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). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gabriel García Márquez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Now Per WP:OCEPON and WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 2 articles (the main one and a tribute) so it doesn't currently aid navigation. No objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles though. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2017 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 19#Archbishops by diocese in country Foo. ℯxplicit 00:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Austria to Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Austria

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Croatia to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Croatia

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Czechia to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in the Czech Republic

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Hungary to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Hungary

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Portugal to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Portugal

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Sweden to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in Sweden

Nominator's rationale Most European countries are so small that only a couple of archbishops are present. Many only have a single archbishop. A handful have more than 4. Should be deleted per WP:Smallcat. A triple intersection of archbishop / diocese / country is excessive. The usual Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Foo is sufficient to contain them as all archbishops are just bishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind instead rephrasing the proposal so as to merge them with more relevant, respective categories, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to "Merge" as suggested. Laurel Lodged (talk)

@Laurel Lodged: Thank you. Looks more convenient a proposal. However, still not sure, though. Would have to consider more arguments. On a side note, why don't you consider dropping the largely deciprated "Roman" disambiguator for the merge destination while you're at it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Either do this for all countries or for none, to keep the category tree consistent. However if upmerged there must also be a second merge target, for example, it should also be merged to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia. The latter would be a more important reason to merge, because every archbishops category contains hardly anything but the by-diocese subcategory. That is even the case in the larger countries, so this is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think that my original proposal to delete was more correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon further checking, categories like Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia appear not to exist in every of the above countries. @Laurel Lodged: Do I understand your last comment correctly that you prefer these categories (if existing) to be deleted instead of serving as a merge target? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably keep -- I agree that 2-4 per country is on the small side, according to the normal arguments; while archbishops are by their ordination merely a variety of bishop. Nevertheless, they are bishops in authority over other bishops. As such the numbers are inevitably small, but the normal solution would be to merge with a higher category, not a lower one, but there is nothing higher that is obvious to use until we get to continent, but that is too high. We might theoetically merge Spain and Portugal to Iberia; Ireland, England, etc to British Isles; Croatia, Bosnia, Roumania, etc to Balkans; etc, butthat would not be normal practice. Accordingly Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that for now (pending further discussion) we still have the possibility to merge the archbishops-by-diocese categories to the plain archbishops categories, so keeping them all within the same country. That is something we may well do. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. For now go with the merges. Later we'll talk about further deletions / upmerges. Will also need to rename to be rid of the deprecated "Roman" part. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2017 (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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kindergarten teachers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Of the seven members, maybe one is known for teaching kindergarten, sort of. Two others also are actual educators (and are already categorized, one way or the other, as such); the others are famous for something else, but happened to have taught kindergarten at some point, so for them it is certainly not WP:DEFINING. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2017 (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 the NHL, NBA, and WBNA categories. I will contact Cydebot's operator to discuss restoring the c. 1,870 articles that were removed from these categories; it appears about 1,100 have already been restored manuallly. Delete Category:Undrafted sports competitors by league as empty, without prejudice to recreating if necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Undrafted National Basketball Association players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Undrafted Women's National Basketball Association players
• Category:Undrafted National Hockey League players
• Category:Undrafted sports competitors by league

Nominator's rationale: Relisting a previous discussion per WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 10. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my rationale (with notability supporting links) from the original 2010 discussion that was never linked in the recent CFD. Resolute 19:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_26#Category:Undrafted_National_Hockey_League_players). Also note, that while this may look like and unsuitable "NOT" based category, the parent article List of National Basketball Association undrafted players demonstrates that it is not. Arguably, being once undrafted is not defining, defining being a desirable characteristic for categorisation, but that is less a decisive reason than defaulting to keep due to a well-defined parent article. As per WP:CLS, if there is a list, there should be considered possible merit in having the category as well, each has different advantages for navigation by readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being undrafted is not equivalent in all sports. In hockey for example is pretty rare for it to happen, rare enough so that in any article that goes in depth on a player that was undrafted it will mention it. It is often one of if not the most defining aspects of a player. -DJSasso (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Undrafted National Basketball Association players. Plenty of sources already at List of National Basketball Association undrafted players that demonstrate that an NBA player being undraft is oft mentioned, and defining. Not all sports are the same regarding the significance of being undrafted, so WP:OTHERSTUFF is not applicable here. Judge undrafted players on their own merits for each league. Therefore delete Category:Undrafted sports competitors by league. No opinion currently on the NHL or WNBA.—Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NBA, NHL and WNBA categories. This is rare in these leagues, and people like Martin St. Louis, Ben Wallace and Érika de Souza among others are good examples how overlooked athletes can be important to their teams. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NBA and NHL categories. In the NBA, there is intense interest in the draft and it is the primary vehicle for players getting to the NBA. Undrafted NBA players are relatively rare because: 1) Unlike the NFL, rosters are small and 2) Unlike baseball, players generally go directly to the top league with fewer average stops in between. If a player makes the NBA without being drafted it is generally mentioned in any in-depth profile, often cited as a symbol that the player has overcome the odds in reaching the league. This is true in obituaries (see here: "Although Gray was not drafted, he played in the NBA from 1996 to 2000"), player profiles (see here: "McConnell made the Sixers as an undrafted rookie during the 2015-16 season. This past season, he started in 51 of his 81 games played, McConnell was a difference-maker, ranking 10th in the league in steals at 1.65 per game and tied for 12th in assists (6.6). He also averaged 6.9 points and 3.1 rebounds."), or in general rankings of all-time top undrafted players (see here). A great recent example is a discussion of Ben Wallace as a potential basketball Hall of Famer. Some quotes - "It would be easy for a big-haired, undersized, undrafted, low-scoring former Pistons center to get overlooked and overshadowed. Story of his life. Fortunately, his immense body of work over a remarkable 16-year career should overcome whatever he may lack in terms of name recognition and national acclaim." and "“Take a step back and look at the fact that Ben Wallace was undrafted and you have what may be the most remarkable career in sports history,” Carlisle said." I would add that the NBA has draft categories for each team in its history and having a category for those who were not drafted is a natural complement to these. I focused on the NBA category, but my experience is that undrafted players are treated similarly with respect to the NHL. Rikster2 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the NHL. It splits up everyone by drafting team, so someone not in any of those categories looks like the drafting team is simply missing, so there ought to be a hidden maintenance category for people who never got drafted by anyone. Ditto with the NBA. No comment on the WNBA, since they don't appear to have such a scheme; the category needs to be deleted or needs to be retained as a content category, and I don't have an opinion on that. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2017 (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. As pointed out in the discussion, the application of "History of..." categories has been inconsistent on the project in a broad sense, lacking a precedent for the merge. Even in this particular discussion, there is not enough support come to the conclusion that consensus has been reached in order to merge the contents of the categories one way or the other. ℯxplicit 06:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate to Category:Rashidun Caliphate

Nominator's rationale: Sometimes there is sufficient content about a former empire/country to make a "History of" category useful, but not here. Merge and add the target into Category:Histories of empires. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_15#Category:630s_in_the_Rashidun_Caliphate, where there was no consensus about merging the decade categories. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Five subcategories and four articles is sufficient to sustain a category. Hmains (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There certainly is enough content in this history category to avoid any issue of WP:SMALLCAT. But it effectively empties the parent category, Category:Rashidun Caliphate, since everything about a former country is "history". I don't see this extra layer as aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. We do not need both, and the shorter Category:Rashidun Caliphate is preferably in my view. Alternatively reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subclassification of Category:Rashidun Caliphate includes Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate the same way as Category:Ottoman Empire includes Category:History of the Ottoman Empire and Category:Umayyad Caliphate includes Category:History of the Umayyad Caliphate. The "History" category is a common container of all chronology articles and in case of Rashidun Caliphate is subject to much expansion.GreyShark (dibra) 05:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The question is whether, for former countries with relatively few articles, we prefer to use: (1) an eponymous topic category (merge to Category:Rashidun Caliphate; (2) a history category (reverse merge to Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate); or (3) both (no action). Unfortunately, our treatment of former countries is quite inconsistent at this time. Note that merging as proposed would break the connections to Category:History by continent and former country and Category:Histories of empires. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does cover the Category:Histories of empires hierarchy. To maintain the membership of the other, the target could also be added into Category:History of Africa by former country and Category:History of Asia by former country. However, I didn't initially propose this, because it is already in Category:Former countries in Africa & Asia. I have now made the latter into parent categories over the "History of..." ones, so now there is a connection via those parents. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (reacting on User:Black Falcon) it could be a solution to always name the top category of former countries "History of", with subcategories e.g. "History by period" and "History by topic" just like we have with history of currently existing countries. Similarly history by topic would contain cultural history (instead of culture), geographical history (instead of geography) etc. In that case the only exception in mimicking the history of currently existing countries category would be the People subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that would work well, Marcocapelle. (i) In some other cases there is sufficient content to make a "History of..." sub-cat well worth having for navigation. (ii) It is standard practice that the top category name matches the lead article, except in cases of ambiguity. Under our current procedures, if there was a sole category called "History of...", it could be speedily renamed without those words under WP:C2D. IMHO it works fine, where there is less content, to have only one category named after the main article, but included in the "History" hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 27 October 2017 (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 rename legendary creatures; rename the other two. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Legendary creatures to Category:Mythical beings
  

and

• Propose renaming Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings to Category:Deities and spirits
  

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional deities, spirits, and mythic beings to Category:Fictional deities and spirits – added on relisting

Nominator's rationale: Per current structure, we have Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings as subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures. Why cut "Mythic beings" from the cat title? Is too general, as you cannot distinguish it from "legendary creature", which is the name of the parent category Category:Legendary_creatures. A vast majority of the content of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings are exclusevely either dieties or spirits, and those, who aren't, can be recategorized to the parent cat, if they are not already there, as is the case with Category:Ghosts.

"Legendary creature", "Mythical creature" and "Mythical being" are synonymous, but precisely because the cat includes dieties as well, who are no creatures, but creators, the latter is (1) more precise, (2) less offending to theists, which can also prevent edit wars like in 2013 [here]. CN1 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tend to think of "Legendary creatures" more as creatures from legend, which is often used in vernacular to be similar to fantasy (both genre as well as film). I am not sure if the content here is distracted by the changing use in common language. I have not heard anybody referring to Legendary creatures in a deistic way. --FULBERT (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT: But Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings already is subcat to Category:Legendary creatures. Would you like the option of supporting my second rename and exclude Category:Deities and spirits from Category:Legendary creatures? But this wouldn't fix the whole problem, because angels, demons etc, still are legendary creatures and at the same time spirits & dieties, you can not simply deny the connection between them, is that not true? CN1 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CreativeName1: How would you envision the two categories being connected? I suppose I am having trouble envisioning the overall taxonomy you are suggesting FULBERT (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT: Well, like this:

• Category:Mythical beings (the new name of Category:Legendary creatures)

Contains creatures, spirits, gods, etc. Contains supernatural beings (human, plant, animal or ghost) from mysticism/folklore/legends etc.

• Category:Deities and spirits (the new name of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings)

Contains only deities and spirits

CN1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming and narrowing scope of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings to Category:Deities and spirits. Agree with nominator that a wider scope, including mythic beings, as is currently the case, is too similar to the scope of the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• However I'm not sure about the first nomination. Legendary creature has its own article, while Mythical being redirects to Cryptozoology which implies to keep the category name as is, and to remove it as a parent from the second nominated category.

Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: The redirect is plainly wrong. Proof: (1) Mythical being = beings from mythology. (2) Cryptozoology = Study about "hidden" animals. Mythical beings involve also plants and immaterial beings like deities, spirits etc. CN1 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I realise the redirect is wrong, but for this discussion it's relevant that we don't have an article about Mythical beings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a rule that states that a category can't have a non-eponymous main article? Because I think Legendary creatures can still be a good main article, it just would cover only 90 % of it's content instead of the usual 100%. CN1 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a fixed rule, but it is quite likely that an article Mythical being does not exist for good reasons, e.g. because Legendary creatures is considered to be synonymous. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how quite likely this is. I find concerns with the name of the article expressed in numerous discussions on the talk page but I never found my proposed name discussed. Chances are higher that nobody thought about it before me. Chances are, nobody of these editors is interested in category questions generally, because I contacted three Wiki-projects and the participation here is not very high. Marco, you say that they are synonymous--is that not a point benefitting the proposal, because it has advantages while meaning the exact same thing? CN1 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Legendary and mythical creatures are synonyms. Dimadick (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- We may have a mess, but there is a technical definition for "myth" which is not a synonym of legend. I ask myself what we do with gorgon, a legendary creature and yeti, an animal that may exist, but whose existence remains unproved. Neither is a deity. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming and narrowing scope of Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings to Category:Deities and spirits. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting

Category:Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Slovak submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion at WT:FILM and WP:OVERCAT/WP:OCAWARD - being submitted for a potential nomination for an award is overcategorization. Each year, 70 to 80 films are selected, with five eventually getting through to Oscar night. With other Oscar awards, we don't have categories for award nominations, just the winners. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Categories for film submissions to Awards and Filme Festivals are not meaningful nor defining. Unless a film gets nominated, the information of its submission for nomination is uninmportant even to mention in the article, let alone to make a category for it. Hoverfish Talk 12:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To regard a nomination for a nomination as defining requires WP:CATDEF to be stretched to its limits and then some. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have lists for this purpose; categories are not WP:DEFINING. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2017 (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 for any particular name, but a lot of good discussion. I will start a new, technical nomination here based on Fayenatic london's last suggestion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland 1939-1945 to Category:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland
• Propose renaming Category:People assisting Jews during the Holocaust to Category:People who rescued Jews in the Holocaust – added on relisting

Nominator's rationale: The last bit is unnecessary but at the very least, it should use an ndash per WP:DASH (and consequently be Category:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland (1939–1945). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the category name, we probably don't need "Poles" and "Polish citizens", one of them should be sufficient. However it's a bit doubtful whether this is a useful category, two of the articles don't even mention helping Jews and if we remove them there are very few articles left in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. This is basically covered by Category:Polish Righteous Among the Nations and relevant article, as such I'm inclined for deletion. Brandmeister^talk 21:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename as proposed; strongly oppose deletion. Open to supporting other changes (at a minimum, the hyphen should be changed to an en-dash). One of the main articles is titled Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and there is a disambiguation page Occupation of Poland (disambiguation), which suggests to me that renaming the category to use the simplified phrase "occupied Poland" is unnecessarily ambiguous. With respect to deletion, two of the articles in the category do not explicitly mention Jews, but one mentions membership in Żegota, the Council to Aid Jews, an underground resistance organization. Also, not all Poles who assisted Jews are Righteous Among the Nations; that's a designation awarded by the Israeli government. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case Category:Members of Żegota may be a more useful and less subjective category than the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Polish Righteous Among the Nations. If kept, rename Category:Poles helping Jews in occupied Poland, 1939-1945 or perhaps Category:Poles helping Jews during holocaust. Whether the help was provided within or beyond Poland may not be significant or perhaps something focusing on Poland. "Occupied" without qualification would be unhelpful, as it might refer to the Soviet occupation or post-partition pre-1918 Poland. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge, because the articles in the nominated category are exactly here, instead of in Category:Polish Righteous Among the Nations, because these people are not among the Righteous Among the Nations. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Ping User:Poeticbent for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename as proposed; strongly oppose deletion – per Malik Shabazz. Please read the articles. In fact, the much greater number of Poles who assisted Jews during the Holocaust are NOT Righteous Among the Nations. The name of the parent category could be simplified to encourage inclusion in new articles because it is severely underpopulated right now. The only alternative name of the parent category in my opinion would be a derivative of proposal by Peterkingiron, i.e.: Category:Poles saving Jews during the Holocaust. Simplicity always wins. – Proposed new name is borrowed from "US group celebrates Poles who saved Jews during Holocaust" By Vanessa Gera in The Times of Israel, July 10, 2016. Poeticbent talk 15:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Poles saving Jews during the Holocaust per Poeticbent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Polish people" is the standard name in Wikipedia categories for Poles, see Category:Polish people. The use of the present participle "saving" (or "helping") is also non-standard; "who saved" would be better (compare the sibling Category:Polish people who died in the Holocaust). Also, "saved" was suggested explicitly because it had been used in a headline, in which the shortest word would have been chosen, but "rescued" would be a better match for the Category:Rescue of Jews in the Holocaust hierarchy. If a consensus is emerging along the lines supported by the last two participants, the outcome should therefore rather be Category:Polish people who rescued Jews in the Holocaust; cf. the article Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (I am not suggesting that the category should follow that name exactly). There is also Category:People assisting Jews during the Holocaust, which I have just added as a parent category; I suggest re-listing along with that one. – Fayenatic London 23:03, 7 September 2017 (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 to Category:Calvinist and Reformed denominations. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Reformed denominations to Category:Calvinist denominations

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency with Calvinism (as opposed to "Reformed Christianity"), Category:Calvinist denominations established in the 19th century, Category:Calvinist organizations, etc. All for the same reasons that Calvinism is named as such and nothing else - "Reformed" is not WP:Precise enough, among other problematic aspects. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: for people we have Category:Calvinist and Reformed Christians, we may want to use this format for all subcategories within the Calvinism tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC) (formally voted further down)[reply]

Disagree. I think the article realm Calvinism should set the norm. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Category:Calvinist and Reformed Christians, to match people. The difficulty is that Calvinism refers to a theological position on the doctrine of election/predestination that may be held by protestants of other denominations. The result is that Calvinist has more than one meaning. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Calvinism the article is there for common name reasons (despite my objections), because the broad movement is often called Calvinism, but the denominations and people are much more commonly referred to as Reformed. I know of no denominations with Calvinist in there names. I would be ok with Calvinist and Reformed. --JFH (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of Reformed denominations --JFH (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Reformed" is more than just your soteriology and sacramental theology (which is what's generally meant by "Calvinist"); it's the whole method of theological thinking and consequent acting, and that method is generally taught by people who teach a Calvinist soteriology because it fits with a general Reformed outlook. "Calvinist and Reformed denominations" is reasonable, but "Reformed" is not a subset or synonym of "Calvinist". Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. After evaluating the comments. What about adjusting the proposal to "Calvinist and Reformed", then? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT of Calvinist and Reformed Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hence hereby formally request an administrator to change the request to "Category:Calvinist and Reformed denominations", if possible. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The request doesn't have to be changed per se. For a closing admin the discussion will speak for itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great! Support ALT.Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt rename to Category:Calvinist and Reformed denominations in order to align with the sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mysterious Island films to Category:Films based on The Mysterious Island

Nominator's rationale: To correspond with other "Films based on <name of work>" category names. Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)))[reply]

• Speedy per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Journey to the Center of the Earth films to Category:Films based on Journey to the Center of the Earth

Nominator's rationale: To correspond with other "Films based on <name of work>" category names. Trivialist (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2017 (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: upmerge. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional female World War I veterans to Category:Fictional World War I veterans

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT The two articles in this cat refer to the same character. JDDJS (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:10, 27 September 2017 (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: upmerge. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional female World War II veterans to Category:Fictional World War II veterans

Nominator's rationale: Since 2 of the articles are for the same character, there's only really 2 pages in cat. WP:SMALLCAT JDDJS (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:10, 27 September 2017 (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 to Category:People from Tehran (or a sub-cat by occupation) and, where not already in its sub-cats, Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Azerbaijanis from Tehran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial combination of ethnicity and location. In the Ethnicities in Iran article it says ethnic Azerbaijanis make up 16% of Iran's population, while in Demographics of Tehran it says they make 20-30%, so while larger still not an overall majority. As the capital Tehran is a multi-ethnic city, so this shouldn't be considered surprising.

I would consider making this a merger to Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis, but most if not all of the articles in the former category is also in the latter so that is why this is a deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom - also merge to Category:People from Tehran. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is not a trivial intersection. We have hundreds of expatriate and descent categories. However most of these are national categories. In this case we have enough population to have it by city. Then normal format would require the parent to be Category:Iranians of Azerbaijani descent, or perhaps more accurately Category:Iranians of Azeri descent, since I suspect that this is largely about a resident ethnic minority, who never where in the present Azerbaijan, being an area conquered by Russian in the 19th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: there is already a category regarding this called Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis. The fact that Azerbaijanis/Azeris form a minority in Tehran is negated by the fact that Tehran is a multicultural city and as the capital a location of immigration. We don't have categories such as Category:Hispanic and Latino Americans from Los Angeles or Category:African Americans from Detroit because even though those cities have a sizable minority community, it is still a trivial intersection of ethnicity and location unless proven otherwise. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I had not spotted Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis, or if I did, I missed its significance. That would be a merge target, but I still fail to see why a well-populated category such as this becomes a trivial intersection. Upmerge in preference to plain deletion, but my view is that if an intersection of two legitimate categories can be adequately populated, we should retain it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if kept; there's a difference between Azeris (who you are) and Azerbaijanis (where your citizenship is), and this category appears to conflate them. Unless Azerbaijan has a really broad jus sanguinis policy (like Germany until recently), most people originating in Tehran are not Azerbaijani. Nyttend (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an interesting point because afaics the articles that are in this category conflate these concepts similarly. Besides they mostly mention "descent" which seems to imply that these are people descending from inhabitants of the former Soviet republic Azerbaijan. Besides quite a lot of articles don't mention this characteristic at all, it seems like there is some OR involved in this categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to @Nyttend and Marcocapelle: this may not make any difference to the outcome here but, for the record, there is a region of Iran called Iranian Azerbaijan, so Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis may not refer to Azerbaijani nationality. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why User:Nyttend mentioned these peoples ple are presumably Azeris rather than Azerbaijanis, but in articles they are nevertheless referred to as Iranian Azerbaijanis. That is, insofar Azerbaijani is mentioned at all, which is too often not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:People from Tehran only. A dual upmerge would needlessly flood Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis. I checked 15 articles randomly: 13 are already in a subcategory of Category:Iranian Azerbaijani people by occupation and the other 2 made no mention of Azerbaijani descent within the article text. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the latter merge. Purging Category:Iranian Azerbaijani people by occupation may be needed but is not an issue for CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to the Iranian category. Ethnic group by country is justified, Ethnic group by city is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: please explain why you do not support also merging to Category:People from Tehran. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 4 November 2017 (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.