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. Winners are mentioned in Confucius Peace Prize, no need for a separate list (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Confucius Peace Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, award is also not very notable Prisencolin (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (for Different Reason) 6 articles with room to grow seems reasonable to me. The problem is that Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin and Kofi Annan are just not defined by a Chinese award. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OCAWARD, after making sure there is a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite attempts to make it seem otherwise, this is not a highly regard prize, and winning it is not a defining characteristic of the winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 5 January 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:South Texas Independent School District Middle Schools to Category:South Texas Independent School District middle schools

Nominator's rationale: Proper capitalization: South Texas Independent School District is a proper noun but "middle schools" is not WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge To both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. The category only has 1 article and the South Texas Independent School District only has 2 middle schools so there is limited growth potential. (If kept, rename.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge no reason to keep a one item category, especially since middle schools are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 5 January 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:South Texas Independent School District High Schools to Category:South Texas Independent School District high schools

Nominator's rationale: Proper capitalization: South Texas Independent School District is a proper noun but "high schools" is not WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge To both parents. There are only 4 high schools in the district so there is no room for growth and 5 is my minimum. (If kept, by all means, rename.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @RevelationDirect: There is the possibility the district may open a new high school. I'm in favor of upmerging the middle school category but I prefer keeping the high school category. For high schools I personally make two my minimum, though whether I actually start the category in the case of the school district depends upon whether the two schools are comprehensive. If the second high school is not a comprehensive I typically do not start the category. I'd like to keep the category for the high schools partly because the category can't be upmerged into a "high schools in X county" category ... the district operates high schools in multiple counties. I want it to be a daughter of Category:Public high schools in Texas by school district WhisperToMe (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename @WhisperToMe: Five articles is my arbitrary cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT so, if you think we can get there, sure. Let's keep it and rename it. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 6 January 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Amarna letters by letter to Category:Amarna letters

Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to duplicate each other completely. Furius (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- They seem the same, except that the subject also has a lot of redirects in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The sub-cat would only be needed to hold other sub-cats, which we do not have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since the redirects redirect to the same articles about Amarna letters that are already in the target category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 9 January 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Adelaide to Category:Racing drivers from South Australia

Nominator's rationale: this category is almost identical to the slightly broader Category:Racing drivers from South Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, racing drivers by city in Australia is an accepted categorization scheme, we have it also for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane; and this Adelaide category by itself isn't a case of WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upmerge. "Racing drivers from Adelaide" is overcategorisation. From WP:OCLOCATION: "in general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics". It makes no different to a racing driver's career if they from Adelaide or from just outside the city boundaries, so subcategorisation by city is not appropriate. I would support any nomination of similar categories from other cities. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Categorisation of American racing drivers only goes down to the state level - I'm not clear why Australia should be different. Furius (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing oppose, presuming that the three other city categories Category:Racing drivers from Sydney, Category:Racing drivers from Melbourne and Category:Racing drivers from Brisbane will also be nominated for merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (also Brisbane to Queensland), but Sydney and Melbourne are well enough populated to be kept. Even the two whose merger I am suggesting would in theory be pig enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 2 January 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Parishes (Catholic Church) to Category:Church parishes

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains an eponymous article and a subcategory. Presumably church parishes are not notable most of the time, so we don't need a complicated category structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has lots of potential to grow by country and by denomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the definition of a WP:SMALLCAT is "Small with no potential for growth", not "underpopulated". The potential for growth on this one is every RC diocese in the world - I've thrown in some extra ones to bulk it out. I'm no specialist in this area, I only created this as part of red-link-bashing, and I didn't do so without some thought - but if you look at the parent article the Catholic idea of a parish is distinct enough to merit its own hierarchy, and there are already dozens of categories within that hierarchy (although it could probably do with a bit of cleaning up).Le Deluge (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Parishes in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly‎ that has just been added, merely contains articles about towns and villages. While the name of a Catholic parish may well coincide with a place name, "parish" is not a defining characteristic of the place. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- If the Cashel & Emly item contains village articles, it is being misused: villages should be categorised by counties, not archdioceses; it is thus not about church parishes. The Anglican church in England and Wales also has parishes, but it does not have a category structure based on them, because in many cases civil and ecclesiastical parishes are identical. They are not the same for my own parish, but that is the result of modern boundary changes. Furthermore, we tend to categorise churches not their parishes. The present category structure is appropriate. The target has an article on an Anglican parish, which might need purging to a new Anglican sub-cat, if we should have that article at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, on the basis of dozens of parishes already in the sub categories and the potential for expansion. Being a bit of a genealogical nerd I can understand the centrality of religious parishes in the past and the ongoing importance in countries where religion is widely practised. Some of the sub cats may need untangling, because they include church buildings as well as parishes. Sionk (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The proposed tree, if properly populated, will be largely reduplicative of Category:Roman Catholic churches by country and its constituents. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is one article that covers the parish as well as parochial facilities and institutions, typically, its church and school; it is rare that separate articles will be justified, or that separate articles can be supported with reliable non-primary sources. A possible compromise might be to rename the tree Category:Roman Catholic parishes and churches (compare Category:Roman Catholic parishes and churches in the United States) reflecting that the great majority of articles in WP are church-oriented, rather than parish-oriented. -- choster (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while I think this is a correct observation, deletion of the tree will require a separate nomination that includes the subcategories. The nomination should consist of merge proposals from "parishes" categories to "churches" categories and possibly rename the "churches" categories to "parishes and churches" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What about Lutheran parishes? Anglican parishes? All would fit quite comfortably with the nominated category as a parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we have enough articles on Catholic Parishes to justify having a seperate tree. The issue of the Churches/Parishes issues can be addressed at another time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 5 January 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Order of Umayyad

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

When foreign heads of state visited Syria, they receive Order of Umayyad as a souvenir from the government as part of the official welcome. If you're wondering just how much category clutter these categories could possibly create for heads of state, just take a look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The notified Mimich as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Syria. – RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Background We deleted medals given to foreign officials by Venezuela and Afghanistan here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- These diplomatic awards to foreigners are a clear case of OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per long-standing CFD precedent for such awards. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining award category that is currently leading to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 5 January 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, expand and delete as nominated (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Renaming and Expanding Category:Decorations for the International Four Days Marches Nijmegen to Category:International Four Days Marches Nijmegen

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Cross for the Four Day Marches

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD/WP:NONDEFINING. (WP:SMALLCAT for the parent.)

The Cross for the Four Day Marches is a participation award for every time someone completes the International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. According to the article, "612,500 first year crosses have been awarded ... with over 960,000 further awards" so this award too common to possibly be defining.

If this nomination passes, the parent category will then suffer from WP:SMALLCAT but expanding the scope will bring it up to 4 articles with growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The notified Barliner as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Netherlands. – RevelationDirect (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- a clear case of OCAWARD. Probably too NN to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and rename Per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and rename. Just a commemorative medal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 4 January 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Fifty Bibles of Constantine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEF. Apart from the eponymous article, the category contains one codex that could be one of the 50 bibles of Constantine (as a hypothesis) and one other codex that is unlikely to be one of these 50 bibles. That seems too little to keep a category for. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 1 January 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 (i.e. retain current titles). While I personally sympathise with the nominator's arguments, there is a clear consensus that the Perth categories should retain "Western Australia" for clarity. This is something that is inline with standard practice in the category space, where there is generally a lean towards being more detailed/precise in titles than in article space, as BHG describes with the Birmingham example. Od Mishehu, could you please go through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 1/Perth and remove the CfD notices from all nominated categories. I will do the parent category (Category:Perth, Western Australia) and tag the talk page with ((Old CfD)); I don't think tagging the talk pages of all the various subcategories nominated will be necessary though. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Perth, Western Australia to Category:Perth

And all subcats - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 1/Perth

Rationale: Per main article, which has been at Perth since 2012. Note that if the article is ever moved back to Perth, Western Australia, I have no problem with moving the categories back. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Rename Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name. Since the disambiguation needs of categories and articles are identical, we shouldn't get in the practice of overriding naming decisions made at the article level. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Per my longer comment below, and that that of Oculi, I dispute the presumption that the name of a category's and the name of its related article should always be identical. That identicality is usually appropriate, but there are long-standing exceptions for cases where ambiguity would lead to categorisation errors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to respectfully disagree there. I don't see the Birmingham article/category name mismatch as aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miscategorised articles impede navigation. And ambiguous category names cause miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what a brilliant new year present for the Perth project - this relates to the very unpleasant interactions over the primacy issue relative the the word Perth. Have notified the Perth project of this CFD JarrahTree 13:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was counting on the Article Alerts system to do that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JarrahTree: Thank you for providing background that the naming of the Perth article has been contentious. To share in the other direction, matching city categories with the name of city articles has become pretty routine in these CFD discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How unfortunate JarrahTree 23:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – it is also routine for me to state my belief that category names should be unambiguous, regardless of the article name (which is clearly both ambiguous and controversial). Oculi (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the use Perth is still controversial, is just not being challenged as those who contribute content recognise that to do so would potentially invite sanctions. Secondly before making such a large complex change to so many categories I would need some assurances that other uses of Perth not directly related to the Perth, Western Australia structure have all been properly disambiguated before further discussion because the potential for considerable confusions and false associations is significant given that 24 other locations are also called Perth, like categories for Perth the suburb is to be disambiguated as well as other non-perth the metropolitan area in Western Australia categories will be addressed. Gnangarra 03:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Like Oculi, I believe that category names should be unambiguous, because ambiguity in category naming leads to errors with are hard to detect and to fix. The city of Perth in Western Australia is ambiguous with the city of Perth, Scotland, and while the Australian city has been judged to be the primary topic in article space, ambiguity causes greater problems in categories.
  This situation of Perth/Category:Perth, Western Australia is analogous to the city of Birmingham in England and its Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. In that case the English city of Birmingham has been judged to be the primary topic over Birmingham, Alabama, but the category name uses the fuller form to avoid ambiguity in categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment. The nominator User:Od Mishehu says that this nomination should apply to "all subcats". If the intention is to include all subcategories, then they should be listed and tagged. Unless they are listed and tagged, then this discussion cannot move them.
  The result of the failure to list and tag the subcats is that the effect of this nomination if accepted would be to place the nominated category out of sync with its subcats. There is no plausible reason for such a perverse outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that list should also include non Perth, Western Australia related categories currently using just Perth and what those will be changed to. Gnangarra 08:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did include a full lit on a subpage whic h I linked to at the top of the discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 1/Perth), and tagged all of them with my AWB account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that, Od Mishehu. But please can you copy-paste the list into the top of this discussion, so that editors can see it directly?
If you think it's too bulky, just wrap it in ((collapse top)) and ((collapse bottom)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that adding nearly 8K of data to this page does more harm than good; and ((collapse top)) does nothing to fix the download time it would cause for each time someone looks at any part of this page or the sourcr of this section, while it does tend to cause issues for many users (myself included) trying to look at any section link - this is caused by the fact that the browser fist loads the entire page, then finds the correct section, then collapses parts as requested without adjusting the location on the page. This is the smallest list I've compressed this way, if you treat the entire listing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities as a single list; I would probably put the absolute minimum for a nomination at 5K. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, an article is very much different to categories which are far more complex, since the name "Perth" is very much ambiguous and controversial. Dealing with the Commons category system is bad enough but to move categories that are unambiguous to become ambiguous will create problems and fuel further controversy that just isn't needed. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bidgee (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Perth is a city in Scotland, known as the gateway to the Highlands; and there was Perthshire. BHG has already quoted the Birmingham precedent, which I have often quoted on this issue. The problem is that new articles on the Scottish city may get inadvertently added to the Australian category, contrary to WP principles. If anything, since the Australian city is not the original it should be moved back to Perth, Western Australia, again following the Birmingham precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support per C2D; Category names should always follow article names. Pppery 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You could try reading WP:C2D: "This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial". Oculi (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) "... either because of longstanding stability at that particular name ...". According to the nominator, the article has been at Perth since 2012, which is clearly longstanding stability. Pppery 19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do persevere. "If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply." Renaming a page does not remove ambiguity. C2D does not apply. Oculi (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Four years of clearly longstanding stability, if it can be called that, is because of the significant previous damage and distrust between active members of the Scottish and Australian projects at the earlier time, as well as the PrimaryTopic enthusiasts who showed their colours over the issues surrounding the name issue - long standing stability is a total misnomer - the issue still remains problematic despite any attempt to say otherwise. Also VIP Perth Australia does not exist - it is also a serious misnomer - there is more than one Perth JarrahTree 23:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Suppose we would rename, I'm assuming we would leave redirects from categories "in Perth (Australia)" to "in Perth" without dab. This could work if both Perths would have exactly the same category structure so that after renaming for every subcategory there is always the choice between three categories: "in Perth", "in Perth (Scotland)" and "in Perth (Australia)" redirecting to Perth. Anyone in doubt will choose a category with dab here, which is perfectly fine. However it is unrealistic that the two trees match exactly and so if we rename it may well happen that for a certain subcategory there is only a twofold choice between "in Perth" and "in Perth (Australia)", in which case an article about Perth Scotland may well end up in Australia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you realise that while Perth, Australia is currently a redirect to Perth, it has not always been that way, and indeed the longest period of stability in the history of that article had it as a disambig page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Like Oculi, I believe that category names should be unambiguous. I said the same at Luxembourg and Sao Paulo but was whacked with WP:Common / Primary stick on each occasion. I believe that Primary is being abused and should not have precedence over disambiguation necessities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Category:Mayors and Lord Mayors of Perth, Western Australia it for Lord mayors of the City of Perth not for the Perth Metropolitan which the article covers. Official title is the Lord Mayor of Perth, but the Mayors of Freo, Cockburn, Kwinana, Melville, Bassendean, Bayswater, Swan, Stirling, Cottesloe, Nedlands, Subiaco, Claremont Joondalup, Armadale, Canning, Gosnells, East Fremantle, Mosman Park, Waneroo, Peppermint Grove, Rockingham and a few more are Mayors/Lord Mayors within the Perth, Western Australia the article talks about. how does the proposal plan to distinguish between the two ? Gnangarra 11:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: At the moment the "Category:Perth" page serves a useful disambiguatory role. If the proposed change is made, someone arriving at or linking to "Category:Perth" will receive less notification that they might have been meant for the Scottish Perth. Furius (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is sufficient likelyhood of confusion with the Scotland location to justify the exactness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: Why is this likelyhood any greater than that for the article, which is at the undisambiguated title? Pppery 20:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is much easier to link to categories without knowing what they actually are than for articles. Although in this case having the article at the undiambiguated title I think was also a mistake.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose an invitation for further confusion. commons:Category:Perth is a disambiguation page with five places as options. It seems bizarre to move the enwiki category structure away from Commons to a deliberately ambiguous result. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - could someone close this? It has been lying dormant for over a month - it would be appreciated, as Perth categories really cannot be adjusted while this in limbo, in good faith. Thanks JarrahTree 10:37, 9 February 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 and purge British rule in Burma (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1948 in British India to Category:1948 in India
• Propose merging Category:1950 in British India to Category:1950 in India
• Propose merging Category:1948 disestablishments in British India to Category:1948 disestablishments in India
• Propose merging Category:1950 disestablishments in British India to Category:1950 disestablishments in India

Nominator's rationale: India became independent in 1947, so the Category:Years in British India tree should not extend past that date. Tim! (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Except that British rule in Burma shouldn't end up in Category:1948 disestablishments in India. Furius (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Have we had a discussion about these YEAR in British India categories at any point - there does seem to be a lot of duplication between them and Category:YEAR in India. Furius (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly merge these -- There was no British India after 1947. The headnotes are saying that it covers the whole Indian subcontinent (now 3 countries), but that is not strictly accurate. British rule in Burma may need moving to a higher level category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the earlier period:

There were a myriad of princely states, which were notionally independent, where the British at most had a resident, who was (at least in theory) a diplomat. We also have subcats for earlier Indian years for Dutch, French and Portuguese colonies. However, we do not seem to have categories for Indian Princely States. Any wider merger needs to be very carefully considered. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. From about 1827/1830 on the British functionally controlled most of India in a way that makes what happened there functionally happening in the British Empire (outside of the small areas of Portuguese, French and early on Dutch control). Prior to that date, places like Assam and its neighbors were fully beyond the limit of British control. Actually, on looking into the matter it is a bit more tricky. Balouchistan seems to not have come under British Dominance (well, the part now in Pakistan) until 1876. probably prior to that time any Balouchistan related events should be classed directly in Asia. We should also reflect the Actual limit of Afghan power. Also, the Sikh Empire was fully outside British control until its fall in 1849. I am thinking pre-1850 we should use British India and use the more general India for events happening outside British control. from 1850-1947 we may be able to use India as areas under the British Raj in some form, and if we have articles on events in say Balouchistan during that period, put directly in Asia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 5 January 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. With the current category content there isn't much to listify (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Discoveries by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: "Discovered by" is a non-defining, controversial and complicated topic. I noticed this at "Red blood cell" which wasn't in fact discovered by AvL, and this is just one example.

We shouldn't be categorising our articles this way and it would be more appropriate to use lists for this purpose. I propose deletion of this category and any other similar "Discoveries by" categories. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same incorrect way we might as well add Australia to Category:Discoveries by James Cook and America to Category:Discoveries by Christopher Columbus. Incorrect and misleading. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because, as far as I can see, he is described as one of the first to observe these microscopic phenomena and the first to record many of them. But it's a bit of a leap to say he 'discovered' them. Sionk (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discovered by whom is not a defining characteristic of anything. Lists would be more appropriate to store this information. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:05, 5 January 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Religious observances to Category:Observances and Category:Religious behaviour and experience

Nominator's rationale: upmerge to both parent categories. As the category consists of two subcats only, it is an unneeded category layer, merely hindering easy navigation through the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:13, 1 January 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.