Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 21

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 & redirect. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:17th century in Massachusetts to Category:17th century in the Massachusetts Bay Colony

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_4#Years_in_Massachusetts. Move the old page over the new one and reparent it. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge, per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect & Merge per nom and to be more accurate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge, per nom, per precedent. Down with anachronisms! Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, I see now that this category was listed in the precedent CFD, and then listed for action at WP:CFDWM, but it was not tagged at that time. I already split the other century parents under WP:G6 as housekeeping after the last CfD; but now that I have started this discussion, it might as well stay open for a week. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 25 June 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Grassland plant species of Alabama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has no established scheme of categorizing wild grass species as "grassland plant species of [specific geographic location]". This would lead to extreme category bloat if allowed to proliferate -- the very first entry here, Agalinis purpurea has according to its article been documented in 32 American states, the District of Columbia and a Canadian province, which would require 34 categories on that article alone if we were to "grassland plant species of [every one of those individual entities]" this. And if we're not doing it for every other state, then there's no reason why Alabama has any unique need for special treatment that other states or provinces aren't getting. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Creator of the category here) Fair enough. I chose Alabama because that's the place I am interested in and I thought a category like this would be useful and could possibly be expanded to other states, but your point about wanting to avoid bloat makes sense. Also, after reading over the Categorization FAQ, I think that what I was trying to do would be better suited for a list article instead. Would you agree?

A list for Alabama might be too particular, though, so I'm thinking now that a list for the southeastern US as a whole would be better (i.e. "List of grassland plants of the southeastern US"), as it's a distinct ecoregion that Alabama is a part of, and I was basing the plants I was adding to the category on data from the Southeastern Grasslands Institute, in particular, it was based on their project on iNaturalist. They have a good circumscription, I think:

>"Grasslands of the southeastern U.S. (eastern unglaciated U.S.). Southern grasslands include prairies, pine and oak savannas, balds, barrens, glades, bogs, fens, meadows, dune grasslands)."

I think something like that would be appropriate to make a list for. Delvethedragon (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Delvethedragon:, a list could be appropriate, but I'm not sure that it is worth the effort. Grassland species of the southeastern US is a pretty specialized topic that is unlikely to attract many readers. There are a bunch of lists of plants that are woefully incomplete, some of which can be found in {{Flora of the United States}}, although there are others such as List of wildflowers in Indiana. Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the input. Delvethedragon (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this doesn't just open the door to a proliferation of categories by state, it also opens the door to multiplying those potential categories by categories for different habitats. I'm not sure that any of the plants in this category are exclusive to grassland habitats. Some of the included species are trees. While trees can be present (at low densities) in grasslands, habitats with trees at high densities are, by definition, not grasslands. I'm most familiar with Pinus echinata in forest and scrub habitats; categorizing it by habitat would require additional categories. Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French Catholics merge into Category:French Roman Catholics. Reason=Largely the Same thing. Unless someone good in history can distinguish between historical usages of 'Catholics' to describe French people and 'Roman Catholics' to describe French people, merger may be better than continued separation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatalSubjectivities (talk • contribs)

• Oppose, in Wikipedia categories, "Roman Catholic" means "of the Latin Church". While that is questionable usage of terminology, surely subCategory:French Eastern Catholics should not be merged to become part of the Latin Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as Marcocapelle says. Oculi (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there are Roman, Eastern and independent Catholics in France. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2023 (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. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1960s assassinated Argentinian politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:1960s assassinated South American politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added 23 June

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A merge is not needed, the article is already in Category:Assassinated Argentine politicians and Category:1960s assassinated politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I am not convinced by the name of Category:1960s assassinated politicians either. Oculi (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too narrow to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2023 (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: speedy merge. The nominated page will be moved over the new one at the target name. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tottori, Tottori to Category:Tottori (city)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; merge target matches article name Tottori (city). ミラP@Miraclepine 16:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2D. This could have been listed at the speedy page, as the article has been at its current name for about 5 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2023 (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: rename. – Fayenatic London 11:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Emigrants from the United Kingdom to British Overseas Territories to Category:British emigrants to British Overseas Territories

Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination, stale discussion at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the 3 subcats are all of the form "British emigrants from" as is everything else (with 1 exception, stuck at cfd) in the parent Category:British emigrants. Oculi (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since the parent is in the correct form, then one is forced to conclude that it is the sub-cats that need to be amended to the correct form. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as creator) for the purpose of consistency as above. The obvious issue is that it reads as anachronistic i.e British people as emigrants to a British place. As far as I know it is a valid category because there is an element of paperwork needed for GB (UK) citizens to move permanently to one of these places; in an attempt to prevent confusion I am considering adding an explanatory note about British referring to the UK, but not certain how to word it accurately. Crowsus (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How about "People who emigrated from the United Kingdom to British Overseas Territories ."? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a completely different scope. Someone moving from the UK could be any nationality. This would be categorisation by travel itinerary which we don't know. I myself am British, have had university posts in A, B and C (in that order, all in Africa) and am now in the UK. What categories do I go in? And don't tell me I have become 'of British descent' by some mysterious process. The description is given in Category:Emigrants by nationality: "Emigrants categorized by their pre-existing nationality, as opposed to the country to which they immigrate (Immigrants). Note that many but not all immigrants acquire citizenship of the country to which they move." It is the nationality of the emigrant (which is defining), not the country from which they move (which may or may not be defining). Oculi (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because of the obvious issue is that it reads as anachronistic i.e British people as emigrants to a British place. This error is less likely with the current name. Nothing is broken here that needs to be fixed. It does its job perfectly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural objection the nominator advances no rationale other that noting that it was in CFDS. Either the nom should be withdrawn or rationale offered. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not advocate a certain outcome of the discussion, hence a "procedural nomination". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale was offered at speedy: WP:C2C. Speedy is something of a misnomer. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That WP:C2C reason which is now explicit seems to me to satisfy the procedural concern. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw procedural objection. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:C2C under the understanding that "British" (by nationality) always refers to "from the United Kingdom". Note that British Overseas citizen is legally different from people with British nationality, that is, UK nationality. (So the inverse category name would be British Overseas citizen emigrants to the United Kingdom or something.) If "British" (by nationality) does not always refer to "from the United Kingdom", e.g. that "from the United Kingdom" means "by country" and not "by nationality" (see also my Category:People by country CfR), we may have to reconsider. But so far I do not see anyone arguing it means anything else. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to half the people living in Northern Ireland would not self describe as "British". But they are still in the UK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • LL seems to be expending argumentative resources here that are needed elsewhere. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and per WP:C2C, for consistency with other similar categories.
  Note that the use of term, "British" to refer to people from the United Kingdom is a breach of WP:Neutrality. About half of the people in Northern Ireland do not identify as "British", as is their right under the Good Friday Agreement. The titles of categories should not impose one POV.
  However, to maintain consistency, all the relevant "British people" categories should be renamed together. There is no case for making this one an exception to the current naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominate BHG for the job of creating the mother-of-all-mass-nominations to rid wiki of the POV "British" demonyn. No better woman. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2023 (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: Rename (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Qin to Category:Monarchs of Qin

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C Template:Monarchs of Qin and parent Category:Chinese monarchs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2023 (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. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Supporters of the Aryan idea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic and WP:OPINIONCAT. A number of articles do not even mention it at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly WP:OPINIONCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and purge to Category:Proponents of Aryanism. If this is intended to be a subcategory of Category:Proponents of scientific racism and Category:White supremacists, then it should include only advocates of those ideas, like other subcategories of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03: please clarify how your response relates to WP:OPINIONCAT. I'd say that people who are merely advocates of an idea are the first to be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I support deletion. I don't otherwise understand what you are asking of me in the first sentence. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:42, 21 June 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav emigrants to Category:Emigrants from Yugoslavia

Nominator's rationale: Per form of parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the others follow the format of the 'people' category, which in this case is Category:Yugoslav people, admirably named. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction at most 20 out of 72 members of Category:Emigrants from former countries use the demonym; the remainder use the form "Emigrants from Foo to Bar". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: for clarification, Oculi is referring to the other parent: Category:Yugoslav people. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_26#Category:Cape_Colony_emigrants. Laurel Lodged's point does not carry much weight, because the cases using "Emigrants from" are mostly compound country names e.g. Austrian Empire which generally don't have a demonym; they too follow the "People" parent category, which in this case is Yugoslav people. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:West German emigrants to Category:Emigrants from West Germany

Nominator's rationale: Per form of parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the others follow the format of the 'people' category, which in this case is Category:West German people, admirably named. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction at most 20 out of 72 members of Category:Emigrants from former countries use the demonym; the remainder use the form "Emigrants from Foo to Bar". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_26#Category:Cape_Colony_emigrants. Laurel Lodged's point does not carry much weight, because the cases using "Emigrants from" are mostly compound country names e.g. Austrian Empire which generally don't have a demonym; they too follow the "People" parent category, which in this case is West German people. – Fayenatic London 06:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rhodesian emigrants to Category:Emigrants from Rhodesia

Nominator's rationale: Per form of parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the others follow the format of the 'people' category, which in this case is Category:Rhodesian people. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction at most 20 out of 72 members of Category:Emigrants from former countries use the demonym; the remainder use the form "Emigrants from Foo to Bar". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_26#Category:Cape_Colony_emigrants. Laurel Lodged's point does not carry much weight, because the cases using "Emigrants from" are mostly compound country names e.g. Austrian Empire which generally don't have a demonym; they too follow the "People" parent category, which in this case is Rhodesian people. – Fayenatic London 06:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2023 (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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tibetan emigrants to Category:Emigrants from Tibet

Nominator's rationale: Per form of parent Category:Emigrants from former countries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the others follow the format of the 'people' category, which in this case is Category:Tibetan people; by all means nominate Category:Tibetan people first. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction at most 20 out of 72 members of Category:Emigrants from former countries use the demonym; the remainder use the form "Emigrants from Foo to Bar". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this is also currently parented to "Chinese emigrants". The nomination avoids the thorny question of whether Tibetan nationals are also Chinese nationals. They just emigrated from Tibet. Who knows if they were Irish Buddhists originally who held Tibetan passports and got out of Tibet with the Dalai Lama? The nom covers this possibility. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• These Irish buddhists (going to Boo) would be 'Irish emigrants to Boo' and 'Irish emigrants to Tibet'. Oculi (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A holder of a Tibetan passport is not Tibetan? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Green Book (Tibetan document) is used by the government in exile for those already in the diaspora while those leaving Tibet now would have a Chinese passport, if any. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename This is clearer and the more common naming format. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_26#Category:Cape_Colony_emigrants. Laurel Lodged's point does not carry much weight, because the cases using "Emigrants from" are mostly compound country names e.g. Austrian Empire which generally don't have a demonym; they too follow the "People" parent category, which in this case is Tibetan people. – Fayenatic London 06:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2023 (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.