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) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Artisans by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. (the only category is already in American artisans) Mason (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2024 (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: dual merge to Category:Films about prostitution and Category:Films about women in Bangladesh. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Films about courtesans in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 2-article category. No where near Category:Films about courtesans in India Gjs238 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but it should be merged to Category:Films about courtesans and Category:Films about women in Bangladesh. Mason (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but it should be merged to Category:Films about prostitution and Category:Films about women in Bangladesh. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with Marcocapelle's merge suggestion --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 26 January 2024 (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:Archery in Asia. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Archery in Asia by region to Category:Archery in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Category:Sport in Asia by region is subdivided by regions, not by sports. Gjs238 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing merge, not deletion. Mason (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, it is the subcategory that may be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2024 (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:Top Gear (TV franchise). (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Top Gear to Category:Top Gear (TV franchise)

Nominator's rationale: Top Gear is a disambiguation page. Top Gear (franchise) can also be Top Gear (video game series) which is unrelated to the TV franchise. Which leaves "TV franchise". Gonnym (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 27 January 2024 (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:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Samastha to Category:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama

Nominator's rationale: Samastha seems to be shorthand for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, from which all things Samastha originate. Gjs238 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is unclear to me what the subcategories are about, perhaps the entire tree should be deleted per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be OK, category for a Sunni Musli organization in Kerala. Merge and redirect. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 27 January 2024 (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:Nursemaids in Greek mythology. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mythological nurses to Category:Nursemaids in Greek mythology

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent per actual content of the category. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The antique use of "nurses" to mean nursemaids is now misleading, and even though it does appear in some sources it's not necessary for us to use it. NebY (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (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. Author requested. (non-admin closure) –Aidan721 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay by period to Category:History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay
Propose merging Category:History of the Province of New York by period to Category:History of the Province of New York

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. Massachusetts and NY are the only provinces with subcats in Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies by period; if that is useful, then add the target categories into that parent. In any case, add the targets into Category:History of Massachusetts by period and Category:History of New York (state) by period respectively. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I created both you can speedy it (or just do it). I'm pretty sure I created these based on exiting ones but I don't remember now. Gonnym (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2024 (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: dual merge to Category:Cultural depictions of Louis XV and Category:Cultural depictions of mistresses. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cultural depictions of Louis XV's mistresses to Category:Cultural depictions of mistresses

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge to parent ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cultural depictions of Louis XV (there's clearly a defining link) and also ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cultural depictions of Madame du Barry to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mistresses of Louis XV as it is not already there, unlike the Pompadour. Place Clichy (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, merging to Category:Cultural depictions of Louis XV as well is not unreasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge as above. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2024 (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 with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:17th-century Indian translators (0) to Category:Indian translators and Category:17th-century translators and Category:17th-century Indian non-fiction writers
Propose merging Category:16th-century Indian translators (0) to Category:Indian translators and Category:16th-century translators and Category:16th-century Indian non-fiction writers
Propose merging Category:15th-century Indian translators (0) to Category:Indian translators and Category:15th-century translators and Category:15th-century Indian non-fiction writers
Propose merging Category:15th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:15th-century translators and Category:15th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:14th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:14th-century translators and Category:14th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:14th-century Indian translators (0) to Category:Indian translators and Category:14th-century translators and Category:14th-century Indian non-fiction writers
Propose merging Category:13th-century Indian translators (0) to Category:Indian translators and Category:13th-century translators and Category:13th-century Indian non-fiction writers
Propose merging Category:12th-century Indian translators (0) to Category:Indian translators and Category:12th-century translators and Category:12th-century Indian non-fiction writers
Propose merging Category:11th-century Indian translators (0) to Category:Indian translators and Category:11th-century translators and Category:11th-century Indian non-fiction writers
Propose merging Category:10th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:10th-century translators and Category:10th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:9th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:9th-century translators and Category:9th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:8th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:8th-century translators and Category:8th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:7th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:7th-century translators and Category:7th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:6th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:6th-century translators and Category:6th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:5th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:5th-century translators and Category:5th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:4th-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:4th-century translators and Category:4th-century Chinese writers
Propose merging Category:3rd-century Chinese translators (0) to Category:Chinese translators and Category:3rd-century translators and Category:3rd-century Chinese writers

Nominator's rationale: Each category is too small (n<4) to diffuse by century and nationality Mason (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now without objection to recreate these categories when they can become much better populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2024 (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:Germanic peoples. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Historical Germanic peoples to Category:Germanic peoples

Nominator's rationale: Useless intermediate layer. The only content is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Early Germanic peoples. Note that Germanic categories have been refined to apply to the Germanic peoples of the past, instead of e.g. a container of present-day nation-states speaking a Germanic language such as English. Place Clichy (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2024 (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) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Early Recording Engineers (1930-1959) to Category:Audio engineers

Nominator's rationale: Listfy and merge. This category isn't very helpful without a lot of context. If kept, it should either be renamed to "Recording engineer pioneers" or something to that effect. Mason (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, the articles are already in Category:American audio engineers and/or Category:Women audio engineers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree it makes more sense within Category:Audio engineers. I’m the one who started the list out of my own need for it while doing research, and there is a lot of room to expand it (especially to international). Actaudio (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should create a page/list about it, so the information isn't lost. Mason (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Actaudio: I have started this for you at Draft:List of audio recording pioneers. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the articles are now in American/English audio engineers, and in Women audio engineers where applicable. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 27 January 2024 (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:Regions by continent. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Regions of Eurasia to Category:Regions by continent

Nominator's rationale: Useless intermediate layer. Currently a container for just ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Regions of Asia and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Regions of Europe. Place Clichy (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (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:Tribes of Afghanistan. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Social groups of Afghanistan to Category:Tribes of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Per actual content, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Tribes by location. In a previous discussion it was argued that social groups e.g. kulaks in the former Soviet Union are distinct from Ethnic groups, however it seems that the Afghan category is exclusively populated with groups sharing ethnic characteristics rather than occupational, wealth or other purely social ones. As they are in general subgroups of larger ethnic groups such as the Pashtuns, the word tribe is probably best to describe them, and is in fact used to introduce most or all articles. @Marcocapelle, Mzajac, and Omnis Scientia: pinging participants Place Clichy (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and re-parent to Category:Tribes of Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional schoolchildren to Category:Fictional students

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, narrow intersection of students and children that isn't really required. There's nothing wrong with the subcategories being in both Category:Fictional students and Category:Fictional children. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, the subcategories are based on age, but we already have Category:Fictional children and Category:Fictional adolescents for an age split. Note that I have nominated the first subcategory further above on this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 17:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. And @AHI-3000 this is not a vote, saying you oppose is extremely unproductive and you know it. Mason (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't owe anyone an explanation. And if it's not a vote, then this whole process wouldn't be determined by arbitrary majority opinions of whoever decides to actually participate in these discussions. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. Letting your opposition be known without explaining what your oppositon is, does not help form a consensus. Mason (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then. I oppose because I disagree with the allegation that this nominated category is a WP:NARROWCAT. I will not elaborate any further. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will not consider your !vote valid. Saying you disagree eisn't enough, you have to say why. Qwerfjkl talk 18:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Useless overlap. Place Clichy (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:United Airlines Flight 93 victims to Category:United Airlines Flight 93 deaths

Nominator's rationale: Largely redundant, no need to separate the hijackers into their own category. If that is done, then it would make more sense to do it the other way, with Category:United Airlines Flight 93 hijackers, rather than having one category for "deaths" and another for "victims" excluding them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term victim (which I lothe) is part of a much larger category tree for Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States AND there is a specific category for Category:Victims of the September 11 attacks, which intentionally excludes the hijackers who are in Participants in the September 11 attacks. Both are child categories of Category:People associated with the September 11 attacks Mason (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Let'srun (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 17:23, 21 January 2024 (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 with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Shiina clan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Shimizu clan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this clan. Delete for now, as it's unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, without objection to recreate the categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2024 (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:Pansexual people. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pansexual people by occupation to Category:Pansexual people

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one occupation category in here Mason (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2024 (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) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Intersex audio engineers to Category:LGBT audio engineers

Nominator's rationale: At present there isn't a the broader LGBT parent category, I think we should rename and reparent it. Mason (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marco and Place Clichy. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lone article (Anton Krzyzanowski) is primarily known for being an activist for intersex recognition, also being a sound designer is unrelated (and incidentally nothing is actually told about this career if the article). ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Russian audio engineers is more than sufficient to convey the notion. Place Clichy (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2024 (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) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American bisexual musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:EGRS/I: this intersection of occupation and orientation should be deleted as joining disparate elements. Perhaps if there were a field of American Bisexual Music, or if the musical culture made specifically by members was a topic of study, but that does not seem to be so. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's an entire category tree of Category:Bisexual musicians. Mason (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This still violates EGRS/I. Even were a tree warranted, it does not mean endless branches. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, you'd need to nominate the entire tree, otherwise this would be just a waste of time. Furthermore, this category needs to be merged to American bisexual people and American LGBT musicians and bisexual musicians. Otherwise, this would look to be bisexual erasure. Mason (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such procedure, and of course your comment reveals how bankrupt of any guideline support or logic your !vote has, not having a Wikipedia category that does not accord with EGRS/I erases nothing, whatsoever. This is not the place to for you to take a poorly thought out stand, see (WP:RGW). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me! That is so extremely uncivil writing. How is deleting a category instead of merging, not erasure? Mason (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that goes is the category nothing else, no information is erased whatsoever from anywhere. There is nothing uncivil in my comment just pointing out your untethered to guideline reasoning, and your false and tendentious erasure claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support. I don't think that the subject of any article in the category is commonly and consistently defined by reliable sources as the famous American bisexual musician. In this regard, most articles probably deserve to be purged from the category per WP:EGRS/I. That said, the specific trade of a musician (or more widely, that of entertainer) leads in some cases an artist to considerably convey LGBT themes in their art, and be especially recognized as carrying that message towards the public. That's pretty different from just saying "yes, I am bisexual" in an interview. Place Clichy (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be, 'people in LGBTQ entertainment', if that's defining their art or act, but as you say, none in this cat, defined in sources as "American bisexual musician" even if they may be American, they may be a musician, and they may be bisexual, the things are disparate. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose, while this may well concern a trivial intersection, the category should be deleted together with its siblings or not at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that where there is a category that violates EGRS/I it somehow must be kept because there may be another category that violates it. That can't be right. Conversely, even if you assume that one of the "sisters" could work out fine because there is a whole literature on that other group, that would still not make this category work for this group under the guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Marco (and I ) are saying is that you need to nominate the entire tree, not just a single nationality. We diffuse by nationality to make the category manageable. Mason (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least, nothing about this category needs to be done by country to make it "manageable", certainly not in violation of EGRS/I - that means it is most definitely not being managed properly. And even from any process standpoint it's silly to insist, 'no we can't discuss a category individually.' This category makes no sense per policy, if we can get through this one substantively, and surely we should since it makes no sense, we can move on more readily. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One discussion about all will lead to one consistent outcome of the discussion for all. When they are all nominated separately, then different discussions may well lead to different outcomes due to different editors participating in the discussions (with various country interests). The discussion should be as centralized as possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is going to bring forth the evidence that another country's category satisfies the EGRS/I, than that's fine for that category (not every country is the same, nor assumed to be the same, and that's not inconsistent, that's different evidence). (And if in the future this American category has evidence yet created in the real world, this category can re-exist properly). But that does not and will not mean this category satisfies EGRS/I now because there is no evidence. If someone is !voting based on their "country interest" and not on EGRS/I evidence than the !vote is invalid. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The problem here is that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bisexual musicians became too large and needed diffusion — so by-country is a perfectly appropriate and acceptable way to subdivide it regardless of whether "country-bisexual" is a "defining" intersection in its own right, because of the overarching need to manage the size of the nationally-undifferentiated parent. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ivote is entirely nonresponsive to EGRS/I objection and thus unsupported. You offer no evidence in support of this category. It also makes no sense, Nation-Music may be defining given different cultures of music; but in the context of this category, none of it together is defining as a group and not in any combined part since EGRS/I is about unsupported combination, and this combination in its parts is unsupported by any evidence. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my procedural oppose, but honestly "too large" is not a good argument, because even if the distinction between L, G, B and T musicians would no longer be made and it would all become just LGBT, then the tree is still diffused by singers, songwriters and composers by nationality. The question is really whether Category:American bisexual musicians should be selectively merged to Category:American LGBT musicians insofar the articles aren't already in Category:American LGBT singers and siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think sexuality in combination with music is defining (see the discussion of bisexaulity throughout LGBT music), so Category:Bisexual musicians passes WP:EGRS/I ("there is a specific cultural context for the grouping"). Once that bar is passed (i.e., once the combination of an occupation with an EGRS category is made), I don't see an issue with subdividing on nationality. If there is a valid cultural context, that cultural context will almost always be further divisible by nation, just by the nature of a cultural context. Given that Category:Bisexual musicians is not proposed for deletion, why is the proposal for this category to delete rather than merge?--Trystan (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:School buildings in Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Schools in Oregon
Propose merging Category:School buildings in Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Schools in Idaho
Propose merging Category:School buildings in Georgia (U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Schools in Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: Renominating as the previous discussion was prematurely closed. The lone sub-categories are already in Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places so a dual-merge is NOT needed. This is a redundant layer with only 1 sub-category. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, Namiba, Aboutmovies, Cbl62, and RevelationDirect: pinging participants. Please read the reasoning as to why a dual merge is not needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There should be a broader discussion as to why universities are not considered schools (and thus why university buildings are not considered school buildings) but there's no reason to hold these three states mergers up over that much wider issue. The current categories do not aid navigation at all and I can't think of any potential article that would be notable for the physical building (other than NRHP or on a campus). - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the category description on Category:Schools, it states: This category is about educational institutions from pre-schools through secondary schools. Whether this is the best approach is up to debate, but that discussion should occur in a different venue. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reparent to Category:Educational buildings in Oregon, Category:Educational buildings in Idaho, and Category:Educational buildings in Georgia (U.S. state). The articles are on the buildings and are better suited to a category about buildings and structures than educational institutions.--User:Namiba 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's only one sub-category of Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon, etc. Are we going to move every school into the school buildings category. I don't understand any aspect of your argument for keeping. Reparenting the categories doesn't change the fact that it's a redundant layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Would creating a category of Category:Educational buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon, etc. that parents Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon, Category:University and college buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon, Category:Libraries on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon ( and Category:Museums on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon if it existed) make you more inclined to support this merge? –Aidan721 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would make a lot of sense.--User:Namiba 01:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: The tree for educational buildings on NRHP is done: Category:Educational buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2024 (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) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Mythic Sound Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary parent for 5 albums which are in an albums category for the label. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category:Mythic Sound Records albums suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2024 (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:Cartography. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cartography by continent to Category:Cartography

Nominator's rationale: No need to isolate these three pages, upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now without objection to recreate the category when there is a complete set of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support; no further merging is needed, as the contents are already categorised by continent. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 23 January 2024 (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:History by topic and continent. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Transport history by continent to Category:History by topic and continent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only contains a single category Mason (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2024 (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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:German printmakers by century to Category:German printmakers
Propose merging Category:French printmakers by century to Category:French printmakers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2024 (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:Sculptures by Rudolf Schwarz. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rudolph Schwarz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category only has two pages in it, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and re-parent to Category:Sculptures of Rudolf Schwarz, after I added two more articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative Mason (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Shouldn't it be Category:Sculptures by Rudolf Schwarz? –Aidan721 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, similar categories use "by" instead of "of". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2024 (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.

January 21

Category:Artisans by ethnicity

Category:BBC Television Service original programming

Category:Films about courtesans in Bangladesh

Category:Archery in Asia by region

Category:Top Gear

Category:Samastha

Category:Mythological nurses

History of provinces by period

Category:Cultural depictions of Louis XV's mistresses

Category:Name organic reactions

Category:15th-century Indian translators

Category:Depictions of women in film

Category:Historical Germanic peoples

Category:Early Recording Engineers (1930-1959)

Category:Regions of Eurasia

Category:Social groups of Afghanistan

Category:Underwater diving

Category:Fictional schoolchildren

Category:United Airlines Flight 93 victims

Category:Shiina clan

Category:Pansexual people by occupation

Category:Intersex audio engineers

Category:American bisexual musicians

Category:School buildings in U.S. states

Category:Mythic Sound Records

Category:Old Cities of Mon people

Category:Cartography by continent

Category:Transport history by continent

Category:German printmakers by century

Category:Rudolph Schwarz