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: do not rename. Consensus is that the entire tree should be handled together if we should be discussing a rename. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hulk (comics) in other media to Category:Hulk in other media

Nominator's rationale: Brackets are not needed and it will match the title of the main article Hulk in other media JDDJS (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a strange article title and category title: other than what? But admittedly this is a case of WP:C2D, and besides it's also a case of WP:C2C because parent categories also have the format of "in other media". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• support per C2D. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, parents are Category:Hulk (comics) and Category:Avengers (comics) in other media, so it would be liable to be renamed back under C2C. "Other than what"? - other than comics, but the category name will no longer be meaningful if the nomination goes ahead. – Fayenatic London 23:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I would probably support renaming the whole tree, but we shouldn't just rename this category in isolation from the rest of the tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am less than convinced the way these categories are set up makes sense, treating the comics as the main source and others as other, may be debatable with the rise of such very successful movie franchises, but we should consider the naming are organiational scheme more broadly, not just for one of many comics in other media categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 20 March 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 (non-admin closure) feminist 07:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dissociative identity disorder in fiction to Category:Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture

Nominator's rationale: redundant cats JDDJS (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, both categories contain a mix of novels, cartoons and video games. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 30 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) 07:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Largest national park of Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: By definition, will never contain more than one item —swpb^T 18:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the item it does contain is wrong, as the park is Serengeti National Park. Oculi (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is a misuse of category space. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 29 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 as empty for now. If new member pages are created, there is no consensus here about what name to use next time. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose speedy renaming Category:Documentary films about Italian-American organized crime to Category:Documentary films about the Mafia – To bring this subcat in line with its parent Category:Mafia films. The previous subcat Category:Films about Italian-American organized crime is now empty and will be listed for deletion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, the proposed reorganization of these categories seems to have the effect to merge films about the Italian Mafia (i.e. in the country Italy) with films about the American Mafia. Is that intentional? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring specifically to the documentary categories? At this point, there are only two docs in the cat, both of which are on American figures. If the time comes that the category is more heavily populated, docs on the Sicilian mafia (for which there are separate fictional cats) can be placed in a subcat. At this point, it is not an issue. Does that address your concern? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was also referring to the deletion of the more general Category:Films about Italian-American organized crime which would typically contain the American Mafia articles only. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate Category:Films about the Sicilian Mafia. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Both the member articles are unreferenced and apparently not notable. I have just proposed them both for deletion. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as currently empty. However I would have opposed the original nomination. Italian-American organized crime is not the same as The Mafia, since the Mafia also exists in Italy itself. Beyond this "mafia" has come to be such a generalized word for organized crime that terms like "Russian mafia" are widely used, so it may be too ambiguous on multiple fronts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 20 March 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) 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Official blog not in Wikidata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Official blog different in Wikidata and Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Articles using Template:Official blog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Holding template is being deleted per this discussion, and hence no articles will be categorised anymore in these categories when cleanup has finished and the template has been deleted.

Moreover, the categories Category:Official blog not in Wikidata and Category:Official blog different in Wikidata and Wikipedia have no maintenance function for Wikipedia - solving the issues that are signified by these categories does not improve the en.wikipedia articles that are in this category. It is not of Wikipedia's interest to know whether the field in WikiData is the same, different, does not exist. This is a maintenance category for WikiData and as such does not have any place here. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I emptied the category in the process of removing the transclusions of ((official blog)) (per deletion discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless someone wants to come forward to reclaim these categories after the template was updated, these won't serve a purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 5 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: No consensus to merge. A reverse merge was mentioned; no prejudice against a reverse merge nomination, since the target wasn't tagged for this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Singapore to Category:Singaporean people

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia articles rarely provide precise information on citizenship, and categorise people as being of "Fooish" nationality based on residence and.or significant association.

This category aims to distinguish between Category:Singaporean people (citizens) and this set of ppl "who were born in Singapore or who are resident in Singapore". That distinction is not applied to other countries, and it is too fine to maintain. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As noted, a distinction between citizenship of a place and mere residence in that place is not the category system's concern. We categorize people by nationality, not necessarily by other countries where they happen to have lived without ever actually becoming citizens of that country. (And by a similar token, even for people who live in the same country where they were born, we do not categorize them as being "from" every city they ever lived in for a year while they were kids whose parents moved around a lot — we categorize them as being "from" the cities that are critical to note in their biography, i.e. the city they were born in and the city where they lived when they actually undertook whatever career made them notable enough to have a Wikipedia article to categorize, and usually nowhere else.) Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with the exception of the "Sportspeople from Foo" where it seems to be sufficient for one to have played for the Man U club to be included, ultimately in the "Sportspeople from Manchester" cat. Go figure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "People from" is along established tree. Being from a place (or country) is purposely left vague, whereas Singaporean implies citizenship. The "from" tree covers place of birth and present or past residence. Stamford Raffles who founded the city was clearly from there, but was British. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"People from" is a long-established tree for subnational entities, such as provinces, states, cities or towns within countries. There are exactly zero cases where a national entity has parallel top-level categories for both "Country-demonym people" and "People from Country-noun". Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. @Bearcat: @Peterkingiron: Consider Category:Irish bishops and Category:Bishops from Ireland. This is necessary as Ireland exported large numbers of bishops around the world who never served in sees in their own land. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Bishops from Ireland is a quite confusing category name when you think of its purpose. It could better have been something like Category:Expatriate bishops from Ireland, to make a clearer distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I said people from. That somebody might have done something non-standard (and quite possibly also deletable) somewhere down in the shade zone is quite separate from and irrelevant to the fact that there's no standard practice of maintaining parallel demonym-people vs. people-from-country categories at the top of the people tree. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are bishops not people? If you cut us, do we not bleed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very separate question from whether bishops-from categories are the same thing as people-from categories. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Updated below)Keep both Both these categories are valid. For reference, Singapore has been independent for only 51 years now and the term "Singaporean" is specifically used for citizenship (not location). Prior to 1965, there were many instances of people who ere probably from Singapore but were Malayan citizens - we categorise them as people from Singapore (which was a sub-entity in Malaya/Straits Settlements), not Singaporeans. Even now in present times, a second generation Singapore Permanent Resident is a "person from Singapore" but not a "Singaporean". This is nuanced, but is useful for keeping separate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example Toh Ah Boon would can be categorised as "people from Singapore" but not as a "Singaporean". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or reverse merge as we don't make a distinction between citizenship and nationality. If "Singaporean" is an established term used for citizenship then I wouldn't mind a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, interesting. I guess a reverse merge actually works quite well here. Thank you for suggesting this Marcocapelle. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge "Singaporean people" into "People from Singapore" As I explained earlier "Singaporean" is applied in cases of citizenship. As such, a reverse merge of "Singaporean people" into "People from Singapore" is fine by me. If the reverse merge is not acceptable, I would prefer to keep both. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 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: split. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Centuries by country to Category:Centuries by country and Category:Centuries by former country

Nominator's rationale: A logical move for this large parent category is to have another one created for former countries (Category:Former countries).Zoupan 00:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The distinction is not clearcut, and it is often is complex applying it would impede navigation. A "former country" may a place where the same territory remains a country but with a change of name and regime, or a geographical entity which has been subsumed or merged. The corollary is that a "current country" may not have had the same name or territory in previous centuries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by the comments below that the split is workable, and has precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent, see Category:Categories by former country. Perhaps these categories contain 'former' countries with a mere name change within the same territory as a current country, but that is probably not particularly harmful. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It occurs to me, if we make this split for centuries, then it should also be done for millennia, decades and years, for reason of consistency. @Zoupan: have you considered this too? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I though it was logical to begin the split at centuries, and then go through the decades and years categories. I believe many of the years-categories are simply too intricate and needs to be scrapped (upmerged), especially those deep into history.--Zoupan 13:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely agree on the need to upmerge most year categories of former countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - instead split -- I agree that the present category is too large for comfort. I am opposed to millennium splits, which is mere category clutter. The present category includes both century by country and country by century. I would like to see the country categories split by continent. These continental and the century categories would make a reasonable sized category. By convention, we do not have categories for renamed countries. Thus the Northern Rhodesia items should be parented as Zambia. Furthermore, we do not need century categories for former countries that did not last for more than perhaps a dozen decades. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you intend to propose deleting the "by country" category after splitting by continent? I guess we can't do that, as it's part of an established "by country" tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't see any problem with the objection by BHG. Where a country disappears from one named entity and reappears under a different named entity, each gets it's own category listing. for example Category:Centuries in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:Centuries in Austria-Hungary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support To make it easier to fit in Category:Categories by former country category tree and ensure that these are historic-related articles on defunct entities. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 3 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.