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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Exergames to Category:Fitness games

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article of fitness game. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. More clear and corresponding to actual article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename and close per WP:C2D. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Literate American slaves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A non-defining triple intersection of education level, nationality, and social status. User:Namiba 23:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-defining, we don't have any category for "literate" people other than American slaves. Also, who decides if somebody is or was literate? Too vague. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I believe the purpose of the category may have merit, a title like "American slave writers", "American freemen abolitionist writers" etc. I do agree with the concern that the triple intersection may be too much. LikeGrantTookRichmond (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This category has a moderate population already. I would expect that literacy among slaves was relatively unusual, so that this is noteworthy. The unusual intersection is literate and slave. The parent is literacy. There might have been an intervening level for literate slaves, to be split by nationality. If not, kept rename to Category:Literate slaves, which is certainly a notable intersection, but categories of this kind are commonly split by nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That slaves were literate was unusual. That's why we don't have categories like "Literate pastors" or "Literate Bostonians". Many of these, but not all, wrote books. As for the evidence, the article on Denmark Vesey says he learned to read and write at an early age. That's enough for me. There is a reason -- evidence -- for including every name in the category. And note the fascinating -- to me -- subcategory "American slaves literate in Arabic". They didn't learn Arabic in the United States, so a conclusion cannot be avoided: literate Africans were being captured and sold. deisenbe (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, most of these people were born in the latest period of slavery and notable (e.g. for writing) as free people. One may expect that many free people were literate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. "Many free people were literate"? It was against the law to teach free Blacks to read in some Southern states. Free Blacks were not allowed to attend public schools in Indiana, and elsewhere. The schools for them, like the African Free School, you could count on one hand. deisenbe (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case the combination of slavery and literacy is wrong for free people. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (voted above) -- If the category contains people who because literate after emancipation, they do not belong in the category, but possibly to a sibling category. We are talking about literate slaves; surely a rare achievement. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A rare trait in a society that systematically banned literacy. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if they were writers (like Frederick Douglass) than they would go in a writer category. If there being able to read was not defining to their life, than we should not categorize by it. Not every thing that can be mentioned in an article is worth creating a category of, and I do not think this is worth creating a seperate category for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2022 (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: procedural close. This proposal places the burden of figuring out how to proceed on the closer which, given the current backlog, cannot be actioned. Additionally, some renaming processes seem to be happening in parallel. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 21:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to do this individually, and still somewhat unsure of how to use to protocols for Twinkle.

Also not sure of the standardized procedure for Categories when an institution changes their name, but Dixie State University is now Utah Tech University and the Dixie State Trailblazers are now the Utah Tech Trailblazers and all of the categories related should be renamed as such.^[1]

Notably, this *should* be the last major name change for a while, after YEARS of name changes, nickname, and mascot, color changes.

As shown, the previous name changes have reflected growth (Jc to 4 year, university status etc.) but this is essentially the first that finally eliminated the name "Dixie." It was controversial and a 10-30+ year process/argument over the word "Dixie" and confederate symbology, but with the Utah State Legislature finally making the call in November 2021 (official name of Utah Tech University announced then)^[2]. Millions spent, the name change was put into effect in May 2022. (While July 1st is often referenced, it only coordinates to the fiscal year rollover for universities in Utah, meaning the "Legal" name change happens then. ALL materials, social media, athletic and academic recruiting etc. is happening under the new name^[3]. They are unlikely to change anytime soon. This will be the first logical move since Wikipedia was created for many, while some may have been updated with "University" in 2013, and trailblazers in 2016)

Names: St. George Stake Academy (1911) Dixie Academy(1913) Dixie Normal College (1916), Dixie Junior College (1923) Dixie College (1970) Dixie State College of Utah (2001) Dixie State University (2013). Utah Tech University (2022)^[4].

Nickname(often confused with Mascot): Rebels (1954) Red Storm (2009) and Trailblazers (2016)^[5]

Mascots: Rodney the Rebel (1954, a confederate soldier) "Big D" (2009, a bull) Brooks The Bison (2016)^[6]

Category:Dixie State University Category:Dixie State University alumni Category:Dixie State University faculty Category:Dixie State University people

While they have played under many names, none of the other names/mascots are reflected in categories, so all should be moved to current usage categories, while individual pages can specify if they went to (Dixie Junior College) etc. If necessary.

• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers‎
• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers baseball‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers baseball coaches‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers baseball players
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers baseball seasons
• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers basketball‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers men's basketball
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers men's basketball coaches‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers women's basketball
• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers coaches‎
• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers football
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers football coaches‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers football players
• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers seasons‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers baseball seasons
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers men's basketball seasons
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers women's basketball seasons
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers football seasons
  • Category:Utah Tech Trailblazers football seasons
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers men's soccer seasons‎
• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers men's soccer‎
• Category:Dixie State Trailblazers navigational boxes‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers men's basketball navigational boxes
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers women's basketball navigational boxes‎
  • Category:Dixie State Trailblazers football navigational boxes‎

LikeGrantTookRichmond (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural objection, pending changes to this nomination because (a) OP never stated explicitly how each single category should be named, (b) not all of these will follow the same naming convention... the athletic category would go by "Utah Tech Trailblazers FOO" while the school cats would be the full-blown "Utah Tech University FOO", and (c) none except for the alumni category were tagged for discussion, and even that one was mislabeled as "Alumni" rather than "alumni". As an aside, OP provided WAY too much information about the school's history which is confusing the hell out of this nom, we only need to know that the current name is now in effect. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (a)You are correct, on naming conventions essentially, in all categories regardless of the title of the category, anywhere "Dixie State" is within the title, "Utah Tech" would replace it per this nom.

  (b)Well, better too much than too little. Previous moves and edits by others (and myself) have got some people wanting justification (because it's a university name.) Regardless, if too long winded, my apologies.

  (c)it was my understanding that the individuals articles shouldn't use the tag for discussion, when proposing a large bulk request, if it makes sense (which i'm still not sure it does) I can tag those.

  (d)Other than procedural objections, this is a good faith nomination I believe is worthy to be considered on it's merits. LikeGrantTookRichmond (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @LikeGrantTookRichmond: it is a good faith nomination indeed, but it will not be processed when you do not list your proposal properly (see plenty of examples on this page) and if you do not tag all categories that you are nominating. Also, removing some text from your rationale may well help getting more reactions on the merits of the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2022 (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:19th-century conductors (music) and Category:19th-century male musicians. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:19th-century male conductors (music) to Category:19th-century conductors (music)

Nominator's rationale: Looking at the parent category, there are simply not enough articles which fall in one but not the other to justify two separate categories (I count barely half-a-dozen: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7). It thus makes very little if any sense to have two categories, which are both included on nearly all affected articles, but which are in effect redundant. Thus we should get rid of this per WP:OVERLAPCAT and merge back the few entries that are not in the parent. The other solution, which would be to separate the parent by gender; would fall afoul of WP:SMALLCAT as the category for women would only have very few entries with very little potential for growth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:OCEGRS, male conductors is not a notable topic by itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @RandomCanadian and Marcocapelle: presumably "male musicians" is notable, so should this not also be merged to its other parent Category:19th-century male musicians? – Fayenatic London 23:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: I have no objection to that in principle, but in practice many article are already (or belong) in a by-nationality subcategory of it, so then it should be handled manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2022 (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 23:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:11th-century Roman Catholic archbishops in Germany to Category:11th-century Roman Catholic archbishops in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Germany did not exist as a state in the 11th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Germany used to be a short-living Carolingian kingdom, meanwhile incorporated in the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- This follows recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kingdom of Denmark to Category:Danish Realm

Nominator's rationale: While this is C2D, I'd like to see if there are arguments against moving it to match the main article Danish Realm (which Kingdom of Denmark redirects to). Gonnym (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2022 (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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Binhai Mass Transit to Category:Tianjin Metro

Nominator's rationale: companies merged in 2017 ZandDev (msg) 13:48, 12 June 2022 (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 excluding Armenian and Georgian. – Fayenatic London 06:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Armenian Azerbaijanis to Category:Armenian people of Azerbaijani descent
• Propose merging Category:Belarusian Azerbaijanis to Category:Belarusian people of Azerbaijani descent
• Propose merging Category:Georgian Azerbaijanis to Category:Georgian people of Azerbaijani descent
• Propose merging Category:Turkmenistani Azerbaijanis to Category:Turkmenistan people of Azerbaijani descent
• Propose merging Category:Ukrainian Azerbaijanis to Category:Ukrainian people of Azerbaijani descent
• Propose merging Category:Uzbekistani Azerbaijanis to Category:Uzbekistani people of Azerbaijani descent

Nominator's rationale: merge and remove headers, according to the headers the nominated categories are used for full Azerbaijani descent while the target categories are supposedly for people of partial Azerbaijani descent. But nowhere else we have a distinction between full and partial descent. The distinction would not make much sense either, ultimately all descent is partial. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• General support -- These dual ethnic categories were changed to the format proposed, but are we sure that the first does not have any Category:Azerbaijani people of Armenian descent? Furthermore, in this part of the world, these are often not emigrant communities but indigenous ones of a different ethnicity (or religion). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to the latter, that is exactly the reason why Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis has been kept out in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the change regarding Armenian Azerbaijanis and Georgian Azerbaijanis as both Georgia and Armenia have indigenous Azerbaijani populations. Neutral on the rest. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed those two from the merge nominations. But the headers of the category pages should still be changed. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The big question is going to be if an Zerbaijani person moved or was born in the Ukrainian SSR in 1027 and died in 1989, would they fit as Category:Ukrainian Azerbaijanis, or do we limit these categories to people who did signifcant things after 1991, and so they would go in Category:Soviet Azerbaijanis? If you think my hypothetical person could go in any of these categories if they lived in the applicable place in the applicable time, than we should keep these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand the example. Category:Soviet Azerbaijani people may refer either to the people of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan or to ethnic Azerbaijani in the Soviet era, that is not clear at all due to the overlap. The far majority in Azerbaijan are ethnic Azerbaijani. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Only after the pogroms drove out the Armenians in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. You are trying to impose a system developed for European ethnic groups that had migrated to the Americas on the Caucuses, and it just does not work the same way in that situation. You are also ignoring what I actually said. A Ukrainian Azerbaijani who dies in 1989 would have never lived in a seperate nation than where he lived. The current categories are much better for the things than what you are proposing to change it to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposee Since for various reasons people are going to apply these categories during times when all these places were all part of one nation-state, the people cannot be emigrants or expatriates so these are legitimate ways to describe such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether you like it or not (you obviously do not and I can understand that), the descent categories are used for exactly the same purpose. A fork is not helpful here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in the Caucasus, ethnicity and nationality is complicated. We had a series of noms some years ago which changed most to the target format. I do not think that whether a person is wholly or half or quarter of an ethnicity makes a difference, as a person can have multiple descent categories, but we need to be careful that we do not imply that a person came from a current country where neither he nor any ancestor lived (which can apply to Armenians) I am not sure how far it applies to Azeris. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter is an issue of purging, that can be done irrespective of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2022 (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 - jc37 10:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Podcast miniseries to Category:Miniseries podcasts

Nominator's rationale: Every other category in Category:Podcasts by format and Category:Podcasts by genre uses the format "<format or genre> podcasts". TipsyElephant (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Unsure at the moment, but I will say that the term "miniseries" would fall more in line with an intended publication/release method than a format of the show content itself. E.g. Category:Television miniseries could refer to a documentary series, a scripted series, an investigative report. I'm unsure about the inclusion criteria as well. Is there a threshold number of episodes that pushes a show from a regular podcast into a mini? Do the shows typically identify themselves as limited/mini? With television limited/miniseries and Category:Comic book limited series, they are typically advertised as such. -2pou (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @2pou: I put Category:Podcast miniseries within Category:Podcasts by format because it seemed more like a format than a genre. We could potentially create another parent category called Category:Podcasts by release type, but I think for now that might be excessive because I can't think of many other release types. Maybe Category:Weekly podcasts, Category:Monthly podcasts, Category:Single release date podcasts, or something along those lines, but again that seems potentially excessive? As far as the criteria goes, I generally feel comfortable including things in categories if I can find reliable secondary sources that refer to them as such or if I'm certain they would meet the definition of the category. In this case, I would include a podcast in the category if the podcast had a planned start and end date (not because the show was unexpectedly cut short) with roughly a dozen episodes that make up a single season (maybe more if reliable secondary sources still refer to it as a miniseries). For instance, Floodlines has eight episodes in one season, S-Town has seven episodes in one season, Timber Wars has twelve episodes in one season, The Realness (podcast) has six episodes in one season, and Boomtown (podcast) has twelve episodes in one season. There are sources that use the terms "miniseries podcasts" and "limited series podcasts", but as usual the sourcing for podcast related topics are sparse. For instance, the Webby Awards has a category for best limited series podcasts and the Ambies at least acknowledges the existence of miniseries podcasts in their rules.^[7][8] Discover Pods, ScreenRant, and Image.ie have all published listicles of podcast miniseries or limited series.^[9][10][11] The podcast platforms Player.fm and Podyssey.fm both have categories for limited series podcasts and there are more platforms with lists like these, but I'm unsure whether they are user-generated.^[12][13] I'm sure there are some more sources out there, but this is what I've found so far and I think it's enough to warrant a category. As far as the naming convention goes, I would expect the category to follow the same conventions as the rest of the podcast specific categories. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that podcasts can also contain miniseries, which makes this confusing. For instance, Dissect (podcast) has done three miniseries in addition to the regular podcast. Similarly, the sources I've already cited point to specific seasons of podcasts as miniseries, such as season 3 of 30 for 30, season 2 of Headlong, and season 2 and 3 of Slow Burn (podcast), and a five episode run by You're Wrong About. I suppose we could restrict inclusion to the category based on whether the podcast in its entirety is a miniseries and if a podcast's miniseries were to ever become notable spin it out into a separate page that can be included in the category. Or we just include any podcast containing a miniseries, but that sounds like it would get messy really quick. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the podcasts in this category. The term "miniseries" hardly ever occurs in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marcocapelle. JBchrch talk 14:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marcocapelle. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 29 July 2022 (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:Lists of association football international goals by player. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of goals scored by nation-leading international footballers to Category:Lists of international goals by association footballer

Nominator's rationale: Multiple:

1. specify association football; other codes of international football exist in which goals are scored
2. not restricted to "nation-leading" e.g. List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton has been surpassed by List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney
3. Matches name format of relevant articles
4. Standard naming for Category:Categories by parameter puts the parameter in singular not plural

I could live with Category:Lists of association football international goals by player instead; it's is a little easier to parse but rather verbose. jnestorius^(talk) 10:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative Category:Lists of association football international goals by player as slightly preferable IMHO. Otherwise, rename per nom. – Fayenatic London 10:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative. GiantSnowman 18:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2022 (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: speedy merge WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Francistown to Category:Newspapers published in Botswana and Category:Francistown

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this makes sense. Please go ahead. Ethan (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2022 (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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Austria by city to Category:Newspapers published in Austria and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Botswana by city to Category:Newspapers published in Botswana and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in the Czech Republic by city to Category:Newspapers published in the Czech Republic and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Finland by city to Category:Newspapers published in Finland and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Hungary by city to Category:Newspapers published in Hungary and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Iran by city to Category:Newspapers published in Iran and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Japan by city to Category:Newspapers published in Japan and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Mexico by city to Category:Newspapers published in Mexico and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Norway by city to Category:Newspapers published in Norway and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in the Philippines by city to Category:Newspapers published in the Philippines and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Poland by city to Category:Newspapers published in Poland and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Portugal by city to Category:Newspapers published in Portugal and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Russia by city to Category:Newspapers published in Russia and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in South Korea by city to Category:Newspapers published in South Korea and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Spain by city to Category:Newspapers published in Spain and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Sweden by city to Category:Newspapers published in Sweden and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in Turkey by city to Category:Newspapers published in Turkey and Category:Newspapers by city‎
• Propose merging Category:Newspapers published in the United Kingdom by city to Category:Newspapers by city‎

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one or two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all, as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 11:23, 13 June 2022 (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.