Propose upmerging as follows Category:Architects from Bedfordshire to Category:People from Bedfordshire and Category:English architects

• Upmerge Category:Architects from Berkshire to Category:People from Berkshire and Category:English architects

Rationale - the cfd 2020 March 26#Category:Architects from Dorset resulted in an upmerge to the 2 parent categories. This is is a somewhat belated follow-up for the other counties in England. Oculi (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Oculi (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because I can't see what makes architects not worth categorising by county, when it unquestioned for other professions. If there are indeed architects in these categories who have only a tenuous connection to the place, they can be removed. Sionk (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I see that all or most are categorized as eg "19th-century English architects", and Category:English architects only has 35 members, so they should not be added there, if they have a century - or that should be added. Nice to see a tidy scheme for once. Large numbers "have only a tenuous connection to the place", as we found in the Devon nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually merge per nom and Johnbod. Note that the rationale applies to many other professions too, sportspeople for a start. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:American architects are categorised by state and by city. Category:Italian architects by region and city. Why are English architects to be treated differently? And is it proposed to remove Category:English architects by city? And what about the rest of Category:British architects? Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But not by US county. And some were created by Rathfelder, eg Category:Architects from Ferrara. Oculi (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging:

  Category:Port settlements in Argentina to Category:Port cities and towns in Argentina

  Category:Port settlements in Canada to Category:Port cities and towns in Canada

  Category:Port settlements in Chile to Category:Port cities and towns in Chile

  Category:Port settlements in Japan to Category:Port cities and towns in Japan

  Category:Port settlements in Mexico to Category:Port cities and towns in Mexico

  Category:Port settlements in the United States to Category:Port cities and towns in the United States

  Category:Port settlements in North America to Category:Port cities and towns in North America

Nominator's rationale: Look like duplicates. And why is "settlements" within "cities and towns"? All cities and towns are settlements, but not all settlements are cities or towns. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people participated in the earlier discussion: @Valfontis, Postdlf, Vegaswikian, Skookum1, and Peterkingiron:. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge (or else merge). Settlements apart from cities and towns presumably are villages, but there is little need to distinguish port villages from port towns and cities. "Settlements" covers it all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Racehorse trainers educated at Eton College to Category:People educated at Eton College

Nominator's rationale: Another irrelevant intersection. Oculi (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Horse racing is clearly a very common interest for people educated at Eton. There are also a large number of Category:Racehorse owners and breeders from Eton - mostly more notable for other aspects of their lives, but the two are clearly linked. Rathfelder (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. "Horse racing is clearly a very common interest for" British men educated at all sorts of schools. Eton takes some 270 boys a year, so had about 27,000 Etonians over the 20th century, of whom 21 apparently became racehorse trainers (from all centuries), fewer than 1 in 1000. Probably there were periods without a single future trainer in the school. Merge, especially as a diffusing category. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We only have 192 articles in Category:British racehorse trainers - not including the Eton ones, as they arent all British, so 10% are from Eton. That seems quite significant. Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back, I can see that the category is too large but a by-century split would be far more natural than a split by a later occupation that people did not have yet when they were at this school. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tinker Bell films to Category:Disney Fairies

Nominator's rationale: Practically the same category, Disney Fairies is the proper name. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:British viceroys educated at Harrow School to Category:People educated at Harrow School

Nominator's rationale: This was created yesterday by Rathfelder. As there are several related cfds in progress this and similar creations should all be paused pending resolution of existing cfds. (Rather than wasting the time of other editors.) There is certainly no support whatever for the 'Viceroys' wording. Oculi (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I did stop waiting for a decision I was criticised, as below, for leaving the job unfinished. Rathfelder (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree a change of wording for Eton than this can be changed speedily.Rathfelder (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is more work for editors. And if the Eton one is upmerged? Oculi (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Eton proposal is for renaming. Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Eton proposal is for renaming or upmerging, if you read it properly. Oculi (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another hare started, which you won't finish! You got no consensus on the Etonian judges, which you had abandoned, & recently said you would complete that. How is that going? At the moment I would support a ban on new categories creation. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Judges educated at Eton College is now finished. These are very large parent categories. Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Raja Maharaj Singh is not British (nor a viceroy): students at Eton/Harrow are international, not necessarily British. Oculi (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back, I can see that the category is too large but a by-century split would be far more natural than a split by a later occupation that people did not have yet when they were at this school. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many thousands of occupational categories for people who were born or grew up somewhere who are categorised as "Plumbers from Foo" and the like who were not plumbers when they were in Foo, and for which there is no obvious link between where they were born and what they became. There is, however, plenty of documentation showing the links between education public schools and prestigious occupations. Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back Actually none of these governors are properly called "viceroys" (the Etonians got those jobs, as we know), and the category should not be diffusing, even if it is more defining than some. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, apologies to Charles Hardinge, 1st Baron Hardinge of Penshurst, who got to India. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The superior category is Category:Viceroys of the British monarch. I'm quite happy to change the title if we can find something better. Rathfelder (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:California Democrats to Category:California Democrats and Category:California Democratic Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Current category is a subcategory of Category:California politicians by party but many people in Category:California Democrats are not politicians.

Proposal: Category:California Democrats is subcategory of Category:California Democratic Party. Category:California Democratic Party politicians is a subcategory of Category:California Democrats and Category:California politicians by party.

(Note that this also occurs in other subcategories of Category:California politicians by party, where politicians are mixed in with non-politicians) 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 05:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and containerize, people should be categorized by political or organizational function in the party. People who are merely a member of the party should be purged per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge all politicians into Category:California Democratic Party politicians and delete what is left. Mere party membership or being registered as a democrat so that a person can vote in primaries is not defining. This category is so enormous that it is useless as a navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Manual rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video games about brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I nominated this categoryover two years ago and was deleted, but I was recreated in June 2021. My rationale remains the same: it's not a WP:CATDEF that brothers appear in a video game, just games that happen to have characters that are brothers. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose That is an issue that can be solved by decategorizing any incorrectly categorized games. If you believe the entire categorization scheme is incorrect, then at the very least Category:Works about siblings and all subcategories should be nominated for deletion, if not Category:Works about families and all subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G4. The two articles I clicked on were Little Nicky (video game) and Oink! (video game), neither one of which even mentions a brother. (Presumably the original sources material these video games were based on includes a brother so this is at least partly Category:Video games about topics that included a brother in a different medium.) This category suffers from the same issues as last time it came before CFD and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't change that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - there are games that are definitively about brothers, namely Mother 3, Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, and the Mario & Luigi series. I think these are only barely enough, but there is very likely more. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @(Oinkers42):, thanks for your input. I'd argue that these game might feature brothers, they're not about brothers. Not a WP:CATDEF. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mother 3 is directly about the sibling dynamic between Lucas and Claus, Uncharted 4: A Thief's End seems to go through the backstory of Nathan Drake and his brother as a major plot of the plot, and the Mario and Luigi series features the brother's dynamic as a major point of the gameplay. If these do not count as about brothers, I am not sure what would. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as a trivial characteristic. The whole tree of Category:Video games by theme may be revisited. This is completely different from books or films which truly are about a topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The tree definitely deserves a look - jc37 02:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simple test for inclusion for any "work about X" category:

  Does the work in question merely contain examples of the item in question? Or is the subject of the work the item in question.

  So does it merely include one or more ham sandwiches, or is it a work with the theme of ham sandwiches?

  or in this case - Are there merely brothers in the work? Or is it a work with theme of brothers. And note, that's a theme about brothers/brotherhood in general, not two specific brothers.

  I think it's fair to say that this category is simply filled with examples of works containing brothers, not works with brothers as its theme. - jc37 02:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Royalty educated at Eton College to Category:People educated at Eton College.

Nominator's rationale: There is no connection between royalty and place of education. Oculi (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The school doesnt make them royal, but the very small number of schools where royalty are educated is significant for the schools. Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Significant for the school' is not a criterion for categorisation, unless I have missed something. Oculi (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? We have endless categorisation by place and occupation. Education is more significant than location for most. It doesnt make much difference to a scientist where they are born, but the categorisation by place is significant for the place. If you dont think Category:People educated at Eton College should be divided by occupation should you not nominate all of the subcategories together? Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of this endless categorisation by place ('from' rather than birth) and occupation is being done by you. And you don't have consensus for that either. (Absence of consensus to delete is not consensus to create.) Eg 2020 March 26#Category:Architects from Dorset was upmerged, but you carry on regardless. All the categorisation ever done by secondary school has been done by you, Rathfelder, a consensus of one. You seem now to be advertising the significance of schools and places using the category system, rather than categorising biographical articles by defining characteristics. As for nominating them all, you are creating them faster than they can be nominated. (All was about 16 yesterday, now it is about 30 including Harrow, and counting.) [Good indenting, by the way.] Oculi (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are 36 subcategories in Category:English architects by county by no means all created by me and nobody seems to have suggested getting rid of any of them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary! See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Category:Architects_from_Dorset, a well-attended and successful deletion nomination by me (supported by Marcocapelle). That was stated to have been a test case, but unfortunately has not been followed up for the others. Thanks for reminding me. I'm no good at doing noms; could anyone else do the others? All should go. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back per Oculi, and Prince Edmund Batthyany-Strattmann was not royal, just Euro-posh, anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Having an article that is miscategorised is not a reason to remove the category.

• Propose renaming Category:Chinatown-International District, Seattle to Category:Chinatown–International District, Seattle

Nominator's rationale: Per Chinatown–International District, Seattle --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this should have been listed at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]