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 to Category:Non-free images of Briarcliff Manor, New York (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Briarcliff Manor media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:New Rochelle media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the only two categories for categorising non-free media associated with a specific place in the United States. They're also placed in Category:Images of Westchester County, New York, part of the residual free images categorisation scheme, and the New Rochelle category contains articles on radio stations (i.e., local media in a different sense of the word) in the place. I'm not sure any such granular thematic categorisation of non-free images is needed, and certainly we need some more clarity on organisation here, which may require renaming etc. —innotata 22:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only created the Briarcliff one after seeing the New Rochelle one, and I think it makes sense. How are non-free images categorized on Wikipedia? Among categories full of articles, which would be extremely messy? No, there should be categories simply for the images/audio/video about a subject or place. This reminds me of the Villa Savoye, which also has its own Wikipedia category simply because a lot of nonfree images exist of it that also cannot be put on Commons. We must not discriminate against categorizing images simply because of the nature of their copyright. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - items are categorised by defining characteristics and it is difficult to argue that Briarcliffe is not a defining feature for File:BHSshieldlogo.svg say. It is also difficult to see why Category:Images of Westchester County, New York is restricted to free images. We do have non-free images, eg Category:Album covers. Oculi (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past, the "Images of X" categories were presumed to be for free images only. There's never been any resolution to change that as far as I know, and IMO it's quite awkward to use the same categorisation scheme for both: for free images, gallery view is useful for maintenance, especially without the tools for looking through categories that Commons has; for non-free images, policy bans gallery view. —innotata 23:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's awkward, and also - merely a lack of good display options in software should not prevent us from categorizing in order for users and editors to find important relevant content. As for the "no resolution" bit: not everything needs a formal RfC to end a practice. It's clear nonfree images are now being categorized in normal categories, and with a lack of opposition (save for you now), it should be kept that way. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It makes things a lot harder for people looking for free images to illustrate articles, or identifying issues with images on a certain theme, which should be the main reasons for these categories existing. Non-free images are meant to have just a restricted set of uses, while including them in the image category scheme would seem to encourage more uses and so on... Maybe the solution is for all the main image categories to have non-free subcategories? Category:Non-free images of Westchester County, New York and so on. Also, these two categories in particular presumably need some sort of renaming to distinguish them from categories for media organizations. —innotata 18:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized the New Rochelle category is only being used for media organizations now, apart from a questionable free file that I've moved to the erstwhile parent category. I'm converting it to a category for media organizations, and withdrawing it here. I propose moving the remaining category to Category:Non-free images of Briarcliff Manor, New York (or such; and deleting the redirect left behind). —innotata 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support those renamings, that's definitely clearer. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:01, 13 July 2018 (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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 25#Category:Community organizing. ℯxplicit 06:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Community organizing to Category:Community building

Nominator's rationale: There is way too much overlap in their category trees, and the semantic difference between the two are minimal if not non-existent.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if I understand the article Community organizing correctly, the concept is closer related to Activism than to Community building. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 09:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Students of Sandra Seacat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic per WP:CATDEF of any of the actors added to the category (all by the same editor who created it); seemingly intended merely to promote Sandra Seacat. General Ization ^Talk 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Seacat which was closed Keep in 2012 but may have some background to offer. General Ization ^Talk 15:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There should be a certain level of notability for such a category. Others in the same overall category are Category:Pupils of Avicenna‎, Category: Pupils of Rembrandt‎ and Category:Pupils of Socrates‎. Also, many of the actor articles don't even mention that she was their teacher, or how influential she was on them. --Ebyabe (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As above. Seacat is no Socrates. Additionally, if there was something which said that students of Seacat were somehow different (won more Oscars, etc.) then I could see it. But at this point there is no defining quality that makes these students stand out from the background noise that is the rest of actors in Hollywood. †dismas†|^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Well, so much for the 'Nays,' I'm afraid. (Thx again to General Ization for the heads up & the link.) Although I had been deleting the bare-bones portion of my initial adds—i.e those w/ no more than student-teacher confirmation—in hopes of meeting the defining characteristic threshold, that's just not happening. And in terms of notability, if an acting-coach precedent were to be set within this parent cat, Seacat clearly has to stand in line. Moreover, I think the need for interactivity can be served simply be ensuring that the wikis of all those who've made special mention of Seacat's influence on their careers include some wiki-linked evidence of that fact. Apart from that, I think user-and researcher-friendliness would be best served by simply including as comprehensive a list as possible within the main article (as in Hagen or Meisner, although preferably alphabetized and fully sourced). DavidESpeed (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Unless Sandra Seacat had a college, so that this could be converted into an alumni category, I do not think we can allow this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2018 (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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 25#Cooperative banking by country. ℯxplicit 06:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cooperative banking by country to Category:Cooperative banks by country (over redirect)
• Propose merging Category:Cooperative banking in Australia to Category:Cooperative banking in Oceania and Category:Cooperatives in Australia‎
• Propose merging Category:Cooperative banking in Canada to Category:Cooperative banking in North America, removing the broader page History of cooperatives in Canada
• Propose merging Category:Cooperative banking in Norway to Category:Cooperative banking in Europe, removing the article Norwegian Savings Banks Association
• Propose renaming Category:Cooperative banking in the United States to Category:Cooperative banks in the United States

Nominator's rationale: these categories have hardly any general content about the topic of cooperative banking, but only articles on banks. The sub-cat Category:Credit unions by country is well-populated, and Category:Mutual savings banks by country has three sub-cats, but those national sub-categories do not need a "Cooperative banking in Foo" layer above them. Some other countries already have categories "Cooperative banks in Foo" and there was a Speedy-page proposal to rename them to "banking", but this was opposed on the grounds that these categories work well as sub-cats of "Banks in Foo". It will be more useful to do away with those that are a redundant layer, and rename others from "banking" to "banks". As for the two articles that I have suggested for removal, I have added "See also" links to these on the sub-category pages. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very sensible proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer targets relating to whether they are "mutual savings banks" or "credit unions". Note UK building societies are mutual, but not coops. They are not the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The mutual savings banks and credit unions categories will be kept as child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of the Blagoevgrad Province to Category:Blagoevgrad Province
• Propose deleting Category:History of Bulgaria by province

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 sub-cat for modern period, after merger of ancient, medieval & Ottoman categories per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 29. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all Would also be inclined to disambiguate the province from the city by renaming both the article and the categories to Category:Blagoevgrad (province). Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​ That might be the right thing to do, as the Bulgarian Wikipedia page is "Blagoevgrad (oblast)", but currently all the province categories in Category:Provinces of Bulgaria use the naming format "X Province". Maybe suggest the change at WP:WikiProject Bulgaria. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 15 July 2018 (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: reverse merge. (Just in case this needs undoing later, here are the bot contribs showing the former members.) – Fayenatic London 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Armenian writers to Category:Ethnic Armenian writers

Nominator's rationale: While I figured most people consider "Armenian" in the first category to refer to nationality/citizenship and "Armenian" in the second category ethnic Armenians of any nationality/citizenship - other views differ. If these sorts of categories are not going to be maintained as they were outlined (and by parent category, organized) then they ought to be merged; if they are, they ought to be purged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, what makes you think that they are not maintained as outlined? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• An editor posted on my page claiming these two are identical, and has reverted a change reflecting what was my contrary understanding. Also, if you peruse the subcat Category:Armenian male writers for example, you'll see lots of people of the Ottoman Empire who were ethnic Armenians categorized there (depending on the results of this merger proposal, that cat can either be nominated later or purged afterwards). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to point out a couple of parallel situations. We have Category:American writers of Greek descent, Category:Greek writers (with myriad sub-categories,) and writers like Christos Tsiolkas, who is not listed in any "Greek categories" at all. We have Category:Jewish writers by nationality, Category:Jewish writers, and many others, categories, but we also have Category:Israeli writers. At the very least, I suggest some sort of division of categories to separate writers of Armenian nationality, from writers of Armenian ethnicity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Category:Jewish writers, and many others, categories, but we also have Category:Israeli writers" They are not equivalent. Per Demographics of Israel, 74.5% of Israel's population are Jews, 20.9% are Arabs, and 4.6% are "Others" (members of various minorities). Dimadick (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • They would be equivalent if the founders of modern Israel had chosen to call their nation Judaea and thus adopted Jewish as a denonym. That is what is really going on here, and merging these categories into one is pretending something else exists when it does not. Ethnic Armenians in Israel and Lebanon have no connection to the modern nation-state of Armenia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Just an idea, how about renaming Category:Ethnic Armenian writers to Category:Armenian writers (ethnicity) and Category:Armenian writers to Category:Armenian writers (nationality)? We should then do that for all categories in both trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This renaming suggestion should not be regarded as opposition against merging. The suggestion was based on the assumption that there will not be consensus on merging. Given the discussion below I now guess that this assumption was wrong which makes my renaming suggestion obsolete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46 and Marcocapelle: do you think it would be appropriate to take the opportunity and extend the nomination to mother Category:Ethnic Armenian people? Most arguments given apply to the entire category, not just the writers subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Imho it is not only appropriate, it is even preferable. Just merging writers without merging people in general would not make sense in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once this is sorted, the rest of the categories can be nominated to be treated in like manner; whenever one starts with too many, the focus becomes which are outliers and nothing is solved for the general proposition. Let's settle that one first. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to Category:Armenian writers. This distinction is absurd. Since when is the word Armenian used only in relation to the Armenian state, which has existed only since 1991? Everywhere outside Wikipedia, Armenians are called Armenians, not Ethnic Armenians. It's the Armenian Genocide, not the Ethnic Armenian Genocide, and the Armenian Church has never been called the Ethnic Armenian Church despite centuries of existence outside any Armenian state. It's like saying that Dante Alighieri was not an Italian writer but an Ethnic Italian writer, or that Goethe was not a German writer but an Ethnic German writer, because no state called Italy or Germany existed in their time. The Ethnic Armenian people hierarchy is not an established hierarchy, it is the work of a single editor which somehow survived the concerns of the rest of us. In previous discussions on similarly named categories, such as on WikiProject Categories talk and this user's talk page, arguments in favor of this Ethnic modifier have included : "There were no Grwek people prior to 1821." (talking about Ethnic Greek... categories) or "Ethnic Albanian is a designation for those who are not nationals of Albania." or "People still ignore the fact that without the ethnic cartegories we tag people as Greek by nationality who were part of the Ottoman Empire at a time when Greece was a distinct nation." While most users have argued that this logic is plain wrong, the categories unfortunately still stand. I believe that nuances of origin, citizenship, ethnicity and nationality will be much better served, with all necessary levels of nuance, with longstanding categories such as People of Armenian descent, Armenian diaspora, Ancient Armenian people, People of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic people, Lebanese Armenians, Armenian American, etc. I therefore ping users who took part in these discussions: @Johnpacklambert, Cplakidas, Fayenatic london, and Mondiad: Place Clichy (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a merge the other way round, if anything. This is ridiculous. Nations with as ancient a history and as large a diaspora as Armenia are not prima facie defined by their modern nation-states. "Armenians" have existed long before the modern Armenian state, or the modern concepts of ethnicity and citizenship. The clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here (as with similar categories about Greeks, Chinese, etc) is not tied to citizenship of a modern state. If a need exists to distinguish ethnicity from citizenship, this should be done in the article, or by using both relevant categories. A Turkish Armenian journalist can be both an "Armenian journalist" (if he writes in Armenian and/or as a member and representative of the Armenian community) as well as a "Turkish journalist". Constantine ✍ 18:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. I'm definitely not interested in actually engaging with the constant battle over whether or not Category:Armenian people categories should directly include everybody of Armenian ethnicity regardless of their actual nationality or citizenship — why this is a uniquely Armenian issue that doesn't apply the same way to every other situation where a person's ethnic background may not correspond to their nation-state citizenship (e.g. ethnic Germans in Poland or Russia) I'll never know, but the editwarring over it stretches back years — but if there's a merger to be had here it has to go the other way, because the country category is the one that has to exist regardless of where anybody stands on that question, whereas the ethnicity category is redundant if "all ethnic Armenians go directly in the country category" wins the fight. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per the arguments of User:Cplakidas. Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is good reason that Armenians are not treated the same way as Germans. This is because until 1990 Armenians were a lot closer to jews than Germans. In many areas Armenianess was an ethno-religious identification that included people whose families had lived outside of historical Armenia, no matter how defined, for hundreds of years. The attempts to just run roughshod over these facts ignore the reality of the fact that ethnic Armenians are a clear and dinstinct group, while at the same time ignore the clear power of nationality in the modern world. Armenians are a special case because we have ethnic Armenians in Lebanon and Israel whose families have been living as dispersed ethnic minorities for centuries, not to mention the effects of the millet system of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you're trying that argument against a person whose ethnic background, as far back as I've ever been able to trace, involves ethnic Germans who lived in Congress Poland, Volhynia and Russia, completely outside of even historical "Holy Roman Empire" Germany let alone the contemporary borders of 21st-century Germany? I'm sure if I could get 100 years further back than I can, I'd find ancestors actually living in Germany proper — but as of about 1780 they were already living in an identical situation to the Armenian side of the distinction you thought you were making. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, a reverse merge would require a de-parenting of the category from Category:Writers by nationality because many of the articles included would no longer be of Armenian nationality, but of Armenian ethnicity but of French, American, Romanian, Ottoman, Soviet, or whatever nationality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  (Answer placed after relisting) I respectfully disagree, with the same examples as above: Dante belongs in Italian writers (or a subcat thereof) despite never having been a national of Italy, and Goethe belongs in German writers despite never having been a national of Germany, and both these categories still belong in Writers by nationality despite this fact. This is the usual historical/geographical paradox that is inherent with any category system, and it's not too bad. Place Clichy (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure that that's proper categorization, but there is a big distinction: both Dante and Goethe lived in places that are now Italy and Germany, respectively, so while ahistoric it may be in some sense logical; whereas, the vast majority of the folks in these Armenian categories never lived in the places that are now Armenia - it's purely a bloodline thing and can be very attenuated at that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  They may be related to the territory of the Kingdom of Armenia, Greater Armenia, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia etc. which covered a much larger territory than present-day Republic of Armenia. For people not connected in any way to any of these territories, categories such as Armenian diaspora and Armenian-language writers should probably be sufficient, they shouldn't be is any Armenian fooers category anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment was more directed toward placing an ethnic category into a tree based on nationality - of which you mention a few nationalities of predominantly ethnic Armenian populations. However, someone who was born and died in say the USA (Saroyan) or Istanbul/Constantinople (many of the writers in this and similar categories), they cannot be said to be Category:Armenian writers of any stretch any more than Jews who lived in the USA or Germany be said to be Israeli anythings... Diaspora or no, nationality is distinct from ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. I think these articles would be better placed in Category:Armenian-language writers (if applicable) and/or Category:Armenian Americans and/or Category:American people of Armenian descent (no occupation), but certainly not in Category:Armenian writers on grounds of ethnicity alone. Saroyan is consistently defined in his article as an Armenian-American writer, never just an Armenian writer. However, about Istanbul/Constantinople, especially in Ottoman times, and even the entire Eastern Mediterranean, Armenians living there would probably have been self-defined, and defined by people around them, as Armenians, so this category would be very legitimate for them (same as Dante and Italy). Place Clichy (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Armenian is a quasi-ethnicity, related to membership of a Christian denomination. The Ottoman millet system meant that denominational membership became something like an ethnicity. Part of the area occupied by the Armenians was conquered by Russia in 19th century, becoming Russian Armenia (as opposed to Turkish Armenia). This polity has become the present republic, but many Armenians have never been connected to this polity. The headnote on the category distinguishes Armenian and ethnic Armenian (which this nom foolishly seeks to merge). We need separate categories for (1) Republic (2) Armenians in rest of Middle East (in successor states of Ottoman Empire, possibly including any in Iran (which was not Ottoman territory) (3) Armenian diaspora. The latter is a significant group, sicne many emigrated after the genocide during WWI. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This doesn't address the fact that 1°) most contributors spontaneously categorize non-national Armenians in Armenian fooers categories anyway (the original motivation of this discussion) and that 2°) even if we were to keep a distinct category for other Armenians, it should probably be called someting else than Ethnic Armenian XXX per all the arguments developped above. Especially, I believe that there are longstanding categories which better give all the necessary nuances of origin, citizenship, ethnicity and nationality, with all necessary levels of nuance, such as People of Armenian descent, Armenian diaspora, Ancient Armenian people, People of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic people, Lebanese Armenians, Armenian American, etc. Also, the comment about membership of a Christian denomination is not absolutely correct as there are Armenian Catholics, Armenian Evangelical Protestants and probably many atheists as well. Place Clichy (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Economic development, innovation, technological change, and growth to Category:Progress

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, a container category with only two subcategories is not helpful for easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2018 (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) 05:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Classic microsoft windows operating systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with ambiguous wording. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What defines it as "classic"? Too subjective. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to more than covered (and better) by List of Microsoft Windows versions. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice - subject is already well covered by Category:Microsoft operating systems hierarchy. Le Deluge (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm rather disappointed to find that there is no article about Windows RG edition. Now that's a classic. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 15 July 2018 (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 for now without prejudice to a fresh larger nomination with this category included. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Translation Request/sd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty, historical category. I don't see value in keeping it, other than to trick learning editors using HotCat, maybe.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose picking off one currently-empty category for the Sindhi language (that's the meaning of /sd) from a large system of categories, most of which are non-empty, at Category:Deprecated translation system. They should all be dealt with together. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 15 July 2018 (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) 05:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Only one TypeScript framework is notable and has an article at this time. If kept the category needs to be renamed to "TypeScript libraries". — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NARROWCAT.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:13, 11 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Other wikis user templates to Category:Wikimedia-related user templates

Nominator's rationale: Due to simillar usage, it needs to be merged. kwan-in (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge OVERLAPCAT OCMISC  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:00, 11 July 2018 (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.