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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Sex workers drug-related deaths to Category:Sex workers and Category:Drug-related deaths

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and cause of death. No other occupation has an intersection between drug-related deaths. Mason (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, articles should already be in more specific categories if appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Addiction physicians by nationality to Category:Addiction physicians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is no other content in the parent category, making this category unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2023 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Korean poets by era to Category:Korean poets by period

Nominator's rationale: Opposed at speedy. Mason (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia and Jahaza: particpants in earlier discussion.Mason (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, aligning with Category:Korean people by period. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support for consistency. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2023 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tennis players by city or town to Category:Tennis players by populated place
• Propose renaming Category:Tennis players by city or town in Australia to Category:Tennis players by populated place in Australia
• Propose renaming Category:Tennis players by city or town in Germany to Category:Tennis players by populated place in Germany

Nominator's rationale: Parent category is Category:Sportspeople by sport and populated place. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:County commissioners in Maryland to Category:County council members and commissioners in Maryland

Nominator's rationale: Many of Maryland's larger counties have county councils instead of county boards of commissioners. Therefore, this category should be renamed to reflect that. A full list of counties that use county councils can be found here: https://www.mdcounties.org/DocumentCenter/View/2967/2-Co-Government-Structure-updated-October-2018?bidId Y2hyaXM (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the siblings all share the same names. Category:County_commissioners_in_the_United_States Mason (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose though the name is different County councillors are presumably fulfilling much the same role as County Commissioners and can appear in the same tree. It often happens that precise category names for subcategories differ from a parent that uses a more widespread name for much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:28, 29 December 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Autosomal monosomies and deletions to Category:Autosomal deletions

Nominator's rationale: Full autosomal monosomy (losing an entire chromosome other than X or Y) is not survivable and, therefore, we don't have any articles on it. All the articles in this category are partial chromosome deletions, sometimes termed partial monosomies, but since the words are synonymous in how they are used it would be less confusing just to refer to them as deletions, and consistent with the other category, Category:Autosomal duplications‎ for duplications of genetic material. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:27, 29 December 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting:

• Category:Fictional disabled characters in soap operas to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities and Category:Soap opera characters

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge as this intersection between disability, fictional character, and medium of fiction is not defining Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know this reminds me of how Category:Video game characters has a very large amount of subcategories, many of which are like "Fictional X in video games". And I think many of them are not even necessary at all. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, only merge to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities because the articles are already in Category:Soap opera characters by series. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You want to merge the category to itself? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, no, I corrected to the first target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Overcategorization, we do not need 3 way intersections for everything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose/keep - I understand the rational, however, disabled characters in soap operas (both as a group and individually) are regularly discussed and reported about in reliable independent sources, which is why I made an individual category for disabled characters in soap operas. I am happy to provide sources, but it basically boils down to the fact that soap operas are meant to be representative of real life due to being contemporary and having a large range of characters, and sometimes the portrayal is received positively but also sometimes negatively. Additionally, it says "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where possible" in the Fictional Disabled characters category, and this is an appropriate subcategory. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "disabled characters in soap operas (both as a group and individually) are regularly discussed and reported about in reliable independent sources"? Do you mean that the characters themselves are discussed? Or do you mean that there's literature on the phenomenon of disability representation in soap operas? Mason (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both - both the individual characters AND representation of disabilities in soap operas in general, both about characters and the portrayers. That is why I am also currently working on an article about it too. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point to some literature that supports this statement? I would find that extremely compelling that the intersection isn't trivial. Mason (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Sorry for my late reply. [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]

And [[7]] are some examples. There is also https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/wilde-Alison-Wilde-Dis-cover-2-Adapted-Paper.pdf DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per DaniloDaysOfOurLives's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. Most of these seem to be top-tens lists, which don't really say much more than look this character is disabled and are in a soap opera. However, it does look like there is some academic literature on this [8], Mantilla, S. (2021). Interrogating (In) visibilities: Invisible Disabilities and Their Economies in the Australian Soap Opera Home and Away. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 15(4), 419-435. [9]. I'm on the fence as to whether this is a defining intersection yet, but it does look like there's enough here for a brief wikipedia article, so *shrug* 🤷🏻‍♀️ Mason (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 29 December 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Eyepatch wearers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Mason (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CATDEF. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it defining? Because I don't think that most people are defined by wearing a eyepatch. They might be defined by what causes them to wear an eyepatch (that they have some sore of visual impairment. I don't think that this works the same way that an assistive device like a wheelchair user would be.) Mason (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's a quite noticeable feature. I can tell at least that in the case of Walter Martínez, the person who I created the category for, it is quite iconic and it's arguably the only person in the country known for wearing one. You make a good point, regardless. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Eyepatches are not a fashion statement, they are a defining characteristic of fictional characters and real people. It is often due to a disability, whether temporary or permanent, and becomes a part of them. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that disability is defining, but an eyepatch is not a disability. If it is disability related, then they can be categorized as having a disability. Mason (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wanted to note this suggestion by the OP, where the categories could be merged into that of blind people or other disabilities. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to support the nomination after I read a few articles and I have not come across any references to reliable sources regarding this characteristic. After all, a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Manner of dress is not defining. Having one eye might be, but you don't need an eyepatch for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Eyepatch wearers to Category:People missing an eye, and merge Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers to Category:Fictional characters missing an eye (which seems to overlap with this category). AHI-3000 (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would oppose that, e.g. the article Maxie Anderson does not mention anything about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: Regardless of that, I would think that someone's lack of an eye or any other organ is a defining trait, while an article of clothing is not. AHI-3000 (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article about Mother Angelica also doesn't mention anything about it, the claim that this is a defining characteristic is just plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm sure both categories could use some trimming to make sure they only contain articles which make it clear that the eyepatch is defining of that person/character, but I see enough examples which do include that clarity that should make both categories still valid. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DaniloDaysOfOurLives's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:22, 29 December 2023 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United States Army National Guard to Category:Army National Guard (United States)

Nominator's rationale: rename, "United States" is not part of the organization's name, it is merely a disambiguator. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06 and Smasongarrison: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Army National Guard (United States). Dear Marcocapelle, thank you for taking this the next step forward. If/when this renaming is approved, all the subcategories should have their names changed in the same way: Installations, Units and formations (can drop the "military" because "Army" is right there in the same category name), by insular area, and by state. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cajun writers to Category:Cajun people

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection is defining. There is a page on Louisiana literature, but after looking through the people in the category only Barry Jean Ancelet was described in the lead as "Cajun" writing professional. Mason (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2023 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:French Canada to Category:French diaspora in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Speedy was opposed. The category is about the French diaspora in Canada and, per previous Cfd, was being renamed as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging @Jahaza from Speedy Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. It feels a bit different than other diaspora categories because the majority of the population in Quebec is of French descent, but the same applies to Category:British diaspora in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename per nom Mason (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2023 (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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Parsees cricketers to Category:Parsis cricketers

Nominator's rationale: Parsis appears to be the accepted spelling with Parsees as an older style. The category name should also reflect Parsis cricket team. Batagur baska (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Category:Players of the Parsis cricket team seems more accurate and more in line with WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how cricket categories are done, so would need a much broader discussion to change the standard from X cricketers. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom. Player categories for cricketers are xx cricketers as a whole, and not players of xx. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, because Parsis was the name of the team. If the category was for cricketers who are Parsi but did not necessarily play for the team, the title would be Category:Parsi cricketers. Batagur baska (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as Parsis seems to be correct name, and matches Parsis cricket team (which has been at that name without objection for over a year). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sport by decade to Category:Serbia and Montenegro sport by decade
• Propose renaming Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sport by year to Category:Serbia and Montenegro sport by year
• Propose renaming Category:2000s in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sport to Category:2000s in Serbia and Montenegro sport
• Propose renaming Category:2003 in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sport to Category:2003 in Serbia and Montenegro sport

Nominator's rationale: Rename and redirect as follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 3#Category:2000s in Yugoslavia. These follow parents including Category:Sport in Serbia and Montenegro and Category:2003 in Serbia and Montenegro – Fayenatic London 15:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per numerous precedents. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional rope fighters to Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners
• Propose merging Category:Fictional chain fighters to Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners

Nominator's rationale: There's no real life category equivalent and this seems like something the (now-banned) creator made up. I think we can agree that the characters are technically melee weapon users, but this is an arbitrary categorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2023 (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 keep. This needs a larger nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1862 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Recurring sporting events by year of establishment. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1900, or, if only, until 1800. Also it should be merging to a century or decade instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, I think its best to merge by decade. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Recurring sporting events established in the 1860s and Category:Recurring events established in 1862, per Omnis Scientia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for Now to Category:Recurring sporting events established in the 1860s and Category:Recurring events established in 1862. No objection to recreation later if enough articles materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger provided this is intended to be a sample nom to be followed by noms for all cases where there are less than 5 items, with the decade as target; also some wider annual category. Oppose if this is merely a single nom for a random year. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is correct, seeing if there is interest to make this happen. Let'srun (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose That is not a reason to delete a category. Dimadick (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – The years can be useful for navigation, but what's even more is that it doesn't make sense to delete only one year. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2023 (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: Option A. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option A

• Propose renaming Category:Anne-Marie (singer) albums to Category:Anne-Marie albums
• Propose renaming Category:Anne-Marie (singer) songs to Category:Anne-Marie songs

Option B

• Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Anne-Marie to Category:Songs written by Anne-Marie (singer)

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_10#Category:Songs_written_by_Anne-Marie_(singer), where only one of 3 interlinked categories was nominated. This is not eligible for Speedy because Anne-Marie (disambiguation) lists several other people, including other singers. If there is no consensus for Option A then Option B would be required, i.e. reverting the previous CFD. Pinging previous CFD participants Ayakanaa, Richhoncho, Marcocapelle, LaundryPizza03. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option A. Seems to be a good answer to let arguments about article names happen on the article and let the categories follow. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option A. As the nominator of the previous CfD, I support this one as well. Didn't realize I missed some similarly named ones. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 17:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose option B, "singer" is an insufficient disambiguator since there have been several singing Anne-Maries. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option A to match main article Anne-Marie. We don't use disambiguation here unless the article about the subject does. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jewish American female comedians to Category:Jewish American comedians and Category:Jewish female comedians
• Propose merging Category:Jewish American male comedians to Category:Jewish American comedians and Category:Jewish male comedians

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC. They are already gendered in nationality. None of the other Category:Jewish comedians by nationality are divided as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Nigerian families of Bini ancestry to Category:Nigerian families

Nominator's rationale: unhelpful for navigation to only have one category of bini ancestry Mason (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the subcategory is already in Category:Nigerian royal families. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per Marco Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1780s in Germany to Category:1780s in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Again with the anachronistic "[Specific Time Period] in [Country That Didn't Exist in That Time Period]" categories Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom's valid rationale. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Kingdom of Germany existed in the 18th century. Dimadick (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The Kingdom of Germany article ends with "there are relatively few references to a German kingdom distinct from the Holy Roman Empire". So the terminology was evolving but was still anacrhonistic for this period. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2024 (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. Category:Sports champions of the Netherlands may warrant further discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dutch sports national champions to Category:Sports champions of the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is different. The nominated category is for national champions, the target is for world champions by nationality. Better withdraw this discussion and nominate Category:Sports champions of the Netherlands with all of its siblings together, as a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as distinct categories. Arguably the national champion categories can form a subcategory of the sports champions ones. I don't think either layer is redundant. I think the "of X" wording isn't the best though. If champions for representing the country is intended, the "for X" would be better. If these are simply champions of a given nationality, then the demonym can be used, same as Category:German Nobel laureates. Any thoughts @Smasongarrison:? SFB 12:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahhh, that's very helpful. I think "for X" would be better. Would that mean that Olympic competitors for the Netherlands‎ would be a child of Sports champions of the Netherlands? Or would just Olympic gold medalists for the Netherlands‎ be included? Mason (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2023 (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. Reason for keeping was weak. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mythological vertebrates to Category:Mythological animals
• Propose merging Category:Mythological invertebrates to Category:Mythological animals
• Propose merging Category:Legendary vertebrates to Category:Legendary animals
• Propose merging Category:Legendary invertebrates to Category:Legendary animals
• Propose merging Category:Vertebrate animal deities to Category:Animal deities
• Propose merging Category:Invertebrate animal deities to Category:Animal deities

Nominator's rationale: Truth be told, I'm dubious about the "vertebrate" parent categories too, but this one is particularly problematic, given that it conflates scientific terminology with mythological/legendary creatures. It simply doesn't matter for Wikipedians' purposes whether a mythological being is a vertebrate or not, this is a distinction that is used in biology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Mason (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It matters whether the animal in question is depicted with a spine (vertebrate) or as an invertebrate. Dimadick (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That matters for biology, but why does it matter for mythology? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Dimadick AHI-3000 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why this distinction matters for mythology? Because I am really skeptical that this distinction is meaningful in that context. Mason (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, I am far from convinced that this distinction is relevant in any way when it comes to mythology. VegaDark (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge I don't think the tree of life categories are helpful for navigation when you get into non-biology topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2024 (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.