WikipediaCategories for deletionbotanists by nationality lists a  vote which is hardly a consensus to make the changes you did Some of the categories you emptied have been around for six months at least such as British botanists so it wasnt just an anon who was most likely  logged out as the software is wont to do Although I understand that you personally think nationality is unimportant that is just your POV for a highschool teacher in New Zealand or Brazil looking up homegrown botanists for the class to write about that is quite relevant and nearly impossible to find out without the subcategories In any case youre setting yourself against the hundreds of editors who have built CategoryNationalities by occupation and CategoryPeople by nationality and their thousands of subcategories Either botanists are fundamentally different from other kinds of people which could be argued I suppose   or all these other editors are mistaken in which case you should convince them of their wrongness first before unilaterally emptying out the category But given that CategoryAmerican actors alone has some  names I dont think youre going to get much of a favorable hearing If you want to argue that the botanists is still too small to be subdivided thats plausible but your argument seems to be that the category shouldnt be subdivided no matter how large it gets Just as you expect other people to defer to your knowledge in matters arboreal you should respect those who are more knowledgeable about information organization   Hi Stan  several points first neither was there any consensus for Pcpcpcs if they were his changes in the first place I was restoring the original status quo not making a change And no request for comment had been made at either WPTOL talk or from regular botanical contributors as should have been done before making that change Second botanists are fundamentally different from almost all other kinds of people when it comes to nationality eg uniquely only botanists and ornithologists working in Britain and Germany among all people maintained friendly communication and exchange of scientific information throughout the second world war Third yes botanists are too small to subdivide all but  or  of the new subcategories created had less than five entries which is pretty ridiculous it is not comparable to actors at all Fourth and most important of all is the need to have all the botanists at a single source for reference There are thousands of plant articles that are being written or having their taxoboxes updated both involve adding the line Taxoboxsectionbinomialbotany  color  lightgreen binomialname   author    one takes a species and looks up the botanical name and author citation to enter there eg Taxoboxsectionbinomialbotany  color  lightgreen binomialname  Pinus ayacahuite author  Ehrenb ex Schltdl this gives you two authors to link in with no information on their nationality One can then get their full names from the httpwwwipniorgipniqueryauthorhtml IPNI author query page but that still leaves the article writer with the task of finding the botanists wiki page  does the botanist Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal have a page at all Is it at Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal or Diederich Franz von Schlechtendal or Diederich Leonhard von Schlechtendal or Diederich von Schlechtendal or Diederich F L von Schlechtendal or Diederich F von Schlechtendal The simple way to do this is to look up in Categorybotanists If you have to search through odd subcategories and subsubcategories  it takes an hour to do something that should take  minutes So you dont you give up in disgust Or else start a new duplicate page about the botanist It is quite clear from both s and Pcpcpcs contributions lists that theyve not had any experience at all of writing plant articles and I think they should listen to those who do