< April 5 April 7 >

April 6

Category:Recipients of the General Honor Decoration (Hesse)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining -- an obscure, merit-based award. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who started many similar categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 6 April 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.

Medieval Ukrainian people

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 the 10th-12th, as the current contents are in the "XXth-century princes in Rus'" category. There is not yet a 9th-century category so rename the first to Category:9th-century Rus' people. – Fayenatic London 13:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:9th-century Ukrainian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:10th-century Ukrainian people
  • Propose deleting Category:11th-century Ukrainian people
  • Propose deleting Category:12th-century Ukrainian people
Nominator's rationale: delete as anachronistic. The content of these categories is about Rus' people, while Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians all claim to descend from Rus' people. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 6 April 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.

Category:Wikipedians from Orange County, California

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No reason to have two differently-named Wikipedia user categories for the same thing. The only occupant of the category proposed for merger, User:Scott Sanchez, appears from his user page to actually live in Orange County, so the distinction between being from someplace (some time in the past) and being in it (as a current residence) doesn't actually make a difference in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 6 April 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.

Category:Rulers of Kievan Rus'

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: relist at 2017 May 13. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to clarify that this is for princes of Kiev proper rather than for princes in the entire Kievan Rus' federation of principalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: That's a fair comment. I was looking for some name to disambiguate this category from e.g. Category:12th-century princes in Kievan Rus' which contains princes of any small principality in the wider Kievan Rus' region. To be more precise the latter could be called Category:12th-century rulers of Kievan Rus' principalities. In contrast, the nominated category is clearly for rulers of the early undivided principality with Kiev as its capital. It should be noted that while Kievan Rus' has become the common name, it is also merely a modern historiographic name while the rulers at the time simply called themselves princes and grand princes (or dukes and grand dukes, dependent on translation) of Kiev. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 11 May 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.

Princes in Rus'

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:9th-century princes in Rus' to Category:9th-century princes in Kievan Rus'
  • Propose renaming Category:10th-century princes in Rus' to Category:10th-century princes in Kievan Rus'
  • Propose renaming Category:11th-century princes in Rus' to Category:11th-century princes in Kievan Rus'
  • Propose renaming Category:12th-century princes in Rus' to Category:12th-century princes in Kievan Rus'
  • Propose renaming Category:13th-century princes in Rus' to Category:13th-century princes in Kievan Rus'
Nominator's rationale: rename, since princes (aka dukes) are better off in a polity category than in an ethnicity category. See Rus' people and Kievan Rus' for more information. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 6 April 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.

Category:1941 in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

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 one originally nominated, rename the set in the alternative proposal (using the full name – there is insufficient consensus to abbreviate it). 16:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Essentially refers to the same geographical location in the same year. Moldova is the more widely used name for the region and conforms to category naming conventions. Alcherin (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what about categories for earlier years? Per the above reasoning, given that the area (excluding Transnistria) was under Romanian control, Category:1920s in Moldova and Category:1930s in Moldova‎ should be merged to Category:1920s in Romania and Category:1930s in Romania (and relevant subcats renamed/merged as necessary). I'm not entirely sure what to do with Category:1940s in Moldova (and Category:1940 in Moldova‎, Category:1944 in Moldova‎, and Category:1944 in Moldova‎ though - perhaps place it as a subcat in both Category:1940s in Romania and Category:1940s in the Soviet Union (and the same for the individual year articles). Alcherin (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am now tagging the category pages listed in the alternative proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:51, 6 April 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.

Category:Dungeons & Dragons character stubs

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: double merge of category, keep template. – Fayenatic London 16:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub category no longer needed. The vast majority of articles have promoted from stubs to at least start-class. Keep template, upmerging to both category:Fictional character stubs and category:Dungeons & Dragons stubs. Dawynn (talk) 15:46, 6 April 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.

Baptist churches in London boroughs

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, mostly according to the revised nominations. Merge Category:Baptist churches in Hammersmith and Fulham to Category:Baptist churches in London and Category:Churches in Hammersmith and Fulham since Category:Churches in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham does not exist as of now. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are small categories and do not aid navigation. If not merged, then rename to "Baptist churches in the London Borough of..." per the recently renamed parent borough categories. – Fayenatic London 12:12, 6 April 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.

Category:Fictional hermaphroditic species

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 both into Category:Fictional species and races. The concern with WP:SMALLCAT was not, nor was it foreseeably able to be, resolved. ℯxplicit 04:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Fictional hermaphroditic species to Category:Fictional single-sex races
Nominator's rationale: Neither category has a lot of entries and they are redundant. JDDJS (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But does this apply to the two articles that are in this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One is about a species, the other about an individual character. Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean does it apply that the species and the character in this category can later change gender? That was your point, after all. The article Hutt (Star Wars) says they reproduce without sex, that doesn't quite imply a possible change of gender, even less it implies hermaphroditism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's consensus against the merger that was originally proposed, but further discussion is needed about the alternative proposal. ~ Rob13Talk 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 12:02, 6 April 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.
More