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 20:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1909 in sports in Maine to Category:1909 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1908 in sports in Maine to Category:1908 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1907 in sports in Maine to Category:1907 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1906 in sports in Maine to Category:1906 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1905 in sports in Maine to Category:1905 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1904 in sports in Maine to Category:1904 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1903 in sports in Maine to Category:1903 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1902 in sports in Maine to Category:1902 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1901 in sports in Maine to Category:1901 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1900 in sports in Maine to Category:1900 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1899 in sports in Maine to Category:1899 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1898 in sports in Maine to Category:1898 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1897 in sports in Maine to Category:1897 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1896 in sports in Maine to Category:1896 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1895 in sports in Maine to Category:1895 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1894 in sports in Maine to Category:1894 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1893 in sports in Maine to Category:1893 in Maine
Propose merging Category:1892 in sports in Maine to Category:1892 in Maine

Nominator's rationale: Each year in sports in Maine category contains a redirect to Maine Black Bears football, 1892–1899 or Maine Black Bears football, 1900–1909, which are both already categorized in the decade in sports in Maine categories. Merge all to year in Maine category. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The 1890s teams were remarkably unsuccessful. Oculi (talk) 13:55, 31 March 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) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bulgarian Empire to Category:Medieval Bulgaria and leave it as a disambiguation page (adapted)
Propose merging Category:Albania under the Bulgarian Empire to Category:Medieval Albania
Propose merging Category:Dynasties of the Bulgarian Empire to Category:European dynasties
Propose merging Category:Burial sites of the dynasties of the Bulgarian Empire to Category:Burial sites of Bulgarian royal houses
Propose merging Category:Military of the Bulgarian Empire to Category:Military history of Bulgaria and Category:Warfare of the Middle Ages
Propose merging Category:Battles involving the Bulgarian Empire to Category:Battles of the Middle Ages
Propose merging Category:Sieges involving the Bulgarian Empire to Category:Sieges of the Middle Ages
Propose merging Category:Wars involving the Bulgarian Empire to Category:Wars of the Middle Ages
Propose merging Category:People from the Bulgarian Empire to Category:People of medieval Bulgaria
Propose merging Category:Treaties of the Bulgarian Empire to Category:Medieval treaties and Category:Legal history of Bulgaria

Nominator's rationale: dabify/merge, there aren't any reliable sources that treat the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire as one continuous empire. They were separated by more than 150 years. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion about the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: Both empires were the same country. Sometimes countries fall and are reborn again which does not mean that they are not the same. They were called Bulgarian Empire/Tsardom or simply Bulgaria during their existence. "First" and "Second" are just later clarification for the purpose of nomenclature; the name of the country was the same both in the period 681-1018 and 1185-1396. While there were more than 150 year apart between the two, it was still the same state. The founders of the second empire considered themselves successors of the first one; the first emperor of the second empire even renamed himself Peter, after the first fully recognised Bulgarian emperor. Diluting the well-established and very clear structure of the current categorisation in the way suggested above is counter productive and would by no means ease the readers of Wikipedia. --Gligan (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to remove Category:First Bulgarian Empire and Category:Second Bulgarian Empire from the tree of Category:Medieval Bulgaria but admittely that wasn't clear from the original nomination. I have adapted that. Obviously this way Category:First Bulgarian Empire and Category:Second Bulgarian Empire will become the two most important subcategories of Category:Medieval Bulgaria. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support — well researched, consistent with disambiguated main article.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and disambiguated main article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:43, 7 April 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 to Category:Siddurim of Orthodox Judaism. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:Siddur of Orthodox Judaism to Category:Siddurim of Orthodox Judaism

Nominator's rationale: The plural of siddur is siddurim. One siddur, two siddurim. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. An alternative would be Prayer books of Orthodox Judaism which is more accessible language wise.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:19, 6 April 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) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Stuttering Foundation Presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 14:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Stuttering or Category:Stuttering associations. Smallcat is applicable, nondef is not applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are now in Category:Stuttering.--User:Namiba 18:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is ok to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:19, 6 April 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 to Category:Mohalim. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:Mohels to Category:Mohalim

Nominator's rationale: A mohel is a man, a mohelet is a woman. The Hebrew plural of "mohel" is "mohalim" (which includes both men and women), while the feminine plural is mohalot. To avoid sexist language and to use the proper Hebrew pluralization, we should change the name of this category. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Mohalim per @Bohemian Baltimore ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:21, 6 April 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) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Giving Pledgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorization by a non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 13:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:23, 6 April 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 for en bloc deletion; closed without prejudice to individual nominations of specific categories Timrollpickering (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

23 other categories up for deletion

Nominator's rationale: All nondefining awards: I checked several recipients and found no indication that the award is ever defining for any recipient. The Category:Recipients of the Order Pro Merito Melitensi (see discussion about its deletion here) was deleted on this ground, hence for coherence, categories of recipients of other orders of merit should follow, unless the category for Recipients of the Order Pro Merito Melitensi is reinstated accordingly, or another coherent rule is provided. Baronnet (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moral support for deletion while it is certainly the case that very few if any of these awards are defining to most notable recipients, such a large bundled nomination is likely to be a trainwreck. (t · c) buidhe 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Baronnet (talk · contribs) what is the defining award for you? The fact that someone has received an order of merit of a particular country is, in my opinion, defining for his activities. After all, we are talking about very exclusive awards, given to a maximum of 100-200 people a year. And the highest class literally a few people a year. Marcelus (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Defining", according to this very debatable criterion of the English Wikipedia only (other language-versions of Wikipedia are more flexible) meant to fight "overcategorization" (i.e. too many categories for each article), signifies essentially a quality that would be mentioned in the lead section of the article. For example : the lead section of the article about Sylvester Stallone mentions that he is an American actor and filmmaker (so these categories are OK), not that he is an Officer of the Order of Arts and Letters (so although he indeed received this honour, this category is not OK, according to the English Wikipedia rule). I feel this rule is too stringent, and I agree that these awards are exclusive, but if this rule is applied stringently to delete "Category:Recipients of the Order Pro Merito Melitensi", it should be applied to all categories for recipients of orders of merit, which are never the main defining characteristic for the persons who receive them. It is rather a consequence of other defining characteristics. See these pages : Wikipedia:Defining and Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I have not been able to find when and where this rule was created, and where it can be debated. Baronnet (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but following this line of thought, we should remove all categories related to any awards or decorations, except for completely exceptional ones. Besides, for some characters, receiving a decoration is one of the prerequisites for WP:NOTABILITY (WP:ANYBIO).
It cannot be considered a priori that Orders of Merit, are undefining; for someone they may be, for someone else they may not. What about categories [[[Category:Alumni by university or college]], they are rarely defining, does that mean they should be removed? Marcelus (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As absurd as it may seem, given the "defining" criterion, you are right: they should be removed too. Or the rule should be relaxed (given this stringent rule, the English Wikipedia will loose many of its categories: you will need to go to other language versions of Wikipedia to be able to find these "nondefining" but often useful categories). I would like to find the discussion from which this criterion emerged, but I have not found it. Baronnet (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"we should remove all categories related to any awards or decorations, except for completely exceptional ones" -> indeed, that is what WP:OCAWARD says too. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is no logical contradiction between the fact that the category is deemed nondefining, and the fact that an order of merit is a criterion of notability. The deletion of the category has no impact on the corpus of the article, which will still mention honours and awards. The projet page Wikipedia:Defining deals with the difference between these concepts: "Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine whether a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine whether particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine whether a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative". The result is that the English Wikipedia prefers lists to categories. I personally prefer the opposite, but I cannot go alone against consensus... Baronnet (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, most awards reflect pre-existing fame but do little to expand fame. That makes them great for establishing notability of an article (yup, they're famous) but they're not defining (they were already famous). - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When one considers that Pour le Mérite or the Legion of Honour are not defining awards, it's a sign the overreaching is a bit too large. I think you missed Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross and Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor. Place Clichy (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria Cross and Medal of Honor where not listed in the category of recipients of orders of merit, so I did not include them within the scope of nomination. And they could be distinguished from the nominated categories on two grounds:
1. VC is often mentioned as postnominal, thus appearing in the lead section of articles, making in a defining trait according to the rule of thumb of Wikipedia:Defining ; this criterion is unsatisfactory, however, because it would save most British honours (mentioned as postnominals) while striking down honours of most other countries.
2. VC and Medal of Honour cannot be compared, given their rarity (1355 and 3525 recipients in total since creation), with the Légion d'honneur which has been awarded roughly to 1 million (yes, 1 million) recipients since inception (source of the figure: Anne de Chefdebien et Bertrand Galimard Flavigny, La Légion d'honneur : un ordre au service de la Nation, Paris, Éditions Gallimard, Coll. Découvertes Gallimard, 2002, ISBN 9782070765256).
So I don't think this can save the nominated categories, unless the criterion is relaxed for all orders of merit. Baronnet (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly per Place Clichy. The French Legion d'honneur and PLM are absolutely defining awards. No comment on the others because I haven't researched them.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a few examples where Légion d'honneur and PLM are characteristics mentioned in the lead section of the article about someone, which seems to be the "rule of thumb" according Wikipedia:Defining? Having never seen them mentioned as a main defining trait, but rather with other rewards at the end of articles, they rather seem to me to be non-defining, or if defining not in an absolute manner, but in relatively seldom occasions. Baronnet (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conceptually Favor Most/Procedurally Oppose The vast majority of award categories are not defining because they merely reflect rather than promote someone's fame. Most private awards just aspire for their award to be defining while many government awards are throw-away diplomatic trinkets for visiting dignitaries.

But there's nothing inherently defining or non-defining about an award have the word "merit" in it, or at least being translated that way. And this would leave the un-nominated subcategories behind (Portugal, Ukraine, etc.)- RevelationDirect (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the problem the other way round. These categories are non-defining, per Wikipedia:Defining: up to now, no one has proven that one or the other is indeed defining. Baronnet (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – French Legion of Honour and Prussian Pour le Mérite are invariably mentioned in longer articles and obituaries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If being mentioned in longer articles and obituaries were a criterion of being Wikipedia:Defining, it should also apply to the category of Recipients of the Order of Merit of the Order of Malta, which was deleted because of lack of "definingness". For a recent example, here is a March 2023 obituary which mentions LH, National Merit and Pro Merito Melitensi : https://carnetdujour.lefigaro.fr/deces/annonces/436104553/ Baronnet (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close for a start the OP is violating WP:POINT, as they are nominating these categories for deletion in order to protest the deletion of another category. These 23 awards have nothing in common apart from being orders of merit and need to be evaluated separately rather than being lumped in as a large group. Hut 8.5 10:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously strongly disagree with the malevolent intention that this would imply about my nomination of this group of non-defining categories. I think – and it has been proved by the sensible debate above, weighing the pros and cons – that it is far more convenient to have a common deliberation about these categories, which are similar in purpose, than to have 24 separate debates, possibly leading to erratic results. Baronnet (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course we may have 24 separate results. These are after all 24 separate categories which have nothing in common beyond being awards of merit, and being an award of merit isn't in itself enough to delete the category. Some of these awards may be defining and some may not be, and it's not reasonable to expect participants to research all 24. Hut 8.5 07:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blatantly defining. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close (with moral support for deletion) — WP:POINT mass nominations are never appropriate. Consider each on its merits.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:34, 6 April 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 to Category:Arts organisations based in Italy and Category:Italian art. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Italian art institutions to Category:Arts organisations based in Italy and Category:Italian art

Nominator's rationale: "Fooian art institutions" is unique category name in enwiki cat system Estopedist1 (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's your rationale you should be merging TO "Italian art institutions", not FROM it to the other two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, it is an outlierish category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No conceptual objection to this category naming but it doesn't follow an established category tree name (WP:C2C). - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:55, 2 April 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 to Category:Historians of China. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Historians of ancient China to Category:Historians of China

Nominator's rationale: Merge, moving the single article J. A. G. Roberts only to that one parent as it makes no mention of antiquity. Note: I have removed a former sub-cat Category:Ancient Chinese historians (see also this CFD) which is by nationality/period lived rather than by area of study. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)}[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:59, 31 March 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 1. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historians by country to Category:Historians by country of study
Propose splitting Category:Historians by geographical subject area to Category:Historians by continent of study and Category:Historians by region of study
Option 1

moving the three sub-cats (by country, continent and region) up into Category:Historians by field of study

Option 2

keeping Category:Historians by geographical subject area to hold those three sub-cats

Nominator's rationale: Clarify the meaning of these categories, and make them consistent with parent categories including Category:Historians by field of study. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 has a clearer scope. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: we currently don't have a separate category for historians who studied former countries. Two of these are named "Scholars of X history" and are sorted at the top of the category. Others e.g. British Empire, Dutch Republic, are within the UK/Netherlands categories. I'm open to suggestions for a clear name to create a new cat, but "Historians by former country of study" sounds as if it's for people who stopped studying those countries. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and split per option 1, much clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Split per option 1.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Split per option 1. --Nagsb (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:50, 29 April 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 to Category:Estonian people of World War II and Category:Soviet Righteous Among the Nations and Category:The Holocaust in Estonia. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Estonian Righteous Among the Nations to Category:Estonian people of World War II and Category:Soviet Righteous Among the Nations and Category:The Holocaust in Estonia

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Yad Vashem lists 5 Estonian Righteous, so the category have potential for growth, so WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here

WP:WTAF. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to recreating if those 5 articles materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:45, 7 April 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 to Category:Dutch expatriates in Russia. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Expatriates of the Netherlands to Category:Dutch expatriates

Nominator's rationale: the same Skovl (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the creator user:Johnpacklambert is creating quite a few wrongly named (and often small) expatriate and emigrant categories. (Eg see the outliers in Category:British emigrants and Category:British expatriates; the sort keys are also wrong.) Oculi (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but considering the content of the category it may rather be moved to Category:Dutch expatriates in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- True; that would be better. Oculi (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Dutch expatriates in Russia per Marcocapelle and Oculi.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:41, 6 April 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: speedy delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Undesirable organizations in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I am writing to inform you that the list of organisations that the Putin regime does not like, as requested by the prior CfD, has been implemented this morning, at Russian undesirable organizations law § Targeted organizations. I apologise for having to use archive.is: repeated attempts to save a snapshot via the Wayback Machine have been unsuccessful. --Minoa (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural problem The outcome of the last CFD was "listify". AFAIK, that has been done in the main article. So this should have been deleted by now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a follow-up notification that I have now implemented the "listify" decision with a suitable list sourced from the Ministry of Justice website, and thus the deletion of the category can now proceed. Sorry if I sounded unclear. --Minoa (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe this category qualifies for a G6 speedy deletion, in particular with template ((db-xfd)): for pages where a consensus to delete has been previously reached via deletion discussion, but which were not deleted. V27t [ T • C ] 18:48, 30 March 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) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in Slavism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This originally came to my attention because there is no article on Slavism. While that could of course be solved by a rename to a title such as Category:Wikipedians interested in Pan-Slavism, upon closer inspection none of the populating userboxes actually express a Wikipedia-relevant interest in the subject and this is really an advocacy category masquerading as a "interested in" category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least remove category assignment from the first two userboxes which are clearly about advocacy. No objection to deletion as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do agree that the collaborative purpose of many of these categories is unclear, but also that doing something about it will very likely turn into a massive dramafest, so am taking no broader action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:51, 30 March 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.

March 30

Category:1909 in sports in Maine

Bulgarian Empire

Category:Siddur of Orthodox Judaism

Category:Stuttering Foundation Presidents

Category:Mohels

Category:Giving Pledgers

Categories of recipients of orders of merit

Category:Italian art institutions

Category:Historians of ancient China

Historians by country

Category:Estonian Righteous Among the Nations

Category:Expatriates of the Netherlands

Category:Undesirable organizations in Russia

Category:Wikipedians interested in literature by genre

Category:Wikipedians interested in a franchise

Category:Wikipedians interested in Slavism