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 without prejudice against creation if it can be appropriately populated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Bu Halim Shaybani family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small cat where there's only one family member and the family page Bu Halim Shaybani family Mason (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now without prejudice to recreation of the category if and when it can be populated better. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:06, 18 October 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) House Blaster^talk 23:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All (non-lists) entries are already in the Category:21st-century Afghan people tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of these biographies are about people of the Islamic Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 17 October 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/delete a bunch of other actions are proposed here that are already discussed in standalone CfD discussions. The specific proposal here is uncontested. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian people of Mandaean descent to Category:Australian Mandaeans
Propose deleting Category:People of Mandaean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:American people of Iraqi-Mandaean descent to Category:American Mandaeans

Nominator's rationale: the five articles are all about Mandaean priests and scholars from Iraq (in one case, Iran) who settled in Australia. Mandaean descent does not apply to any, as articles clearly identify each of them as Mandaean themselves, and say nothing about descent. I believe they would be better located in Iraqi/Iranian emigrants to Australia (already are) as well as an Australian Mandaeans category, per the format in Australian people by religion. This change of scope would leave the second nominated category empty, to be deleted by default. Place Clichy (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a 3rd category with similar features: one article, already in Category:Iraqi Mandaeans and Category:Iraqi emigrants to the United States and primarily defined as an Iraqi poet. Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but for the first category a merge target exists namely Category:Mandaean Australians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: strange as it seems this is a WP:COPSEP issue. Category:Àustralian Mandaeans is for people of Mandaean religion in Australia (like Australian Christians, Australian Hindus, Australian Jews, Australian Muslims and others in Category:Australian people by religion). Category:Mandaean Australians (a creation of 4 October 2023) is for the ethnic group seen collectively, per main article Mandaean Australians, and siblings Category:Iraqi Australian, Category:Assyrian Australian etc. In parallel to this discussion, I'm trying to have the latter renamed to Category:Mandaean diaspora in Australia or something similar, per parent Category:Mandaean diaspora. That will, I hope, make things clearer. Place Clichy (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that is also fine, but then Category:Mandaean Australians can perhaps be deleted in the spirit of WP:C2F, and a link to the article added to the header of Category:Australian people of Mandaean descent/Category:Australian Mandaeans. I will not interrupt the speedy rename process though. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I could live with a downmerge of Category:Mandaean Australians to Category:Australian Mandaeans as there is really no other content that the people category and the eponymous article. Place Clichy (talk) 14:06, 22 October 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:Greek Orthodox buildings and structures. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 23:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures of the Greek Orthodox Church to Category:Greek Orthodox buildings and structures

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current name is confusing because there is not a single church body with the name Greek Orthodox Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. There's no single organisation called the Greek Orthodox Church, and these buildings belong to various churches, which are all Greek Orthodox. Place Clichy (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 17 October 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:Assassinated heads of state. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 23:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Assassinated heads of state by type to Category:Assassinated heads of state

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge by nom. Place Clichy (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom Mason (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:35, 17 October 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 "Russian/Moscow/Soviet professor foo" into "Russian/Moscow/Soviet academic foo". There was opposition because of the way Russia does titles in academia, but supporters argued that job title is less important than profession. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 16:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Russian professors to Category:Russian academics
Propose merging Category:Professors of the Moscow State University to Category:Academic staff of Moscow State University
Propose merging Category:Soviet professors to Category:Soviet academics

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category, and the potential parent category Category:Professors redirects to Category:Academics Mason (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is not an overlap. This is a national specificity. See Academic ranks in Russia#From Associate to Full Professor --Мит Сколов (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the important thing here (with respect to their occupation) is that they do research at a university, the exact title does not matter so much. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Television series by Seven.One Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Of the ten articles in the category, only one (Plan B (2023 TV series)) mentions Seven.One Studios (a redlink but see ProSiebenSat.1_Media#Seven.One_Studios). In any case, the link between the articles seems tenuous at best, so it's not clear that this categorization is meaningful. Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a case where the cat refers to a portion of a page rather than the primary topic of the page. In this case, this is a german studio. So, unsurprisingly, not a lot has been written about these german shows. In some cases, are "international" versions of an english language show. See for example de:Hochzeit auf den ersten Blick, the german version of Married_at_First_Sight_(American_TV_series)#International_versions. And worth noting that the "original" version of that show was from Demark. - jc37 00:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But then, isn't the categorization incorrect? If Seven.One Studios only produces the German versions, the English versions have no business in the category. Pichpich (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At times, page may be categorized based upon a section of a page, not necessarily the title of the page. This especially can happen due to a list of X on a page. In this case, listing of international versions. - jc37 00:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to the other subcats of Category:Television series by studio? - jc37 09:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. in the articles of Category:Television series by Sreda, Sreda is at least mentioned in the infobox. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more an issue of that these are international versions of the shows in question (which could/should probably have their own separate infobox in the articles - but that's merely a matter of editing), and because the company name keeps changing, per ProSiebenSat.1_Media#Seven.One_Studios.

This seems to be something we're seeing more and more in categories with international versions. Some of which may or may not be in English. WP:DEFINING doesn't help much, because they are presumably defining in their country of broadcast. Where should we draw the line on categorisation? - jc37 20:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should draw the line by whether international versions are notable in their own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is (part of) why I asked where do we draw the line. Are we only talking notability in english media? Are we expecting en.wiki editors to go pull references from German media for this company? Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources doesn't really help much either. - jc37 08:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. No and 2. possibly, per WP:N. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Setting that issue aside for a moment, going back to your original comment about infoboxes. Several of the category members show "Endor Productions" in the infobox, which, as we can see at ProSiebenSat.1_Media#Seven.One_Studios, is a division of Seven.One_Studios. Which means, this would seem to meet your criteria of being mentioned in the infobox. Also noting that Endor Productions redirects to Hilary Bevan Jones. - jc37 09:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:48, 15 October 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. Three relists; three different opinions. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ethnic Albanian people to Category:People of Albanian descent

Nominator's rationale: overlapping cat Mason (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, ethnicity is something different than descent from an emigrant. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasoning at this CfD about "ethnic" Armenians. Nobody is in fact ever primarily defined as an ethnic Albanian, as Dante is still arguably a well-known Italian writer although he was never a citizen of any state called Italy. JPL has a history of placing this moniker indiscriminately for people who are not citizens of the nation-state that bears the name of the language they speak. This recent re-creation is putting together content that was already perfectly fine where it was before, especially in Albanian diaspora, People of Albanian descent and other ethnic group categories. Especially, the intersection categories with occupations are made-up gatherings or loosely related people that do not seem eligible under WP:OCEGRS. If kept, merge as nom as a damage control measure. Place Clichy (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the category has apparently been purged, so that it does not contain any diaspora/descent categories. Place Clichy is right that diaspora/descent categories do not belong here, but they aren't here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:43, 15 October 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. A majority of participants supported deleting this category; their arguments were centered upon WP:DEFINING, and the redundancy of both this category and Category:Aston Villa F.C. players. There were two people who supported keeping this category, both for different reasons. The first was an argument that it is, in fact, defining. However, this argument is simply not enough to overcome the four !voters who expressed the belief that it is not defining. The second was an explicit appeal to WP:ITSUSEFUL, followed up by WP:ITSHARMLESS, and thus was given less weight. Therefore, there is consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Aston Villa Academy Graduates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not needed, not defining, we already have Category:Aston Villa F.C. players and no similar categories for other clubs exist as far as I'm aware (and if they do, they also need to go). Indeed, I recall similar youth categories being deleted in the past (one for Celtic ringing bells?). Giant Snowman 14:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wikipedia:Defining: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently use to define the subject. Google shows that this is the case. It is a defining Characteristic for only certain footballers. Some of whom have never played a senior game for the club which one would expect in order to be categorised as a Villa player. Tiny Particle (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The existing players category is sufficient. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overlapping with Category:Aston Villa F.C. players per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a useful category as many players do not make a senior debut before leaving for another club, Aston Villa is generally considered to be among the elite academies in England and has produced hundreds of academy players, a substantial proportion though did not play for the first team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountaincirque (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and how is not playing for a club defining? This is not a problem that needs fixing, the main category covers all players who have been signed with the club.

In the same way that attending a school or university is a defining feature of a person, the same can be said for being part of a football academy, even if you didn't go on to play for the senior side. The fact that there are not categories for other sides is whataboutery, there is no WP:Football consensus on not having academy categories, it's just your opinion. I genuinely don't see how having this extra piece of information does any harm, in fact for me personally it is a massive boon to be able to see who came through the Villa academy easily, even if they didn't go on to play senior football at the club. Mountaincirque^talk 08:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP:FOOTY consensus to keep this, people shouldn't be creating categories for one team just because they WP:LIKEIT. If people think that academy categories should be created, a centralised discussion proving them as defining should be had. None of the discussion here actually proves that playing for Villa youth and not the senior team is a defining characteristic of their career. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - this is not a school, this is a football team, and a category already exists. Giant Snowman 17:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if players also played for the senior team, then this is a category duplication. If they only played for the youth team, then that's WP:NOTDEFINING, as youth football isn't likely to be the most important thing they've done in their career (as players who only played youth football aren't generally notable). Either way, this category is unnecessary, which is why it correctly doesn't exist for every other football team. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 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 dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Eldest sons of British hereditary barons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEFINING. Also, eldest sons become barons after their fathers kick the aristocratic bucket (unless of course they predecease them or the title gets taken away for some reason), and there are plenty of baronial categories. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. per nom Mason (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle per nom. However occasionally the oldest son dies before their father, then probably a manual merge to Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom is required. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those can probably, if not already, be listed in Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manual dual merge to Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom and Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded per above. House Blaster^talk 00:09, 23 October 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) House Blaster^talk 16:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Twin sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. This category has been nominated twice before here and here with no consensus reached but not since 2020. It has been nominated for deletion rather than merging since allow of the articles are presumably already in their national subcategories. While I am skeptical as to whether being a twin is defining at all, having X profession and being a twin seems like a totally trivial intersection. As TRIVIALCAT states, "For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments." User:Namiba 12:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the intersection between twinness and occupation isn't defining (although I could see a case being made for actors/entertainers). In terms of twinness in general, I'd argue that it's a notable feature, but I'm biased in that regard because I do a lot of behavior genetic work. Mason (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary intersection of two things, being a twin is WP:NOTDEFINING for almost all people in that category. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 17 October 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:Diplomats of the Kingdom of England. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 23:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English diplomats to Category:Diplomats of the Kingdom of England (was: ~~to Category:Diplomats from the Kingdom of England~~)

Nominator's rationale: This is to make clear that this category is for the pre-1707 Kingdom of England, per category description, at a time when England had a foreign policy under its name. This is borderline WP:C2C per Category:People of the Kingdom of England. The trouble with the current name is that some articles relative to later period end up being placed there. I purged some of them: Cyril Graham, Stanier Porten, John Udny, Simon Clement, James Dorner. Place Clichy (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for less ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Neutral. English is supposed to describe people whose nationality is English. If you want diplomats who are representing the England/the Kingdom of England, then the category shouldn't use "from" (i'm not sure what the norm is -- either of or for). I think we should split the category, and update the descriptions. Mason (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, in this case (while representing a country) it should be "of" rather than "from". No need for a split though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: the category description states that "this category is for diplomats of the Kingdom of England before the Acts of Union 1707 – later persons fall into Category:British diplomats". I agree that of... is better in this case and I amended the nomination. Place Clichy (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a good point on the description. I'm on the fence about splitting now, as you make good points.Mason (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03 and Edward-Woodrow: may I respectfully ask why the double relisting? My understanding is that all opposition has been withdrawn. Place Clichy (talk) 19:56, 15 October 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. OP was subsequently blocked as a sock, so there is zero legitimate support for a merger. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 23:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer subsidiaries to Category:Amazon MGM Studios

Nominator's rationale: On October 3, 2023, MGM Holdings was absorbed into Amazon Studios and renamed to Amazon MGM Studios. Note that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Orion Pictures and American International Pictures are the separated subsidiaries within it. RidwanZatmiko (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this cat is already categorised in the tree - it is in Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which is in Category:Amazon MGM Studios. - jc37 09:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:13, 15 October 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: redirect to Category:Monarchs of the Carolingian Empire. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 16:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirecting Category:9th-century Frankish monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Monarchs of the Carolingian Empire

Nominator's rationale: redirect, overlaps with Category:Monarchs of the Carolingian Empire (all articles are already in there as well). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. per nom Mason (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 17 October 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:Establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands by century to Category:Establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer for a polity that lasted only one century. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. per nom Mason (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 17 October 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) House Blaster^talk 16:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Stewart family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:Smallcat (n<3 ) without a corresponding eponymous article about the family Mason (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems completely unnecessary Marcelus (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:22, 17 October 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:Women from the Crusader states. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 16:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women of the Crusader states to Category:Women from the Crusader states

Nominator's rationale: from, not of Mason (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, "from" is default. The subcategories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied the child categories. I misclicked and didn't speedy this one. Mason (talk) 21:26, 15 October 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:Exogamy. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 16:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Interethnic marriage to Category:Exogamy

Nominator's rationale: This category is not distinct enough from the parent that splitting it would be an improvement in terms of navication. Current content is "just" Interethnic marriage, Category:International marriage and Category:Interracial marriage. They all fit in the parent (and were there until a month ago). Place Clichy (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Category:International marriage does not even belong well under Category:Interethnic marriage. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 15 October 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. In terms of strength of the arguments, the opposition to deletion rebutted some OP's concerns about the factual accuracy of the category. However, subsequent delete !voters pointed out that few of the articles in the category tree are actually "Fictional indigenous people from Siberia", tipping both numbers and strength of the arguments in favor of deletion. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 23:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional indigenous Siberian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category does not make sense. The only content is 3 child categories (Fictional Ainu people, Fictional Eskimo and Inuit people, Fictional Mongolian people, none of which can be primarily defined as indigenous Siberian people. This category serves as a bridge to Category:Fictional indigenous people of the Arctic, which clearly does not apply to Ainus (a Japanese people) or Mongolian people, and is already a parent of the Eskimo and Inuit category. This category is just useless for fictional characters category, and not defining. Place Clichy (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ainu, Eskimo (Yupik), and Mongol people all live in Asian Russia (AKA Siberia), and are all indigenous to regions within Siberia. Your rationale doesn't make much sense. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Siberia is Arctic, or North of the Arctic circle. Mongolia cannot be placed in the Arctic, however you stretch it. Same for Hokkaido and Sakhalin, the homeland of the Ainu people. Place Clichy (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Arctic category, try a different reason for why this should be deleted. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hardly any of the articles in this tree is about a fictional Siberian character. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Mason (talk) 16:07, 15 October 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: dual merge to Category:East Asian tea ceremony and Category:Korean tea. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 15:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Korean tea culture to Category:East Asian tea ceremony and Category:Korean tea

Nominator's rationale: 1 item in category Mason (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge (not split), per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per Marcocapelle. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:23, 17 October 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.

October 15

Category:Bu Halim Shaybani family

Category:Poets associated with Dundee

Category:People of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Category:People of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Category:Australian people of Mandaean descent

Category:Buildings and structures of the Greek Orthodox Church

Category:Assassinated heads of state by type

Category:Russian professors

Category:Historical revisionism of comfort women

Category:Television series by Seven.One Studios

Category:Ethnic Albanian people

Category:Companies of insular areas of the United States by city

Category:Aston Villa Academy Graduates

Category:Wives of Holy Roman Emperors

Category:Eldest sons of British hereditary barons

Category:Twin sportspeople

Category:English diplomats

Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer subsidiaries

Category:19th-century Albanian military personnel

Category:Sheikh Mansur Movement

Category:Assyrian/Syriac Palestinians

Category:9th-century Frankish monarchs

Category:Establishments in the Burgundian Netherlands by century

Category:Flags of Vatican City

Category:Stewart family

Category:Women of the Crusader states

Category:Interethnic marriage

Category:Fictional indigenous Siberian people

Category:Korean tea culture