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 22:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Israeli noodle dishes to Category:Jewish noodle dishes

Nominator's rationale: Categories have the same 7 articles. "Israeli" is the older category and better fits the category tree, but "Jewish" is perhaps a better description of the dishes as they all predate the state of Israel. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to comment that Israeli ≠ Jewish. No other comment on the merit of a merge. Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, according to the articles they are all Jewish dishes, and some are American-Jewish rather than Israeli-Jewish. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Nobody yet seems to have perceived that Category:Jewish noodle dishes up to now not even has any parent category. Obviously it can't be a valid target for merging. --Just N. (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reverse merging seems the logical way, and eventually deletion of Category:Jewish noodle dishes in order to have a consistent category without doublette. Or else find for it a place in a category tree that is easily comprehensible. --Just N. (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A lack of parent categories is not a reason for deletion in itself, since that can be fixed easily. The category has now two valid parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment -- all (or almost so) are of Ashkenazi Jewish origin so should it not be Category:Ashkenazi Jewish noodle dishes or even Category:Yiddish noodle dishes, though Yiddish is of course a language, not an ethnicity. None are of Sephardic origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Maybe - Ashkenazi sounds very specific though, is that really needed? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Euthenics to Category:Euthenics and Category:Methods of euthenics

Nominator's rationale: The category description says "This category is for articles about the academic discipline of euthenics, not for the things that may improve well-being (e.g. sanitation).", but the subcategories include a lot of things such as "sanitation". I think they should be split into some other category, or simply removed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, apart from the main article this is all a matter of WP:OR categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment -- The category is not big enough to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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: soft delete including the redirect (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia categorization intersect test 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Test page. Contested G2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Wikipedian Obiwankenobi, who created and worked on this, has retired long ago. However, this category page is used in a javascript tool by Magnus Manske (compare this old user page entry, removed in 2014). Before deleting the category, could someone check if that script is still needed? Also, if the script is still in use then this edit by Pppery should maybe be reverted. Renerpho (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Indeed, if this category is kept, then those edits should be reverted. I've been yelled at several times for not emptying categories I tag for speedy deletion, even though I think that should be the deleting admin's responsibility because if the tagger does it messes like this result. However, that script depends on the markup in the category description, rather than the category, so that would merit at most a move to somewhere like User:Obiwankenobi/intercat demo. However, anyone who uses the script in question will see the tag for this CfD; hence a lack of further comments when this CfD is finally closed will indicate that no one cares, a la turning it off and seeing who screams. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You have my sympathy regarding the shouting. I don't like the resulting mess either. Let's see if someone complains... Renerpho (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment It was I that declined the CSD tagging even though I'm aware that Obiwankenobi has, sadly, been gone for quite a while. I was just unprepared, as someone who is not involved with testing templates or scripts or other tools, to say that this page no longer had a use. I had hoped that, as the subject of a CFD discussion, anyone who was interested in it might come forward and either say that it was still of some value or say it can safely be deleted. Thank you, Pppery, for bringing it here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment please remember to handle the incoming redirect Category:Wikipedia categorization intersect test -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. ✗plicit 02:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Eukaryote enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic eukaryote taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Algae enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic algae taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Red algae enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic red algae taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Animal enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic animal taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Deuterostome enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic deuterostome taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Vertebrate enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic vertebrate taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Bikont enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic bikont taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Archaeplastida enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic Archaeplastida taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Plant enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic plant taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Angiosperm enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic angiosperm taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Rubiaceae enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic Rubiaceae taxa
• Propose renaming Category:Fungus enigmatic taxa to Category:Enigmatic fungus taxa

Nominator's rationale: In a CFD in March 2021, "incertae sedis" in category names at and below this level was replaced with "Enigmatic taxa". Then last month this CFD moved "Enigmatic" to the beginning of the category name, separated from taxa/genera. – Fayenatic London 13:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support for consistency with previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nomination. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping @Monster Iestyn and @Bibliomaniac15 from previous discussion. (I was not pinged.) This seems reasonable. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 01:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. If any of the members belong within the other parent Category:Biological processes, then they should be added there. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC) – Fayenatic London 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Memory processes to Category:Memory

Nominator's rationale: No clear scope - it's currently got components of memory models, cognitive and biological processes which occur during creation, during use and during forgetting of memory, brain structures, and then some assorted things. And they are all feasible for the name "Memory processes". The upmerge will make Category:Memory too large, but this isn't a helpful subcat. Xurizuri (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. Maybe we can create three subcategories for semantic, episodic and implicit memory, but I have not checked if enough articles would fit each of these three topics, and besides this would merely be a next step after merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge and then regroup according to whatever hierarchical information is reliably sourced in Memory. Perhaps File:Memory.gif can be used as a guide. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 22:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Finite fields to Category:Finite field

Nominator's rationale: rename, this is a topic category, not a set category, and we normally use singular in the name of this kinds of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Finite field is the common name and is the title of the associated article. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 09:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Most other mathematics categories, even topic categories, use either a plural name or "X theory" when there is more than one. There is a unique finite field (up to isomorphism) for every order that is a prime power. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (as nom) "finite field theory" is fine with me too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - or Category:Finite field theory (as in Category:Group theory). Oculi (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support or Category:Finite field theory, to clearly indicate a topic as opposed to a set category. Felix QW (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. We routinely have categories in plural forms of nouns: Category:People rather than Category:Person, Category:Cities rather than Category:City, etc. Even for topic categories, singular makes sense only when the topic itself is singular: there is one person Alan Turing, so we have a topic category Category:Alan Turing, not Category:Alans Turing (and let's just skip quickly over the fact that Category:Los Angeles is, grammatically, plural). But when a topic category is about a topic consisting of multiple things, we still routinely use plural: Category:Cats not Category:Cat. This is, like cats, a topic category concerning multiple finite fields, not just a single finite field, so its category name should be plural. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose both "Finite field" and "Finite field theory" - the latter isn't even a redirect. This differs from examples given in WP:CAT for topic categories in that you could say "This is about law" or "This is about France" or "This is about Hillary Clinton" or "This is about opera", but not "This is about finite field", as "finite field" is a solely a countable noun. There is also precedent from other topic categories that are topics about countable nouns: see e.g. Category:Fibonacci numbers, Category:Ions, Category:Rivers, Category:Sports, etc etc. This old discussion from my talk page may also be of interest. (n.b. I came here from WT:WPM.) eviolite (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose as per David Eppstein. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose singular: below Category:Field (mathematics), both singluar (itself, Category:Formally real field‎ {deletion discussed}, Category:Real closed field‎ {plural discussed}) and plural (Category:Field extensions,‎ Category:Finite fields‎ {plural discussed here}) forms appear. Below Category:Group theory, only plural forms (Category:Algebraic groups‎, Category:Group automorphisms‎, Category:Coxeter groups‎, Category:Finite groups, Category:Functional subgroups, Category:Lie groups‎, Category:Ordered groups, Category:P-groups‎, Category:Permutation groups, Category:Permutations‎, Category:Reflection groups‎, Category:Topological groups‎) appear. So it seems the overwhelming majority uses plural. (Btw: I suggest all listed singluar categories to be renamed, if kept at all).

Neutral as for "Finite fields" vs "Finite field theory". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose But not very strongly, more of a preference. If you look at the examples Law, France, and Hilary Clinton they are nothing like Finite field. Theres laws with no capital, but not Frances or Hilary Clintons. Anyway have a look at the references in the Finite field article for what's more common in referece books on the topic. I'm fine with the main article being called 'finite field' though, especially as it is easier to add an s in references than subtract it! NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose the singular, per David Eppstein's reasoning more or less. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Olympic Conventions Participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic conventions was last edited in 2010 and is therefore effectively dead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Reasonable basic assumption. --Just N. (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Wikipedians who have won a Million Award. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Million Award to Category:Wikipedians who have won a Million Award

Nominator's rationale: Rename per standard user category naming conventions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, to clarify that it is a user category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 06:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sailor Moon task force participants to Category:Sailor Moon work group participants

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories for the same WikiProject subdivision. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Downlink members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not helpful to categorize Wikipedians by having subscribed to a newsletter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 22:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wiki Women 2019 to Category:Wiki Women 2019 participants

Nominator's rationale: Rename per standard user category naming conventions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, to clarify that it is a user category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. I will replace it with ((ToolserverBot)) where that is not present already. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia bots running on the Wikimedia Toolserver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer useful to categorize after the Toolserver shut down in 2014. If kept, consider renaming to Category:Wikipedia bots that ran on the Wikimedia Toolserver. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 'Delete per nom. An anachronism indeed. --Just N. (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia Spotlight contributors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overlooked defunct project category (due to being incorrectly named and categorized). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: split (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC); @Pppery: feel free to implement the split yourselfReply[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Women's Classical Committee to Category:Women's Classical Committee participants and Category:Women's Classical Committee

Nominator's rationale: Split user pages from subcategories containing articles per standard user category conventions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Dambulla Giants cricketers. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dambulla Viiking cricketers to Category:Dambulla Giants cricketers

Nominator's rationale: Same team under different names. For sports teams that change names, we have one category for the team, not one for each historical team name. But following processes isn't a strong point of the LPL editors... Joseph2302 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge Per nom, standard for sports teams that change names but remain the same entity so we don't have multiple categories. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per long precedent. The same applies to alumni categories for renamed or merged schools, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Fade258 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom and Rugbyfan22's reason. --Just N. (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 21:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Prionapterygini to Category:Ancylolomiini

Nominator's rationale: Prionapterygini is a junior synonym of Ancylolomiini. Please search at this website to confirm. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @YorkshireExpat: I found that article Crambinae says that Ancylolomiini is a synonym of Crambinae. Is that incorrect? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: it says that Ancylolomiinae, not Ancylolomiini, is a synonyms of Crambinae. In zoology, names ending in 'ini' are tribes; those ending 'nae' are subfamilies. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ah, I see! This is a topic I know nothing about, which is now clearly confirmed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. A new category page has been created, but the old one will be moved over it. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Prionapterygini stubs to Category:Ancylolomiini stubs

Nominator's rationale: Prionapterygini is a junior synonym of Ancylolomiini. Please search at this website to confirm. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Liz: I promise to refill it when it changes name. I think this was my fault as I moved the template so it will refill when the category is moved. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, empty categories aren't tagged CSD C1 as long as there is an active CFD discussion going on. I just note when this happens because sometimes editors prematurely empty a category before a CFD discussion is closed. I think it's a different situation when a category is populated or depopulated by a template that is changed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Liz: Yes, it's an easy fix. Just undo the move on the template to put everything back. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Please clarify? If they are synonymous, why is "Prionapterygini" less appropriate than "Ancylolomiini"? Her Pegship (?) 05:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Pegship: Apologies, I have edited the rationale. Prionapterygini is the junior synonym in the sense of a taxonomic synonym (second paragraph of the article should clarify). Articles should not have the name of a junior synonym. Not sure this is part of any guideline, but it is well established. Take a look at the discussion here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This category has been on the Empty Categories list for months now. Will this discussion ever be closed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.