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 23:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Reduction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Highly ambiguous name - reduction is a major dab page - that the creator wants to use to group things like poverty reduction. Le Deluge (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a disambiguation category. Have it disambiguate among Category:Organic redox reactions, Category:Harm reduction, Category:Variance reduction, Category:Dimension reduction, and Category:Noise reduction, and probably Category:Reductionism as well. The main articles for all of these categories appear at Reduction, so it's reasonable to put the categories on a category disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't really do dab cats though, do we? It feels like the cleanest way to handle this is for it simply to not exist at all.Le Deluge (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  See ((Category disambiguation)) and Category:Disambiguation categories; I don't see why this category couldn't be a disambiguation category. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was looking to make a category that encompassed various public policy related article had "reduced" something, like poverty, homelessness, nuclear stockpiles etc. That particular category probably need to named something other than just "reduction". Other concepts in the sciences with the same name can also be included in another category with a similar name. --Prisencolin (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the topics of reduction of homelessness and reduction of nuclear stockpiles etc so similar that a category grouping them together is appropriate? DexDor ^(talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or convert to dab cat if necessary). DexDor ^(talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on proposed dab page. For example Category:Church is category disambiguation page because the term church is ambiguous. I can't see how the term reduction is ambiguous in the same manner. It seems like a dab page has merely been proposed as an alternative to a parent category and that would be an inappropriate use of dab pages imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 13 June 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. ℯxplicit 04:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People of Arab nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Being an "Arab" or "Arab person" is not a nationality, and this category should not refer to it as such. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are already better named categories, such as Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin, and Category:People of Arab descent. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sub-categories don't make sense either. For example, the category "Algerian people" is a sub-category; however, not all Algerian people are of Arab nationality. Funandtrvl (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Le Deluge (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename Category:Arab people on the model of Category:Slavic people, Category:Chinese people and Category:Latin American people. Arab is not a nationality, it is a people (a linguistic, cultural, and ethnic group.) Like, Slavs, Latin Americans, and Chinese.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: Do you mean to merge the nominated category to Category:Arab people? As you're saying Arab is not a nationality, the nominated category for Arab nationality should not make sense. Just trying to understand what you're exactly after. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually parenting say Category:Iraqi people to the Arab category is highly questionable, when Assyrians, Chaldeans, Kurds and Turkmen, none of whom are considered Arab, are also among the people of Iraq.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 21 June 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) 06:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Georges Brassens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON, especially since the two "song" subcategories each contain the same articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:52, 9 June 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. ℯxplicit 04:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Animated internet series to Category:Animated web series

Nominator's rationale: This category is living in Category:Web series genres alongside ten other categories, including Category:Comedy web series, Category:Horror fiction web series, Category:Mystery web series. All other genre related categories use "web series" instead of "internet series" and I propose the move for uniformity. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - could do this via a C2C speedy. Le Deluge (talk) 21:52, 9 June 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 and recreate as parent categories. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Establishments in the Russian Empire to Category:Populated places established in the Russian Empire
• Propose renaming Category:Establishments in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:Populated places established in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Nominator's rationale: rename as more precisely describing the content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Russian Empire and populate with categories such as Category:18th-century establishments in Russia, although it would be entirely reasonable to create a category at the proposed new name, to make it a subcategory of this one, and to move the current contents over there. No opinion on the Ukrainian SSR. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand correctly, the Russian Empire comment can also be read as follows: support the proposed rename, but recreate a category with the current name as its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle -- We probably need to re-create both as parents. I am concerned at some of the content of the Ukrainian category where stubs have categories without the fact categorised appearing in the article. In one case, I saw it in an infobox, but several times not at all. I wonder whether the second could not be shortened to Category:Populated places established in the Ukrainian SSR, just as we used MPs in category names. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 10 June 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: relisted at the foot of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 30. – Fayenatic London 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:525 BC in Egypt to Category:525 BC in Africa and Category:6th century BC in Egypt
• Propose merging Category:398 BC in Egypt to Category:398 BC in Africa and Category:4th century BC in Egypt
• Propose merging Category:380 BC in Egypt to Category:380 BC in Africa and Category:4th century BC in Egypt
• Propose merging Category:343 BC in Egypt to Category:343 BC in Africa and Category:4th century BC in Egypt

Nominator's rationale: merge to century categories per country per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all these categories have only one article without a reasonable chance of expansion.

Note 1: on the talk page there is a list of container categories that naturally become empty if this merge is accepted. Though they haven't been tagged, it would be helpful if they are deleted upon closing this discussion.

Note 2: this is a continuation of the previous nomination of June 1. @Oculi, Tim!, Nyttend, Peterkingiron, J 1982, Neutrality, and Inter&anthro: pinging same editors as before, as you have participated in earlier discussions in the same field, feel free to comment on this new nomination too. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Fragmentation of small categories such as Category:4th-century disestablishments in India is a bad idea. Oculi (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. However, we should consider putting the Egypt articles into Asia also; they're all related to the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which often controlled the southern parts of the Fertile Crescent. In the same way, if there are earlier categories, a future nomination should be careful, since the power of the Egyptian empire under certain kings of the New Kingdom, e.g. Thutmose III, was projected well to the north in the Fertile Crescent, so such categories might also have Asian items. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There aren't any older year categories in Egypt than the ones nominated, afaics. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Skipping the continent category layer altogether (as discussed below) would immediately solve this Egyptian issue as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and well-established precedent - too many of these bitty categories.Le Deluge (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support generally but I am not sure the continental categories are useful and would merge direct to the year category. The Maya have good dating, but I think this is unique in America. Egypt has good dating, but that is probably unique in Africa. This also avoids the objection as to the need for an Asian target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed likely that won't even have enough content by continent by year to make a continent split. But let's first see how the country mergers turn out before turning to the next layer of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I'm no great fan of continent categories, apart from eg (association) football, where continental confederations are the main unit of organisation. But continental categories imply a X by continent parent category, which even if you count 7 continents is pretty much a classic WP:SMALLCAT. Personally I'd nuke the continent layer before say 1500 and let the Egyptians and Maya mingle.Le Deluge (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I've been too conservative in the nomination, as I don't have any specific objections against merging to global year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, see also this next discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 23 June 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. ℯxplicit 04:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Xiongnu history to Category:Xiongnu

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT. As a historical entity, every article about Xiongnu is related to its history. There's no need for a separate history category. Zanhe (talk) 02:20, 9 June 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 to Category:Spaceports in China (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Satellite Launch Center in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT. This category almost completely overlaps with Category:Spaceports in China. Zanhe (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. This sounds like it's just one of the spaceports, but on the other hand both Satellite Launch Center and Satellite Launch Center in China are redlinks. Is it just a misnamed category that probably should have been "Satellite launch centers in China"? If so, merge, since indeed its scope is identical. Nyttend (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge. DexDor ^(talk) 18:54, 12 June 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.