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:Star Trek technology. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Star Trek vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: One-category layer; the sole member is already in other subcategories of the parents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom. I'd say it was a relic of a different time, but it was made recently. Why...? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent Category:Star Trek technology or else directly to Category:Star Trek, this is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Star Trek technology, as the subcategory (Category:Star Trek spacecraft) certainly belongs in the Star Trek category tree. Contrary to nomination (courtesy ping LaundryPizza03), the nominated category is the spacecraft category's only link to the Star Trek tree. HouseBlaster^talk 22:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Star Trek technology per above. VegaDark (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster.—Alalch E. 11:40, 1 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Youth culture in Poland to Category:Polish youth culture‎

Nominator's rationale: To follow the naming convention of the other categories in "Category:Youth culture by country". Mellamelina (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2C. This could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 30 November 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) HouseBlaster^talk 14:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Cryonically preserved characters in video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters in comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. While this can be a defining trait for stories themselves, a character is not defined by whether or not they had been cryonically preserved at one point. (Besides, the title implies that they are currently preserved in which case they wouldn't be much of a character). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, getting frozen is very much a defining trait for lots of fictional characters. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Quite defining for characters who woke up from cryonic sleep in an entirely different era, such as as Buck Rogers and Captain America. Their culture shock is a defining element of the characters. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dimadick: I thought about that, but we already have a category for it, Category:Fictional characters displaced in time. I probably should have said it should be merged there instead. If I did, would you still be opposed? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • No, that seems to be a good idea. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm inclined to agree with Dimadick here. Not sure about a merge, I think being frozen while events come to pass is quite different than something like Samurai Jack where the character is shoved into a different time period (either past or future) trought time travel (and is likely to try to find their way back).★Trekker (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @StarTrekker: The defining part of a character who was frozen is still the time displacement because, from their perspective, they were catapulted into the distant future, not the act of being frozen, which presumably has no effect on them because that's the entire point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • I don't agree, I think stories tend to handle the situations differently.★Trekker (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      @StarTrekker: If it turns out as "Keep" then would you support renaming it to Category:Fictional cryonauts? The subcategories would follow suit (Category:Fictional cryonauts in video games for example). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • I would not mind.★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; this makes a hash of things. There are characters who are notably cryonically preserved but not for a long enough period to be considered "displaced in time" (e.g. Han Solo; Riddick (character)), and there are plenty of characters displaced in time without being cryonically preserved, so let's keep these distinct things distinct. BD2412 T 14:55, 10 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 18:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters with abnormal ageing to Category:Fictional characters by personal physical abilities

Nominator's rationale: Clearly violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, as "abnormal" is subjective. Also, it mixes various positive and negative traits. I would say a selective merge to the parent category is appropriate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It doesn't seem that subjective. Each subcategory has a common thing tying them together, which is characters whose aging process is unusual or has been unnaturally affected in one way or another. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't know how "abnormal" is defined, but the target category seems to be a container category. Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dimadick: The proposed category also contains only subcategories, besides Chronos, who I moved to the correct subcategory just now. So it would still function the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge Not a necessary sub-level; consider also placing categories into Category:Fictional characters by age where appropriate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, getting rid of "abnormal" and without a significant disadvantage. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: What do you mean by this? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the merge we will get rid of the subjective term "abnormal" and the merge does not have a significant disadvantage. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How exactly is "abnormal" subjective? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose merging or deleting this category in any way. Alternate proposal - rename this category into something along the lines of "Category:Fictional characters with supernatural ageing" or a similar name. Does that counter the claim that "abnormal" is too subjective of a term? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:37, 17 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 to Category:Mandatory Palestine templates. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mandatory Palestine war and conflict navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Pointless level of category, seeing as it has only 1 sub-category and 1 parent, which also has only this as its content. Gonnym (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but merge to Category:Mandatory Palestine templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - another subcat added.GreyShark (dibra) 10:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Still pointless additional level. The sub-categories can be under Category:Mandatory Palestine navigational boxes just the same. Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the second subcategory did not change anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now nominated the second subcategory separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 29 November 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 all to Category:Fictional characters by occupation. bibliomaniac15 06:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by occupational types (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by agricultural or forestry occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by arts or entertainment occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by cleaning and maintenance occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by construction or extraction occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by education and training occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional engineers by specialty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by financial occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by government or political occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by hospitality occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by illegal occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by industrial occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by judicial or penal systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by law enforcement occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters who use magic by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by maritime occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by medical occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional military personnel by careers or specialties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by obsolete occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional scientists by field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional spies by role (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by service occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional sportspeople by sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by communication or transport occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by unfree labour occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by personal service or care occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters by protective service occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This and all of its immediate subcategories should be deleted - the entire thing is rubbish created by a blocked, disruptive user and results in a vast array of redundant categories that are already handled by Category:Fictional characters by occupation. There is no need to further sort into "occupational types", many of which are arbitrary groupings. There are too many subcategories to individually nominate, but this would not involve deleting the occupation ones, only their containers that they were sorted into. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional characters by occupation. Deleting without merging would result in content being orphaned, e.g. the 13 occupational categories currently in Category:Fictional characters by maritime occupations are not found at the target. However I agree with the nom in that I don't see much value in a 3-tier system. Place Clichy (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge to Category:Fictional characters by occupation. I think that these categories still have some value for sorting closely related professions together. I agree that we don't necessarily need Category:Fictional characters by occupational types in and of itself, but I think all or at least most of these subcategories should not be deleted. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no point. The subcategories are also arbitrarily-defined mixes of unrelated occupations. Can I list those as well? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: If you are willing to go through and do it, then by all means do so. Preferably combined with this one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then it is  Done. Tagging now... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about new category:

• The older categories were previously named "Fictional X occupations" despite containing characters by occupation rather than occupations that do not exist in real life (which is Category:Fictional occupations). See this CfD from 2017.
• Consider merging categories to Category:Mass media portrayals of the working class where appropriate.
• Category:Fictional characters by agricultural or forestry occupation lumps together unrelated occupations, contains non-occupations and misplaced categories such as Category:Fictional equestrians, and was created by a CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) sock. Most of the remaining categories have similar problems; they are often placed directly in tree for occupations even when a corresponding real-world "People by occupation in FIELD" exists — for example, Category:Fictional characters by financial occupation is in Category:Financial occupations rather than Category:People in finance by occupation.
• Category:Fictional characters by cleaning and maintenance occupations was created and edited by confirmed sock Wahspsneh (talk · contribs), and is therefore eligible for speedy deletion per G5.
• Category:Fictional engineers by specialty is the fictional counterpart to Category:Engineers by specialty, and all of the subcategories have real-world counterparts as well. This might actually be kept.
• Category:Fictional characters by financial occupation is redundant to Category:Fictional people in finance. I have processed all of the categories that belong there, leaving only the ones that don't belong, so we can delete.
• Category:Fictional characters by illegal occupation is redundant to Category:Fictional career criminals and Category:Fictional criminals by crime. I have processed all of the categories that belong there, leaving only the ones that don't belong, so we can delete. Actually, Category:Fictional career criminals seems problematic and redundant in its own right.
• Category:Fictional characters by law enforcement occupation could be processed into a new Category:Fictional people in law enforcement. Effectively, rename and purge.
• Category:Fictional characters who use magic by occupation is already covered by a separate CfD.
• Category:Fictional characters by medical occupation can be merged into Category:Fictional medical personnel.
• Category:Fictional military personnel by careers or specialties can be merged to Fictional military personnel.
• Category:Fictional characters by obsolete occupation is the worst. Obsolescence in the real world does not imply obsolescence in fiction, and these occupations are not otherwise related.
• Category:Fictional scientists by field was not created by a CensoredScribe sock, and parallels Category:Scientists by field. Keep.
• Category:Fictional spies by role parallels Category:Spies by role; I'd recommend keeping but purging categories that do not belong.
• Category:Fictional characters by service occupation is arguably the second most hodgepodge of these categories, after Category:Fictional characters by obsolete occupation. I discovered two additonal "Fictional characters by occupational types" subcategories that are not in the parent: Category:Fictional characters by personal service or care occupation and Category:Fictional characters by protective service occupations, and these have been added to the nomination.
• Category:Fictional sportspeople by sport was not created by a CensoredScribe sock, and parallels Category:Sportspeople by sport. Keep.
• Category:Fictional characters by unfree labour occupation is already covered by a separate CfD.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reconsideration, all of the subcategories should be merged into Category:Fictional characters by occupation, except as noted or where they are already in a subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Fictional characters by illegal occupation, it parallels well with Category:Illegal occupations. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• We should still merge to Category:Fictional characters by occupation, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  merge per Laundry Mason (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it be a dual merge? E.g. merging Category:Fictional characters by communication or transport occupation also to Category:Fiction about transport. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose until properly listed as a dual merge, with the appropriate targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: What would be the other merge target? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LaundryPizza03: similar to Category:Fiction about transport that I mentioned before, i.e. "fiction about X" or "X in fiction". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle: No can do, these would be different targets for some pages that share a category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And as it turns out, some cannot be sorted at all into such a category; for example, Category:Fictional lumberjacks does not have an obvious placement under the Category:Fiction by topic tree. I'll do the ones that can be done manually. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I did them all, except for those that I had proposed for keeping or renaming, or which can be fully merged to a parent for a specific occupation after discarding subcategories that don't belong.

    Note that Category:Fictional military personnel was improperly linked above, and Category:Fictional medical personnel is now Category:Fictional health professionals. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @LaundryPizza03, @Marcocapelle, is there any reason not to merge to Category:Fictional characters by occupation? It seems the other merge targets have been taken care of. Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging to that target is definitely okay with me. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Qwerfjkl: agree, they should be merged to Category:Fictional characters by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 18 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: manual upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional blade and dart throwers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created by blocked account. WP:NONDEF applies, whether you can "throw" a blade is not defining to a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  support per nom. Mason (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional ranged weapons practitioners and selectively to Category:Fictional melee weapons practitioners (where Category:Fictional blade fighters is proposed for merging). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03: is someone who throws once a "practitioner"? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, remove those of course. @Marcocapelle: Is this a rhetorical question? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:44, 29 November 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:Fictional merfolk and split into Category:Fiction about merfolk. bibliomaniac15 05:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids to Category:Fiction about merfolk

Nominator's rationale: Realistically, most articles in this category aren't even individual characters, but works of media. Category:Fiction about mermaids should actually become a subcategory of this one, and any relevant articles should be moved to that subcategory. For the few articles that are fictional merfolk, they can be upmerged to Category:Merfolk or Category:Mermaids in popular culture and Category:Fictional human–animal hybrids. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate rename to Category:Fictional merfolk, which would serve as a more direct parallel to Category:Merfolk. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids and Category:Fiction about merfolk. I am not convinced yet there are too few characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: If we do that it should preferably be Category:Fictional merfolk too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that is correct, so rename that category to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not convinced that it's a better title. It reads as more encyclopedic, but it seems much less likely to be searched for than "mermaids", and probably somewhat less than "mermen". I don't think the difference in technical correctness/gender neutrality is enough to justify the move from a much more recognizable title. The fact that it's a category, rather than an article, makes this less of a concern, but also makes renaming it to get the "perfect" title seem less important. P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Realistically I could have speedy moved this because the parent category is Category:Merfolk. There is also a Merfolk main article. Unless that one is moved, this one shouldn't be different. The only reason I listed it here is because the scope is markedly different than its title. You are free to start a pagemove discussion at merfolk to move it to "Mermen and mermaids" if you think it's off, but this is strictly a procedural thing at the moment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that "speedy" applies when there's opposition or at least debate about the proposed move! It's designed to be used when the move isn't controversial at all. However, I note that this is also a subcategory of "fictional animal–human hybrids", as is the case with the categories proposed for upmerging below: harpies, centaurs, fauns, and volleyball players. A significant number of the entries are individuals, so splitting the category as Marcocapelle suggested may be necessary.

  As for the name, consistency between main articles and category titles is not essential, and it's illogical to assert that this category should be moved to a potentially worse title to match the main article, merely because the main article isn't the subject of a proposed move to a title matching this one. Both moves would need consensus to succeed, not just one of them, and if the current title is better than the proposed title, then it's okay to keep it, even if that means that the main article's title is inconsistent with the category's title. For what it's worth, I think that "fictional mermaids and mermen" would be preferable to the current title, but that's another kettle of fish. P Aculeius (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was surprised to find the article title at Merfolk but since there is apparently consensus about it I can't see a reason why we wouldn't extrapolate this consensus to category space. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and rename per Zxcvbnm and Marcocapelle. I don't see a problem with using the gender-neutral term instead of the masculine/feminine pair. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle @Zxcvbnm sorry, what are the split targets? Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Qwerfjkl: It would be Category:Fiction about merfolk and Category:Fictional merfolk, but honestly it is more a matter of renaming Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids to Category:Fictional merfolk and creating a new parent Category:Fiction about merfolk. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 18 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: listify/keep.

• Listify Category:60 Minutes correspondents
• Keep Category:Anderson Cooper (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:60 Minutes correspondents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Anderson Cooper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: nominate as similar discussions have been created by Woodensuperman for similar categories Category:60 Minutes (Australian TV program) correspondents and Category:60 Minutes producers, with rationale of being WP:PERFCATs. Happily888 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:60 Minutes correspondents per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Category:60 Minutes correspondents per nom.

  Keep Category:Anderson Cooper. I don't think that logic applies to AC. There's enough content in there to support a category. Mason (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify Category:60 Minutes correspondents — the other two CfD's I have closed similarly because a user pointed out that there are no lists of people who worked on 60 Minutes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Category:60 Minutes correspondents. It is an excellent candidate for a list, which can be annotated with major/well-known episodes they hosted, tenure, etc.
  Keep Category:Anderson Cooper as sufficiently large. 10 articles is enough for an WP:EPONCAT. HouseBlaster^talk 00:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify/Keep The 60 minutes category is classic WP:PERFCAT since these are long-term reporters. The AC category is well populated though. -RevelationDirect (talk) 21:37, 3 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 close. The categories are now category redirects, making this discussion moot. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:2000s disestablishments in Yugoslavia to Category:2000s disestablishments in Serbia and Montenegro
• Propose merging Category:2000s establishments in Yugoslavia to Category:2000s establishments in Serbia and Montenegro

Nominator's rationale: merge, Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1992 and the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was officially renamed in 2003. The (dis)establishments decade categories may be merged to the sister categories with the latest name in that decade. Alternatively we may delete all decade categories and just keep the year categories, because of the short duration of this state. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Joy (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003. It significantly changed borders in 1992 with the independence of several republics, but the remaining part still called itself Yugoslavia. Place Clichy (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 06:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It did not significantly change its borders in 2003, it was merely a change of the official name. It was still the same country before and after 2003. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The same editor made the same invalid claims in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 8#Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which I addressed there. --Joy (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there is an open discussion with impact on this one. At Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election § Requested move 3 November 2023, there is a consensus building whether to use "Yugoslavia" or "Serbia and Montenegro" to call the country in the period between 1992 and 2003. I believe we should follow the verdict of this widely attended RM, when it is closed. Place Clichy (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (copy&paste to match the other copy&paste) Well, if there's anything I'd call these discussions, it's not consensus building. It's a pattern of people voicing opinions with often weak argumentation, which I refute and then often get ignored, and which has now been closed with just a no consensus to move outcome, which I've appealed to the closer because of what you just did there. --Joy (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An RM about a 1992 article is unrelated to this discussion about the 2000s. The name of the country was uncontroversially established at Serbia and Montenegro in 2003. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The RM did cover most of the history of FRY. Anyway, worst case, they can just be renamed to Category:2000s disestablishments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia etc. --Joy (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The grouped move discussion did include the potential renaming of 2000 Yugoslavian general election → 2000 Serbia and Montenegro general election. The discussion was closed as not moved. Place Clichy (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not because consensus it near unanimous against your peculiar reading of history (the single editor who did not oppose your proposal [1][2] did in fact give arguments in favour of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia instead of either Serbia and Montenegro or plain Yugoslavia[n]) that you can discard it. The discussion was not closed as a "no consensus" result". The full closing comment is (bold in the original: "not moved. There's no consensus to move here." This comes after a previous move discussion (in 2011) had ended with the same result. Place Clichy (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge by Redirecting to Category:2000s establishments in Serbia and Montenegro etc. The chronology templates will then resolve the redirects, i.e. the template on Category:2001 establishments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will use the target category as the parent. Where a country name changes during a decade, we usually use the later name for the whole decade, e.g. Category:1980s establishments in Myanmar. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Categories have been emptied by User:Joy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz after reading more about this, I found that these subcategories seem to mainly get filled in through parameters of ((EstcatCountry)) and ((DisestcatCountry)), so as soon as those are edited to say FRY and not Yugoslavia, as it is in article space, the old names got emptied. I posted a message about this not being intended as a prejudicial action in another related CFD that I found in the meantime, in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20. --Joy (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There were no 2000s disestablishments in Yugoslavia because in the 2000s, there was no Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia definitively disintegrated in 1992, and the rump state keeping the word "Yugoslavia" in its modified name is not what is generally meant by "Yugoslavia". This rump state (Serbia and Montenegro) existed from 1992 to 2006. The categories have been appropriately emptied.—Alalch E. 16:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like this got swept up as part of another discussion, [1] and [2] make this moot. The difference between a deletion and a category redirect is immaterial, right? --Joy (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E. since your latest comment said delete, here's an explicit ping - can we close this? --Joy (talk) 10:42, 3 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Essays about Wikipedian fallacies to Category:Wikipedia essays about Wikipedian fallacies

Nominator's rationale: Opposed at speedy. parent category is Category:Wikipedia essays siblings are all in the style of Wikipedia essays about FOO Mason (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish and Gonnym: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Mason (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont find Gonnym's rationale in the collapse box to be compelling. Yes, there is also a Category:Essays, for articles about off-site essays that are notable, like "Politics and the English Language" by Orwell (and a few overview articles on types of such essays, e.g. Op-ed). None of them are about Wikipedia. We have no reason at all to redundantly "pre-disambiguate" Category:Essays about Wikipedian fallacies to Category:Wikipedia essays about Wikipedian fallacies when there are no notable off-site essays about Wikipedian fallacies. This CfR isn't going to make any sense until such time as there are enough off-site notable essays about Wikipedian fallacies that a category for them needs to be created. Sames goes for the other subcats of Category:Wikipedia essays that do not begin with "Wikipedia essays about": There are not any (much less enough for dedicated categories) notable off-site works that are essays of Wikipedia users, that are essays offering reader help to Wikipedia users, that are essays about what Wikipedia is, or that are WikiProject advice, and there surely never will be. A couple of these could possibly use clearer titles, e.g. Category:User essays → Category:Wikipedia user essays, and Category:Reader help‎ → Category:Wikipedia reader help‎, but essentially the same argument applies there, too: There are no notable off-site essays we need to categorize that are user essays of other systems, or help for readers of other sites. And all of these categories have ((Maintenance category)) on them (one didn't, but has been fixed), so there is no potential for encyclopedia reader confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency with sibling categories. I am not sure what I would say if the whole tree would be nominated for renaming in the reverse direction, but as of now that is not the case yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment above. There are two types of essays here, real world and Wikipedia ones. Since we have two different trees (Category:Wikipedia essays and Category:Essays), the sub-categories should follow the parent tree. Since we are apparently comparing, I also don't find SMcCandlish's rationale compelling. --Gonnym (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really per WP:C2C, consistency with established category tree names. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:35, 3 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1st millennium BC in the Adena culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in the Adena culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:2nd-century BC establishments in the Adena culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Adena culture
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Adena culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Adena culture by millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Adena culture by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Centuries in the Adena culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Adena culture is already categorised in 1st millennium BC, both directly and via Early Woodland period. This hierarchy is not helpful for navigation, as it places only one individual mound in an intersection category by century and culture. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, in principle without objection to recreate the category when a lot more articles are written, but it seems very unlikely that this will really happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 29 November 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 (dc̄) 17:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Centuries in Wallachia to Category:History of Wallachia by period

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer, only contains C19. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 29 November 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 (dc̄) 17:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:20th-century Yugoslav television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Yugoslav television series by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Television in Yugoslavia by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layers; Category:Yugoslav television series is now in Category:20th-century television series by country, and the Yugoslav century hierarchy is otherwise empty after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#20th century in Yugoslavia and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:21st century in Yugoslavia. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this may even be speedied per WP:G6, it is a final clean-up after earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, when it's just a single century it really has no point. Support --Joy (talk) 08:13, 30 November 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 (dc̄) 17:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Baptists in Bolivia to Category:Baptist Christianity in Bolivia
• Propose merging Category:Baptist missionaries in Bolivia to Category:Baptist missionaries in South America, Category:Protestant missionaries in Bolivia and Category:Baptist Christianity in Bolivia

Nominator's rationale: Merge for now, only one article. – Fayenatic London 12:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial oppose. It should not be merged but Category:Baptists in Bolivia should be renamed to Category:Bolivian baptists for consistancy with categories in Category:Baptists by nationality. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, without objection to recreate any of these categories if more articles are published. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 29 November 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 (dc̄) 17:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Millennia in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:3rd millennium in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:3rd-millennium establishments in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:3rd-millennium disestablishments in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Kosovo by millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Kosovo by millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This hierarchy is not useful as it only contains Ottoman period, C20 & C21, and a single earlier event. No merge is needed now that I have populated Category:Military history of Kosovo. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Category:Centuries in Kosovo suffices in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 29 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Baptists from Germany to Category:German Baptists

Nominator's rationale: for consistancy with other category names in Category:Baptists by nationality. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the target is ambiguous because of Schwarzenau Brethren. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, also ambigious because of the North American Baptist Conference, which was formerly the German Baptist denominaton unrelated to the Schwarzenau Bretheren. Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 29 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Baptists from the United States to Category:American Baptists
• Propose renaming Category:Baptists from the United States by state or territory to Category:American Baptists by state
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century Baptist ministers from the United States to Category:17th-century American Baptist ministers
• Propose renaming Category:18th-century Baptist ministers from the United States to Category:18th-century American Baptist ministers
• Propose renaming Category:19th-century Baptist ministers from the United States to Category:19th-century American Baptist ministers
• Propose renaming Category:20th-century Baptist ministers from the United States to Category:20th-century American Baptist ministers
• Propose renaming Category:21st-century Baptist ministers from the United States to Category:21st-century American Baptist ministers

Nominator's rationale: for consistancy with other category names in Category:Baptists by nationality and Category:American Protestants by state respectively. Same situation with Baptist ministers by century, making it consistant with articles in Category:Baptist ministers by century. NOTE: I removed "territory" from the second one since it only contains states. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the target is ambiguous because of American Baptist Churches USA. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, would be okay to change the second one to be changed from Category:Baptists from the United States by state or territory to simply Category:Baptists from the United States by state. As stated above, it would make sense to remove "territory" from the second one since it only contains states. The ones for U.S. territories have a seperate section. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not have a strong opinion about that, leaving it to other editors to discuss that aspect of the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose narrowing the category. There's no need to reduce the scope of the category as it doesn't help navigation. Mason (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "American Baptist" is a name for a number of related denominations, so this creates ambigiuty. Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 29 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Deobandi journals to Category:Deobandi magazines

Nominator's rationale: These are magazines, not peer-reviewed academic journals. Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick Rename, @Randykitty: As the creator of these articles and category, I am in favor of prompt renaming.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 06:36, 30 November 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 (dc̄) 17:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Emerging technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The main issue with this category is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. When does an emerging technology become established? It's not clear and there is a lack of verifiability (i.e. sources describing them as "emerging") for many of these entries. Some I would not describe as "emerging" (i.e. Artificial womb) because they are a long way from being realized. Others such as GMOs are in the category even though they've been in use since 1994. I would also argue it's not defining because all technologies will be, are, or were emerging at one point. (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Every notable technology has been emerging after it was founded. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keeping this current would be a maintenance issue as tech becomes established. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:34, 3 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wards of Zanzibar to Category:Wards of Tanzania

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. the only page in the category is actually a Ward of Tanzania. Mason (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 29 November 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:American people of Nigerian descent by occupation. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Nigerian-American people by occupation to Category:American people of Nigerian descent

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now as this category is not helpful for navigation with only two categories in it Mason (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've expanded it with Category:Nigerian-American musicians and List of Nigerian Americans has lots of other potential categories for expansion. Jahaza (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to Category:American people of Nigerian descent by occupation, C2C per Category:American people of Nigerian descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that the category is further populated, I would support renaming per marcocappelle. Mason (talk) 21:11, 30 November 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming: Category:Assad family to Category:Al-Assad family

Nominator's rationale: More accurate and as per the Wikipedia article of Al-Assad family.

• Rename per WP:C2D, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support rename, this seems like an obvious no-brainer. AHI-3000 (talk) 06:30, 3 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.