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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2000s assassinated politicians by continent to Category:2000s assassinated politicians
Propose merging Category:1970s assassinated politicians by continent to Category:1970s assassinated politicians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to aid navigation Mason (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~, this would empty the 70s and 2000s subcats of Category:Assassinated politicians by decade, which is otherwise well-populated. No objection to a double merge also to Category:1970s assassinated politicians and Category:2000s assassinated politicians. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, it should be a dual merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to dual merge. My thinking was that this would just place the continent categories into the main decade category. Could you @Fayenatic london point out what the other merge would be? I think I'm missing something really obvious... Mason (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow either. The two categories you suggested for dual merging are the current targets. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just ignore me this time! The 2000s category currently also belongs in Category:Assassinated politicians by continent, but that's not essential, as its contents will still be contained there via the continent subcats. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How upmerging would aid in navigation? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are only 5 categories Mason (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:RevelationDirect, categories with 5+ consistently survive WP:SMALLCAT in CFD and have for years.. Although SmallCat has been deprecated, the precedent seems to point out to 5 categories being the minimum number of members in a category to keep. Plus, the members in this case are subcategories, not just pages. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78:, if I'm reading the nomination correctly, the problem isn't that the nominated categories don't have enough subcats at 5 or 6, it's that they effectively duplicate the parent categories which each have 1 direct subcategory if you look at Category:1970s assassinated politicians and Category:2000s assassinated politicians. (Incidentally, I hadn't realized SmallCat had been deprecated, thanks for mentioning it!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome (I was also surprised). Got it, thanks for your input. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as per Marcocapelle. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Executed slave traders to Category:Slave traders
Propose merging Category:Executed slave owners to Category:Slave owners
Propose merging Category:Executed American slave owners to Category:American slave owners and Category:Executed American people

Nominator's rationale: Not defining intersection. perhaps purge/rename if the intent is to only include people convicted and executed for slave trading/owning (Category:Executed people by crime )Mason (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle per nom. But for the last category: merge Category:Executed American slave owners to Category:American slave owners and split between Category:17th-century executions of American people, Category:18th-century executions of American people and Category:19th-century executions of American people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I've added the members to their respective Category:17th-century executions of American people, Category:18th-century executions of American people and Category:19th-century executions of American people categories. Because regardless of the outcome, they ought to be in those categories Mason (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, in that case it becomes single merge Category:Executed American slave owners to Category:American slave owners. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 31 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 all as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Slave traders killed in the American Civil War to Category:19th-century American slave traders
Propose merging Category:Slave owners killed in the American Civil War to Category:American slave owners
Propose merging Category:Slave owners killed in the American Revolutionary War to Category:American slave owners
Propose merging Category:American slave owners killed in war to Category:American slave owners

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection of owning slaves and being killed in a war is defining Mason (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 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:Anabolic–androgenic steroids. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Androgens and anabolic steroids to Category:Anabolic–androgenic steroids

Nominator's rationale: The current name is confusing because it suggests that androgens and anabolic steroids (more correctly "anabolic–androgenic steroids") are different molecules, which is not the case. It makes some sense to have separate articles for endogenous (androgen) vs exogenous (anabolic steroid) administration, but the same compound is going to be identical and have identical effect regardless of where it comes from. All endogenously produced androgens are anabolic steroids. The most commonly used exogenous steroid is testosterone, which is also endogenously produced. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support. I think that everything @Buidhe has written here sounds reasonable. I just don't have any content knowledge to lean upon (and I suspect that others might feel similarly). Mason (talk) 00:53, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People and person templates by country to Category:People and person templates by nationality
Propose renaming Category:People and person navigational boxes by country to Category:People and person navigational boxes by nationality
Propose renaming Category:Comics creator navigational boxes by country to Category:Comics creator navigational boxes by nationality
Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom people and person templates to Category:British people and person templates
Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom people and person navigational boxes to Category:British people and person navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:United States people and person navigational boxes to Category:American people and person navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:United States musician navigational boxes to Category:American musician navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Switzerland people and persons navigational boxes to Category:Swiss people and person navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: This tree currently uses a mixture of country and nationality. All the people and person templates should use nationality. There are many more inconsistent subcats which can be renamed speedily if these are agreed. – Fayenatic London 07:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I suggest that the national crime template sub-categories should remain "by country", as they do not only hold biographies; but they can remain as sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lists of museums in insular areas of the United States to Category:Lists of museums in the United States by populated place

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. The lone article is List of museums in Ponce, Puerto Rico. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The insular areas of the US are not "IN the United States" (as the new merge-to category suggests ["Lists of museums IN the United States by populated place]"); instead, they are in the insular areas "OF the United States". Only the 50 states and DC are "IN " the United States. The territories are, instead, possessions of the United States and not part of the United States. As such, placing the contents of the current merge-from category into the merge-to category of the herein request wouldn't be a factual reflection of reality as it would be inconsistent with the relationship between the territories and the United States as defined by the US Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as numerous other organizations and authorities.

The fact there's a single article in the merge-from category is insignificant here because the predominant factor here is the failure of the proposed merge-to category to properly represent factual reality to begin with. There's good information about this HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because "in" is for indicating location. Mason (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Mason. If the category name is inaccurate, it can be renamed. In any case, there should only be one category – whatever its name. House Blaster^talk 13:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. The last two categories have been deleted (from another discussion) and as such will not be merged. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Charter preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Charter preparatory schools in the United States
Propose merging Category:Charter schools in the United States by state or territory and organization to Category:Charter schools in the United States by organization
Propose merging Category:Charter school organizations in the United States by state or territory to Category:Charter school organizations in the United States
Propose merging Category:Catholic preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Catholic preparatory schools in the United States
Propose merging Category:Catholic K–8 schools in the United States by state or territory to Category:Catholic K–8 schools in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. Only one sub-category each. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The territories of the US are not "IN the United States" (as the new merge-to category suggests); instead, they are in the insular areas "OF the United States". Only the 50 states and DC are "IN " the United States. The territories are, instead, possessions of the United States and not part of the United States. As such, the merge-to categories resulting from the herein request wouldn't be a factual reflection of reality as it would be inconsistent with the relationship between the territories and the United States as defined by the US Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as numerous other organizations and authorities. In fact, even the merge-from category is wrongly named as it presumes the territories are IN the United States (per the current category's own name), which is also incorrect. There's good information about this HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: I do not understand your oppose because none of the merge targets is "by state or territory". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this explanation, I will pick one of the 5 merger proposals above, but corresponding explanations would apply to the other 4 merge proposals.

Say there was a notable Catholic preparatory school (merge proposal #4 above) located in Ponce, Puerto Rico, named Colegio Ponceño which, because of its notability, has an article in WP.

Since such school is said to be located in Puerto Rico, which is a territory of the US, under the existing pre-nomination categorization scheme such school could, theoretically, be categorized under Category:Catholic preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory.

Now, if the merger nomination was to go thru, it would result in that school (and similar schools) to come to be categorized under the proposed Category:Catholic preparatory schools in the United States, giving the (factually wrongful) impression that the school is located IN the United States. Since Puerto Rico is not IN the United States then, to correct the anomaly, either Colegio Ponceño (and, of course, potentially all the others, if any other "territorial" schools were already categorized under the current Category:Catholic preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory) would need to be removed from such subcat or, if left in it, the contents of the subcat would consist of article(s) that did not belong under such subcat. Mercy11 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: understood, except there isn't any Puerto Rican entry under Category:Catholic preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory. The only effect of the merge proposal is that the Californian subcategory is re-parented. What is against that? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support per nom. "in" is for indicating location, whereas "of" is vague. Mason (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Catholic categories have been merged per the separate nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 8#Category:Catholic preparatory schools in the United States by state. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The opposing rationale of Mercy11 carries no weight in these specific nominations as the only sub-cats are "schools in California". – Fayenatic London 10:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support No need for the layered overlapping categories. Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. The category can be renamed if appropriate. House Blaster^talk 13:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge and rename per nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1920s Soviet and Russian military aircraft to Category:1920s Soviet military aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1920s Soviet and Russian bomber aircraft to Category:1920s Soviet bomber aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1920s Soviet and Russian military reconnaissance aircraft to Category:1920s Soviet military reconnaissance aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1920s Soviet and Russian military trainer aircraft to Category:1920s Soviet military trainer aircraft

Nominator's rationale: merge/rename per actual content, these are all Soviet aircraft. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can’t think of any scenario where a “Russian and Soviet”/“Soviet and Russian” category should be retained. —Michael Z. 17:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: this drastic change will require template rewriting and coordination with WT:WikiProject Aircraft, as written in my above comment.Place Clichy (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

":See my response to your above comment. Basically, don't worry about the templating, just get on with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:30, 29 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: split and rename per nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:1990s Soviet and Russian military aircraft to Category:1990s Soviet military aircraft and Category:1990s Soviet military aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1990s Soviet and Russian anti-submarine aircraft to Category:1990s Russian anti-submarine aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1990s Soviet and Russian attack aircraft to Category:1990s Soviet attack aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1990s Soviet and Russian military reconnaissance aircraft to Category:1990s Russian military reconnaissance aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1990s Soviet and Russian military trainer aircraft to Category:1990s Russian military trainer aircraft
Propose renaming Category:1990s Soviet and Russian military transport aircraft to Category:1990s Russian military transport aircraft

Nominator's rationale: split/rename per precedent to either Russian or Soviet, this is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can’t think of any scenario where a “Russian and Soviet”/“Soviet and Russian” category should be retained. —Michael Z. 17:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: actually it's a little bit more complicated than that. These aircraft categories are populated by a complex net of templates, such as ((airnd)). These templates consider that the Soviet and Russian aircraft industry is one and the same industry, something that can be argued. It's the same for the Czech/Czechoslovak, the Yugoslav/Serbian, the Autrian/Austro-Hungarian and I believe the Ottoman/Turkish aircraft industries (the last 2 for aircraft built before and during WWI). As a consequence IIRC, decades categories for aircraft built in... can use just "Russian" or "Soviet", but timeless parent categories, as well as decades where both names are required use "Soviet and Russian", "Czech and Czechoslovak" etc. If you want to change that without breaking things, especially the categorization and navigation template, I strongly suggest to raise it to WT:WikiProject Aircraft and ask for advice. Template rewriting will be necessary to reorganize categories. Otherwise, you end up, as with this edit, with redundant navigation templates and parent categories set at a location that you want to delete. Place Clichy (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will notify the WikiProject. This means that after closure of the discussion it should be added to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the usefulness or otherwise of these category templates, at least some distinguish between the various eras and political entities, for example by the 1990s automatically listing Russian rather than "Soviet and Russian". So the issue really only applies to templating the pre-breakup era. Here, I'd be firmly in favour of changing "Soviet and Russian" to plain "Soviet". Otherwise, we will hit other transition groups such as Antonov being Soviet at the start of the decade and Ukrainian at the end. Cue endless "Soviet and Ukrainian", "Soviet and Yugoslavian", "Soviet and Romanian", etc. in the auto-generated lists. It doesn't bear thinking about. It is not beyond the wit of man (the species) to review the templating system here, it is very evidently a work in hand in any case, and I notice other existing hiccups with them here and there in the treatment of the Soviet vs Russian issue. So, as an active member of said WikiProject, I'd suggest you just get on with it and leave the template meisters to catch up as and when they please. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-split are already just Soviet. Except the 1910s which are also Russian. The issue is not with the templating. It is that the WikiProject considers that the Soviet and Russian industries are one and the same, and hence the parent time-independent categories are, and should be, at e.g. Soviet and Russian military aircraft. @Steelpillow: "So, as an active member of said WikiProject, I'd suggest you just get on with it..." Sorry, I just did not get that. Who is a member of which WikiProject, and who will do what as a consequence? Place Clichy (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- This means that after closure of the discussion it should be added to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual and a notification should be left at the WikiProject talk page. (Expanding my earlier comment) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Korean expatriates in Manchukuo. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Korean people of Manchukuo to Category:Korean expatriates in Manchukuo

Nominator's rationale: I think the scope of this category is a bit unclear. It encompasses both expats and people born in Manchukuo, but expats are probably much greater in number given that Manchukuo didn't last too long. Not 100% sure but I think a solution is using the Category:Korean expatriates in Manchukuo category I created for expats, and moving the people born in Manchukuo to a category called "People from Manchukuo" or something. Currently Category:People of Manchukuo and Category:Japanese people from Manchukuo exist, not sure what to do about them... toobigtokale (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purge people who merely lived here as a child, for them it is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. But, if we do end up keeping ":Korean people of Manchukuo " I recommend renaming it to "from" to identicate that this is a group of people who are from the area, rather than just happen to be in the area (per expatr) Mason (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and purge per participants. No other consensus in support of additional categories, which can be created out of process. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:30, 29 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 11:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from the State of Palestine to Category:Palestinian people

Nominator's rationale: In the case of other countries, we typically do not have a similar category. For individuals with ancestors of Palestinian Arab descent, we already maintain a category called Category:People of Palestinian descent. Additionally, for Palestinians from the diaspora in general, we have a category named Category:Palestinian diaspora. Thus propose upmerge into Category:Palestinian people. Kpratter (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this seems contrary to the definition in article Palestinians which includes the diaspora. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle from my understanding, Palestinians as an ethnic group are categorized under Category:Palestinians, whereas Palestinians as a nationality, meaning citizens of the State of Palestine, are placed in Category:Palestinian people. Since a significant portion of the Palestinian diaspora are not citizens of the State of Palestine, they are classified under the Category:Palestinians tree. Kpratter (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, so we have three category layers (Category:Palestinians, Category:People from the State of Palestine and Category:Palestinian people) while we need two. Then the proposed merge may work, although a reverse merge might work better to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm fine with a reverse merge too. In making my initial proposal, I proceeded from the fact that almost all current nationalities are named in the adjective format (Fooian people), while for historical countries the format People from Foo seems to be the main one. Kpratter (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Let's then reverse merge and convert Category:Palestinian people to a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the above is agreed, then the subsequent follow-up would need careful thought about the sub-cats "Palestinian people by X". I think Palestinian people by century, 20th-century Palestinian people by occupation etc should include diaspora and therefore use "Palestinians"; the alternative "20th-century people from the State of Palestine" would be too obviously anachronistic. Palestinian people by ethnic or national origin should likewise probably use "Palestinians", e.g. Rula Jebreal (Category:Palestinian people of Nigerian descent) self-describes as Palestinian but is not from the State of Palestine. The subcats of Palestinian people by political orientation include people back in the Mandatory Palestine days, so also need to be "Palestinians". Perhaps they should all use "Palestinians" except for the cats by populated place & by university. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the target to allow for a reverse merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator was blocked as a sock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their argument in this discussion still holds. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose as this is just not an improvement, especially due to the plural and complex meaning of the word Palestinian. (Until 1948, and even maybe after that, those who would become the Israeli Jews called themselves Palestinian too: their newspaper was The Palestine Post and they competed in the World Cup with the Palestine football team.) It is at first glance a good idea to have a dedicated category for content directly linked to the modern-day State of Palestine. However I would not merge or rename the present tree at Category:Palestinian people, because State of Palestine is too time-specific. Place Clichy (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: I am not entirely sure if you understood the logic of the nomination. The point is that we now three categories while we only need two, namely for people from the State of Palestine (time-specific indeed, and location-specific) and for Palestinians anywhere any time (as a parent). I am also open to variant merge proposals that reach that goal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:20th-century sportsmen by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:20th-century Albanian sports coaches to Category:Albanian sports coaches
Propose merging Category:20th-century Albanian sportspeople to Category:Albanian sportspeople and Category:20th-century Albanian people
Propose merging Category:20th-century American sportsmen to Category:American sportsmen and Category:20th-century American people
Propose merging Category:20th-century American sportspeople to Category:American sportspeople and Category:20th-century American people
Propose merging Category:20th-century American sportswomen to Category:20th-century American women and Category:American sportswomen
Propose merging Category:20th-century Canadian sportswomen to Category:20th-century Canadian women and Category:Canadian sportswomen
Propose merging Category:20th-century Polish sportsmen to Category:20th-century Polish people and Category:Polish sportsmen
Propose merging Category:20th-century Polish sportswomen to Category:20th-century Polish women and Category:Polish sportswomen
Propose merging Category:20th-century Swiss sportsmen to Category:Swiss sportsmen and Category:20th-century Swiss people
Propose merging Category:20th-century Swiss sportspeople to Category:Swiss sportspeople
Propose merging Category:20th-century Turkish sportswomen to Category:20th-century Turkish women and Category:Turkish sportswomen
Propose merging Category:20th-century Uruguayan sportspeople to Category:20th-century Uruguayan people and Category:Uruguayan sportspeople
Propose merging Category:21st-century Albanian sports coaches to Category:Albanian sports coaches and Category:21st-century Albanian people
Propose merging Category:21st-century Albanian sportspeople to Category:Albanian sportspeople and Category:21st-century Albanian people
Propose merging Category:21st-century American sportsmen to Category:21st-century American people and Category:American sportsmen
Propose merging Category:21st-century American sportswomen to Category:American sportswomen and Category:21st-century American women
Propose merging Category:21st-century Canadian sportspeople to Category:21st-century Canadian people and Category:Canadian sportspeople
Propose merging Category:21st-century Canadian sportswomen to Category:21st-century Canadian women and Category:Canadian sportswomen
Propose merging Category:21st-century Polish sportsmen to Category:21st-century Polish people and Category:Polish sportsmen
Propose merging Category:21st-century Polish sportswomen to Category:21st-century Polish women and Category:Polish sportswomen

Nominator's rationale: There's been a clear consensus that by-century categorizes of sportspeople are not appropriate beyond the 19th-century. per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_12#20th/21st-century_sportspeople2018_January_12#20th/21st-century_sportspeople, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_7#The_last_sportspeople_by_century and I think we should salt this category, as I know that I inadvertently created it, not realizing the history. Mason (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the American sportspeople by century categories, as the 20th/21st century American people categories were overwhelmed by the number of sportspeople biographies. Because both those categories ask that pages be moved to subcategories when possible, I thought it made sense to make those subcategories to make those larger categories more manageable. Furthermore, I'm not sure I understand why sportspeople by century categories are seen as inappropriate, while writers/artists/actors/etc by century are not. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created several categories based on the same reasoning, as the home category became overwhelming. But it seems that the heart of the argument is that it isn't helpful to distinguish between 21st-century and 20th-century. @Hugo999 had a good suggestion of bundling by event and year Mason (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Hugo999 suggestion
Comment. Concur provided some categories are not dumped into the overall "20th-century people" (or 21st century) category; I recall that the "20th-century people" category was swamped with entries for competitors at individual games; eg the 19XX Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, Francophone Games etc etc (in which case I would prefer that the sportspeople by century categories were retained for these categories by event!). Otherwise I would propose that there be an overall category for each event, eg by renaming Category:20th-century Commonwealth Games competitors by year to Category:Commonwealth Games competitors by year. Similarly upmerge Category:20th-century Olympic competitors by year and Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year (with no category for the 1896 Athens Olympics!) to Category:Olympic competitors by year Hugo999 (talk) 8:03 pm, 30 January 2018, Tuesday (5 years, 8 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−5)

2018 Hugo999 suggestion

Comment. Concur provided some categories are not dumped into the overall "20th-century people" (or 21st century) category; I recall that the "20th-century people" category was swamped with entries for competitors at individual games; eg the 19XX Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, Francophone Games etc etc (in which case I would prefer that the sportspeople by century categories were retained for these categories by event!). Otherwise I would propose that there be an overall category for each event, eg by renaming Category:20th-century Commonwealth Games competitors by year to Category:Commonwealth Games competitors by year. Similarly upmerge Category:20th-century Olympic competitors by year and Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year (with no category for the 1896 Athens Olympics!) to Category:Olympic competitors by year Hugo999 (talk) 8:03 pm, 30 January 2018, Tuesday (5 years, 8 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−5)

Selectively merge, I expect most articles are already in some other subcategories of the targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, pending discussion of a better way. I'm not opposed in principle to the notion that these categories aren't helpful — I'd actually almost rather discuss doing away with all ""XX-century people" categories across the board, because they often cause more trouble than they're actually worth (redlinked parent categories autogenerated by templates, editwarring over anachronistic names, people trying to expand this genre of categorization into ethnicities and cities and other points of intersection where it's spectacularly useless, etc.), but not all of the proposed merge targets here are wise choices. Category:20th-century American people, for example, is already significantly overpopulated as it is, with 2,192 articles in it — it needs to have as many articles as possible diffused out of it rather than having several hundred more articles undiffused into it. That category needs to be made at least 90 (and preferably 95) per cent smaller than it is, not 30 to 40 per cent larger — so if a sportspeople subcategory is needed to get several hundred articles out of the overpopulated parent, then a sportspeople subcategory absolutely has to be permitted, because limiting the size of that parent is an absolutely essential and critical need.
I'd certainly agree that having separate sub-subcategories for sportsmen and sportswomen is overdoing it, but a desire to do away with 20th/21st-century categorization on the sports side cannot override the urgency of reducing the category size on the 20th/21st-century Nationality side. The latter is a more important consideration than the former, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the problem (overcrowding of the categories) but I would solve it in a different direction, namely deleting all 20th- and 21st-century people categories. Century categories are only useful for outright history, not for the more recent past, since the large amount of Wikipedia content is about the recent past. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Include Category:21st-century Israeli sportswomen in discussion.Hugo999 (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but suggest merging to just Category:Albanian sportspeople etc. and not ~~Category:20th-century Albanian people~~. I agree with the nominator that 20th and 21st century categories are not useful for sportspeople, and I also agree with Bearcat that the parent century/nationality people categories are too overcrowded to be useful either. We have other, better ways (such as DOBs, championships etc.) to place these people on the time scale. Place Clichy (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: why do you want to merge "Category:20th-century X sportsmen" to "Category:20th-century X people]]", and not "Category:20th-century X men]]"? And also if centuries categories are useless for sportspeople why merge it to another centuries categories? How is that resolving the issue? Marcelus (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus I didn't suggest men to merge because my understanding is that Fooian men categories are typically not defining. Mason (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keep these categories as 20th-century Fooian women sportspeople is a subcategory of 20th-century Fooian women and the sportswoman will probably not otherwise be in that category. We are not discussing whether all these people by century should be abolished! (Usually the argument is that some categories have too few in them rather than too many!) Hugo999 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Russian male silent film actors. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Male silent film actors from the Russian Empire to Category:Russian male silent film actors

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this is a too modern sort of occupation for which we do not need an Empire subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The only actor in this category was only active after the Empire had ended. Place Clichy (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:Russian male film actors and Category:Male actors from the Russian Empire. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Male film actors from the Russian Empire to Category:Russian male film actors and Category:Male actors from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge as this intersection (regime, gender, medium of performance, and occupation) seems like a lot, especially since combined only one of the actors acted in a single "russian empire film" Mason (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this is a too modern sort of occupation for which we do not need an Empire subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The only actors in this category were only active after the Empire had ended. Place Clichy (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Russian film score composers. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Film score composers from the Russian Empire to Category:Russian film score composers

Nominator's rationale: neither of the category members were film composures while the russian empire was in existence. Mason (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, also because this is a too modern sort of occupation for which we do not need an Empire subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:20th-century Russian painters. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:20th-century painters from the Russian Empire to Category:20th-century Russian painters

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category, norm is for 20th century to be called russian Mason (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, both articles are still in Category:19th-century painters from the Russian Empire and 17 years in the 20th century is too short for a separate occupational category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 29 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 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Kavi Kag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: two page in category. one is an award named in honor of the writer Kavi Kag Mason (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCEPON. If anything we would rather have a category of works. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 29 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:Quran translations. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Quranic translation to Category:Quran translations

Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category says "Articles relating to Quran translations". The scope of Category:Quran translations is the same. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge being careful with parent categories. The comparable Category:Bible versions and translations contains Bible translators, so it is acceptable for Quran translators to go down into the target. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1992–93 in Yugoslav football to Category:1992–93 in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia football

Nominator's rationale: There's a single article here that uses just "Yugoslavia" and it's the story of how they got banned by FIFA from an event because of the sanctions. --Joy (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, earlier there was no consensus for renaming to "Serbia and Montenegro" so then this is the next best solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to keep in-line with category naming tree at Category:Seasons in Yugoslav football. Needs a wider discussion. Giant Snowman 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman we had the wider discussion N times already, but people keep ignoring the main space consensus. The latest iteration was in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Serbia and Montenegro where we had "no consensus" because the discussion was "too wide". This is now a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time. --Joy (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I just re-read that and it was *you* who told me there to re-nominate in significantly smaller batches. What is this? Is this some sort of a weird game? --Joy (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'main space consensus' if the last CFD you referred to was 'no consensus'. The issue at the CFD you refer to was not 'Yugoslav' or 'Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' as this is, it was 'Yugoslavia' or 'Serbia and Montenegro'. Giant Snowman 18:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, there is main space consensus evidenced by a total lack of a content dispute about this matter in probably decades now. The closer of the CFD @Qwerfjkl didn't bother to tell us their rationale for the 'no consensus' closure so it's hard to fathom what is the rationale or the extent of that decision. --Joy (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy, the rationale for renaming was fairly compelling, more so than most of the oppose !votes. That said there were quite a few different rationales for opposing, and taken together I didn't see consesnsus either way. Qwerfjkl talk 19:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to assume that you have much more agency to not just take various !votes together, but to deduce a coherent outcome of the discussion. If arguments are made and then refuted, the closer needs to be free to weigh these as less. If we just take them all together it implies the discussion is some sort of an amorphous blob that can't be figured out, which it should not be. --Joy (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy, that is true, but with many different arguments it is hard to say that one side is clearly stronger than the other. Often it's better to start a more focused discussion again based off the previous one, especially in complex cases like this where many editors are involved.

(Sorry for the belated response.) Qwerfjkl talk 12:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Please ping me on reply.) Qwerfjkl talk 12:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument here can be compared to the ones made at Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election#Requested move 3 November 2023, where we also have a lax usage of "Yugoslavia"/"Yugoslav". --Joy (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman can I ask you to review the arguments for using Category:1992–93 in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia football here? --Joy (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, seems sensible now. Giant Snowman 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that ambiguity between SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia is needed. I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of the proposed title purely because I find it awkward to read (that might just be a personal preference which isn't a good reason to oppose it). I can't think of a more suitable alternative though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of these be better: Category:1992–93 in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia football or Category:1992–93 in Serbia and Montenegro football or Category:1992–93 in Serbian and Montenegrin football? --Joy (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:1992–93 in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia football would work. It clears up the ambiguity and also reflects that sources refer to it as Yugoslavia or FR Yugoslavia rather than Serbia and Montenegro (I realise my first comment was confusing now because I've written ambiguity rather than disambiguation, hope that clears it up). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with saying sources here is that all of the articles in this category actually seem to be pretty badly referenced, with sources either being primary ones, directly subordinated to FRY officials who pushed their state propaganda of "we're Yugoslavia, pay no attention to all those wars, tis but a flesh wound" or the RSSSF which is basically WP:BLOG? --Joy (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both UEFA and FIFA refer to them as Yugoslavia. RSSSF is an established subject-matter expert. It has been discussed before and further information was provided to establish its reliability. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland those links from UEFA and FIFA are from 2000 and 2002 when the FRY became internationally recognized, and in turn a year before it got formally renamed to S&M. Also, football organizations have a rather spotty record about weird state changes, I remember discussions about how they handled World War II puppet states. Also, I don't quite see a clear consensus about how everything RSSSF includes is reliable from the linked discussion. --Joy (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we have to use archived sources from FIFA because they no longer keep historical match information accessible on their website. The UEFA link is not from 2000 though. That is the current state of the website and is definitely not the link they used originally for that match. It has been updated and reformatted to match the current website so shows that UEFA still refer to them as FR Yugoslavia. Not everything on any website is reliable but that doesn't mean they aren't a reliable source. Even the BBC make mistakes but no one is going to argue they aren't reliable. Given the vast amount of information on RSSSF, there will be one or two mistakes but it is a reliable source and like the BBC, they correct mistakes. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just to reiterate, because long threads tend to alienate people :) whatever we discussed here in this subthread has less bearing on the proposed rename - we agree it's an improvement to categorize as FRY instead of just Yugoslav. --Joy (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is an open discussion with impact on this one. At Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election § Requested move 3 November 2023, there is a consensus building whether to use "Yugoslavia" or "Serbia and Montenegro" to call the country in the period between 1992 and 2003. I believe we should follow the verdict of this widely attended RM, when it is closed. Place Clichy (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime that discussion was closed with no consensus, and there the option to move to was S&M, not FRY. Since we didn't even get a verdict on whether to use FRY, it's rather immaterial. --Joy (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1992–93 in Yugoslav basketball to Category:1992–93 in Serbian and Montenegrin basketball

Nominator's rationale: This is a subcategory of Category:Seasons in Yugoslav basketball, but the breakup of Yugoslavia was not a trivial event for Yugoslav basketball. All these post-92 seasons are talking about Serbia and Montenegro instead, so it makes more sense to move this to actually say so. Trying to factor in "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" into this seems pointless. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't currently any articles in this category. Where are they? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It used to contain Template:OKK Beograd 1992–93 Yugoslav Basketball Cup Winner which I tried to move to a Serbian subcategory, which doesn't actually exist, d'oh. The other one was 1992–93 FIBA European Championship Regular Season Group A which I don't know why it would belong there, as Partizan is listed as not actually playing? --Joy (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok then better withdraw the nomination and tag the category page as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Nah I just put it back there, because this was presumably a Serbia and Montenegro cup indeed. --Joy (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Templates do not belong in mainspace categories anyways per WP:CAT#T. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it does not make sense to keep a non-template category that only contains one template and no articles (if not deleted, rename to FRY or Serbia and Montenegro). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:2001 establishments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2001 establishments in Yugoslavia to Category:2001 establishments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Nominator's rationale: The country where this was happening wasn't Yugoslavia, it was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Joy (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, earlier there was no consensus for renaming to "Serbia and Montenegro" so then this is the next best solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 29 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 all four in the updated nomination. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 13:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:21st century in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Sadly we couldn't make progress at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Serbia and Montenegro. This category name makes no sense, because for most readers the concept of Yugoslavia is unrelated to the 21st century. This category hasn't got the sibling category Category:20th century in Yugoslavia because that was deleted saying so. Keeping this is nonsensical. --Joy (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same should apply to Category:Years of the 21st century in Yugoslavia --Joy (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I will tag the 21st-century subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:21st-century disestablishments in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:21st-century establishments in Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 21st century in Yugoslavia

I'm not sure who added these but it makes sense. The first of the three actually contains Category:2000 disestablishments in Yugoslavia‎ which in turn contains Category:2000 disestablishments in Bosnia and Herzegovina‎, which is just weird and wrong. The second contains e.g. Radivoj Korać Cup which ostensibly started at the time when Montenegro was part of the federation, but I don't think it makes a single mention of a Montenegro topic, so it might as well just be listed as an establishment in Serbia. --Joy (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete both (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Indo-European art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Iranic art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added November 1st

Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial intersection between art and language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support per nom Mason (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: may I suggest to also delete Category:Iranic art, which is also a language-family container, of just Persian art and Scythian art? I checked all other child categories and articles, and they are all already in better categories such as Category:Ancient art or Category:Iron Age art of Europe, so nothing is lost with deletion. Place Clichy (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, thank you. I have added it to the nomination. There is more to that, e.g. Category:Battles involving Iranian peoples but let's leave that to later. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge all as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Executed American female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed American serial killers and Category:American female serial killers and Category:Executed American women
Propose merging Category:Executed Australian female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Australian serial killers and Category:Australian female serial killers and Category:Executed Australian women
Propose merging Category:Executed Austrian female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Austrian serial killers and Category:Austrian female serial killers and Category:Executed Austrian women
Propose merging Category:Executed British female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed British serial killers and Category:British female serial killers and Category:Executed British women
Propose merging Category:Executed Egyptian female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Egyptian serial killers and Category:Egyptian female serial killers
Propose merging Category:Executed French female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed French serial killers and Category:French female serial killers and Category:Executed French women
Propose merging Category:Executed German female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed German serial killers and Category:German female serial killers and Category:Executed German women
Propose merging Category:Executed Greek female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Greek serial killers and Category:Greek female serial killers and Category:Executed Greek women
Propose merging Category:Executed Hungarian female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Hungarian serial killers and Category:Hungarian female serial killers
Propose merging Category:Executed Indonesian female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Indonesian serial killers and Category:Indonesian female serial killers
Propose merging Category:Executed Iranian female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Iranian serial killers and Category:Iranian female serial killers and Category:Executed Iranian women
Propose merging Category:Executed Japanese female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Japanese serial killers and Category:Japanese female serial killers and Category:Executed Japanese women
Propose merging Category:Executed South African female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed South African serial killers and Category:South African female serial killers and Category:Executed South African women
Propose merging Category:Executed South Korean female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed South Korean serial killers and Category:South Korean female serial killers
Propose merging Category:Executed Soviet female serial killers to Category:Executed female serial killers and Category:Executed Soviet serial killers and Category:Soviet female serial killers and Category:Executed Soviet women

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCEGRS, the execution of female serial killers is not a notable topic in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom toobigtokale (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from the Kingdom of Prussia by province. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prussian people by province to Category:People from the Kingdom of Prussia by province

Nominator's rationale: rename, align with parent Category:People from the Kingdom of Prussia and distinguish more clearly from Category:People from Prussia proper. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for clarity. My only hesitation is that I don't want to see a proliferation of kingdom of prussian occupation categories... as some folks might view this rename as a broader endorsement the prussian kingdom categories (like occupations) is defining in all cases Mason (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is to disambiguate, not to create any new category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured. :) Mason (talk) 21:42, 29 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:People from the Duchy of Prussia. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ducal Prussian people to Category:People from the Duchy of Prussia

Nominator's rationale: merge, the header states that it is for nobility, but the category only contains dukes and duchesses who are also in the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:27, 29 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:Grand dukes of Russia. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Grand dukes from the Russian Empire to Category:Grand dukes of Russia

Nominator's rationale: merge, two categories with the same scope. Based on the list article, "Grand dukes of Russia" is the more common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Clearly a duplicate, and the long-standing name better reflects the actual title of these princes. Place Clichy (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fictional slave owners. The argument in opposition was that there is technically a difference between the two categories, but that was refuted because the only article in the nominated category (Jabba the Hutt) is more appropriately placed in the merge target. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional slave traders to Category:Fictional slave owners

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, and for this article having slaves is more defining than trading in slaves. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not a noticeable difference in this context. Place Clichy (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the scope of the two categories technically are separate, since a slave trader is not necessarily the owner, as the trader could be an employee, since it is a job category. Just as a car salesman does not necessarily own or be a partner in the car lot. . -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, but please read the article to verify that it is appropriate in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete both. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional Scottish people by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete as empty, there aren't any Scottish people of fooian origin in this category. There is a fooian people of Scottish origin subcategory, but that is the opposite of what the category advertises. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional Welsh people by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete as empty, there aren't any Welsh people of fooian origin in this category. There is a fooian people of Welsh origin subcategory, but that is the opposite of what the category advertises. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support both per nom.Mason (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not a good idea to copy the structure of non-fiction categories to that of fictional characters. Place Clichy (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Olympic competitors for Saar to Category:Saar sportspeople / Category:Sportspeople from the Saar Protectorate
Propose merging Category:Saar sportsmen to Category:Saar sportspeople / Category:Sportspeople from the Saar Protectorate
Propose deleting Category:Saar sportspeople by sport
Propose deleting Category:Saar footballers

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Note that the merge target Category:Saar sportspeople has been nominated for renaming to Category:Sportspeople from the Saar Protectorate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support per nom Mason (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the redundant category layers, separate categories for when Saar competed independently in the Olympics and international football at least. Place Clichy (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Saar Protectorate. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Saar culture to Category:Saar Protectorate

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support per nom Mason (talk) 12:51, 29 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:PwC people. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PricewaterhouseCoopers people to Category:PwC people

Nominator's rationale: C2D. Neureinsev (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, while PWC is ambiguous I suppose that the small "w" makes it distinctive enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 29 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:PwC. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PricewaterhouseCoopers to Category:PwC

Nominator's rationale: C2D. Neureinsev (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, same comment as above. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 29 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 17:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies to Category:Fictional spies
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters by intelligence agency to Category:Fictional spies by intelligence agency
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies by medium‎ to Category:Fictional spies by medium‎
  - Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies in comics‎ to Category:Fictional spies in comics
  - Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies in films‎ to Category:Fictional spies in films
  - Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies in television‎‎ to Category:Fictional spies in television
  - Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies in video games‎ to Category:Fictional spies in video games
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies by nationality‎ to Category:Fictional spies by nationality
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional secret agents and spies by role‎‎ to Category:Fictional spies by role
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional female secret agents and spies‎ to Category:Fictional female spies

Nominator's rationale: "Fictional secret agents and spies" is unnecessarily long. Changing all these categories to just "Fictional spies" would also make them consistent with Category:Spies. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per WP:C2C, this could probably have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom Mason (talk) 12:51, 29 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:Imperial Russian Air Force personnel. There is clear consensus to merge these two categories; there is much weaker consensus that Category:Imperial Russian Air Force personnel is the correct merge target. I am closing this as merge in that direction; Marcocapelle or Smasongarrison, feel free to open a fresh discussion on possibly renaming Category:Imperial Russian Air Force personnel to Category:Air Force personnel of the Russian Empire (or some other target). (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Air Force personnel of the Russian Empire to Category:Imperial Russian Air Force personnel

Nominator's rationale: overlapping cat Mason (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge (or merge) per nom. I am wondering if we shouldn't rename all "Imperial Russian" categories to "of the Russian Empire" as the latter is more recognizable. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how to feel about the Imperial Russian vs russian empire. My sense is that all the russian empire categories were renamed from Imperial Russian FOO to FOO from/of the Russian empire, a while back. Mason (talk) 12:54, 29 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:Russian World War I pilots. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 00:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:World War I pilots from the Russian Empire to Category:Russian World War I pilots

Nominator's rationale: duplicate category Mason (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the Empire came to an end while the war was still going on, but for military personnel the regime change is not that relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Mason (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Graphic artists from the Russian Empire to Category:Graphic designers from the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: overlapping with Category:Graphic designers from the Russian Empire Mason (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (at least for procedural reason), there is a whole tree starting at Category:Graphic artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thank you for the good catch!!! (I had assumed they were the same when I only found one Russian version of the category) Let me dig into the tree.... Mason (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it looks like graphic artists are the parent of graphic designers. I've rearranged some of the categories for the russian empire. I'm going to close the nom. Mason (talk) 12:38, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:LGBT rights in the Soviet Union by republic to Category:LGBT rights in the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: Only one page and that page is a redirect Mason (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Panna State to Category:People from Panna district

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in the small category, makes it hard to navigate.Mason (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 29 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: alt rename. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from the Sultanate of Deli to Category:Sultanate of Deli

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this small category, makes it hard to navigate. Mason (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sultans of Deli, per actual category content. There are now five articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alterative rename. Mason (talk) 12:39, 29 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:African diaspora in Asia. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Dual Merge Category:Mozambican diaspora in Asia to Category:Mozambican diaspora and Category:African diaspora in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge, as there's only one page in this category Mason (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single merge to Category:African diaspora in Asia, the article is not specifically about Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Single merge to Category:African diaspora in Asia Place Clichy (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: alt rename. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Saar people to Category:People from Saarland

Nominator's rationale: I think this category should either be merged into People from Saarland; or if kept, should be renamed People from the Saar Protectorate. It was a disputed protectorate for about 10 years (1947 to 1957), before rejoining West German Mason (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from the Saar Protectorate as less ambiguous. The two subcategories really refer to the protectorate so deletion is not a proper option. The subcategories should be renamed too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Saar politicians to Category:Politicians from the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Political parties in Saar to Category:Political parties in the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Saar sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Saar men's footballers‎ to Category:Men's footballers‎ from the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Summer Olympics competitors for Saar to Category:Summer Olympics competitors for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic athletes for Saar to Category:Olympic athletes for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic boxers for Saar to Category:Olympic boxers for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic canoeists for Saar to Category:Olympic canoeists for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic fencers for Saar to Category:Olympic fencers for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic gymnasts for Saar to Category:Olympic gymnasts for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic rowers for Saar to Category:Olympic rowers for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic shooters for Saar to Category:Olympic shooters for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic swimmers for Saar to Category:Olympic swimmers for the Saar Protectorate
Propose renaming Category:Olympic wrestlers for Saar to Category:Olympic wrestlers for the Saar Protectorate

I'd support this alt proposalMason (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt renaming. Note that there was also a Territory of the Saar Basin that was independent (as a League of Nations mandate) from 1920 to 1935. I'm not sure what they did in terms of international sports, though. Also, the post-1957 German state is always called Saarland, not Saar, but that's not obvious enough to disambiguate. Place Clichy (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

October 29

Category:2000s assassinated politicians by continent

Category:Killings of politicians

Category:Executed slave traders

Category:Slave traders killed in the American Civil War

Category:Androgens and anabolic steroids

Category:People from Van Nuys

People and person templates by country

Categorization of singles by record label by decade

Category:Lists of museums in insular areas of the United States

Category:Charter preparatory schools in the United States by state or territory

1920s Soviet and Russian military aircraft‎

1990s Soviet and Russian military aircraft‎

Category:Korean people of Manchukuo

Category:People from the State of Palestine

Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality

Category:Male silent film actors from the Russian Empire

Category:Male film actors from the Russian Empire

Category:Film score composers from the Russian Empire

Category:20th-century painters from the Russian Empire

Category:Russian Empire commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

Category:Kavi Kag

Category:Military personnel of the Napoleonic Wars from the Russian Empire

Category:Quranic translation

Category:1992–93 in Yugoslav football

Category:1992–93 in Yugoslav basketball

Category:2001 establishments in Yugoslavia

Category:21st century in Yugoslavia

Category:Indo-European art

Executed female serial killers

Category:Prussian people by province

Category:Ducal Prussian people

Category:Grand dukes from the Russian Empire

Untitled nobility

Category:Fictional slave traders

Category:Fictional Scottish people by ethnic or national origin

Sportspeople from the Saar Protectorate

Category:Saar culture

Category:Sultanate of Deli

Category:Elite Radio Group

Category:PricewaterhouseCoopers people

Category:PricewaterhouseCoopers

Category:Fictional secret agents and spies

Category:Fictional characters with obesity

Category:Air Force personnel of the Russian Empire

Category:World War I pilots from the Russian Empire

Category:Graphic artists from the Russian Empire

Category:LGBT rights in the Soviet Union by republic

Category:People from Panna State

Category:People from the Sultanate of Deli

Category:Mozambican diaspora in Asia

Category:Saar people