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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jebel Hafeet to Category:Hajar Mountains

Nominator's rationale: merge in the spirit of WP:C2F, ultimately there is just the eponymous article in here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, there is already talk of a merger going on here! Leo1pard (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That is a discussion about a different category, so in itself this is not a reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support this merge as well. Mason (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Japan's scenic spots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Poorly named category. This was created as a completely uncategorized category, which categories are never allowed to be, but we do not have any "scenic spots" tree for this to be a part of -- and even if one were desirable, "Country's scenic spots" would absolutely not be its correct name. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, subjective, and overlaps with Category:Tourist attractions in Japan. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am deferring to alternatives discussed below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is not subjective but it is incorrectly named. It and Category:Prefecturally designated scenic spots should be called Places of Scenic Beauty as per Monuments of Japan. They are legally designated as such Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 14:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ah thanks for the clarification. I'd support a merge, but would want us to think through the category name so that it's clearer to people what it is. Mason (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Apparently articles have been moved to Category:Places of Scenic Beauty if they belong there, so this category has become redundant and can be deleted after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Malliavin calculus. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Paul Malliavin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Although 3 mathematical articles are named after this mathematician (Malliavin calculus, Malliavin derivative, Malliavin's absolute continuity lemma), I don't think it is worth having a category for them. Potential for expansion is low. Place Clichy (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - OCEPON does not say the category dhould be removed, but it should be renamed something like Category:Works by Paul Malliavin. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Only the lemma is a work. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Substitute with whichever collective noun you prefer. I don’t know enough math to have a good one. awkwafaba (📥) 11:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The issue is that there are just 3 articles, two of which for things named after Malliavin rather than by him. Other guidelines often linked to discussions about eponymous categories are WP:SHAREDNAME, according to which things named after someone don't necessarily belong in a category linked to them, and WP:SMALLCAT, which calls into doubt if a category for 3 articles is useful at all, as it is primarily a navigation tool. The potential for expansion is small here, as it is unlikely that Malliavin (now dead) will produce many new lemmas. Place Clichy (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If kept, rename to Category:Malliavin calculus as the most appropriate collective noun. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Category:Malliavin calculus, which seems like a reasonable and large enough topic category to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 both parents. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Zainichi Korean male professional wrestlers to Category:Zainichi Korean professional wrestlers

Nominator's rationale: idk why I made this; there's only men that I've seen so far toobigtokale (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If merged, also merge to the other parent Category:Japanese male professional wrestlers. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think Zainichis have a notable impact on Japanese professional wrestling; to my understanding that merits a category, right? toobigtokale (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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, nomination has been incorporated in a broader nomination. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Czech Marxist poets to Category:Czech Communist poets

Nominator's rationale: upmerge as it only has 1 category Mason (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment, there is a broader, but very poorly populated tree under Category:Marxist poets. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: would you like this nomination to be merged in this follow-up nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd love that! Mason (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: upmerge and split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Argentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Cuba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Czechoslovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Latvia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Monaco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Paraguay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-NPOV cross categorization: Russia is not the Soviet Union, and categorized subjects include emigrants from other Soviet and former Soviet countries.  —Michael Z. 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Split per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  delete. needs reasonable, and consistent with other recent category splits/deletes etc Mason (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Upmerge. These should be upmerged otherwise some of the relationships between the categories will be lost. For example: Category:Russian emigrants to the Netherlands had the relevant parent categories of Category:Dutch people of Russian descent Category:Immigrants to the Netherlands replaced by Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to the Netherlands [1] Mason (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree to split, but not the way Mzajac is doing it. E.g. in this series of edit [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], valid parent categories were removed with no reason. Category:Russian emigrants to Canada should be left in Category:Immigrants to Canada (and maybe Category:Canadian people of Russian descent), not just Category:Russian emigrants. Also, some category descriptions may be amended to precise that Russian Foo... categories are not just for content relative post-1991 Russian Federation but all predecessor states such as e.g. the Russian Empire, maybe through child categories. Place Clichy (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Sorry if I messed up. @Place Clichy, are you saying I didn’t check the parent category’s categories and add them to the removed category?

  I wonder if Russian X and Russian-Empire X should be separate category trees. Not only were there 7 decades of separation, but like for the Soviet Union, residency in the Russian empire represented many nationalities, birth in one of many countries, not just Russian.

  The top-level categories are Category:Emigrants by nationality and Category:Immigrants by destination country. These refer to nation and country, not citizenship. An empire is not a country, but rules over many countries, and the list of them changes over time.  —Michael Z. 21:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Indeed, when removing a category, its "gap" must be filled in the chain: if A => B => C and B is removed, then we must have A => C. The default behaviour when removing / deleting a category is to "up"-merge its content to all of its parent categories.

  I don't think that Russia and the Russian Empire should be in completely "separate trees". After all, the latter was generally called Russia and its inhabitants Russians, both by its contemporaries and today. Sure there are differences, in political regime, border, population etc. but there is an undeniable heritage of one to the other. They are not separate countries. I disagree with the tendency, in terms of categorization, to treat subsequent political regimes in the same country as entirely different countries. Place Clichy (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The way you accept a very restricted meaning of “country,” and the vague way you use “heritage” as if that had some basis in our guidelines, denies the heritage of a number of other countries and thousands of article subjects from them.  —Michael Z. 02:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Wow, I am not sure of the direction is going. I don't think the heritage of any country is denied. I think that the very core of what we on Wikipedia should base itself upon is reliable sources, every time. There's plenty of content relative to e.g. Poland and Finland in the time of the Russian Empire and we, of course, should call such nations the way the sources call them. I believe that's already the case. And if by denies the heritage of a number of other countries you mean the 15 Republics that reached (or recovered) independence at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, you usual topic of focus, I believe that applying this expression retroactively to the Russian Empire denies a number of ethnic groups that have not reached post-Soviet independence such as the Cherkess or the Tatars. In a way, Russia was an empire then, and is also an empire now. Place Clichy (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The generalizations that everybody under the Russian empire is always called “Russian” today, and the implication that terminology about these nations hasn’t changed significantly since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are factually incorrect.

  For those unfamiliar with the subject, for example, there has been an academic movement to decolonize Ukraine and other former Russian colonies since the 1950s and especially recently.[8]

  Galleries have relabelled the artists they exhibit and many “Russian” imperials have been recategorized by their country of birth and/or their nation, or country of significant activity. For example, the Met now doesn’t call Repin and Kuindzhi “Little Russian,” “Ruthenian,” or “Russian,” but classifies them as “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire,”[9][10] and Aivazovsky “Armenian, born Russian Empire [now Ukraine],”[11] and the authoritative Getty Research ULAN has categorized many from the Russian empire (and Soviet Union) by their nationality,[12] where “"nationality" is shorthand for nationality/ethnicity/culture/religion/sexual orientation,”[13] and “to reflect changes in scholarship or usage of names and biographical information.”[14]

  I didn’t say anything about 15 states formerly ruled under the Soviet Union.

  I am saying we should follow current reliable sources sources and be aware of changes in recent centuries, decades, years, and months. I hope they respect the identification of people from Cherkess and Tatar nations too, and welcome your findings on their treatment in good sources.  —Michael Z. 15:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have mixed feelings about the russian empire category, german empire category, as most articles don't describe people as being from the "russian empire" or "german empire". They tend to define them as Russian, German, or in the case of people within the empire, Ukrainian, who happens to be living in the empire, such as “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire" . If presented with “Ukrainian, born Russian Empire", I'd want to call them Ukrainian, as that seems to me to be the more defining nationality identity (even if it isn't a nationality with a distinct political entity). Mason (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit of an issue if the person in question didn't even call themselves Ukrainian but happened to be born or lived in what is now Ukraine. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-identification was subject to colonial pressure. We should follow up-to-date, reliable sources on what to call people, especially colonized people, and not appeal to such arguments to keep presenting historical Ukrainians as Russians.  —Michael Z. 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukraine has been a country before the Russian empire existed, since at least about 1648 depending on how you look at it, and still a country later while large parts of it were colonized by Muscovy and then the Russian empire. It is common for reliable sources to refer to people there as Ukrainian or born in Ukraine, and not resort to hackneyed formulations that few sources use (my least favourite is “in what is now Ukraine,” as if it was invented from whole cloth in 1991).  —Michael Z. 15:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Split per precedent, Place Clichy, and Marcocapelle. Russian != Soviet. HouseBlaster^talk 16:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• To clarify the previous debates, these categories must be upmerged and split, and also maybe purged, but not deleted as that would leave orphans. Place Clichy (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support Russia is a different polity than the Soviet Union, containing less territory. There is often enough contents in Soviet categories to justify a split. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:English navy officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: trivial intersection Mason (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment there's a missing category Category:English Navy personnel to deal with Category:English Navy, for which this category would be replaced by. Category:16th-century English Navy personnel is also missing -- Category:16th-century Royal Navy personnel exists for the post 1546 era navy, but the pre 1546 navy has no equivalent category -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd be in support of a rename. Mason (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - matches Category:English army officers. Both are subcats of Category:British military officers, which is a subcat of Category:British military personnel. The tree seems well in place. - jc37 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 21:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Military personnel of the Kingdom of England to Category:English military personnel

Nominator's rationale: possibly trivial intersection Mason (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment these would be the pre-Union military, pre-1707, for which Category:Military history of England shows subcategorization, so can be slotted into there by making it a container of the by-century personnel categories found in the by-century categories. Act of Union 1707 created the United Kingdom, superceding the Kingdom of England, so this is a different country from the United Kingdom -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd be ok with a container category. My concern is that these categories have huge overlap with the more specific Xth-century English people Mason (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 With four different proposals being made and nobody agreeing with anybody else there is clearly no consensus here. Any purging can follow the standard bold-revert-discuss cycle. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Places in the deuterocanonical books to Category:Deuterocanonical books places

Nominator's rationale: While I like the current name better than the proposed name, the proposed name fits other place-by-religious-book categories. We have Category:Old Testament places, Category:Hebrew Bible places, Category:New Testament places, Category:Torah places, Category:Quranic places, Category:Rigvedic rivers (no categories for general "places" in the Vedas), and Category:Book of Mormon places, but I can't find any other "Places in the book-name" categories. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Proposed new title is ungrammatical and does not match other subcategories of Category:Deuterocanonical books. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Many of these places are already in the OT/Bible (the parent cats). per Overlapcat, etc. Listify, if wanted, to explain the appearances and how they may be the same or different from the appearances in the OT or the Bible, in general. - jc37 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Don't delete but purge Holy Land and Syria. Other entries belong here, there is not a big overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Odd-toed ungulates to Category:Perissodactyla

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with a rename for the other category to "artiodactyls," and the name is a misnomer since tapirs have four toes on their front legs. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the categories in both this and the below nomination. Courtesy ping to the creator of both of the , @Pcb21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support for consistency with the article title. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per above The Morrison Man (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Even-toed ungulates to Category:Artiodactyls

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the Artiodactyls page itself since the rename, "even-toed ungulate" is a misnomer or non-taxonomic paraphyletic group. Artiodactyls works also as a compromise between "Artiodactyla" and "Cetartiodactyla." Same reasoning applies to categories like "Eocene even-toed ungulates." PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support If the category includes cetaceans, which are not usually considered "ungulates", even if they descend from them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per above The Morrison Man (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Galician-language surnames * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Galician toponymic surnames to Category:Surnames of Galician origin and Category:Toponymic surnames
• Propose deleting Category:Galician toponymy

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, only 1 entry and no other entries in Category:Galician surnames. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support in principle per nom, but rather merge to Category:Galician-language surnames (as a much better populated category) instead of Category:Surnames of Galician origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support in principle. I think either of the targets is a good solution. I'm inclined to merge both the surname target categories together. Mason (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: merging the targets together can be achieved by merging the nominated category to Category:Galician-language surnames because that will leave Category:Surnames of Galician origin just empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  sounds good! Mason (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: single merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:British expatriates in Prussia to Category:Expatriates in the Kingdom of Prussia
• Propose merging Category:French expatriates in Prussia to Category:Expatriates in the Kingdom of Prussia

Nominator's rationale: This was approved in principle at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_18#Category:Expatriates_in_the_Kingdom_of_Prussia, but the categories were not tagged. Should it be a double merge also to the other parent Category:British expatriates in Germany/Category:French expatriates in Germany? – Fayenatic London 12:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If not merged, the categories should be renamed "…in the Kingdom of Prussia". – Fayenatic London 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support. Thanks for following up Mason (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Single merge, the German Empire did nor exist yet for any of these four people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Double or single merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm inclined to a double merge to the broader category of Germany, as I don't think the nature of the regime is defining for expatriates. (Obviously there are exceptions like Nazis, Soviets etc). But I don't feel very strongly about it.Mason (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

single merge per Marco. Prussia is not a particular "regime" or government of Germany, it was an independent state. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Option A * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Phantom islands of the Atlantic to Category:Phantom islands purportedly in the Atlantic Ocean

Nominator's rationale: Just a better title. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Prefer rename to Category:Phantom Atlantic islands to match style of Category:Phantom Arctic islands over nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where to rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Following up here, I think the original nomination is too long. Purportedly is implied by the definition of Phantom islands. In my opinion, there are two options:

• Option A

• Propose renaming Category:Phantom islands of the Atlantic to Category:Phantom islands of the Atlantic Ocean
• Propose renaming Category:Phantom Arctic islands to Category:Phantom islands of the Arctic Ocean

Rationale: This renaming aligns with Category:Islands of the Atlantic Ocean and Category:Islands of the Arctic Ocean per WP:C2C.

• Option B

• Propose renaming Category:Phantom islands of the Atlantic to Category:Phantom Atlantic islands

Rationale: This renaming aligns with Category:Phantom Arctic islands.

With that said, I prefer renaming according to Option A here. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:Phantom Arctic islands.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option A seems most consistent with other category names. Goustien (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Also note that the "academics" categories were never tagged, which would be necessary to process this as nominated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:British scholars to Category:British academics and rename to Category:British scholars and academics.

• Propose merging Category:Malian scholars to Category:Malian academics and rename to Category:Malian scholars and academics.
• Propose merging Category:Ethiopian scholars to Category:Ethiopian academics and rename to Category:Ethiopian scholars and academics.

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is pretty small category. Honestly, I'm inclined to nominate the entire tree, because I really struggle to make a consistent distinction beyond that scholars don't need to have academic afflation/credentials (which more reflects the era or subject matter of the scholar). I envision that the final category would look like Category:Irish scholars and academics, whose category description notes "In Ireland, scholars refer both to pre-modern scholars and modern academics". See this discussion that I dug up from 2009. Mason (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ah... I have dug up the most recent failed consensus about this... [15] Mason (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Academics is a subset of scholars, so having "academics" in the name at top level is not necessary per se. But keeping academics as a subset seems generally fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - So, I'm looking at Category:Scholars and academics. Which I think makes a good container cat for all the different knowledge/study-related occupations. But I don't think we should merge the subcats to match this container. For one thing, Scientists are not necessarily a scholar or an academic. We're dealing with some subjectively applied terms here, and could very well be creeping towards WP:OR when applying these to a person. I mean, I could also probably argue that many of these could be merged to Category:Researchers, or how about to Category:Theorists? There's Overlapcat going on all over these trees, but due to WP:PRECISION, and really, to avoid miscategorising people (per WP:BLP), I don't think merging is the way to go. I think for acuracy, these all should stay separate. All that said, I would welcome ideas and discussion on this. - jc37 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 both categories. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fortifications in Senegal to Category:Forts in Senegal
• alt Proposal Category:Forts in Senegal to Category:Military history of Senegal; Category:Historic sites in Senegal;Category:Forts by country, and Category:Fortifications in Africa.

Nominator's rationale: down merge (or perhaps reverse and upmerge?) Overcategorization, as there's only one fort in the categories Mason (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: I think it is more helpful to nominate Category:Forts in Senegal for upmerging to Category:Forts, Category:Fortifications in Africa, Category:Historic sites in Senegal and Category:Military history of Senegal. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks! I wasn't sure what to do with it. I'll update the nom. Mason (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:World Heritage Tentative List for Senegal to Category:Historic sites in Senegal and Category:World Heritage Tentative List

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge per small cat. There's only one page in here. Mason (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Found another page! If someone can find a 3rd, I think that this category is populated enough to keep) Mason (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dual merge (rather than split) per nom. No objection against re-creation of the category if and when it can be better populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hutaib to Category:Jabal Haraz

Nominator's rationale: only has a file + redirect in it. Mason (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge. Leo1pard (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ridges of Jebel Hafeet to Category:Jebel Hafeet

Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. Both pages in this category are redirects, and the parent category, only has this category and Jebel Hafeet in it. Mason (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge. Leo1pard (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just delete, the two redirects redirect to Jebel Hafeet, it is pointless to have them in the same category as the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Equally fine by me Mason (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one entry. cagliost (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be speedy merged (C2F: One eponymous page). Also if deleted, it would at present orphan the page. (I've now added back the relevant categories[16]) Mason (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per WP:C2F after Mason already added the article to the appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bridgeport Bluefish guest managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a frivolous category of no real significance. It only really serves to clog up the category section of it's host articles. The host article do not mention "Bridgeport Bluefish" as significant to their careers nor is their guest managing verified by sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support per nom Mason (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) 03:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User nap-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding precedent * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete per nom. Mason (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: split between Category:Template sandboxes (where the category currently is) and Category:Module sandboxes. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 01:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Template sandboxes to Category:Template sandboxes and Category:Module sandboxes

Nominator's rationale: The name of this category is misleading as it also contains Lua modules, which are not templates. I am proposing to move the Module namespace pages into their own category. Eyesnore ^talk💬 00:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Split per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Split — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.