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: administrative close, category page was not tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Islamophobic attacks and incidents to Category:Violence against Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Two categories for the same thing, with circular links to each other. The destination category is more populated. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. • Oppose, Not all Islamophobic incidents are violent. They can involve verbal abuse too. 84.13.152.255 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the whole category structure seems screwed up. If attacks and incidents need not be violent; then the suggested target should parent the first one. Moreover, no doubt lots of "violence against Muslims" has no relation to Islamophobic. Much of the civil war in Syria seems to include violence against Muslims - but alas, not a whit is categorized under this scheme either because the scheme is screwed up (my premise) or some folks' subjectivity that violence against Muslims only counts when the perpetrators are not Muslim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It doesn't like a notice was up on either category page. I'd assume that users in that place would have them on their watchlists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, 'islamophobic' is not defining, while there are more useful cats at Category:Persecution of Muslims which it can be merged to.--Loomspicker (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Islamophobic" is an undefined, unclear, attack name. I have been described as such for saying exactly that about it, in an article created on my in the socalled Rational Wiki. It is an undefined term used more as a rally cry for attacking others views than for thoughtful analysis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All the "incidents" in this category were violent in nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sailors at the 1900 Summer Olympics – 0 to .5 ton to Category:Sailors at the 1900 Summer Olympics

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Categorising Olympic athletes by sport, year and event sounds like overcategorisation for me. Also no other categories of the "Participants at the xxxx Olympics"-tree are this detailed on events. Smartskaft (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Most sailors only compete in one/two classes so these categories don't cause people to be in lots of categories. Each category (of those I checked) has plenty of members. DexDor (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's a previous discussion which had the joy of BHG's filibuster. I'll stick to my original comments from that and to have them all upmerged Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is also lacking a convincing reason as to why these categories should be merged. DexDor (talk)

• Comment. This CFD would result in the emptying (and hence deletion) of categories such as Category:Finn class Olympic sailors. DexDor (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG's filibuster in the similar previous discussion. Some specific examples of egregious category clutter arising from this scheme would assist those who wish to upmerge. (Ben Ainslie did some sailing and the suggested upmerge will replace 5 categories with 5 less specific ones.) Oculi (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The nomination seems to have overlooked the result that it would empty Category:Olympic sailors by class and its immediate tier of subcats, even though these have not been nominated. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 21 February 2015 (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:Roman Empire, then redirect to Ancient Roman geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Geography of the Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Seemingly redundant categorization layer, it only contains one child category. When checking its parent category Category:Ancient Roman geography it becomes apparent that for the geography topic there is generally no distinction made between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No upmerging is needed because its one child category is already contained in the tree of Category:Ancient Roman geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to the other parent Category:Roman Empire as this seems to be needed, then redirect to Ancient Roman geography. Looking at the interwiki links, I see that many other language Wikipedias have just one category either for Geography of the Roman Empire or Ancient Roman geography, but there are others that have both, presumably copied from English wikipedia: Macedonian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Turkish and Chinese. Probably none of those need the two levels, but unless & until they are all merged I suggest that redirecting this one would be more useful than deleting. – Fayenatic London 14:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been so bold as to close the discussion myself since there is obvious consensus and the discussion has stayed open for such a long time. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs which sample or interpolate other songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very similar categories have been deleted in CfD numerous times. No more defining to me that what instruments were used in the recording of these songs. Even attempts to listify such songs have been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sampled songs). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nominations:

• Category:Derivative sample songs and Category:Sampled songs, Jul 19 2006
• Category:Songs that sample 1980s hit singles, Feb 26 2009
• Category:Songs sampling previously recorded songs, Aug 31 2010
• Category:Songs with samples by Stevie Wonder, Feb 1 2015

• Delete per nom and per precedent. Non-defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no reason why it should be deleted. It is well defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.34.204 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, precedent, and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE This is a great category, useful and well defined, unlike similar categories which have been deleted in the past. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The category may be well defined, but the songs themselves are not defined by their sampling of another song. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:24, 17 February 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Comedy albums by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:1950s comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:1960s comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:1970s comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:1980s comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:1990s comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:2000s comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:2010s comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary intersection of albums by decade and genre. Albums are already categoried by year and genre per WP:ALBUMS. Plus comedy albums in particular isn't a genre that would be overly populated anyway for such a division. Similar to previous CfD for songs by decade and genre and music groups. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is invoking WP:OTHERCATSEXIST, but what about some of the other genres that are subcategories of Category:Albums by decade? I'm not asking this to be snarky; I'm legitimately asking if album + year/decade + genre (Category:1990s Christmas albums, for example) is too many intersections for a category. Trivialist (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas albums aren't a genre because you can have R&B Christmas albums, country Christmas albums, jazz, vocal, etc. The only other one that exists is classical albums by decade which went through a CfD and exists as being more unique and in need of such a scheme. I don't see that same need here to categorize every album by an intersection of what decade it was released in and its genre. And how far would that go: Category:1980s new wave albums, Category:1990s grunge albums? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Comedy changes, and this hierarchy is useful for navigation between items of the same era. – Fayenatic London 16:38, 4 May 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1957 establishments in Malaysia to Category:1957 establishments in Malaya

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate, back in 1957 the state was called Federation of Malaya or simply Malaya (and until 1963, per that article). Brandmeister^talk 14:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per duplicate intended scope. SFB 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- we use the country names of the period, not the current ones in this context. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from the Province of Bolzano to Category:People from South Tyrol

Nominator's rationale: Recently-created cat that contains itself. Province of Bolzano redirects to South Tyrol so AFAIK these two categories are synonymous. Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per identical intended scope. SFB 17:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative - it's a synonym for Category:People from Bolzano, and I've moved the only article to that cat. Le Deluge (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Le Deluge: That assumes that the people from the province are all from the town. In fact, Bolzano is one city in the Province of Bolzano, which has several other towns, such as Merano. A person from Merano is also a person from the Province of Bolzano, but is not a person from Bolzano (the city) - the two towns are about 23 km apart. It's like saying that somebody from Margate is a person from Canterbury instead of a person from Kent. Therefore, this edit was back-to-front: it describes the province as a subset of the town, whereas in reality, the town is a subset of the province. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Creative Commons-licensed journals to Category:Open access journals

Nominator's rationale: I'd like to nominate this as a non-diffusing subcategory of the open access journals category; please see the WP guideline: Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories. Rationale: (1) it is not immediately obvious for a layperson that CC implies OA; (2) OA does not require CC (it's not just uncategorization -- i.e., it can be OA without being CC); (3) some experts argue that the non-commercial clause of CC does not comply with the OA definition, thus creating "pseudo-open-access" journals (background on this third point: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). Fgnievinski (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what the nom wants here. Categorize journals that use CC as both CC and OA? That's a bit silly, given that CC is one of the hallmarks of the OA movement. As for the fine points of the definition of OA, I think that the vast majority of people will define OA as content being available online for free, without having to pay anything. People looking to see whether a journal is OA will see this in the infobox and the article lead. People searching for a particular OA journal may start perusing the "OA journals" cat, of which the "CC-licensed journals" is a subcat, so I think they'd get it easily enough that the latter are also OA journals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2015 (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.