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. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:Indian Rhodes Scholars to Category:Indian degree seeking students in the United Kingdom
• Nominator's rationale This category is a sub-cat of Category:Indian expatriates in the United Kingdom. Some people have expressed the view that students are not actually expatriates. I am not really sure the best course here, but we clearly have people proposing a system that does not make sense. In my mind students who study in one country who then go back to their home country create a cultural bridge, and so the fact that they were in another specific country is going to be specific. I am thinking that in the case of short term times as exchange students it is not worth categorizing by, but in the case of being a degree seeking student the issue is worth categorizing by. I would make similar proposals for other categories if this one works. Alternately maybe we could remove the expatriate parent from this category. What does not make sense at least to me is the attempt to impose one criteria for the parent and a totally different criteria for the child category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per Category:Rhodes Scholars. This is a bizarre nom with a very bizarre suggested name. Expatriate means 'not in the country of birth'. Note that Category:American Rhodes Scholars are also subcatted as expatriates. (See Rhodes Scholar.) Oculi ( talk) 01:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • So in your view do degree seeking students from country A in country B count as country A expatriates in country B? This is my view, but I am trying to see if it is widely held. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • My view is that (a) 'Rhodes scholar' is defining and Category:Rhodes Scholars should be kept, subcatted (as it is) by nationality, and (b) it is reasonable to place Category:Indian Rhodes Scholars as a subcat of Category:Indian expatriates in the United Kingdom. I probably would not support placing other Indian students in the UK individually in expatriate categories as it is probably not defining. (It should be scholars, lower-case.) Oculi ( talk) 13:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, first, the phrase "degree seeking" is not needed. Students are supposed to aim for a degree, aren't they? Second, I would not fancy having a Category:Indian students in the United Kingdom either because it would not be a defining characteristic for anyone who meanwhile made a career after graduation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • A- if it is not defining for other students, why is it defining for these? B- "Degree seeking" is for those who are in a country seeking a degree, instead of those who are in a country on a short term (usually a semester or less) exchange or study abroad program, who in general are seeking degrees at institutions either in their home country or in another country. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • A, then we should have a conversation about deletion of the category, instead of renaming. However, I do not expect any consensus for that. B, ok I see what you mean but without context it remains an odd phrase. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This is a graduate student programme, nearly 120 years old. It happens to have been rather good at picking students who have subsequently become highly notable. Being an (any old) Indian expatriate student in UK would be NN. Precedent might suggest we should listify and delete as an AWARD, but it is an unusual one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You ignore that most of our articles are on people who recieved advanced training in medical and law fields, or other professional levels of training, in Britain, and then returned to India. The fact that they were not at a specific program in Oxford does not in fact show for sure that their training was not impoirtant to their career, it often was. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- Thanks to Oculi we have a very neat 'attorney's speech' for the reasons in detail. And the other appoach of Peterkingiron found even more good reasons. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Zen Buddhists from Northern Ireland to Category:British Zen Buddhists and Category:Buddhists from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Not that the parent categories are well populated. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom & SmallCat.. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom & SmallCat. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:17, 28 December 2021 (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, although I will re-parent some sub-categories and member articles. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Massacres perpetrated by Muslims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose manually merging to Category:Islamic terrorist incidents
• Propose deleting Category:Massacres perpetrated by Jews ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose renaming to Category:Jewish religious terrorist incidents

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Islamic terrorism and Category:Jewish religious terrorism. There's nothing that makes "massacres perpetrated by X" a notable topic, let alone WP:CATDEFINING. These categories are also incredibly POV. Do we have a category Category:Massacres perpetrated by white people? Then why do we have these? VR _talk 16:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose straight deletion, if these categories are not kept they should be merged to, respectively, Category:Jewish religious terrorism and [[:Category:Islamic terrorism terrorist incidents]], and also to Category:Religious massacres since that category has not been nominated yet. An alternative, instead of merging, might be to rename the categories to e.g. Category:Massacres perpetrated by Jewish religious terrorists and [[:Category:Massacres perpetrated by Muslim Islamic terrorists]]. A final point of discussion is whether e.g. the article King David Hotel bombing belongs in the category at all. It is not in the scope of the article Jewish religious terrorism and it does not look like the perpetrators had any religious motives. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  What exactly is the difference between "Massacres perpetrated by Muslim terrorists" and Category:Islamic terrorism (which then has subcategories Category:Islamic terrorism by country etc)? How does one determine whether a terrorist attack is a massacre or not? Also keep in mind that "Islamic terrorism" is not the same thing as "Muslim terrorist". Kurdistan Workers' Party is a designated terror organization that is composed of Muslims, but it is not usually considered "Islamic terrorism" since it is not motivated by religion. VR _talk 18:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• The concept of a massacre is commonly known, I believe, but if I am wrong the whole tree of Category:Massacres should be nominated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Actually, whether an event constitutes a "massacre" is very contentious. But given that we have List of events named massacres, maybe what you mean is moving the category to "Islamic terrorist incidents named massacres"? VR _talk 19:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• This is very verbose and - again - if there is a problem with the concept of a massacre the whole tree should be nominated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• I think you're conflating two things: an event that is called a massacre vs an event that is a massacre. The former is easy to categorize but the latter can be a contentious label. The main article for Category:Massacres is about the former, not the latter. An article not explicitly called "massacre" by RS should be removed from Category:Massacres. VR _talk 02:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• The second issue is that the only difference between violent incidents at Category:Islamic terrorism and Category:Massacres perpetrated by Islamic terrorists will be that the latter incidents have the word "massacre" in them. Can you show that the intersection of Islamic/Jewish terrorism and the use of the word "massacre" is notable, let alone defining? Why don't we also have categories for massacres related to political violence by Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Communist/Far-right/Ecological/anti-abortion/white nationalist perpetrators etc. VR _talk 02:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Not sure why this would be a second issue. You keep worrying about the concept of a "massacre" which implies that the whole tree should be nominated. Or you might first start a CFR about it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment, I changed the merge target to Category:Islamic terrorist incidents, as the appropriate set category. The Jewish category could then be renamed to Category:Jewish religious terrorist incidents in that case. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: I agree with that. Since we are the only two people who've commented so far, should I change the "Propose deleting" part above for both categories? VR _talk 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You may change it for sure, but it is not crucial. The closer of the discussion will read the whole discussion anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I've changed it so as to make it a bit clearer for future comments. VR _talk 18:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• To avoid a misunderstanding: I am not supporting the nomination (neither am I opposing it), I just said: if the categories are not going to be kept then this is the proper way to go (implying otherwise I would oppose). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Massacres perpetrated by Jews ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs): this is entirely about Israel and much more about Israeli nationalism than religion. Two are incidents in the War of Independence, one was probably an attempt to evict Muslims from a multi-faith shrine, the other (not by terrorists) seems to be a prelude to the Sinai War, the Israeli aspect of the Suez Crisis. None concern the Jewish diaspora, which the present name implies. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Peterkingiron: what might be an alternative name in your view? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete these redundant, racist categories. Any suggestion that crimes committed by people sharing ancestry with a racial, ethnic, or religious group are a unique category on account of the ostensible cultural or genetic relation between the perpetrators can only be seen as an expression of bigotry unsuited for Wikipedia. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 11:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• This has nothing to do with shared ancestry, it has to do with religious terrorism motives of the perpetrators themselves. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Given that the relevant categories (e.g., "Islamic terrorism", "Persecution by Muslims", "Jewish religious terrorism", "Judaism and violence", "Massacres committed by Israel", "Zionist terrorism", etc.) already exist, and that the creator of "Massacres perpetrated by Jews" applied it to violent incidents perpetrated by secular Jewish Zionists, your analysis is evidently incorrect. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 11:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete both of these categories. If there is any reliable evidence that terrorist incidents are motivated by religious beliefs or concerns, then appropriate categories could be applied. But the fact that perpetrators of particular incidents are, or are perceived to be, Muslims or Jews is of no relevance. I note that there is no Category:Massacres perpetrated by Christians, which would probably be several times larger than these two categories combined, and which would presumably have been created if the intention had not been to stigmatise Muslim and Jewish minority communities. RolandR ( talk) 00:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• "then appropriate categories could be applied" -> that is exactly why I oppose straight deletion! If the categories aren't kept they should be merged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• The relevant categories already exist. The "Massacres by perpetrator" category does not include any racial, ethnic, or religious groups other than Jews and Muslims, because categorizing solely by race, ethnicity, or religion is a scientifically dubious way to gather information. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 11:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge Category:Massacres perpetrated by Jews with Category:Massacres committed by Israel or Category:Jewish religious terrorism. This is essentially all that category contains, but I may change my mind. Unsure on Category:Massacres perpetrated by Muslims, and I will say that at the moment it seems a necessary category, although I remain undecided. Dunutubble ( talk) 15:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: After checking out Category:Massacres perpetrated by Muslims, I am of the opinion that it smells slightly POV, although I understand this was not the creator's intentions. But it is also not something we should just delete. I believe it should be turned into a Container category as this would be the best way to solve dispute. Dunutubble ( talk) 15:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The misdeeds cannot be attributed to entire religious communities. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt - just like Category:Muslim inventors is being deleted because being Muslim doesn't defines person's creativity, here doesn't defines its propensity to commit crime, or violence - sometimes crime can be committed by Muslim(s) in the name of religion, but what if muslim(s) commit a crime in ethnic or nationalist wars? Delete without Redirect!-- ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 21:13, 17 February 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.

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. ✗ plicit 01:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Heads of state of the Czech Republic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Neither the Bohemian monarchs nor Czechoslovak presidents were ever heads of state of the Czech Republic ( t · c) buidhe 13:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Query Is every President of Foo automatically a member of Heads of state of Foo ? Foo probably changed names between being a monarchy and a republic so it would be a case of PerfectCat. That seems like a bad idea. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Not sure what you mean but the Czech Republic did not exist before 1993; the only head of state of Czechia are the Category:Presidents of the Czech Republic. Kingdom of Bohemia and Czechoslovakia are separate entities. ( t · c) buidhe 17:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment We could make this a container Category:Czech heads of state, with a headnote explaining that it included all predecessors of the present Czech republic, which might be a useful navigation aid. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support' for Peterkingiron's proposal above. If we create this the deletion per nominator would be okay IMHO. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Peterkingiron's rename proposal does not work, because many Bohemian kings were foreigners (not Czech) and some presidents of Czechoslovakia were Slovaks (not Czech). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete with manual merge to selective parent categories. To aid navigation, I have added preceding /succeeding links between the sub cats. If not deleted, rename to Heads of state of the Czech lands. – Fayenatic London 23:08, 16 February 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Syndromes affecting the eyes to Category:Syndromes affecting the eyes and adnexa
• Propose merging Category:Syndromes affecting vision to Category:Syndromes affecting the eyes and adnexa
• Propose renaming Category: Diseases of the eye and adnexa to Category:Diseases of the eyes and adnexa
• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with diseases of the eye and adnexa to Category:Fictional characters with diseases of the eyes and adnexa

Nominator's rationale: Use plural like others in Category:Syndromes by affected organ, but append "and adnexa" per parent Category:Diseases of the eye and adnexa and per contents e.g. optic nerve. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment, in article space it is simply Eye disease. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose renaming "eye" to "eyes", support unifying to simply "of the eye". "Adnexa" just means "fastened to" and is used here to describe all the auxiliary structures in the socket. I don't think much is gained by adding it, except confusion. It seems overly technical to me, and I have a doctorate in one scientific subject and have almost completed another... Simplicity should reign here, and we lose it by focusing overly on accuracy. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment According to Adnexa several organs have them. The target should thus be Category:Syndromes affecting the eye and its adnexa. No view on singular/plural. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Shibbolethink. The usual scientific medical wording is diseases of the eye and adnexa [H00-H59]. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:30, 28 December 2021 (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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Demolished hotels in Portland, Oregon to Category:Defunct hotels in Oregon, Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Portland, Oregon, Category:Hotels in Portland, Oregon, and Category:Demolished hotels in the United States
• Propose merging Category:Demolished hotels in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:Defunct hotels in Omaha, Nebraska, Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Omaha, Nebraska, and Category:Demolished hotels in the United States
• Propose merging Category:Demolished hotels in Chicago to Category:Defunct hotels in Illinois, Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Chicago, Category:Hotels in Chicago, and Category:Demolished hotels in the United States
• Propose merging Category:Demolished hotels in Los Angeles to Category:Demolished hotels in California, Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Los Angeles, Category:Hotels in Los Angeles
• Propose renaming Category:Demolished hotels in Clark County, Nevada to Category:Demolished hotels in Nevada
• Propose renaming Category:Demolished hotels in Atlanta to Category:Demolished hotels in Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: These categories are improperly parented. I fear branching out the correct parent tree would lead to WP:OVERCAT so upmerging these seems like the best option. Some county/city categories are large enough to warrant a rename to state category where more articles can be included. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note for Clark County and Atlanta: if these categories are renamed, the articles still need to be added to merge targets as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't see an overcategorization problem here. Any issues with the parent categories can be fixed. - Eureka Lott 15:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - perceived problems with parenting should be fixed before cfd. I don't see any problem with the first 4. Oculi ( talk) 12:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Most seem well enough populated to keep. Upmerging is usually only an appropriate solution to small categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't see an overcategorization problem here. Any issues with the parent categories can be fixed. And I consent also with Peterkingiron above. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2021 (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.