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 18:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Civil parishes in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, the fact that counties are called "parishes" in Louisiana does not make it meaningful to start a parallel tree next to the counties tree. It is just a matter of naming, not of substance. Of course it is perfectly fine when the subcategory keeps it current name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is follow-up on a pending discussion with User:Laurel Lodged and User:Sionk. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is one of the new categories created before consensus has been reached in the ongoing CfD discussion. Louisiana's parishes are parishes in name only, but Counties in actuality. They should be categorised as US state counties. 'Civil parishes' are the lowest level of local government administration in England only. Sionk (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply 1st 2nd 3rd 4th...does it really matter? What they have in common is that they are all areas of civil administration. That is, they are not areas of ecclesiastical administration. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per name of all articles in the category. Portuguese civil parishes have a Portuguese category name: they are still parented to civil parishes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Counties of the USA aren't parishes of Portugal. Are you suggesting they are?! Sionk (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! That really would be funny. No, Sionk, it's more of an analogy. Like Category:Death care companies of the United States, despite not having funeral in its name, it's nonetheless parented to Category:Funeral-related companies. They are essentially the same thing. So a civil parish is obviously a civil parish. But if you want, you can also parent it to counties. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A fourth tier of Portuguese administration isn't an equivalent of a second tier of US administration. Sionk (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this nomination succeds, then the contents will be parented back to Category:Parishes in the United States. This also includes ecclesiastical parishes. Explain to me how a civil administration is equivalent to an ecclesiastical administration. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason you've created a Category:Church parishes in the United States, so this wouldn't be a huge problem. Though the whole 'parish' structure is a bit of a confusing mess, whatever the outcome. Sionk (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this nomination succeeds, I will also nominate Category:Parishes in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a tacit admission that the nom as proposed would result in an illogical categorization? Suggest nom withdraws and reframes the proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already an illogical categorization we're dealing with, hence this CfD nomination. Sionk (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Eliminate this level -- Louisiana (uniquely) calls parishes what in other states are counties. This is a variety of categorisation by shared name (which we do not like). The status of civil parishes in England or Portugal has nothing to do with this question. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be verified that only Louisiana parishes are in the category if it is deleted. I believe there historically some civil parishes in other areas of the US that were functionally equivalent to a township and/or unincorporated village, rather than a county. These entries, and any lingering contemporary parishes (if such entities exist) should be treated separately from Louisiana parishes. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That may well be the case but it leaves matters unchanged because we are not categorizing based on an accidental nameshare (of "parish", in this case) for fundamentally different concepts. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Revised Keep: Counties in Louisiana are called parishes due to its unique civil law system derived from it's time as a French colony. Civil parishes in the US has only one entry/subcategory, because Louisiana is sui generis in this regard. Including it in the series of civil parishes by country is appropriate. If necessary, Civil Parishes in US could be redirected to Parishes in Louisiana, with a note in the category about this unique arrangement. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That does not address objections e.g. from Peterkingiron that the word "parish" has a completely different meaning in Louisiana (namely county) than it has in other countries (namely village, or alike). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that @Peterkingiron: objection is valid. It's merely saying that a parish in Louisiana is a 2nd level of civil administration while in country Foo it is a 3rd level civil administration while in country Bar it is 4th level of civil administration. Who cares if it's 2nd, 3rd or 4th? They are all essentially levels of civil administration. As such, they need to be separated from entities that, manifestly, have nothing to to with civil administration (i.e. ecclesiastical administration). Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the answer to "Who cares?" is people who think we shouldn't be categorising things purely because they share a similar name. Sionk (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Louisiana was divided into civil/ecclesial parishes, no different than a province in any other French or Spanish colony being divided into territorial parishes. As a US territory and later state, administrative divisions were created along parish lines, and retained the title of parish in the constitution. The parishes of New Orleans are thus a third level of governments to the United States, no different than a civil parish being a "third/fourth" level below the central government anywhere else. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the above silliness aside, this category only contains one subcat and can't possibly contain any more so proivdes no useful navigation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:46, 1 November 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:African-American Catholic consecrated religious to Category:African-American Roman Catholic consecrated religious

Nominator's rationale: consistency with existing pervasive usage of "Roman Catholic" category hierarchy and allow future expansion into "Eastern Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic", etc. categories. Elizium23 (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, a split by particular church within the Catholic Church results in very narrow intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - who are these? There is no Category:American Catholic consecrated religious and no other category includes "consecrated religious": diff. Delete unless another parent can be found and a definition provided. Oculi (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good question. Presumably it is an additional category layer for monks and nuns together, but we do not have that elsewhere, see e.g. Category:Catholic religious workers. Agree with deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The unfortunately named "Catholic religious workers" does not use "religious" in the same sense as the category under discussion. In the technical sense, "(consecrated) religious" does mean monks, nuns, sisters, brothers, any man or woman who has taken religious vows in an institute. A religious man may or may not be ordained to some rank. Outliers would include consecrated virgins and hermits, who may be diocesan or some other status, rather than in a religious institute, but consecrated nonetheless. Non-religious includes diocesan (secular) clergy, the laity, etc. "Catholic religious workers" category seems to encompass anyone serving the Church in an official capacity, not merely as a consecrated religious person. Elizium23 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, the phrase "religious worker" in the category tree is used as a very broad term across all religions and denominations. But how does that impact this nomination in your opinion? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, "Roman Catholic" category namings are apparently a relic from when the Catholic Church page was named "Roman Catholic Church". That has since been amended, most likely because the Church does not officially use that title. natemup (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The vast tendrils of hierarchical categories are firmly intertwined as "Roman Catholic" "Byzantine Catholic" "Syro-Malabar Catholic" "Eastern Catholic" disambiguations, because these are useful adjectives that you've been on a tirade to erase from the encyclopedia, they actually conveyed information until you ripped it out as if it is some barrier or stigma, "Roman Catholic" in category space denotes Latin Church members, entities and qualities, as opposed to other sui iuris churches which you steadfastly ignore. The 23 Eastern sui iuris Catholic Churches have equal dignity, equal right to exist, and the right not to be sidelined by a crusade against the "Roman" adjective. Elizium23 (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that from a scholarly perspective rather than that of the true believer many of the various Anglican groups are also catholic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody denies that the particular churches have a "right to exist", but they are all (including the Latin Church) bodies of the Catholic Church. It is one organization. We do not categorize German Lutherans by regional subdivisions either, while the latter are more independent than the Catholic particular churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. That idea that I'm on a tirade against anything here is purely a figment of the OP's imagination. I am a former Eastern Catholic, after all. And never once on this site have I seen the phrase "Roman Catholic" wikilinked to the actual page for the Latin Church. People almost exclusively use it as shorthand for "Catholic Church", which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As is "Roman Catholic" for "Latin Catholic", for that matter. As literally seen in a comment above, "Roman Catholic" as a descriptor is a stubborn holdover from Anglican polemics. natemup (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Roman Catholic" as a descriptor is a phrase which has been wholeheartedly embraced by many Latin Church dioceses, parishes, and other entities who have incorporated it into their official names and communications. If you prefer to consider it a "stubborn holdover" then that is personal (or perhaps applies to the organization that is paying you to edit Wikipedia,) and not an encyclopedic consideration. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a technical term in those cases of Latin Church dioceses, and not one that is well known or determinative. Moreover, many or most dioceses *don't* include "Roman" in their regular communications, for obvious reasons. But that's all irrelevant, since the topic had a hand does not concern the Latin Church specifically (there are currently no Wikipedia pages of Eastern Catholic African Americans). "Roman Catholic" as shorthand for "Catholic" is unofficial, ambiguous, and in many cases misleading or intentionally obfuscatory. It should not be used in Wikipedia categories. Also, no one pays me to edit Wikipedia, but the accusation is flattering. natemup (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah so you're in this to WP:RGW Elizium23 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a matter of RGW but a matter of ambiguity, "Roman" Catholic may refer to the Catholic Church or to the Latin Church, dependent on context. In the category tree it is exclusively used for the latter, but that is not representative for mixed usage in common language. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But yet it seems futile to try to change the status quo because of how deeply it is ingrained in said category system, or instead of changing the status quo, just kind of littering it with incongruent category trees instead. Elizium23 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, no opinion about the various categories of African-American [Catholic/Roman Catholic] [X], but C vs RC should be consistent within this category tree if kept. Recommend these individual entries be closed a consolidated be discussion be created for the category tree. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:Crystal. If, in the future, sufficient counts of African-American Eastern Catholics emerge, then create it. Until then, leave it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- In the light of past racial prejudice and segregation it is likely that being a Black Catholic religious may notable in a way that being a white one is not. It is unnecessary to add Roman since Eastern Catholics are unlikely to have black superiors. The distinction Roman/Eastern is presumably more about where Americans emigrated from than any theological difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 7 November 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:African-American Catholics to Category:African-American Roman Catholics

Nominator's rationale: consistency with existing pervasive usage of "Roman Catholic" category hierarchy and allow future expansion into "Eastern Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic", etc. categories. Elizium23 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, a split by particular church within the Catholic Church results in very narrow intersections. Rather rename the subcategories the other way around. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - WP:C2C as subcat of Category:American Roman Catholics. Oculi (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, "Roman Catholic" category namings are apparently a relic from when the Catholic Church page was named "Roman Catholic Church". That has since been amended, most likely because the Church does not officially use that title. natemup (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not true for people. There is a whole tree of Category:Roman Catholics, subcat of Category:Catholics (which includes non-Roman Catholics). Oculi (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That just points to the unfinished state of Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That quite clearly should be renamed to "Latin Catholics" or "Roman Rite Catholics", since "Roman Catholic" far more often refers to Catholics in general (of any rite or particular church). natemup (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      No, no actually it does not. If you tried to tell a Byzantine or Maronite or Syro-Malabar or Melkite Catholic if they were Roman, many would be offended at your insinuation and they are sensitive to the terminology used. So no, "Roman Catholic" does not usefully refer to Catholics outside the Latin Church or Roman Rite, if you're being mindful of the 23 other sui iuris churches. Elizium23 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both can be true dependent on context. If the context is contrasting with Eastern Catholics then Roman Catholic Church will mean Latin Church. In most other context, Roman Catholic Church will mean Catholic Church. Bottom line, "Roman" is ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, no opinion about the various categories of African-American [Catholic/Roman Catholic] [X], but C vs RC should be consistent within this category tree if kept. Recommend these individual entries be closed a consolidated be discussion be created for the category tree. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:Crystal. If, in the future, sufficient counts of African-American EasternCatholics emerge, then create it. Until then, leave it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 31 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.

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations to Category:Railway stations served by Greater Anglia

Nominator's rationale: Align with all the other members of Category:Railway stations in Great Britain by train operating company. Franchise is also no longer technically correct, as franchising ceased to exist when the agreements were terminated in during the early days of the first COVID-19 lockdown and replaced by management contracts as described at Passenger rail franchising in Great Britain. Kraiptoune (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note The category was not tagged by the user proposing this. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Kraiptoune: please tag the category page, otherwise the request will not be processed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the present name was arrived at following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 14#Category:Railway stations served by Greater Anglia, where the closing admin's (Good Olfactory) suggestion does not seem to have been followed up, except in one case that I know of (see entry for Northern above). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please close as keep -- This is an attmept to reopen a discussion that was only recently closed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 7 November 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: no consensus to delete. Purge instead. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Soviet people of Belarusian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Belarus was part of the Soviet Union. Rathfelder (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. However Ahatanhel Krymsky can be added to Category:Soviet Ukrainians as suggested in the discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- USSR was a federal state, where individuals had internal passports setting out their (ethnic) nationality. It was thus possible to have Tartar or Buryat nationality, though their home states were only federal members of RFSSR. Azerbaijan was more than that, one of a dozen or so states united in USSR, which became independent republics when USSR was dissolved. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge -- My previous vote was not appropriate, though the principle expressed is a correct one. Some of the people here were of Belarussian birth and should thus be in Category:Soviet Belarussians. Others was born elsewhere in USSR of parents born in Belarus and thus belong in this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no clear consensus - the last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:22, 31 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.

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 concensus. to delete. Split between this category and Category:Soviet Ukranians instead. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Soviet people of Ukrainian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. Rathfelder (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Soviet Ukrainians, similar to Category:Soviet Armenians and purge articles that do not quite fit the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy with Marcocapelle's suggestion. its the descent bit which I think is bad. Rathfelder (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- USSR was a federal state, where individuals had internal passports setting out their (ethnic) nationality. It was thus possible to have Tartar or Buryat nationality, though their home states were only federal members of RFSSR. Azerbaijan was more than that, one of a dozen or so states united in USSR, which became independent republics when USSR was dissolved. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the intention to include all people of ethnic Ukrainian heritage who were Soviet citizens, regardless of place of residence? Or is it to include all people form the UkSSR regardless of ethnicity? Or something else? I can't tell based on this proposal. 67kevlar (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge those who always lived in Ukraine to Category:Soviet Ukrainians as suggested. My previous vote was misconceived, but some of the people merely had some Ukrainian heritage; and they should stay here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the last relist - no clear consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:22, 31 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Soviet people of Russian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Russia was part of the Soviet Union Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- USSR was a federal state, where individuals had internal passports setting out their (ethnic) nationality. It was thus possible to have Tartar or Buryat nationality, though their home states were only federal members of RFSSR. Azerbaijan was more than that, one of a dozen or so states united in USSR, which became independent republics when USSR was dissolved. Furthermore, pre-Soviet colonisation and administrative exile of ex-prisoners under Stalin meant there was a Russian diaspora in all the other republics of USSR. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Exile doesnt stop them being Russian people, not people of Russian descent. Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the last relist - more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:20, 31 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.

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era to Category:Opponents of Muhammad

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, as a more to-the-point repurposing of the category. For people who neither followed nor opposed Muhammed, a category of this sort is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 8 November 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 1983–1985 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1983–1985 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 1985–1989 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1985–1989 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 1989–1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1989–1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 1994–1999 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1994–1999 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 1999–2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1999–2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: They are essentially the same category and they match the similar categories of other Indian states (e.g. Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Maharashtra). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 1999–2004 has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad. I did that before remembering that CfM is the correct thing to do. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens more than you would think. But it defeats the purpose of merging categories if the category to be merged is empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This is a rare case where abbreviations are referred kin categories. The precdent is British MPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 7 November 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Playstation 5 console exclusives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Clear case of WP:OVERCAT and WP:CROSSCAT, a category of video games that have been released for PC and for PlayStation 5 but not for any other console. Throughout video game history there have been thousands of games that have been hundreds, if not thousands, of games released for PC and one particular console. Not a WP:CATDEF. Sidenote: this is a copy-paste of my own rationale, after noticing this cat after the Nintendo Switch one. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was just about to tag this category as an empty category, CSD C1, when I had an edit conflict with this nomination. I'm not sure why it was brought to CFD when it could have just been deleted a week from today if it had remained empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't gotten around to adding games to that category just yet.

  This category is necessary as the nature of the video game industry is shifting across all major releases to create games exclusive to one console but also on PC as well. Microsoft has already put all Xbox Series X and S games on PC, and Playstation is starting to put its own PS5 games on PC as well. The current categories Wikipedia has are unable to account for this. Sony uses the term "console exclusive" to describe games like the KOTOR remake, and Nintendo themselves use the term to talk about games only on Switch and PC like Return to Monkey Island. Numerous video game outlets have already recognized this distinction. Wikipedia's own article on platform exclusivity acknowledges that games released on PC and one other console counts as a type of exclusive, yet Wikipedia does not have a category to properly document that type of exclusivity. As an example, IGN[1] explicitly defines console exclusive as a game that appears on PC as well as on only one video game console. Their greatest console exclusive game was Forza Horizon 5, a game that does not show up as exclusive to the Xbox Series X due to Wikipedia's lack of a category of this type. Numerous other video game outlets have also acknowledged the distinction of a video game exclusive in the traditional sense and a console exclusive (which is still an exclusive):

  [2]https://kotaku.com/what-a-video-game-exclusive-means-in-2017-1796024566]

  [3]

  [4]

  [5]

  PlayStation themselves use the term console exclusive on their official website to advertise games like Valkyrie Elysium and Stray that are or will be available on PC but can only be played on a PS5: [6]

  This category serves a useful purpose in documenting the nature of such exclusivity that current categories do not. If it is considered as overcategorization, then Category:PlayStation 5-only games should be marked as redundant as well, given that Category:PlayStation 5 games exists as well. Redquil (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Confusing to readers. This says "This is an exclusive for the Playstation 5", when in fact the games are on other platforms. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ferret. I went into a bit more detail as to why these are confusing in my !vote for the Nintendo Switch version of this cat. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Exclusives" are important in the industry. These "exclusives but with exceptions" are less so, and more of bragging point of various fanbases. We don't need to go down that road on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete We already have a category for this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:PlayStation 5-only games is already a thing. DecafPotato (talk) 21:32, 2 November 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nintendo Switch console exclusives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Clear case of WP:OVERCAT and WP:CROSSCAT, a category of video games that have been released for PC and for Switch but not for any other console. Throughout video game history there have been thousands of games that have been hundreds, if not thousands, of games released for PC and one particular console. Not a WP:CATDEF. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category is necessary as the nature of the video game industry is shifting across all major releases to create games exclusive to one console but also on PC as well. Microsoft has already put all Xbox Series X and S games on PC, and Playstation is starting to put its own PS5 games on PC as well. The current categories Wikipedia has are unable to account for this. Sony uses the term "console exclusive" to describe games like the KOTOR remake, and Nintendo themselves use the term to talk about games only on Switch and PC like Return to Monkey Island. Numerous video game outlets have already recognized this distinction. Wikipedia's own article on platform exclusivity acknowledges that games released on PC and one other console counts as a type of exclusive, yet Wikipedia does not have a category to properly document that type of exclusivity. As an example, IGN[7] explicitly defines console exclusive as a game that appears on PC as well as on only one video game console. Their greatest console exclusive game was Forza Horizon 5, a game that does not show up as exclusive to the Xbox Series X due to Wikipedia's lack of a category of this type. Numerous other video game outlets have also acknowledged the distinction of a video game exclusive in the traditional sense and a console exclusive (which is still an exclusive):

[8]https://kotaku.com/what-a-video-game-exclusive-means-in-2017-1796024566]

[9]

[10]

[11]

PlayStation themselves use the term console exclusive on their official website to advertise games like Valkyrie Elysium and Stray that are or will be available on PC but can only be played on a PS5: [12]

This category serves a useful purpose in documenting the nature of such exclusivity that current categories do not. If it is considered as overcategorization, then Category:Nintendo Switch-only games should be marked as redundant as well, given that Category:Nintendo Switch games exists as well. Redquil (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OVERCAT and WP:CROSSCAT. I also agree that Category:Nintendo Switch-only games isn't a defining category as well either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Confusing to readers. This says "This is an exclusive for the Switch", when in fact the games are on other platforms. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ferret. THe cat creator (Redquil) actually states why these are confusing when they said "...the nature of the video game industry is shifting across all major releases to create games exclusive to one console but also on PC as well". THe category "nintendo switch console exclusives" implies that game is only on the Nintendo Switch and not on PC or other consoles. So something like Super Mario 3D All-Stars (we aren't counting emulation since that gets messy) would be a Nintendo Switch console exclusive, however something like Pokemon Cafe ReMix would not be as even though the only console it's on is the Switch (probably because it just wouldn't work on other consoles) it's also on Android and iOS. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Exclusives" are important in the industry. These "exclusives but with exceptions" are less so, and more of bragging point of various fanbases. We don't need to go down that road on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete We already have a category for this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 2 November 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Notre Dame High School (Easton, Pennsylvania) alumni to Category:Notre Dame High School (Pennsylvania) alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename Category:Notre Dame High School (Easton, Pennsylvania) alumni Category:Notre Dame High School (Pennsylvania) alumni to bring category name in line with page name (Notre Dame High School (Pennsylvania) Keystone18 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there is also Notre Dame High School (East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania). The article Notre Dame High School (Pennsylvania) should be moved back to Notre Dame High School (Easton, Pennsylvania). Oculi (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Oculi. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the other Notre Dame High School until now, and I agree. I'll move the page back to the original name, and feel free to close this proposal on the category. Keystone18 (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and move the article back): obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 7 November 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.