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2025 (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:Literary collaborations

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 5#Category:Literary collaborations

Category:Christian seminaries and theological colleges by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary precision. These are all new categories and do not particularly help navigation (all the more so since the vast majority of articles have not been moved into these categories). StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shark hunters

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Category:Shark hunters

Montana Grizzlies and Lady Griz cross country

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 04:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale With the 1 article in the coaches Category being upmerged this category will be empty and so we can delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed malformed nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 27 November 2025 (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.

Penn State Nittany Lions cross country

[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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:20, 5 December 2025 (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:Russian Mafia

[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: rename to Category:Russian mafia. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Decap: not a proper name. --Altenmann >talk 20:15, 26 November 2025 (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.

College football coaches in 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: Merge with the additional proposal. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:50, 14 December 2025 (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.

College cross country coaches in the United States second nomination group

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 04:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The original nomination needed some dual merge targets added so, with Johnpacklambert's permission, we worked together to make the updates. All merge targes now include the national coaches category, the school cross country category, and the school coaches category (unless the articles are already in other coaching subcats for that same school). - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support these are too narrow to aid navigation and the revised nomination keeps these biographies in the right category trees. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There will probably be a follow up nomination at some point. There are a few of these College cross country categories that are big enough, but not many. For example Category:Michigan State Spartans cross country which may be one of as few as 10 such teams that actually has an article on the team, has 4 articles spread over the parent and 2 child cats. Once we upmerge the coaches cat we will have 4 articles in 2 categories. There I think we can upmerge the female runners cat to Michigan State Spartans athletes, and applicable more general cross country runners cats, and upmerge the article on the team itself directly to Michigan State Spartans cross country. Cross country and track and field overlap a lot in both athletes and staff, I think there are some people who are in both athlete and coach cats for both track and cross country all at the same institution, and in a few cases that 1 person might be the only in all 4 categories. I think follow up nominations will be done at least in some cases 1 institution at a time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1 coach and 2 cross country runners we have in the Michigan State SpartansCross Country cat are all in the Michigan State track and field cat tree. There we have 18 articles in men's track and field athletes, 7 in eomen's track and field athletes, 5 in coaches and 2 at the base, there is 1 of the coaches in an athletes cat, so that is 29 articles spread across a total of 4 categories. That is a bit splintered but still reasonably. Category:Toledo Rockets cross country only has 1 article at all, and Category:Toledo Rockets track and field has in all 3 articles across 3 categories, between these 5 categories there are 3 articles. David V. Connelly the one cross country coach is in 6 different Toledo Rockets coaches cats plus in the athletic director cat. The 1 other of those 6 that is under populated is the Boxing category where he is the only coach, and there is nothing else under Toledo Rockets boxing besides that 1 article. The boxing cat has also been nominated to be merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2025 (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:Ethnic Armenian people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: They are basically synonyms because we don't distinguish ethnicity and descent in categories, and "ethnic X people" just sounds improper. Any articles about Armenians as an ethnic group would need to be moved to Category:Armenian people (or a new parent titled Category:Armenians or Category:Armenians (ethnic group), per WP:COPSEP) or Category:Armenian diaspora, and will probably already be there. I haven't checked for WP:OCEGRS, since this nomination is only for the categorization of people of Armenian descent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not think "Armenian descent" makes sense for this group at all. Armenian people were a Millet in the Ottoman Empire. These people were viewed by the government as being "Armenian", not just "Armenian descent". Because of how this was applied it is not clear in some cases that the people so designated ever had ancestry in Armenia. The issue is that for a few hundred years there was no Armenian state, just Armenian people. So they were nationals of Iran, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire. Some lived in areas with high concentrations or Armenians, some lived outside those areas, and some felt they were Armenian even if they lived much further away. Then in the 20th-century there was around 1920 briefly an Armenian state, which then got annexed in part by Turkey and absorbed into the Soviet Union. In about 1990 a new Armenian state was created. We need some way to distinguish people who are nationals of the current Armenian state created in 1990, for ethnic Armenian people who lived in various other countries for a broad variety of reasons. The issue is that "descent" mixes the order of things. In general the people is these categories existed before most of the people directly in the Armenian categories, because they existed before the modern Armenian state was created. It is similar to why we do not have Category:Czech people from the Austrian Empire, we have Category:Czech people in the Austrian Empire. In general Category:Czech writers, Category:Czech scientists, etc. are people from the Czech Republic, but there are ethnic Czech people earlier. The same is happening with Armenians. Category:Ethnic Armenian actresses is mainly made up of actresses who were Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire, where there is no widely recognized demonym that applied to the population. "Ottoman" was the ruling group over the Empire, which was also called "Turkey". However with the millet system the people of the empire were divided into "Greeks", "Armenians", "Turks", and a few others groups. To understand why we really cannot just blindly use these names, if the state formed along the eastern edge of the Mediterranean in the late 1940s had chosen the name "Judea" instead of "Israel" we would have another messy category situation where people would be using confusing names. Descent does not make much sense here since by and large the people in the ethnic Armenian categories are generally going to be from earlier than those in the Armenian category. The other problem with descent categories is that they often take in people who are only vaguely seen as belonging to the group. In this case Armenianess is very clearly defined as belonging to a group. This applies to people in the Ottoman Empire, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and in the Soviet Union as well as a few others places. Armenians living in 20th-century Lebanon no more should be in a "descent" named category than we would rename African-American categories to have "descent" in the name. The issue here is that Armenian means 2 different things 1-Nationals of the modern nation state of Armenia and 2-a long standing ethnic group that existed in various areas of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire and Iran in the early-modern and into the modern period. We need a way to separate these two different groups into 2 different categories. Considering that we have articles in 5 plus different descent categories I have a strong impression we have allowed descent to cover very non-defining cases and do not think we should use it in place of the clear ethnic Armenian identity meant to be covered here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means create descent categories, but do not populate them with pre-1918 people and their descendants abroad, leave them in the ethnic Armenian categories. Descent implies one's ancestors had a certain nationality, but there was nothing resembling Armenian nationality before 1918. One might argue that the same applies to the Soviet period, that is up for further discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commrnt the category I was mentioning above is actually named Category:Soviet Armenians. Which is a double demonym Category. It is part of Category:Armenian people by period. It is also in Category:Soviet people by ethnicity which indicates these people are Armenian by ethnicity. So I added it to Category:Ethnic Armenian people. Those 2 categories suggest we are unsure does this mean "People from Soviet Armenia" in which case it is a period in the history of Armenia, or is it Category:Ethnic Armenian people in the Soviet Union, in which it involves people who were ethnically Armenian from anywhere in the Soviet Union. The first Category in theory includes People who were not ethnically Armenian living in the Armenian SSR. Yes these two categories overlap, but there were lots of Armenians living beyond the boundaries of Armenia in the Soviet Union and at least some people in the Armenian SSR who would not have identified as bring ethnically Armenian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename per nom, or even better merge to Category:Armenian fooers. People for whom belonging to the Armenian nation is defining are just called Armenians, not ethnic Armenians. In the same fashion, Dante Alighieri is an Italian writer and Goethe is a German writer, not an ethnic Italian and an ethnic German, even though they were never nationals of a state called Italy or Germany. Many such categories were deleted or renamed in past discussions, such as this, this, this and also this. It's the Armenian Genocide, not the Ethnic Armenian Genocide, and the Armenian Church has never been called the Ethnic Armenian Church despite centuries of existence outside any Armenian state. Nuances of origin, citizenship, ethnicity and nationality will be much better served, with all necessary levels of nuance, with longstanding categories such as People of Armenian descent, Armenian diaspora, Ancient Armenian people, People from the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Armenians from the Ottoman Empire, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic people, etc. Place Clichy (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not analogous to the German or Italian situation. There we have a collection of states that roughly constitute Italy or Germany at vatmrious times. We limit membership in the German or Italian categories to nationals of those states. We do not place people living in the Russian Empire, Great Britain or the Thirteen Colonies in 1765 directly in German categories no matter how German they are. On the other hand all areas of Armenia in 1765 were under the control of Iran or the Ottoman Empire. Because of how Armenianess works we are not limiting these categories to de facto Geography categories like the Italian and German ones where the test is where these people lived. They are purely ethnic categories. The person can live anywhere within at least the Ottoman Empire or Iran and be placed in these categories, and a person who does not ethnically identify as Armenian is not placed in these categories even if they lived in Yerevan. On the other hand we have dozens of articles on immigrants from France to Berlin in the Kingdom of Prussia in the same time frame that we have in German categories. A petson who moved from Tehran to what is now Armenia or from Istanbul to the area of the Ottoman Empire where there was a large concentration of ethnicArmenians did not by doing so become Armenian. There is one Armenian identity for nationals of the state created in 1990 and another for the Armenian ethnic group. These are two different things with the sane name, they are not the sane thing. This is not analogous to the German or Italian situation at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who is "we", but "we" is not very consistent. What the Wikipedia community established is that the prior criterion by which to place articles in categories is defining characteristics. If people are commonly and consistently defined as Armenian, that's what we should categorize them as, not invent that ethnic Armenian moniker. Armenian identity did not magically pop up out of nowhere when the Republic of Armenia was created in 1991, it is not a different thing. The category for topics and identity that exist only outside Armenia proper is Category:Armenian diaspora, we don't need this Ethnic Armenian nonsense. Place Clichy (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring that categorization is supposed to be by like trait not like name. Armenian is used as a designation of an ethnic group. This is different than Armenian as a designation for nationals of the country of Armenia. These are two different groups and we should not put them in the same category just because they happen to have the sane name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are the same group. Armenians in diaspora widely associate themselves with the country, even those whose ancestors came from Western (i.e. Ottoman) Armenia. As an example, Charles Aznavour, regarded as one of the most well-known Armenians, son of genocide refugees, gave support to the new country especially after the 1988 Armenian earthquake to the point that he was granted honorary citizenship and made an ambassador, see Charles Aznavour § Armenian activism. In fact, in the present case the primary use of the word Armenian is probably the ethnic, religious, diaspora meaning, and the modern country is in the minority.
    However you turn it, the lone world Armenian will never be understood to refer exclusively to the post-1991 republic. It is not how sources understand it, and it is therefore not how users will categorize articles. Maybe we could use a solution similar to Georgia and other countries, and use from Armenia (country) or from the Republic of Armenia in this case, to get out of this ambiguity. Place Clichy (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would consider using Armenian as a category for the ethnic group if we were to rename the categories by nationality to be Category:People from Armenia; ; Category:Writers from Armenia; etc. We already use from with neighboring Georgia so we do not use thd demonym in all cases are do use from for connecting people to some present countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

$YEAR elections in Serbia

[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: Triple merge * Pppery * it has begun... 04:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCYEAR: Serbia is a unitary state, so articles in this category are often for nationwide elections or country-wide articles on local elections. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:29, 26 November 2025 (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:Lists of Professional Women's Hocket League players

[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: speedy delete. Nomination withdrawn, C1, CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 17:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category misspelled. All former entries have been moved to correctly-spelled category. MikeVitale 14:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for catching that! I'd been writing the word hockey all day and didnt even notice the misspell haha! HighlandFacts (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category has been emptied. You could withdrawn this and tag this category CSD C1 instead for a faster deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn in favor of CSD under C2A. --MikeVitale 19:28, 26 November 2025 (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.

Milliners

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 14#Milliners

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial humanoids

[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: No consensus to either rename or split. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to a more sensible name. While we're at it, we should discuss if this should only contain individual characters or be split into a separate category for species, because right now it risks becoming a mish-mash if we try to fully populate it given that it straddles two separate categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If split, it would likely be better at Category:Fictional humanoid extraterrestrial characters and Category:Fictional humanoid extraterrestrial species and races. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is part of a hierarchy of 'Fictional extraterrestrial foo' like Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters and Category:Fictional extraterrestrial robots, Lists of fictional extraterrestrial species and races. Katzrockso (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In those cases, it doesn't make sense to put extraterrestrial last. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, extraterrestrial is an adjective so the current name is acceptable and more natural. How about splitting as propsoed by Zxcvbnm? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:51, 26 November 2025 (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:Expatriate landowners in Denmark

[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: Manually merge * Pppery * it has begun... 04:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection is defining. There isn't a parent Expatriate landowners category, and the category creator has a history of making a lot of Denmark specific categories ( User talk:Ramblersen2#Categorization editing guideline link User_talk:Ramblersen2#October_2025). SMasonGarrison 13:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why "landowner" as an occupation would be any less "defining" than other occupations, rather more so. I think it is useful to be able to identify what expatriates entered the "landed class" of a given country. And if we have a category tree of expatriates by country and occupation, it will be a cripled one if some occupations are excluded based on arbitrary arguments. And the fact that similar categories have not yet been created for other countries does not change this.Ramblersen2 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge into the three of Category:Danish landowners by century, landownership is just a secondary characteristic of these people, the intersection with expatriates is not defining at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, it is simply not true to claim that landownership was a secondary occupation. Even if they first made their money in another industry, it was still an important source of income, often the primary one. And, historically, landownership has also been important for other reasons, It was associated with tax exemptions, local jurisdiction etc. If we have "landowners" as an "occupation"-category and "expatriates by nationality and occupation"-categories, I se no argument for claiming that the combination "landowner" and "expatriate" should be particularly undefining.Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments seem more relevant to a discussion about which articles belong in the category than in a discussion about whether the category should be deleted. Historically (especially the longer you go back in time), landownership has been an important occupation and basis for notability. And I think it is useful to highlight where expatriate landowners came from, even more so than most other occupations. Even if some of the articles may not belong in the category, there are plenty of others to be added.Ramblersen2 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents. We do not need expatriate occupation categories for every possible exaptriate occupation. This is a messy category because there are 3 different situations that could be described by this, and it is unclear which we want but they should not all people in one category. The most obvious is people who are not nationals of Denmark who live in Denmark and own land at a level to meet the defintion of the category "landowner" in Denmark. The other 2 are people who are not nationals of Denmark, living in Denmark and owning land not in Denmark at that level, and the 3rd is people who are not nationals of or residents in Denmark, who own land at a level to meet the category "landowners" in Denmark. I am not sure which one is even meant by this category, and I am unsure that any of the three are really a defining group that works to build a category on. This is not something like acting, sports or a few other professions where both the place you do it and you being from elsewhere are defining. There are huge numbers of people who have been absentee landowners in at least colonies they never actually lived in, a few cases never set food in, and of course there at times have been expatriate landowners, often but not always, nobility in one country who lived most if not all their life in another country. For example early 18th-century France there were people who had large estates in the Duchy of Lorraine and in some cases I believe in the Savoyard state who lived for much of their lives in Paris, so in France while they remained nationals of the place where they had lands. So yes, we do have people who owned land in country level divisions they were never in, and we have cases of large scale landowners being expatriates in places where they are not in that place landowners. So all three of these cases do exist, whether they are defining enough to make a category is a different question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see why the category should be any more ambigious than what is the case for other occupations. The people who belong in the category are those who belong in both parent categories. If it is percieved as such, it can always be specified on the Category page what exactly is within the scope of the categpry (that is also seen on plenty of other category pages). And I really don't get why it should be any less defining to be a major landowner in a given country than to practive another occupation. If we have expatriate categories by occupation, we should have it for all major occupations (historically speaking) and landownership is certainly one of them. For a long time, sportspeople were the only occupation that this was down with. I think it is positive that more occupations have been added but to excluse some seem completely random..Ramblersen2 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they're similar but would go the other way and favor eliminate some of the other expatriate by occupation subcats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be any more trivial than, say, expatriate sportspeople? To be able to identify to what extent people from abroad entered the "landed class" of a given country and who they were seem far less trivial to me than weather some random sportsperson played in a given country for a year or two.Ramblersen2 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have not addressed the 3 different ways someone could be an expatriate land owner. I would say in sports categories we have a huge problem with categorizing people by trivial things. It is a huge problem, that will take a lot of effort to correct. The underlying problem is thst in most cases playing just a few months on a team is not defining. Right now we are categorizing people by every team played on, no matter how little time, and we categorize them as expatriate players as long as they were a player for a team in that country. In other cases we have decided that for example just being a visiting student for a few months in a country is not enough to place someone in the expatriate Category. Fixing this would I think require creating a guideline that says that to define someone as an x nation expatriate sportsperson in Y there needs to be certain criteria met. I am not sure CfD would even be the right form to Propose that. What I do know is when we have people in a dozen or more teams played for categories, and then a half dozen or more expatriate categories because these teams in some cases happened to be in various countries we have created a system where we are as likely to categorize by a minor things as by a defining thing. In some cases these teams played for are not even significant enough to the Life and career of the article subject to be mentioned in the text of the article. There are some editors who approach these situations by insisting that basically the issue if if a thing is defining does not matter, and oeiple can be placed in the categories for every team they were ever on, no matter how insignificant or short or otherwise not defining their being on that team was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can then agree that the treshold for what is considered defining is very different for different occupations at the moment. As for the three groups of landowners that you mention, I am affraid that I don't see how group three could end up in the category. As for the two other groups, I am not sure that I think it is important to distinguish between them. But when it comes to group two, it will rarely be a defining characteristic. But if you want to limit the scope to group one (expatriates in a given country who own land in that same country), it would be easy to point that out on the category page. When it comes to group one, I think being a major landowner is a lot more defining than practicing most other occupations (which might just as well have been practiced elsewhere).Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The whole expatriate tree is a mess. It is at the same time littered with a huge number of people who their at least being in the specific country where they were for a short time is not defining. I know this because at one point I categorized a lot of the American diplomats we have articles on basically by every posting they had in their long career, I do not think when someone had a dozen plus postings we need to categorize by every single one. We also have on the other side a whole bunch of articles on people who were immigrants and not expatriates in these categories. So I would say there needs to be much more focus on it being a defining atritbute and correctly defined in expatriate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2025 (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:2-Quinolone ethers at the benzene ring

[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: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:2-Quinolones does not include any ethers connecting to the non-aromantic part of the 2-quinolone group, and even if it did, I now realize that this distinction serves no practical value. Also, the new name would be clearer. (I created this category, but too much time has elapsed for me to use C2E.) Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 07:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I just realized that Category:Benzofuran ethers at the benzene ring and Category:Indole ethers at the benzene ring have the same problem. I think that it's okay to propose getting rid of the "at the benzene ring" part at the end in the same place since new nominations are still going in the same day and no one has responded here yet, but if not, feel free to split this into two sections. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:44, 26 November 2025 (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:Films based on works by Dan Brown

[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: Dual merge * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not at all certain that the Robert Langdon books will be the only Dan Brown adaptations. Deception Point or Digital Fortress are also entirely possible. Besides, Dan Brown never said he would continue to write only Robert Langdon books. Jet Jerry (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2025 (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:Suzanne Collins

[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: Rename; delete Category:Adaptations of works by Suzanne Collins * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 10:36, 26 November 2025 (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:Dan Brown

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 6#Category:Dan Brown

Category:Fictional gunfighters by medium

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4#Category:Fictional gunfighters by medium

Category:Nintendo articles by importance

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 5#Category:Nintendo articles by importance

Category:Women's rights activists from Liverpool

[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: Upmerge * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We really don't have other categories by city for Women's rights activists. Instead of merging, I think we should broaden it to civil rights activitists SMasonGarrison 03:21, 26 November 2025 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_26&oldid=1327952184"