< October 21	October 23 >

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 23:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:10th-century Roman consuls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only has a single page (Leo VI the Wise), and the consulship had been abolished by 901, so there were no 10th-century holders of this office. Category was apparently created because there's a succession box at the bottom of the page saying that the subject was consul throughout his entire reign until 912, but this seems to be a mistake. Avilich (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (It's also doubtful that the recently-created 7th, 8th, and 9th-century counterparts have any use, since they all but duplicate the corresponding emperor categories.) Avilich (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But several emperors of this period never had a consulship. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as the article states that the consulship ended in 912. Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not a defining characteristic since the 7th century (and it does not link to any other article in the 10th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why do you consider later consuls less important than previous ones? Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example Constantine V was not particularly known for being a Roman consul and that applies to all consuls of the later period. It had become a meaningless title in the course of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Leo's government abolished several archaic institutions, including the senate and consulate, which were hangovers from Roman times. Not sure when but certainly during his reign and perhaps before 901. Leo's article doesn't date the legislation but the source for the information is Timothy Gregory's History of Byzantium (2005). I have seen that book, years ago, but no longer have access to it. Even if Leo still held the title after 900, it no longer had any importance and I can't see a rationale for keeping a WP:SMALLCAT on such a minor consideration. Leo's membership of Category:9th-century Roman consuls is sufficient. We should amend the succession box and I suggest a range of 886 – c. 900, which is near enough until an exact date can be confirmed. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most emperors usually were consuls only in their first full year--thus Leo VI would only have held the office in 887, not 886–912. The reforms which supposedly abolished the office are dated by Wikipedia to c. 892, so there's basically no basis to assume there was a 10th-century consul. The eponymous consulship itself was discontinued in 541, and the office became only a honorific afterwards, so I doubt there's even a need to have categories for after the 6th-century. Avilich (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Might be best to raise a separate discussion for the 7th to 9th centuries given that the office did still exist then, whereas it did not in the 10th. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is no person other than emperors in Category:7th-century Roman consuls or any subsequent one, making these useless categories currently. If there are non-emperor members, the categories can be recreated. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:11, 29 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Territorial entities by type to Category:Entities
Nominator's rationale: This has been at RFD before; however it wasn't mentioned that the term appears to have been invented by a now-banned sock (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Territorial entity). It appears to mean "either a country or an administrative division of a country". I think we can re-structure the category tree without this; apart from this merge the rest of these categories can probably be deleted. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two previous CFDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_10#Category:Administrative_territorial_entities and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_23#Administrative_territorial_entities. I can bundle the other pages in 48 hours, if the response suggests it will be productive.
Oppose - the place to start is Category:Territorial entities, not a subcat scheme. 'Territorial entity' seems a perfectly reasonable term; anyone can use it, banned or otherwise, and there is no requirement for a category to have a main article. Eg if we look at Category:Territorial entities in Europe it would not make much sense to upmerge into (or rename to) the much more general Category:Entities in Europe. (Category:Entities is hopelessly vague. Entity - almost anything - no main article either.) Further the 2 previous cfds linked resulted in the present names, so they hardly support the present nomination. Oculi (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oculi: note that Draft:Entity is underway, with the intent to create a main article for the concept. That said, I agree that the term is too vague to serve as a meaningful category heading. BD2412 T 15:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oculi. Follow-up nomination see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The parent should be Category:Territorial entities; indeed we might merge to that. The present proposal is to merge at too high a level, which will loose clarity. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oculi. --Just N. (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose "Entities" is far too broad. Something like administrative division should be used. And "by type" should be kept. Per Oculi, it also seems like a reasonable category already. I don't see why "by type" should be eliminated. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 17:07, 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brâncovenesc style architecture to Category:Brâncovenesc art
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article Brâncovenesc art. Super Ψ Dro 20:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to Category:Brâncovenesc style buildings or Category:Brâncovenesc buildings, per actual content. Apart from Brâncovenesc art the category only contains buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I'd like to remember Marxco to the simple fact that architecture (=the art of building) has always been am essential part of art history. So the nominator's proposal is not at all absurd. Please look it up if you doubt it. --Just N. (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justus Nussbaum: where did I say that nominator's proposal is absurd? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the actual content is indeed about architecture - which is the most historical durable of all art productions - the current wording seems to characterise it best. --Just N. (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This particular category is about the architecture and "architecture" is our standard phrasing (e.g. see Category:Art Deco architecture, Category:Art Nouveau architecture, Category:Renaissance architecture, Category:Gothic architecture, etc, etc). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 3 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: rename to Category:Mental disorders diagnostic procedures. Perhaps the second word should be singular, i.e. Category:Mental disorder diagnostic procedures; if anybody else thinks so, please nominate this under WP:C2A. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Clinical psychology tests to Category:Psychiatric instruments
Nominator's rationale: manually merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, almost every article in this category is also somewhere in the tree of Category:Psychiatric instruments because they are diagnostic instruments that can be used by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists alike. When merging, only very few articles need to be manually added to the target. This nomination is without prejudice to renaming the target and its subcategories to something with "diagnosis instruments", i.e. less exclusively "psychiatric". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Marcocapelle is right about further renaming. "Psychiatric" implies medicine, whereas some of these psychological tests may have nothing to do with clinical care. The "psychiatric" category currently has 119 items and 13 subcategories, and the "psychology" category has 44 items. These sizes are fine to merge, but if there really were some distinction here, it is nice to have this amount of content separated also. I do not think there is an obvious distinction between the contents of these right now though. I think "psychological tests" would be an appropriate category name for the content in both of these categories. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to mental disorder assessment. These should be merged - they're basically the same thing. However, psychiatric instruments is not an appropriate name. I'm partially flexible on the final name, but it definitely needs to use assessment rather than tests, instruments, etc.
  Bluerasberry - unfortunately psychological tests is unusable. People would expect it to also contain other psychology tests, such as personality or intelligence tests. It's an umbrella term. Also, the current parent category is Category:Psychological tools and it would create a lot of confusion to have both (honestly I may propose for the parent to change to psychological tests). In sources, general delineation would be psychological testing -> clinical testing/assessment, and clinical psychology -> clinical testing/assessment.
  This is partly why I want to use assessment, because it makes a clearer distinction from general testing (and if you really want to get into the weeds, from subclinical testing). It's also approximately equally used in literature, and is the most common term in lay sources. The other major reason I want assessment is that it would mimic the psychiatric assessment article.
  And now for the biggest problem - someone would be surprised to see psychiatric testing under clinical psychology testing or under clinical psychology, and only slightly less surprised to see clinical psychology testing as a subcat of psychiatry. As I see it, there are two solutions. We could use a term that refers to what's being tested rather than to the field administering the test (e.g. mental disorder assessments, following the mental disorder article). Or we could do a combined name (e.g. psychiatric and clinical psychological assessments). Both feel at least a bit clunky, but they will be clear. My preference is for mental disorder assessment (or similar) because it's concise, and subcategory names could easily mimic it - e.g. depression assessments. The current subcategories of Category:Psychiatric instruments are ridiculous; have a look if you want to have a bad time. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We currently have a Category:Psychiatric assessment (which could be renamed to Category:Mental disorders assessment) but that is a topic category, not a set category. How about Category:Mental disorders diagnostic procedures? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there were more non-clinical tests in this category because I the non-clinical Attribution questionnaire near the beginning, but looking again, I think this might be the only one that would not belong in a clinical category. In that case giving the category a more medical name works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:16, 25 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 to Category:TheGrio affiliates. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Light TV affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Why maintain a category for a network that no longer exists? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also, the channel is now "TheGrio". User:Shamonte Webster (User talk:Shamonte Webster|Talk) 14:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamonte Webster (talk • contribs)
What about renaming/rescoping to "TheGrio affiliates"? The affiliate list in the main article is absolutely huge and might be worth spinning out to its own page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sammi Brie: Renaming request made. Withdraw this deletion request. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to "TheGrio affiliates". --Just N. (talk) 21:37, 29 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. I will redirect the old page. – Fayenatic London 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Psychiatric diseases and disorders to Category:Psychiatric diagnosis
Nominator's rationale: merge, in contrast to what you would expect this is not a set category about various mental disorders. In fact subCategory:Mental and behavioural disorders has the role of a set category. As it stands, it is a container category in the field of psychiatric diagnosis. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If merged, I think we lose the obvious link to the parent tree, Category:Human diseases and disorders, in particular. I'm wondering if this should be cleaned up by renaming Category:Psychiatric diagnosis to Category:Psychiatric diagnosis methods. I see one example of "methods" under Category:Medical diagnosis, and I think that might be a decent direction to go, so that the diagnosis methods are not conflated with the "diseases and disorders" themselves, due to the word diagnosis needing context for what it is specifically referring to (diagnosis of the symptoms, etc (methods), or the result of said diagnosis). - jc37 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 20:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue that User:Jc37 raised is covered by the fact that subCategory:Mental and behavioural disorders is already part of Category:Human diseases and disorders, so that connection will not be lost. The second is just a matter of creating a whole new category, it may be created irrespective of the outcome of this discussion. I am not sure if the amount of content is sufficient for that new category but we could review that after its creation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 22 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: Disperse and delete. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Texian to Category:Texians
Nominator's rationale: As it stands, the category is improperly named and doesn't have a clear scope. A singular demonym should not serve as the name of a category. I'm open to suggestions on what to do with this category. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - possibly to Category:Texian people? - and purge of groups such as the Texian Army and Navy (which should be moved to Category:Republic of Texas). Grutness...wha? 03:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 20:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The category does not have a clear scope. Disperse to the trees of Category:Mexican Texas and Category:Republic of Texas and delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of scope and purpose. The current title makes no sense at all. Articles should be recategorised if necessary per suggestions above. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts and Grutness: would you agree or disagree on dispersing the content like I suggested September 25th? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 23 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/delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Paraguayan musical groups by genre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not enough Paraguayan musical groups to divide by genre Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Paraguayan hip hop groups to Category:Paraguayan musical groups and Category:Hip hop groups
Nominator's rationale: only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Paraguayan funk musical groups to Category:Paraguayan musical groups and Category:Funk musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:41, 29 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 to Category:Manitoba communities with majority francophone populations. The decision on whether to keep/delete the category is pretty heavily contested, but it's also pretty clear that the current name isn't quite appropriate either. No consensus defaulting to keep doesn't seem to be the best close here. No prejudice towards a deletion discussion about the cat on its own merits in the future. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Manitoba communities with large francophone populations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category with subjective inclusion criteria. There's no stated definition of how many francophones a community has to have, either in raw numbers or as a percentage, in order to have that community be categorizable as "large" — for example, should Winnipeg be directly included in the category, or is it sufficient that its individual St. Boniface, St. Vital and St. Norbert neighbourhoods are? — which means that inclusion comes down to personal opinion rather than an objective or quantifiable standard. Note also that an equally subjective parallel category for Ontario was deleted in 2018 per a CFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not against deletion, an alternative could be to replace "large" by "majority" (i.e. more than 50%). There are many of these categories around (e.g. in West Asia) and "majority" could set a precedent for categories for which there is little consensus to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion is bound to be subjective and I can't see that categories like this add any value. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to its subjectiveness and WP:OR-nature. Hwy43 (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' To have categories like this is IMHO doubtless usefull. Admitting that 'large' is more or less subjective. The reasonable solution could be to replace 'large' by 'majority' just as Macro has proposed. --Just N. (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename using "majority"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to majority. Provides a clear criterion for inclusion, per Marcocapelle. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to majority. --Just N. (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Government of Canada talks about OLMCs [1] and Francophone communities [2]. Officially recognized communities by the Government of Manitoba should be included, whether or not they are majority franco. [3] -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do have Category:Communities by ethnic group, but Category:Linguistic minorities doesn't seem to contain such categories grouping communities by language. This is a case where a list would be better, see WP:CLT. I thought there were other precedents for deleting categories of communities by language group in Europe, something like "Czech-speaking communities in Germany" (but it wasn't that); can anyone remember? – Fayenatic London 22:02, 27 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, but the consensus is not a strong one, so Disperse and disambiguate. I suggest that the contents be manually dispersed within Category:Human migration, and the category page be disambiguated.– Fayenatic London 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Muhajir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, Muhajir may refer to any type of migrants in the Islamic world and Muhajir is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SHAREDNAME refers to "Unrelated subjects with shared names". But various muhajir people are related in the same that they are all Muslim refugees. Their Muslim-ness and refugee-ness both seem to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "muhajir".VR _talk 06:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps needless to say that I do not agree with User:Vice regent. Mujahir is just an Arabic word that translates to migrant. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second thought, I think this category would fail WP:OCEGRS "If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created" because I can't find sufficient sources to connect this phenomenon together (only one source so far that doesn't give significant coverage[4]).VR _talk 16:17, 22 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: no consensus. The objection carries some weight, and a stronger consensus would be desirable for a move, especially as there are multiple like-named sub-cats which have not been nominated. – Fayenatic London 16:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Muhajir people to Category:Muhajir (Urdu-speaking people)
Nominator's rationale: rename per Muhajir (Urdu-speaking people), renamed in this RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure how this rename would help; I'd prefer to stick with the current name rather than the complicated, new title which makes categorisation difficult IMO. Mar4d (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be new agreement between Uanfala, Mar4d and Marcocapelle that Muhajir (Pakistan) is a better title. If so, we should wait for the new RM and then rename this category based on that RM's result.VR _talk 06:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) since there is no new RM, the category should be renamed as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 17 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: manual upmerge to Category:Board games, selectively rename the rest to Category:Board game terminology. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Board game gameplay and terminology to Category:Board game terminology
Nominator's rationale: This is one of those problematic categories using AND for two related but not identical concepts. Video games have a split with Category:Video game gameplay and Category:Video game terminology. To make things more confusing, we have an article on gameplay but not on game terminology, and Category:Game terminology but not Category:Gameplay. For now, I suggest removing 'gameplay' from this category's name; if anyone wants to create Category:Board game gameplay and add it somewhere, go ahead, but let's at least fix this 'apples and oranges' category before it gets too big and the makes splitting harder. Right now I don't think any of the articles here require a 'gameplay' category, so this fix should be relatively simple. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Clear and simple. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manually upmerge to Category:Board games, the category just contains a hodgepodge, it is not about terminology either. Most articles are already in another subcategory of Category:Board games as well, so that is fine anyway, and only articles that are not otherwise in the tree of Category:Board games should be moved to the main category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manually upmerge to Category:Board games per Marco. --Just N. (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective rename to new Category:Board game elements (or similar). Many articles here are not about whole games, but about features that recur in multiple games. It will be useful to keep these in a subcat rather than merging to Board games. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 20 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: merge to Category:Gongsun family (Three Kingdoms) as only one editor opposed, and the basis of the opposition was addressed by the disambiguator. (non-admin closure) Levivich 20:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gongsun Du and associates to Category:Gongsun family
Propose merging Category:Gongsun Kang and associates to Category:Gongsun family
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the first category contains a father and two sons, the second category adds the grandson. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. WP:SMALLCAT applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How come that Marco proposes 'merging' to a red, not yet existing category name while 'renaming' would be the logically correct statement? Did no one examine if Gongsun isn't a very frequent family name in South Asia? As I'd assume there will be a lot of other families of this name who could get a wikipedia entry. So ambiguation is what we have to expect. Conclusion: No not a real good idea to rename this way. --Just N. (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose! THe reasons above. --Just N. (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant merging the two categories together. The nomination could have been phrased as rename one and merge the other into it, but I imagined that the intention was clear anyway. If a disambiguator is desirable it can be Category:Gongsun family (Liaodong) or Category:Gongsun family (Three Kingdoms). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something, e.g. Category:Gongsun family (Liaodong), Category:Gongsun Du family or Category:Gongsun clan. The categories overlap, containing Gongsun Du, two sons and a grandson (see Gongsun). – Fayenatic London 12:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Gongsun family (Three Kingdoms). To answer Just N., Gongsun is not a common surname, but there are enough figures with that surname to necessitate a disambiguator. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A simmering consensus to rename, but to which title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: would Category:Gongsun family (Three Kingdoms) be acceptable; or @Bibliomaniac15: would Category:Gongsun family (Liaodong) be acceptable? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's my opinion that for navigational purposes, Three Kingdoms is the better disambiguator. Because Chinese political geography changed so frequently, time references (i.e. dynasty or era references) are superior. If I hear "Gongsun" and "Three Kingdoms," I instantly know which Gongsun we're talking about. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no objection to that. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 22 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:LGBT legislators in Spain to Category:LGBT politicians from Spain
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, near universal overlap between the two. All levels of politics in Spain run on a parliamentary system, where the executive is chosen from the legislature. This goes for the national parliament, regional parliaments and city halls. There are no Donald Trumps or Arnold Schwarzeneggers who are elected only to the executive. As an example, somebody who is in this category - Ada Colau, the outsider mayor of Barcelona - entered the city hall in 2015 (legislator) then was chosen as mayor by the members of the city hall days later. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Local authority politicians in Spain, such as Ada Colau, cannot be classified as legislators because local authorities in Spain cannot pass legislation.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: D'oh! Shows what I know. Local councils have an executive in the form of a mayor, but the chamber is deliberative, not legislative. I admit my original comment was wrong, but there is still significant overlap between two small categories, in my humble opinion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ as largely overlapping. The fact that not all politicians are legislators is irrelevant, the proposed merge would only have been problematic (hypothetically) if not all legislators are politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question to @Unknown Temptation, Obi2canibe, and Marcocapelle: why not also merge to the other parent Category:LGBT legislators? – Fayenatic London 19:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good question. The issue is apparently not limited to Spain and the entire legislators tree should be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion. Merge Category:LGBT legislators in Spain to Category:LGBT politicians from Spain and Category:LGBT legislators.--Obi2canibe (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Category:LGBT politicians from Spain parent may not be in dire need of diffusion, but the other parent, namely Category:LGBT legislators, is in dire need of diffusion. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my vote, realizing this is an issue of the whole tree rather than exclusively of Spain. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 22 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: manual merge to Category:Wikipedian librarians. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia Librarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpfully vague duplicate of Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library, which clearly specifies which sources the users in question have access to. If kept, rename to some name that spells out "The Wikipedia Library" in full (but I'm having difficulty coming up with a better name) to more clearly distinguish from Category:Wikipedian librarians. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, moreover it is even questionable if editors realized this is not Category:Wikipedian librarians, see e.g. User: Ginamshelton. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge to Category:Wikipedian librarians, where there are other indications that this appears to be the case, or to Category:The Wikipedia Library coordinators if indeed that one seems to be applicable. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The manual merge is fine with me too. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge to Category:The Wikipedia Library coordinators- Seems the best solution so far. --Just N. (talk) 21:50, 29 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/rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Kazakh women in politics to Category:Kazakhstani women in politics
Nominator's rationale: duplicate category and most categories are named 'Kazakhstani' and not 'Kazakh'. naturally the two subcategories Category:20th-century Kazakh women politicians‎ and Category:21st-century Kazakh women politicians‎ should be renamed as well accordingly Robby (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/rename. There has been a mistake here because the nationality is definitely Kazakhstani as Robby points out. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/rename per Category:Kazakhstani women. Oculi (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/rename of all three categories per nom. "Kazakhstani" is what is used in the category tree. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- These appear to be duplicates, but are they? I suspect that there are many ethnic Russians who have ended up with Kazakhstani nationality without being ethnic Kazakhs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge/rename This covers politically active women in Kazakhstan. The Kazakhs are an ethnic group spread over several countries. We should not identify the two. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
The two subcategories were not tagged yet. I have done that now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 22 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 to Category:Wargames. The guy who suggested doing the same for 3 of the 4 subcats can open their own CfD. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:World conquest games to Category:Grand strategy wargames
Nominator's rationale: While we have the article on Grand strategy wargame we don't have one for world conquest wargame. Descriptions of both categories seem very similar. For GSW, it's "category for wargames in which the object is conquest of the world, or entire continents; i.e. rather than winning a specific scenario within the game, or a specific battle or scenario." For WC, it's "A category for games in which the object is conquest of the world, or entire continents; i.e. rather than winning a specific scenario within the game, or a specific battle or scenario." Once the merge is done, we will need to merge subcategory Category:World conquest video games to the corresponding Category:Grand strategy video games, and rename Category:World conquest board games to the yet non-existing Category:Grand strategy board games. I am not sure what to do with the Category:Space conquest games subcategory (it could be merged to Category:Space opera games, but arguably they represent different themes. Actually, it could be also argued that 'world conquest' is a subtheme of 'grand strategy games' too (as arguably not all GSGames are about conquering the entire world - some are limited to a continent or two...), and therefore the other reasonable outcome could be that it is kept as such (reversing the child-parent relation; right now GSW is a child of WC), but I am concerned about OR in all those names/thematic categories... thoughts appreciated. Also, we probably need Category:Wargames by theme (or would it be Category:Wargames by genra)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Respectfully, actually the two catergories are in fact totally different,. the cat description for "Grand Strategy Wargames goes on to say This category would include games that are actual wargames; i.e. games where individual units are given their own specific attributes, and game combat is simulated in a manner that tries to approximate some simulation of real-world battle conditions, terrain, and individual units' combat strengths, rather than board games like e.g. Risk, which treat combat in a highly abstract manner.

the whole point is to distingush actual wargames like Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, where units are represented by detailed cardboard counters as is customary for most real wargames, meaning that all units have their own numerical strengths and weakness, and where counters are detailed and provide individual unit attributes, even amongst units of the same general type, and where game turns and game rules try to approximate real-world conditions; from games like Risk, where inidivudal units are literally represented simply by identical game pieces, and where there is absolutely no indication or procedures to reflect individual unit strengths, battlefield conditions, terrain, unit or weapon attributes, etc etc ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 00:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wargames as a redundant category layer. Two of the four subcategories are already directly in Category:Wargames. Also, considering what Sm8900 is saying, it may make sense to nominate Category:Grand strategy wargames for renaming to something that more precisely describes what it is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Wargames per Marcocapelle, and nominate "world conquest" subcats and "Grand strategy wargames" likewise. I don't see the distinctions as either clear or useful in category space.– Fayenatic London 14:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wargames is an actual genre term, but "world conquest game" doesn't actually exist as a term. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:25, 10 December 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. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Planned cities in England to Category:Planned communities in England
Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is Milton Keynes, which should not be categorised as a city because it does not have city status. 1857a (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I guess merging is unnecessary because the article is already in Category:New towns in England, i.e. the nominated category may be deleted instead of merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with deletion. 1857a (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested by Marcocapelle. MK as the only member is a new town and could never have been termed a planned community. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested by Marcocapelle. (Category:New towns in England is a subcat of Category:Planned communities in England.) Oculi (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- MK is a New Town, a subcat of Category:Planned communities in England. It looks to me as if the New Towns category has picked up some contents that are not New Towns created un der 1948 Act, but Planned Communities, which may be of other dates. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Milton Keynes is a new town. It only has pretensions to be a city, but even if it is officially given city status it doesn't need its own category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 3 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: merge to Category:Psychiatry organizations. Since the medical organizations category tree contains hospitals, the merge is not completely inappropriate. It may be better to split the professional associations to another category instead. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Psychiatric institutions to Category:Psychiatry organizations
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Cannot believe how many of these unnecessary sub-cats and forks there are among the health-related categories. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with No Great Shaker, Just make sure we retain the category as a redirect to prevent recreation and allow easy categorization with HotCats and like. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The target principally contains professional associations. The subject is hospitals and research institutes. These are quite different in nature. They need a common parent and a renamed version of the subject might be appropriate, but I cannot think of a suitable name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't hospitals and research institutes as different from each other as they are different from professional associations? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK "Psychiatric institution" was a euphemism for a lunatic asylum or psychiatric hospital. Category:Psychiatry organizations is just about a better parent for both subcategories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to Category:Psychiatry, not Category:Psychiatry organizations, which is for professional associations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better than the status quo (although I am not certain that Category:Psychiatry organizations should be necessarily limited to professional associations). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination, with permission to split to new subcat for professional associations, which should also be a subcat of Category:Medical associations. I suggest Category:Psychiatric associations, matching several of the member pages. Elsewhere in the orgs hierarchy, medical orgs categories contain hospitals categories, e.g. in Category:Medical and health organizations by country. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 20 November 2021‎

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, but WP:SOFTDELETE -1, -2 and -4 until needed. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User apc to Category:User apc-LB
Propose renaming Category:User templates apc to Category:User templates apc-LB
Propose renaming Category:User apc-1 to Category:User apc-LB-1
Propose renaming Category:User apc-2 to Category:User apc-LB-2
Propose renaming Category:User apc-3 to Category:User apc-LB-3
Propose renaming Category:User apc-4 to Category:User apc-LB-4
Propose renaming Category:User apc-5 to Category:User apc-LB-5
Propose renaming Category:User apc-N to Category:User apc-LB-N
Nominator's rationale: "apc" is the ISO 639-3 code for Levantine Arabic, however the templates are being used for Lebanese Arabic specifically. The IETF language tag for Lebanese Arabic is "apc-LB"; it's best to move all pages to the more appropriate code. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 03:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Needed to prevent unnecessary confusion. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:User apc-1, Category:User apc-2 and Category:User apc-4 as containing only a userbox and no actual users. Rename the remaining categories per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pppery: What if a user added a userbox to their userpage? Would they have to re-create the category themselves? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Then the category can be recreated. There's no reason to keep categories around on the basis of speculation that has had three years to come true but hasn't. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 08:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/rename per Pppery. We should not keep empty categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: do the templates need rewriting, so that they won't populate the categories? I'm not familiar with how they work. Some of the language-variant sub-cats of Category:User ar don't seem to be populated by templates. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to update the value of |usercategory= passed to ((userbox-level)) in each of the userboxes. I believe everything else will update automatically. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I was asking with reference to your proposal to delete apc-1, etc; won't the template still populate the deleted category? – Fayenatic London 14:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is some automatic logic in Template:User x that makes templates like this one populate identically-named categories, but it was already broken by the move of the templates but not the categories to the -lb name, and in any case it checks if categories exist before populating them so can't populate deleted categories. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 21 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.

October 22

Category:10th-century Roman consuls

Category:Territorial entities by type

Category:Brâncovenesc style architecture

Category:Clinical psychology tests

Category:Celebrity doctors

Category:Light TV affiliates

Category:Psychiatric diseases and disorders

Category:Texian

Category:Paraguayan musical groups by genre

Category:Manitoba communities with large francophone populations

Category:Muhajir

Category:Muhajir people

Category:Board game gameplay and terminology

Category:Gongsun Du and associates

Category:LGBT legislators in Spain

Category:Wikipedia Librarians

Category:Kazakh women in politics

Category:World conquest games

Category:Planned cities in England

Category:Psychiatric institutions

Category:User apc