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. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Categories by crown land of Austria-Hungary to Category:Crown lands of Austria-Hungary

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but the sole subcat also needs merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why so? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename "Category:Fictional German professional wrestlers" to Category:Faux German professional wrestlers
• Rename "Category:Fictional Japanese professional wrestlers" to Category:Faux Japanese professional wrestlers
• Rename "Category:Fictional Russians in professional wrestling" to Category:Faux Russian professional wrestlers

Nominator's rationale: Move for accuracy/consistency - the categories are for wrestlers who were portrayed as being from German, Japanese, or Russian respectively. They were not fictional people, they were real people who pretended to be from other countries as part of their personas. McPhail (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as this is part of a much, much larger tree, all of which use fictional instead of faux.--User:Namiba 14:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: are you referring to Category:Fictional professional wrestlers? That is for fictional characters in comics, etc. It is highly desirable to separate categories for real persons with false nationality from fiction. – Fayenatic London 06:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, it is certainly useful to make a distinction between fictional characters and real people pretending to have a different nationality. However, after checking a number of articles in Category:Fictional Japanese professional wrestlers I doubt if this is a defining characteristic. Deletion of these categories may be a good option too. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Isn't 'fictional' a lexical term of more than just one meaning? Well, I'm not a native speaker so I can't be certain if we can trust in people to perceive and tolerate this fact. --Just N. (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - looking at Hans Schmidt (wrestler), the 'German' persona was obviously defining. It seems to me that these people are misplaced in Category:Fictional people and so Namiba's objection to 'faux' would be met by changing the parent categories. The present name and categorisation are misleading and should be changed: 'faux' seems a reasonable solution. Oculi (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- unless someone can come up with a better name. These are not fictional people, but real wrestlers pretending to be of a different nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. The distinction that the nationality is fake, not the person, is better made with the proposed new category titles. SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Overseas Indian restaurants to Category:Indian restaurants

Nominator's rationale: Does "Overseas" mean outside India? There's only a few entries here, so I propose upmerging to Category:Indian restaurants. In the future, subcategories can be created for specific countries, but "overseas" is not consistent with other restaurant categories. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Overseas is always likely to be ambiguous. For the future sub-categories by country, I think you'll need to split England by town! Which reminds me I'm having curried chicken for tea tomorrow...... No Great Shaker (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and split by country when necessary (and it almost certainly will be). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge there are 9 articles already; enough for a category. And looking at the content of entries directly in Category:Indian restaurants, I see that more belong to this overseas category. If there is any pattern at all in the other Category:Ethnic restaurants, it is that there is often a category for the 'fooian restraurants in the United States' and for no other country. Hmains (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments, if the category is kept, Saravana Bhavan should presumably be moved to the parent category, as it is based in Chennai. An alternative category name could be Category:Indian diaspora restaurants similar to its parent Category:Indian diaspora cuisine. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom - 'overseas' from where? Category:Indian restaurants needs further attention as its other subcat Category:Restaurants in India will presumably include restaurants which do not serve Indian cuisine. Oculi (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: assumed point of view and meaning lost —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom - 'overseas' is pretty unclear. NavjotSR (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and split by country if necessary, per above. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Indian cuisine restaurants. For information most of those in UK are owned by Bangladeshi-heritage people from the Sylheti community. One of the chains appears to operate in India and other countries. The exclusion of restaurants in India can be covered by a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and split by country when necessary (and it almost certainly will be). Same as Grutness. --Just N. (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:South Asian cuisine restaurants outside of South Asia, clarify what "Indian" means, and what "overseas" means. And that this pertains to cuisine, not ownership -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2021 (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. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 28#Category:Deaths in the Philippines by province. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths in Metro Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Place of death is not defining Rathfelder (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It isn't a small category and so I think it is best left alone as, otherwise, where does it end? The place of death category tree is massive. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent (two recent discussions). Delete or containerize all subcats of the tree for that matter. If people pass away in the place they live they are or should be in the "People from" category already. If they pass away in a different place it is hardly ever defining (e.g. in a hospital or where they get a heart attack). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• All the articles I've seen so far are about people from Metro Manila, or nearby. I dont see that place of death adds anything to most articles except to a small number who meet a violent death away from home. Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Where someone dies from a heart attack or in a hospital is not notable. It is the same reason we do got rid of the "people born in" categories a long time ago. Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's still a quite unusual place of death, so it is an important info. And apart from the personal relevance it is even more DEFINING for the Metro Manila! --Just N. (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What's unusual about it? Dont the inhabitants die as other people do? Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize people by the place where they died, and no, dying in Metro Manila is not "unusual" enough to need a special exception — everybody alive will eventually die, so if people live in Metro Manila then it can't be unusual for people to also die there. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2021 (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) 08:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bangladesh Premier League articles needing attention to Category:Bangladesh articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Catalan-speaking countries articles needing attention to Category:Europe articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Cephalopod articles needing attention to Category:Animal articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Isle of Wight articles needing attention to Category:United Kingdom articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Men's Issues articles needing attention to Category:Gender Studies articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Philippine History articles needing attention to Category:Tambayan Philippines articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Sia (musician) articles needing attention to Category:Musicians work group articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Bartending articles needing attention to Category:Food and drink articles needing attention
• Propose merging Category:Top Model articles needing attention to Category:Television articles needing attention

Nominator's rationale: Currently empty and unlikely to be useful. Merges can be implemented by altering/specifying the category name for the parameter |ATTENTION_CAT in ((WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League)), ((WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries)), ((WikiProject Cephalopods)), ((WikiProject Isle of Wight)), ((WikiProject Men's Issues)), ((WikiProject Philippine History)) and ((WikiProject Sia)). Template:WikiProject Bartending was deleted in 2010 and Template:WikiProject Top Model in 2020. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Cephalopods should probably merge to Category:Animal articles needing attention, as cephalopods are not considered either fish or mammals (as far as I'm aware). Curbon7 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh! Thank you – amended. Perhaps you can guess the silly mistake that was in my mind. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. No point in keeping empty categories that are unlikely to be used again. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom, no need for such specific separate categories (especially for Bangladesh Premier League which is an inactive Wikiproject that randomly just broke away from the Cricket WP). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge though perhaps the Bangladesh Premier League should be merged to Category:Cricket articles needing attention instead. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the above for BPL, though it could be upmerged to both cricket and Bangladesh categories. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2021 (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.