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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional aquatic characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Fictional merfolk for those who are distinguished by having a body specifically suited for underwater life, and Category:Fictional aquatic creatures‎ for the non-humans. There only seems to be a vague unifying trait of water for the category members. Is this actually defining at all? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is indeed a defining trait. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, shouldn't it be merged to Category:Fiction about water? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Fictional merfolk is already included under Category:Fictional aquatic creatures. My question is, should Category:Fictional Atlanteans‎, Category:Aquatic superheroes‎, and Category:Aquatic supervillains‎ all be included under Category:Fictional merfolk? Goustien (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Goustien: "Atlanteans" does not necessarily mean they are aquatic, as it can also refer to those who lived in Atlantis BEFORE it went under the ocean, so that would not even belong under a water-related category. Aquatic superheroes and supervillains would indeed go under "Fictional merfolk". A superhero who just had water powers would not be considered "aquatic". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A character who is from Atlantis or happens to be a water-based superhero/supervillain is NOT the exact same thing as being a mermaid/mermen, I think you are mixing up different concepts together just because they all happen to live underwater. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per AHI-3000's rationale. Dimadick (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no rationale given, just a "actually, no, I disagree". There is no clear definition of an "aquatic character", which can encompass characters who are swimmers, characters who can breathe underwater, characters who live underwater but can't actually breathe in it, or even ones who live in submarines. It's too vague and confusing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:New Jersey Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCAWARD. I don't see any other state having a HOF category other than Michigan which is up for Cfd as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Social groups of the United Arab Emirates to Category:Society of the United Arab Emirates

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (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 up to 1955–56, no consensus on the later ones. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

• Category:1901–02 NCAA football bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1901–02 college football bowl games
• Category:1915–16 NCAA football bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1915–16 college football bowl games
• Category:1916–17 NCAA football bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1916–17 college football bowl games
• Category:1917–18 NCAA football bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1917–18 college football bowl games
• Category:1918–19 NCAA football bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1918–19 college football bowl games
• Category:1919–20 NCAA football bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1919–20 college football bowl games
• Category:1920–21 NCAA football bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1920–21 college football bowl games

Nominator's rationale: The NCAA is not involved in college football bowl games. Rename to reflect this fact. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For starters, is not accurate to say that the "NCAA is not involved in college football bowl games". Bowl games for NCAA members still fall under the auspices of the NCAA; see here. The 2023 Gator Bowl is clearly a part of the 2023 NCAA Division I FBS football season. That being said, prior to 1956, our season naming scheme does not use "NCAA" (see 1955 college football season), and the NCAA did not even exist in 1901–02. So I support all nominations here up through 1955–56. For 1956–57 onward, I think some more thought is needed. And the naming scheme for bowl season articles like 1934–35 NCAA football bowl games should match what we do with the analogous categories. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While it is a part of the NCAA season, my point is that the NCAA is not organizing the bowl games. And you raise a good point, I agree that the articles should match as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to whatever the Division I equivalent page is called for each season, if a bowl is not for the D-I equivalent than it should fall under it's guise.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename 1901-1902/Neutral on Others since the NCAA didn't exist until 1906. I'll defer to smarter editors on the rest. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, 1901–02 was merged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_12#Category:1901–02_NCAA_football_bowl_games; the sole member was 1902 Rose Bowl. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 30 January 2024 (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:Video games about the military and purge. No clear consensus on "about war" vs. "about the military", but the latter is very slightly preferred. If someone feels strongly enough that the former name is preferred they are welcome to start a new CfD focusing solely on that issue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:War video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Video games are usually sorted by its gameplay genre first and by a possible narrative genre second. But what is a "war video game"? It isn't analog to a war film, which is a well-defined genre. So what is it? A video game about a war, historical or fictional? Set during a war? Featuring "war" gameplay, waging warfare as the player? Since it is so ill-defined, it is not a WP:CATDEF, in my opinion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a possibility it could be moved to "X about the military", similar to Category:Films about the military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the military isn't synonymous with war or warfare, right? And take a look at the video games listed, I wouldn't say they're about the military or military personnel. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably require purging, but it may be the best bet to "rescue" the category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worthwhile to consider something like "Video games about war". - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been an earlier discussion closed as no consensus. Probably the contributors to that discussion should be pinged. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Those earlier participants, as a neutral bystander: @65.92.246.142 and Peterkingiron: Everyone else had already weighed in here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a fairly coherent set of subcategories. Straight deletion is probably not the best solution because where would we leave all the subcats. Renaming to Category:Video games about war (as in the previous discussion) or to Category:Video games about the military (as suggested now) seems a better solution. And I still think that containerizing would be a good idea because too many video games have an element of warfare in them, just that does not set them apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and rescope per Marcocapelle, I suppose to "about the military" since that seems more manageable and definable. The current name is completely untenable. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Video games about the military and purge per Axem Titanium. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Video games about war per Marcocapelle. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 17:00, 13 February 2024 (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 the nominated categories, merge the ones as nominated by Place Clichy, and trout the nominator for emptying the categories out-of-process. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Church of Ireland in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Church of Ireland in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The island of Ireland comprises precisely the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Since the Church of Ireland has no organisation outside the island, therefore Category:Church of Ireland is confined has subcategories Category:Church of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland to cover all relevant areas. Two unnecessary intermediate cats were created by User:Laurel Lodged (subsequently banned) namely Category:Church of Ireland in the United Kingdom (the only relevant part of the United Kingdom is Northern Ireland) and Category:Church of Ireland in Ireland (if that means the republic, it duplicates the existing cat; if it means the island, it duplicates the base cat; in either case, the name is confusing) (I did bypass the redundant categories Special:Diff/1197968881 and Special:Diff/1197968993 -- perhaps I should have waited till the CfD concluded) jnestorius^(talk) 16:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These categories were emptied by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed; if that wasn't clear, see my "bypass the redundant categories" comment above for details. jnestorius^(talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Debating about the fate of empty categories for a week is just kind of pointless. They are now empty so it doesn't really provide those who might oppose a deletion or, in other cases, a merger much ground to stand on. And if you are just going to empty a category (which is frowned upon as "out of process"), then you don't really need to nominate it at CFD for discussion, you can just tag it CSD C1 as an empty category. Both generally end up with the category being deleted but a discussion takes up editor time and a category deleted at a CFD discussion is very hard to restore while a category deleted through CSD C1 can be restored whenever an editor decides it is needed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IMHO the nominator is to be commended for making the nomination. It serves as a formal record which any editor can trace by "what links here" from the category. Tagging a cat and discussing while still populated makes it easiest for other editors to examine; emptying and tagging as C1 is out-of-process; here we have tagging after emptying, which is in-process, but harder to follow. Yet the nom has identified the former members, so that we can follow the history easily enough. The discussion only "takes up editor time" if there's any scope for disagreement. As for the possibility of restoration, you may be right in principle, but in this case the nominator thinks there's a permanent case against restoration, and that too gives a purpose to this discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's a different way to look at it. I just don't see the point of making a CFD nomination and then emptying a category. How are editors who oppose a deletion and merger going to speak up if the category has already been emptied? I'm all for having a record of decisions regarding what should happen with different categories but if you are going to start a discussion, then leave the category as it was at the time of the nomination so editors who participate in a discussion can see how it's being used. And it happens all of the time. I don't think ever I've seen a CFD discussion closed as "Keep" or "Repopulate" after a category being discussed has been emptied before the discussion is closed. My comments are about CFDs in general, not this particular one, but it seems like emptying a category in the middle of a CFD serves to nudge editors to a "Delete" decision as if the discussion has already been closed with that outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly it's best to discuss with contents present. But I did not want to leave a green light for emptying and not nominating (whether tagging C1 or leaving that to others), unless the category had been an indisputable mistake. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the actual proposal, but emptying a category before a nomination is despicable and disruptive behaviour, deserving a block, imo. We are MUCH too soft of this, which has often been used by very dubious actors. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would sometimes say that about emptying and not making a nomination. But making a nomination is at least owning up and leaving a partial audit trail. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and add the following:

• Propose merging Category:Church of Ireland church buildings in Ireland to Category:Church of Ireland church buildings (added 27 January)
• Propose merging Category:Church of Ireland church buildings in the United Kingdom to Category:Church of Ireland church buildings(added 27 January)

These were not properly categorized but have exactly the same issues. Note the redundancy with Anglicanism in Ireland/Anglicanism in the Republic of Ireland/Anglicanism in Northern Ireland/Anglican church buildings in Ireland/Anglican church buildings in the Republic of Ireland/Anglican church buildings in Northern Ireland. @Jnestorius, Marcocapelle, Liz, Fayenatic london, and Johnbod: courtesy ping. Place Clichy (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support upmerging the two church building subcats. I did notice the Anglican categories, but because of dissidents like "Church of Ireland - Traditional Rite" and "Gafcon Ireland" they seem merely premature rather than utterly useless, so would be a separate CfD. jnestorius^(talk) 08:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be unavoidable overlap between Anglican categories organized by country and by church/province, because of the way the Anglican Communion is organized. Other faiths have the same issue, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox communion. However as both category structures are legitimate, I believe it is a rather natural and good thing to keep an Ireland category in both the country and the church/province categories. Place Clichy (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and merge the additional two nominated by Place Clichy. I have checked that the contents will still be within the other parent categories. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that the additional categories will be listed for the full 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominated categories and merge proposed categories by Place Clichy. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate probability to Category:Fictional characters with supernatural luck

Nominator's rationale: A lot of these characters don't have the power to "manipulate" anything, they just have the universe rearrange itself around them automatically. It should be moved to Category:Fictional superhumans by ability, and out of where it currently is, as it just doesn't fit. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ... unless there is external sourcing it seems to me like "can manipulate probability" is just a WP:SYNTH category in the personal taxonomy of a few Wikipedians as opposed to something recognised by SF scholars. OTOH Category:Luck seems to be lacking any fiction subcategory. I would like to see Category:Luck in fiction with subcats Category:Preternaturally unlucky fictional characters and Category:Preternaturally lucky fictional characters, after which Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate probability could be migrated to the latter. I'm sure some superhero fans would insist on the difference, but ... [continued at start of comment] jnestorius^(talk) 18:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is prima facie evidence for WP:DEFINING. I checked 5 pages expecting to find no mention, but there it is in the infoboxes, "probability manipulation" or "alter probability". Moreover, 4 out of those 5 expand on it specifically within the article, 3 of them with clear citations, 2 of them (Black Cat and Scarlet Witch) within the lead paragraph. Unless all of that material has been newly inserted, this ability has been accepted as defining. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term has been used since the 1960s (at least) while "supernatural luck" seems to a neologism unique to Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2024 (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Examinations and testing in fiction to Category:Fiction about education
• Propose merging Category:Films about examinations and testing to Category:Films about education
• Propose merging Category:Imperial examination in fiction to Category:Fiction about education

Nominator's rationale: I don't get why education has to be further narrowed down to examinations and testing specifically. This seems like an arbitrary category that does not merit its level of specificity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support at least two of them: the articles in Category:Examinations and testing in fiction and Category:Imperial examination in fiction aren't about exams per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, education is a broad topic that encompasses diverse things. Also, imperial examination in China is more like a political institution rather than an educational instrument.--Aronlee90 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that education is a broad topic is not very relevant here. If articles are broadly about education then they belong in an education category, not in an exams category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:28, 30 January 2024 (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:Fiction about magic schools * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional magic schools to Category:Fictional schools

Nominator's rationale: When you purge the non-schools, you basically get only a few articles - Hogwarts, Scholomance, Unseen University. Domdaniel is more of a hall than a school. Thus, the page is an unnecessary WP:NARROWCAT that should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disperse in the tree of Category:Fiction about schools, since a number of articles aren't about a school but rather about a video game etc. It is fine if an article belongs in Category:Fictional schools but articles that don't should be moved to siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fiction about schools of magic as I think that theme is of sufficient interest to make this useful. – Fayenatic London 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london: It would have to be Category:Fiction about magic schools if it were renamed. "Schools of magic" can be interpreted as different forms of magic, not just schools that teach magic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, rename to Category:Fiction about magic schools per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Zxcvbnm, adding pages to Category:Fictional schools where appropriate, per outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_22#Category:Superhero_schools. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Zxcvbnm and LaundryPizza03. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:01, 9 February 2024 (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:Heritage listed buildings and structures in South Korea and create Category:Registered Cultural Heritage of South Korea * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cultural Heritage of early modern times of South Korea to Category:Registered cultural heritage of South Korea

Nominator's rationale: "대한민국의 국가등록문화재" does not translate to "Cultural Heritage of early modern times of South Korea". Use google translate to peruse what it means. The entries in this cat don't even align with the category name. Look at the Wikidata item ([1]), and see how this cat is named on Commons ([2]). If this category is renamed, I'll appropriately repopulate it. toobigtokale (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I named this according to the government website https://english.cha.go.kr/ in 2012. Now the website calls 국가등록문화재 National Registered Cultural Heritage. How about Category:National registered cultural heritage of South Korea? Sawol (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename to Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures in South Korea per Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This may work for how the category currently is, although we would then need another category for 대한민국의 국가등록문화재 (National Registered Cultural Heritage), as the scope of that includes things other than structures.

  I have no strong preference. I lean slightly towards preferring renaming to Category:National registered cultural heritage of South Korea and just including all the non-building things in there for now too. toobigtokale (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I prefer Category:National registered cultural heritage of South Korea. That's what the kowiki version of the category corresponds to, and I have other non-building stuff I want to add to this target. If we do rename to Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures in South Korea, I'd just create another category corresponding to the kowiki version and put those pages in it anyway, but it's not a signifcant priority for me as idt the Korean Wiki makes that same distinction. I'm probably going to end up with my target category either way, I just need this to be done quickly. toobigtokale (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently there are no articles about non-buildings in the category, but if they exist then Category:Registered cultural heritage of South Korea may be created as a parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just saw this, I'll add a few in. toobigtokale (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. A film Viva Freedom!, a newspaper Tongnip Sinmun, and a set of documents Letter by Lee Bong-chang and Remittance Certificate are in the category. toobigtokale (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, then split between a general category and a buildings category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more comments on the proposed split?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think the plan is to:

1. Rename the category to Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures in South Korea
2. Create a separate category for Category:Registered Cultural Heritage of South Korea (fixed; proper noun, as it's a designation of the South Korean government per [3]).
   • If possible, all the building pages should also go in this one.

I don't think the categories should be parent/child to each other. Not all registered buildings are Registered Cultural Heritages. Some are Tangible Cultural Heritages.

toobigtokale (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easier, please just ping me after the rename and I'll handle the creation of the other category. toobigtokale (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of consensus, I support toobigtokale's plan (for clarity, the plan he mentions in the comment directly above this one). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:07, 9 February 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Per a recent, similar discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 4#Comedy actors. I was reading some of that discussion, and this category also appears to be violating WP:PERFCAT. I would also extend this to the subcategories, and any other related categories also violating this guideline. Feel free to include these categories explicitly in the discussion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was the one who made it up called "Sitcom actors" so this one might be similar to the category of "Soap opera actors". Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, this should be nominated together with all subcategories. Otherwise we would keep the tree except for the top category and that does not sound as if it is the purpose of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, that makes sense, thank you. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Managed to go thru the category tree (hopefully) for all the subcategories associated with the one I originally put in. Thought it would be a pretty long process, but the tree didn't have too many entries overall. Added above. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Should I go thru adding the CfD notice on the pages for every one of the subcategories? And how would that be done? MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The answer is yes and, considering that is concerns only some 20 subcategories, just manually copying the script is the easiest. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as for Comedy actors. This is just a subset genre of comedy and is even less defining for the actors involved. Inclusion looks to be has acted in a project with the genre "sitcom". Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actors are not defined by a comedy-vs-drama distinction at all — it's certainly possible for an actor to have more skill in one area than the other, but there's no rule that actors are only allowed to be one or the other, and lots of actors have done both. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's also Category:English sitcom actors and their small tree which were omitted from the above. I'm not sure whether it would be proper to add them at this point in time. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That will be ok. The discussion may be relisted so that everyone is aware of the extension. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've moved the newly-added categories to the subcategory list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Women and education to Category:Women's education

Nominator's rationale: Renaming the parent category will align it with the subcategories, e.g. Category:Women's education in India. User:Namiba 16:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the rename will limit the scope of the category. For example, subCategory:University and college women will no longer fit. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and move Category:University and college women to Category:Women educational personnel per categorization of parent Category:University and college people. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the scope is broader e.g. women educators, but no objection to splitting to a new sub-cat so named. Women and education by place and Women and education in Africa should be renamed "Women's education" – I will submit Speedies for those. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in line with subcategories in Category:Women by subject and as the scope is broader per Fayenatic. Female education should be changed from "Cat main" to "Cat more". This was mentioned at WT:WIR. TSventon (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per keepers (and the Indian category should probably be renamed for the same reasons). In any case, aligning with other sub-cats is a weak reason if it involves changing the scope, as it clearly would here. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; "Women's education" seems to mainly refer to the instruction of women students; "women and education" including women as instructors and students, women as education activists and fundraisers and policymakers, women as school founders, etc. Both categories are useful in some contexts, but not interchangeable. Penny Richards (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete, only contains redirects, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, if it was needed before, it's not now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Basketball in Brazil by state to Category:Basketball in Brazil

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tennis players from Chelyabinsk Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one category layer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Basketball in Chennai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A single article category. No need to merge. User:Namiba 16:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now per nom. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Basketball in Brazil by city to Category:Basketball by city

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single subcategory. User:Namiba 15:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films based on the preamble of constitution of India to Category:Films based on the Preamble to the Constitution of India

Nominator's rationale: The article is Preamble to the Constitution of India. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Fostera12 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What does it even mean for a film that it is based on the Preamble to the Constitution of India? Delete as subjective and non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per Marco. I also don't understand how a movie can be based on a constitution's preamble. Mason (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree not subjective, and It is not based, it is about include and rename as Category:Films about Constitution of India Fostera12 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fostera12: in what sense are these films about the constitution of India? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Those genre of films particularly highlight and cite relevant articles, and sections in the book of constitution of India. It is relevant to Indian film culture, flavour and texture. This is Indian cinema which do not follow hollywood style. It is common norm in India to cite constitution of India in such films. Wikipedia is not hollywood, christianity and western norms of notability. It is inclusive of other cultures and film making styles, Hindu film culture is distinct doesnt mean not applicable to wikipedia. As a Hindu wikipedian, I dont endorse Christian monopoly in wikipedia. Who are you, me, christianity to deny this genre in wikipedia? It has to be included. I suggest rename the category accordingly to these Indian media reports below. I dont understand why everything about India is an issue in Wikipedia.

• https://www.outlookindia.com/art-entertainment/bollywood-films-based-on-the-preamble-of-constitution-of-india-news-47277
• https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/republic-day-from-shah-rukh-khans-swades-to-rajkummar-raos-newton-bollywood-films-that-have-represented-the-essence-of-indian-preamble-8404992/
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/republic-day-2020-six-films-that-uphold-the-idea-that-india-is-a-sovereign-socialist-secular-and-democratic-republic/story-hWeR5TFcWvVxppSkftPACI.html

Fostera12 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the films are about political matters - since a constitution is political by nature - then they should be in Category:Indian political films (or which ever is the appropriate category in Category:Indian films by genre). The category name is just incredibly vague and non-defining (WP:NONDEF) and would have been non-defining even if it had been "Films based on the Preamble of the Consitution of the United States". This has nothing to do with this being an Indian-related category.

Also, I'm familiar with some of the films in this category. The Consitution of India is not the defining characteristic on them. It may be mentioned in the plot or related to the plot in some cases but its not what defines these films. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The comparison with Christianity makes no sense whatsoever. There is no Category:Films with citations from the Bible nor do we need that. And "upholding the idea that India is a sovereign socialist secular and democratic republic" is an obviously subjective characteristic of a film. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are films exclusively depicting the ideals of preamble as cited in the media. The film titles directly use the constituional article titles in their core plot. Article 15, Article 370, Aaarakshan (Article 16), Oh My god 2012 (Section 93 railway act), Jolly LLB (Article 21), Satyagraha 2013 (Article 19), Haider (armed forces special powers act 1958), Aligarh (section 377), Mulk (Article 20(3)), Section 375, Chapaak (Poison Act), etc. We cant be vague and generalize about these films and just write it off as political films. A seperate category doesnt cause any damage here.

  https://bollymints.com/articles/top-10-bollywood-movies-that-canvassed-our-indian-constitution Fostera12 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For example, Article 15 (film) isn't about the constitution at all, it is a film about discrimination, about the caste system in particular, and already categorized as such in Category:Films about the caste system in India. Only the name is derived from the constitution but we do not categorize based on name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and agree, since the category's should be based on the original article's name. Jayanthkumar123(talk) 03:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per deleters - in practice most of these are also in the Category:Films about social issues in India tree, and those that are not probably should be. But that is enough. Some (well Saranam Gacchami anyway) are also in Category:Constitution of India, and should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Chernihiv to Category:Sportspeople from Chernihiv

Nominator's rationale: Contains only 1 article and Petscan reveals 1 more. The article subject appears to be a Belarussian national and thus should not be sorted into Ukrainian basketball players. User:Namiba 12:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Novels by ecological setting to Category:Novels by setting

Nominator's rationale: This is just plain incorrect - being set at sea, swamps, mountains, etc. does not imply an "ecological" setting. For example, what about a mountain cabin? Not very ecological, whatever that means. I think its creation should be reversed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, too imprecise and vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge per nom and marco Mason (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Novels set in buildings and structures to Category:Novels by building of setting

Nominator's rationale: More accurate name that conforms with other container categories. If someone has a better suggestion please tell me, but this is clearly a category too vague to be anything but a container. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, fits well with e.g. Category:Novels by region of setting. Possibly expand to Category:Novels by building type of setting. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The current name is strange at best. Dimadick (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional residential buildings to Category:Fictional buildings and structures

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Also, houses are the only thing I'd describe as "residential" making it redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1995 in the Collectivity of Saint Martin to Category:History of the Collectivity of Saint Martin

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated 1-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historians of education by field of study to Category:Historians of education

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, whish is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as creator czar 14:33, 30 January 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Sámi women academics to Category:Sámi academics and Category:Women academics

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. (This is the only sami women category) Mason (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, only merge to Category:Sámi academics because the articles are already in the tree of Category:Women academics by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then, because the articles are also in Finnish/Norwegian/Swedish Sami academics. Place Clichy (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in principle per nom, delete in fact because of redundant categories. Place Clichy (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historians of education by nationality to Category:Historians of education

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one nationality in here, which doesn't need diffusion right now. Mason (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Category:British historians of education just needed to be created/populated. This is a common subdivision and is a better grouping than a single category, since American and British historians tend to focus on, well, their different regions. czar 01:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Even with two nationalities, it's not needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, redundant category layer with only two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging:

• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1552 (1) to Category:1552 in art, Category:Organizations disestablished in 1552, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 2nd millennium
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1825 (1) to Category:1825 in art, Category:Organizations disestablished in 1825, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 19th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1852 (1) to Category:1852 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1852, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 19th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1861 (1) to Category:1861 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1861, Category:Museums disestablished in the 1860s, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 19th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1867 (1) to Category:1867 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1867, Category:Museums disestablished in the 1860s, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 19th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1874 (1) to Category:1874 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1874, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 19th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1910 (1) to Category:1910 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1910, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1917 (1) to Category:1917 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1917, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1925 (1) to Category:1925 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1925, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1927 (1) to Category:1927 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1927, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1930 (2) to Category:1930 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1930, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1933 (1) to Category:1933 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1933, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1947 (1) to Category:1947 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1947, Category:Museums disestablished in the 1940s, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century
• Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1949 (1) to Category:1949 in art, Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1949, Category:Museums disestablished in the 1940s, and Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in the 20th century

• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in 1552 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in the 1550s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in the 16th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1552 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Educational organizations disestablished in the 1550s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Educational organizations disestablished in the 16th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in 1852 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in the 1850s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Educational organizations disestablished in 1852 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in 1874 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in the 1870s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in 1925 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in the 1920s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in 1930 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Museums disestablished in the 1930s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT / WP:OCYEAR. Upmerge. All contain 1-2 entries. Follow up of this and this. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional guilds to Category:Fictional organizations

Nominator's rationale: When all the non-guilds are purged from the category, there are only a few articles that would possibly count towards this. Thus it is a WP:NARROWCAT that is better off selectively upmerged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (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. ✗plicit 04:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Crime in Columbia, Missouri to Category:Crime in Missouri and Category:Columbia, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Small underpopulated category that's unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, neither this category nor the targets are meant to contain biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2024 (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.