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

The result of the discussion was: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:20th-century Canadian Eastern Catholics to Category:20th-century Canadian people and Category:20th-century Eastern Catholics

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two people in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge manually, only Pietro Leoni needs to be added only to Category:20th-century Canadian people, the articles are otherwise already deeper down in the trees of the targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 5 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 to Category:Strange Music albums. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Strange Music mixtape albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: After about as thorough a search as I can manage, the two mixtapes listed are the only ones with articles I can find. I don't know if we're still concerned about categories being too small given SMALLCAT's retirement, but this one is very small. Upmerge both to Category:Strange Music albums. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 5 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 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chapels in Aruba to Category:Chapels in the Caribbean

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category. Do not need dual merge as the lone article is already in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Aruba. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 5 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 16:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category:Fictional vegetarians was deleted several times previously, see the discussion for that category. Creating this one was an end-run around the deletions of the former category by adding vegans for no reason. Continues to violate WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There are a couple of characters that I would say are defining for this, namely Shaggy Rogers and Lisa Simpson. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oinkers' argument AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Shaggy is a vegetarian is only listed as a side note. It's not something that comes up often, if at all in the actual show, which has offered a different explanation for why Shaggy is skinny. If that's one of the most prominent examples, then this category is rather weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still WP:NOTDEFINING, just like it wasn't all the previous times that Category:Fictional vegetarians was deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom and other comments. Mason (talk) 21:15, 5 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: soft delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cmn-nem-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Cmn-nem-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Cmn-nem-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Cmn-nem-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates correctly-named subcats of (and forms a category loop with) Category:User cmn-nem * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 4 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: reverse merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Works by setting to Category:Fiction by setting

Nominator's rationale: Setting is inherently an attribute of fiction, so these two categories are redundant. There is a large overlap in the actual contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm worried that nonfiction would get caught up in the merge. Is literally everything in here fiction? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also need to know what exactly the subcategories would be renamed to standardize them. There is an obvious naming disconnect between one and the other. If it is to be moved, the subcategories should be renamed at the same time to avoid a ton of work. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We should use "Fiction set in X" if we choose "Fiction by setting" as the target, or "Works set in X" if we choose "Works by setting" as the title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and undoubtedly further cleanup in the category tree will be needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge everything from Category:Fiction by setting, out of concern for marking non-fictional works as "fiction". Rename all subcategories to "Works set in X" (i.e. Category:Cities in fiction would become Category:Works set in cities). Many of them in that category need a rename anyway, so it works out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Reverse Merge These clearly overlap and I support whatever merge reaches a consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:Fiction by setting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - and once that's done, we can take a look at the sub-cats. A lot of the fiction-related categories were created prior to "Works" becoming a standard. - jc37 19:29, 4 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 16:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Deprecated to Category:Wikipedia deprecation

Nominator's rationale: This category can be mistakenly used for deprecated software (example: Special:Diff/1192076725). Similarly to Category:Wikipedia maintenance, Category:Wikipedia administration, etc, add prefix "Wikipedia" to avoid confusion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a grab-bag of unrelated phenomona that happen to use the same term (WP:SHAREDNAME) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Delete I would lean toward renaming as proposed, but also open to deletion if that finds consensus. The most important thing is to not leave this as is. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I can see this as useful for tracking things which are still extant that need to be, well, "deprecated". As for what to rename it to... How about something like Category:Wikipedia deprecated syntax? - jc37 19:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deprecated syntax" won't cover Category:All articles with deprecated sources (btw, page Wikipedia:Deprecated sources isn't part of the category at the moment). Pppery's argument makes sense to me, I support delete as well. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, deprecated syntax and deprecated sources is too far apart to combine in a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Pppery. I don't see any promising path for turning this category into something coherent and useful. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:08, 6 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: no consensus to rename, but consensus to merge the applicable categories.

• No consensus Category:Women's websites
• No consensus Category:British women's websites
• No consensus Category:American women's websites
• Merge Category:French women's websites
• Merge Category:Australian women's websites (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Women's websites to Category:Women's interest websites
• Propose renaming Category:British women's websites to Category:British women's interest websites
• Propose renaming Category:American women's websites to Category:American women's interest websites
• Propose merging Category:French women's websites to Category:French websites and Category:Women's interest websites (Only one page in here)
• Propose merging Category:Australian women's websites to Category:Australian websites and Category:Women's interest websites (Only one page in here)

Nominator's rationale: Suggest rename modeled off of Category:Women's interest channels. I was very confused by the purpose of the category when I first saw it. I thought that this was websites owned by women. Mason (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging the latter two per nom. As for the rename, note there is also - for better or for worse - Category:Women's fiction and Category:Women's magazines. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 4 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: no consensus. A narrower nomination (i.e. just focusing on odd-/even- toed) might be more successful. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Individual ungulates to Category:Individual mammals
• Propose merging Category:Individual even-toed ungulates to Category:Individual mammals
• Propose merging Category:Individual odd-toed ungulates to Category:Individual mammals
• Propose merging Category:Fictional ungulates to Category:Fictional mammals
• Propose merging Category:Fictional even-toed ungulates to Category:Fictional mammals
• Propose merging Category:Fictional odd-toed ungulates to Category:Fictional mammals
• Propose merging Category:Films about ungulates to Category:Films about mammals
• Propose merging Category:Films about even-toed ungulates to Category:Films about mammals
• Propose merging Category:Films about odd-toed ungulates to Category:Films about mammals
• Propose merging Category:Television episodes about ungulates to Category:Television episodes about mammals
• Propose merging Category:Television episodes about even-toed ungulates to Category:Television episodes about mammals

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_30#Ungulates, where several of these were nearly deleted; they should of course rather be merged back to where the contents were diffused from. – Fayenatic London 18:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is no reason to merge anything to a category about generic mammals. Dimadick (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose for this reason AHI-3000 (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to make it so much easier to navigate from e.g. horses to pigs. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least the first six; they serve as a useful diffusing of the previously messy category tree. No opinion on moving the subcats to Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla, as in the previous proposal, although I do question the moves of the corresponding pages; those were clearly violations of COMMONNAME, but Artiodactyl could be split from even-toed ungulates. Star Garnet (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "ungulates" categories, but merge the "odd" and "even" ones into them as an unnecessarily "nerdy" distinction that is not necessary in categories talking about fiction where it might be in categories concerning actual animal species. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:08, 12 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 for now. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1st-century Irish poets to Category:1st-century Irish people
• Propose deleting Category:1st-century Irish writers

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, Adna mac Uthidir, in the entire tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 1 article is enough for that type of category. Dimadick (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now, the current state is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Also merge Category:1st-century Irish poets to Category:1st-century poets. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and repurpose to Category:Irish poets before 600 AD, adding in Dubthach maccu Lugair, who has not date category, and the 5th and 6th century siblings. I do not like eliminating the date so entirely, but adding the one member to Category:1st-century Irish people is certainly appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A category before 600 as Peterkingiron proposes seems to have a pretty arbitrary inclusion criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for Now per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:MFN. This doesn't currently aid navigation but, if enough articles ever get created, no objection to recreating at that point. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 4 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 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Taxa named by Edward Branson to Category:Taxa named by Edwin Branson

Nominator's rationale: His name was Edwin not Edward. His article has already been moved. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom; this could have been speedied under C2D. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This wouldn't be for speedy because it was a bold article move. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, I just took a look at the article Edwin Branson; it was indeed heavily edited earlier today. So either the name has been wrong for years (a possibility) or someone has changed the article's purpose entirely; looking at the history, it is more likely to be that the name has been wrong since it was originally created in 2016. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 4 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: disperse. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Viking Age clergy to Category:Medieval clergy

Nominator's rationale: Not defining intersection between occupation and "age". Mason (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, per nom, but disperse the content to more specific nationality and/or century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 4 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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Nations at the Maccabiah to Category:Maccabiah Games competitors by country
• Propose merging Category:Argentina at the Maccabiah to Category:Argentina at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Argentina
• Propose merging Category:Australia at the Maccabiah to Category:Australia at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Australia
• Propose merging Category:Austria at the Maccabiah to Category:Austria at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Austria
• Propose merging Category:Brazil at the Maccabiah to Category:Brazil at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Canada at the Maccabiah to Category:Canada at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Canada
• Propose merging Category:Chile at the Maccabiah to Category:Chile at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Chile
• Propose merging Category:France at the Maccabiah to Category:France at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in France
• Propose merging Category:Germany at the Maccabiah to Category:Germany at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany
• Propose merging Category:Great Britain at the Maccabiah to Category:United Kingdom at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in the United Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:Hungary at the Maccabiah to Category:Hungary at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Hungary
• Propose merging Category:India at the Maccabiah to Category:India at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in India
• Propose merging Category:Israel at the Maccabiah to Category:Israel at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Netherlands at the Maccabiah to Category:Netherlands at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in the Netherlands
• Propose merging Category:Romania at the Maccabiah to Category:Romania at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Romania
• Propose merging Category:Russia at the Maccabiah to Category:Russia at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Slovenia at the Maccabiah to Category:Slovenia at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Slovenia
• Propose merging Category:South Africa at the Maccabiah to Category:South Africa at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in South Africa
• Propose merging Category:Ukraine at the Maccabiah to Category:Ukraine at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Ukraine
• Propose merging Category:United States at the Maccabiah to Category:United States at multi-sport events
• Propose merging Category:Uruguay at the Maccabiah to Category:Uruguay at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Uruguay

Nominator's rationale: Contain only one category each which are all present in Category:Maccabiah Games competitors. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: target categories changed per Marcocapelle's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge in principle, per nom. But preferably upmerge to all parent categories, because upmerging is automated while downmerge requires manual re-parenting. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Great Britain at the Maccabiah was not tagged. I have done so now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, can you clarify what you mean exactly? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Omnis Scientia: with an automated merge, the bot is just replacing the occurrance of the nominated category by the targets. For parenting, that works well with upmerge: nothing changes in the parents of the targets and nothing needs to change. But with downmerge, the replacement leads to the target becoming its own parent category, while it should really adopt the nominated category's parents. But that does not happen automatically. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, yeah that would be easier.

  Um, I hope I'm not asking too much when I ask if you can edit this nomination to make the automated upmerge possible? I'm not really sure how to do that in this case. If you do, I can see how to do the same in future similar cases. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would result in, e.g.

:* Propose merging Category:Argentina at the Maccabiah to Category:Argentina at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Argentina

• @Omnis Scientia: - Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Marco! Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How is merging here different than outright deletion? –Aidan721 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721, if you think deletion works best here, I'm fine with that too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aidan721: I would oppose outright deletion. There is no reason to remove the content from the multisports tree or from the Jews and Judaism tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I now see how your merging would work now and support that. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:24, 11 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: no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I do not think this is defining - what about a character who randomly looks at the screen and shrugs as a gag, but is otherwise a normal character who isn't cognizant of the audience? It's simply too vague to distinguish between minor moments of fourth wall breaking and characters who are aware of the audience at all times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The category only includes characters who break the fourth wall as a defining characteristic, as defining characteristics are the cornerstone of Wikipedia categories. Therefore, the category does not include characters who have only broken the fourth wall once or twice, but instead lists characters who are known and recognised for doing it. I kept this in mind when I originally created the category and added the characters to it.The Editor 155 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The question's whether "executing a fourth wall break" can even be defining, or if it's a trait of the story itself rather than the character. Perhaps the character has some ability that would let them be aware of the fourth wall, but would belong more in characters who have superhuman powers or the ability to manipulate reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for these reasons given by The Editor. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Zxcvbnm has a fair point that it is a characteristic of the work, not of the character. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as defining. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some character frequently break the fourth wall, and become known for it. The watershed, obviously, is this fact being mentioned in reliable sources. Characters like She-Hulk and Deadpool have a fourth wall awareness ability, and clearly belong in the category. Whether Bugs Bunny belongs, I can't say. That's for the sources to decide. Paradoctor (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Looks at the audience) - So on Wikipedia, when assessing categories, it's often important to determine whether inclusion in the category is self-evident, or if it needs explanation, in type, scale, or importance, amongst many other things, as noted in the guideline WP:CATBEFORE. And when that is determined to be the case, such categories tend to either be Deleted or Listified, and such should be the case here. - jc37 19:50, 4 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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional nuclear engineers to Category:Fictional engineers
• Propose merging Category:Fictional mining engineers to Category:Fictional engineers
• Propose merging Category:Fictional chemical engineers to Category:Fictional engineers

Nominator's rationale: Made by blocked user. No clear need for such a specific category compared to just engineers - many of these characters are not primarily known as having a "nuclear", "mining" or "chemical" specialty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you excluding the other similar subcategories of Category:Fictional engineers? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't found them at that point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not all engineers are the same. I at least think chemical and nuclear engineers could be valid categories, I dunno about mining engineers. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge these categories. Many entries are not defining characteristics of these fictional characters. For example, Homer Simpson is a nuclear safety inspector, not a nuclear engineer, and many others do not mention their categorized field in the article. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721: What happens if you purge the unmentioned and misclassified entries? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe purge was the wrong word, but my intention is to remove the misclassified entries before deciding a fate of these categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721: Are you going to remove the misclassified entries? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now removed what I believe to be misclassified non-defining entries. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge After the purge of misclassified and non-defining entries, only two articles remain in the nuclear one, one in the mining one, and three articles and one redirect in the chemical one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per LaundryPizza03. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 5 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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Firstly, this category tree appears to fall under Category:Actors by medium; however, comedy is a genre, not a medium. Secondly, this appears to be a WP:PERFCAT violation; we don't have other instances that I'm aware of where we categorize actors by the genres they have featured in. If nothing else, if the feeling is that these categories have merit, I think the naming schema for male and female actors should be consistent. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add related comedy actor/actress categories that I might have missed! DonIago (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, there are 25 (Twenty-five) hidden categories in this nomination, a nomination which seeks to erase 26 categories for comedy acting. These categories, built and maintained by many Wikipedians, are fine for their intended purpose and allowable as categorizations. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not defining for most people listed. Inclusion seems related to the genre of some project they acted in, appear in one comedy project and get listed as a comedy actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the categories seem to contain a mix of people who consistently played comedy (who are probably better off in the parent Category:Comedians) and people who played a variety of genres (for whom it is not defining). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At best, that would seem to suggest that the categories could be repurposed for strictly actors who played comedy roles...but then they would need to be actively maintained (and updated) to remove actors who played non-comedy roles. I don't really think that's a great solution, and it would seem to create a slippery slope. Are we going to create Category: Horror actors? Category: British dramatic comedy actresses? DonIago (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clicked through a good deal of these and feels pretty WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - I started thinking if there was a way to maybe focus or split these, but when I started with stand-up comedy actors, I realised that everyone above was correct - this is clear Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance. - jc37 19:59, 4 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 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Art museums by year of disestablishment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Art museums and galleries by year of disestablishment
• Propose renaming Category:Art museums by year of establishment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Art museums and galleries by year of establishment
• Propose renaming Category:Art galleries by year of disestablishment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Art museums and galleries by year of disestablishment
• Propose renaming Category:Art galleries by year of establishment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Art museums and galleries by year of establishment

Nominator's rationale: Considering that art museums and galleries are grouped together in Category:Art museums and galleries, it doesn't make sense to categorize (dis)establishments of them separately. The sub-categories can be speedied after discussion (unless someone wants to tag and list them all). –Aidan721 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 21:20, 4 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 16:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Vegetation of Cyprus to Category:Flora of Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are not overlapping at all. Vegetation is different and distinct from individual plant species. Hesperian 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The flora category should not be limited to individual species. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-categories of Category:Vegetation of Cyprus are as follows:

• Category:Endemic flora of Cyprus: Category:Endemic flora by country > Category:Flora by country
• Category:Forests of Cyprus: Category:Forests by country > Category:Trees by country > Category:Flora by country

Thus, in this case, they are overlapping and the vegetation category is not needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 4 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 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Maronite Church in South America to Category:Maronite Church by country

Nominator's rationale: A container category for 3 countries, while the parent has "just" 4 other countries in it. There is no other continent-level Maronite category. Overall, this does not bring much in terms of navigation. Place Clichy (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• OK. --Fadesga (talk) 18:08, 4 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 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Interquel video games to Category:Video game interquels

Nominator's rationale: Follows the naming convention already set by Category:Video game sequels and Category:Video game prequels ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, given Blaze Wolf is here largely because of my careless assumption that the proposed name was already its name, which led me to introduce a red link to a page's category list. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I saw you add that and after realizing it was a real category, I figured "Why is it not at that name already?" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although I have to question we are confident this category tree doesn't violate WP:NEO. This term seems to have been invented by TVTropes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps at all, there are RSes provided at Sequel#Classifications supporting this term. As I've said elsewhere, many are physical sources and so hard to check on, but one of them is available online. I don't think the term is a TV Tropes invention (the Wiktionary entry for the term predates TV Tropes by about five months, if the founding date on its Wikipedia page is correct). --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:29, 4 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 as per nom. Seems to be a WP:1AM situation. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:History of Chitral to Category:Chitral (princely state)

Nominator's rationale: renominate per WP:IAR, this category was part of a District of Chitral batch nomination, to be split in District in Lower Chitral and District of Upper Chitral, see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 19#Chitral District II]]. However, the split of this particular has not been implemented yet, and can't be implemented. It is not about the history of any district but about the history of a former princely state. This new proposal reflects that. If renamed, it should also be re-parented, see categories in Chitral (princely state) article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03 and Qwerfjkl: courtesy ping to nominator and closer of previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on actual contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Chitral's status as a historical and cultural area was not affected by its split into two administrative areas in 2018. Its history is wider than the history of the princely state abolished in 1972. From a pragmatic point of view the two districts created in 2018 share so much history that it would not be meaningful to attempt to split articles relating to their history before 2018 between the two districts.--Mhockey (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhockey: I guess you are opposing the previous nomination to split? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was no discussion of it (I was not aware of it), and it needed discussion.--Mhockey (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- The content largely seems to relate to events before 1972. If we can devise a name, it might be feasible to have a category for everything up to the split in 2018. Perhaps Category:Chitral (state) would deal with that, provided a headnote is added, explaining that anything after the split in 2018 should not be placed in the category, but the two for the successor states. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You have to consider the range of matters which could potentially be included in the category, not the articles which are currently in the category. Plenty of things happened in Chitral between 1972 and 2018, and you would not expect expect such articles in a category named for an entity abolished in 1972. I suggest it would not be difficult to devise a name of such a category: why not Category:History of Chitral?--Mhockey (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the period between 1972 and 2018, it is early enough to start a history category Category:Chitral (former province) when we have enough articles about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you mean Category:Chitral (former district). But if you did that, you would need to consider how the category tree would work. You would want two categories dealing with different periods of history of one geographic area to be sub-categories of a category dealing with that geographic area, and the obvious name of that parent category is Category:History of Chitral. WP has plenty of examples of categories dealing with the history of an area which is no longer an administrative unit, and I do not see what the problem is with the existing category.--Mhockey (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Just as a truth in advertising nomination to let readers know the actual article contents. No objection to a future creation of Category:Chitral (former district) but, so far, I only see 2011 Chitral cross-border attacks as being for that period. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Chitral District is another article which does not belong in a Category:Chitral (princely state). Also 2023 Chitral cross-border attacks. There are likely to be more articles about the history since 1949. Mhockey (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 4 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 1 & 3, rename 2, delete 4.

• Keep Category:Ancient Greeks by death
• Rename Category:Ancient Greeks who were murdered
• Keep Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle
• Delete Category:Ancient Greeks who died from disease (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ancient Greeks by death to Category:Ancient Greeks
• Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greeks who were murdered to Category:Ancient Greek murder victims
• Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle to Category:Ancient Greek military personnel killed in action
• Propose merging Category:Ancient Greeks who died from disease to Category:Disease-related deaths in Greece and Category:Ancient Greeks

Nominator's rationale: Cleaning up the acient greeks by death category. We don't intersect cause of death with nationality for many of these category. If Category:Ancient Greeks who died from disease is kept, it should be renamed: Disease-related deaths in Ancient Greece Mason (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, a comment on each of these categories separately below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak oppose on merging Category:Ancient Greeks by death, we do categorize cause of death by country and this seems to be an approximation of that.
2. Support renaming Category:Ancient Greeks who were murdered per naming convention.
3. Support renaming Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle per naming convention.
4. Just delete Category:Ancient Greeks who died from disease, death from disease should be container categories by type of disease.

• Different proposals require different responses. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose: I'll be guided by Marcocapelle on this one—upmerging would delete useful categorization that's consistent with other extant categories.
2. Weak support: "murder victims" doesn't sound like an ideal formulation, but looks like an improvement over "who were murdered". Perhaps "homicides" might be an alternative.
3. Oppose. "military personnel" smacks of hypercorrectness and is a jarringly modern and technical description that simply does not belong in classical antiquity. "Killed in action" is 20th-century military jargon for "killed in battle". Keep it simple, and avoid jargon—the current title is fine, and much better than the proposed alternative.
4. Oppose. "Disease-related deaths" sounds like a statistical category that would include all mentions of plague or pestilence, not just specific persons who died from various diseases, which is what the current title suggests. Marcocapelle may be correct about specific categories for types of disease, but "disease-related deaths" would make the scope of the category vaguer.

• Regarding #3, I have been in doubt about "military personnel" too. But I considered that Category:Ancient Greek military personnel exists. I think a discussion about military personnel should start with that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over that category, I see that it includes generals, common soldiers, and military engineers, of whom at least the first two could arguably be called "soldiers", but I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to include "admirals", and not sure whether "women in Greek warfare" might include non-fighters. So it may be that "military personnel" was chosen simply because the category creator could not think of any other phrase that would include all of these subcategories. Not sure I can think of a better one—certainly not off the top of my head. However, there's no need to limit "Ancient Greeks killed in battle" to soldiers, or some category of combatants including admirals, Amazon warriors, centaurs, etc. (maybe "warriors" would work for the parent category?). "Ancient Greeks" includes all of the above, and potentially other categories—the only limitations being that they were Greek and that they were slain in battle. So we don't need to have a perfect term covering everyone's roles in warfare. P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle to Category:Ancient Greek military personnel killed in action. Basically, all freeborn males might fight for their polis at any time in their adulthood before senescence. They did not need to be conscripted or to sign up for a term of service, or otherwise become "military personnel". Also, narrowing down to the anachronistic "miltary personnel" leaves a gap; would we also need a category such as Category: Ancient Greeks killed in action who weren't military personnel? BTW re rationale: Ancient Greek is not a nationality. NebY (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle. This is an ethnicity rather than a nationality. They will in fact all be soldiers, though occasionally fighting at sea. "Military personnel" is an anachronistic modernism. No view on the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it doesn't look as though anyone else is going to comment on these proposals; further relisting seems futile. There seems to be weak consensus for the second one ("murder victims"), strong consensus against the third ("killed in battle"), and no consensus on the other two, which I believe means they should be kept as they are. P Aculeius (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @P Aculeius, I (almost) never relist CfDs more than twice. Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 12 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities into Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible

Nominator's rationale: I'm not totally sure yet, but from my observation of these two categories, there's not much difference between them, and there's significant overlap between both categories. If there's proven to be any real difference between them, then I will withdraw this merging proposal and just leave one of these categories as a subcategory of the other one. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is probably more accurate to check the articles in Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities one by one and move them to Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible if applicable. That does not require a CfD nomination (yet). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Fictional shapeshifters. These over-specific categories are not defining at all and should not remain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that accurate? It doesn't sound like it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe delete the first for WP:SUBJECTIVECAT due to its heavy vagueness and merge the second then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, turning intangible is a very distinct power on its own, plus the shapeshifters category is already divided into multiple subcats for different types of morphing. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? Turning intangible/manipulating one's density has nothing to do with shapeshifting. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It turns out that many articles do not mention either of these powers. Purging... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed all of the entries in Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities that did not mention either intangibility or the ability to change density. Some of the remaining articles do seem to use "density control" as a separate concept, so a different merge target may be needed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: Did you also move any pages in the density control category over to the intangible category as Marco suggested? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I wasn't sure. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I think I've got the density-control catgory entirely clean. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: Now that I look at both categories, there still seems to be significant overlap between the "density control" and "intangible" categories. How many characters in the former category are also not in the latter category simultaneously? AHI-3000 (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are exactly 9 matches. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: I decided to take an additional whack at purging these categories myself. We are currently left with 9 articles in the "density control" category that were not also present in the "intangible" category; I moved anything that was in both categories to just "intangible" only.

So now that we're left with exactly 9 pages in the density category, I'm wondering what to do next? We have a few possible options:

• Merge Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities into Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible as I had originally proposed, but does that idea still even make any sense?
• Reverse merge Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible into Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities, but that idea also sounds iffy to me.
• Keep both Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities and Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible; maybe the former could be a supercategory to the latter?
• Or maybe there's another option? Merge both categories into a new category with a new name? We could call it something along the lines of "Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible or control/manipulate density"?

I'm not really sure yet. If anyone has any other suggestions, please add something below here. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This nomination seems to be equating density with solidity. True, in comics at least this isn't new; the Vision was initially IIRC able to fly and to pass through walls and people by "reducing his density" and become hard and massive by increasing it. However, Phantom Girl became intangible by "phasing"; she did not become less dense or less massive, and did not float away like a balloon, while Light Lass made objects lighter (thus controlling their density) without making them intangible. Marvel's Sandman can become diffuse and thus in one sense less dense, but not intangible, and so on. In many (most?) cases in comicbook physics, the abilities aren't the same and one is not represented as a subset of the other. NebY (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Turning intangible is one form of density manipulation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 4 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 to Category:Ships built by the Venetian Arsenal. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ships built by Venetian Arsenal to Category:Ships built by the Venetian Arsenal

Nominator's rationale: I'm pretty sure that these are the same category, but if the distinction is meaningful, I'd really like one of the categories renamed. Mason (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, not a defining characteristic. The Venetian Arsenal was not a particular company, while the parent category seems to imply that, wrongfully. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Note The target category has been tagged as of this time stamp to give more flexibility in the outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Merge Both to Category:Ships built in Venice per the reasoning of @Marcocapelle:. (If that doesn't have consensus, by all means merge as nominated since these are clearly duplicates.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, merging to Category:Ships built in Venice is a better solution than deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. The Venetian Arsenal is a notorious enough shipbuilder to have its own category for ships built there, enough that many ships list it as builder in reliable sources. The first line of article Venetian Arsenal calls it responsible for the bulk of the Venetian Republic's naval power from the Late Middle Ages to the early modern period and "one of the earliest large-scale industrial enterprises in history". The corporate structure is probably not comparable to Anglo-American capitalism, but that's not the topic here. Place Clichy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom but keep the distinction. The Venetian Arsenal is a notable entity and the closest to a naval industrial complex in pre-industrial revolution times. Constantine ✍ 20:41, 4 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 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wasps Netball matches to Category:Wasps Netball

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article, and no more will exist in the future, since the team is defunct. Therefore, upmerging to the only parent category is sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, too small a category to keep it separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 4 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) Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Republic of China Buddhist monks to Category:Chinese Buddhist monks
• Propose merging Category:People's Republic of China Buddhist monks to Category:Chinese Buddhist monks
• Propose merging Category:People's Republic of China Buddhists to Category:Chinese Buddhists
• Propose merging Category:People's Republic of China Tibetan Buddhists to Category:Tibetan Buddhists from China
• Propose merging Category:Republic of China Buddhists to Category:Chinese Buddhists
• Propose merging Category:People from the Republic of China by religion to Category:Chinese people by religion
• Propose merging Category:Republic of China Taoists to Category:Chinese Taoists
• Propose merging Category:Republic of China Christians to Category:Chinese Christians

Nominator's rationale: not a defining intersection of religion with political regime per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_25#Category:People_from_the_Republic_of_China Mason (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also fyi, I've already added people to the respective 21st-century Buddhist monk/buddhists category) Mason (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• They should not be merged. Republic of China and People's Republic of China are also seen as two time labels and geographical labels used to differentiate the religious people in China from 1912 to 1949 and Taiwan since 1945 from those religious people in China since 1949. Merging them would cause some unnecessary confusion as many Taiwanese people only accept the tag of Republic of China instead of the tag of China and People's Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronlee90 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense to me – why would we combine Taiwanese monks post-1945 with Chinese monks pre-1949 in one category? If these categories are kept, each category's scope should be based on a single combination of place and time period. For instance, Category:Republic of China Buddhist monks and Category:People's Republic of China Buddhist monks could be subcategories of Category:Chinese Buddhist monks by period, covering 1911-1949 and 1949-present respectively. Post-1945 Taiwanese monks should be in Category:Taiwanese Buddhist monks regardless.

Likewise it may make sense to keep Category:Republic of China Taoists (there are other time-period categories in Category:Chinese Taoists), as well as Category:Republic of China Buddhists and Category:People's Republic of China Buddhists as part of Category:Chinese Buddhists by period.

On the other hand, Category:People's Republic of China Tibetan Buddhists should be merged as there seems to be no corresponding set of categories by period. The same appears to be true of Category:People from the Republic of China by religion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. The common demonym for present-day China (the PRC) is Chinese, as it is for Ming China, Qing China, interwar China etc. It does not bring value to split national categories of people by political regime, unless these people where directly involved in that regime. Taiwanese people are categorized under Taiwanese people. Place Clichy (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Place Clichy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 4 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) HouseBlaster^talk 16:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of Buddhism in Nanjing to Category:Buddhism in Nanjing

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the article is already in Category:Buddhist temples in Nanjing. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 4 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: triple merge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 16:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Buddhist artifacts of China to Category:Buddhist artifacts and Category:History of Buddhism in China

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one artifact in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple merge, also to Category:Archaeological artifacts of China. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 4 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 all. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Educators from the Colony of South Australia to Category:Colony of South Australia people and Category:19th-century Australian educators
• Propose merging Category:Educators from the Colony of Queensland to Category:Colony of Queensland people and Category:19th-century Australian educators
• Propose merging Category:Educators from the Colony of New South Wales to Category:Colony of New South Wales people and Category:19th-century Australian educators

Nominator's rationale: We don't need to slice up 19th-century educators by which colony they were in. Regime is not a defining intersection here. Same logic as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_17#Category:Writers_from_the_Colony_of_Western_Australia Mason (talk) 04:51, 4 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:Academic staff of Imperial Moscow University. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Professorships at the Imperial Moscow University to Category:Academic staff of Imperial Moscow University

Nominator's rationale: Based on the content. Everyone in here is a professor at Imperial Moscow University. There are no pages for "professorships". Mason (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and also re-parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:54, 4 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) HouseBlaster^talk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Russian institutions supporting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Mason (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Borderline patent nonsense. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 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 to Category:Academy of Fine Arts in Gdańsk alumni. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Graduates of the Academy of Fine Arts in Gdańsk to Category:Academy of Fine Arts in Gdańsk alumni

Nominator's rationale: Identical categories Mason (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:58, 4 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 to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Crown (Italy). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Poles awarded the Order of the Crown of Italy to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Crown (Italy)

Nominator's rationale: No need to diffuse by nationality. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Polish recipients of the Order of the Crown (Italy) Mason (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:59, 4 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:Tone poems by Jean Sibelius. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Symphonic poems by Jean Sibelius to Category:Tone poems by Jean Sibelius

Nominator's rationale: It is well-established in the Sibelius studies literature that the composer himself preferred the term "tone poem" rather than "symphonic poem"; moreover, Category:Tone poems by Richard Strauss provides a precedent for naming like categories nested under Category:Symphonic poems by composer using "tone poems" as a preferred synonym. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:49, 4 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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Results of South Australian local elections to Category:Local elections in South Australia and Category:Results of South Australian elections
• Propose splitting Category:Results of Western Australian local elections to Category:Local elections in Western Australia and Category:Results of Western Australian elections
• Propose splitting Category:Results of Tasmanian local elections to Category:Results of Tasmanian elections and Category:Local elections in Tasmania

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting as creator of said categories (Consider this as a reply to all three of these proposed deletions) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the pages from the category. (other people need to be able to evaluate the categories) Mason (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, will revert Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 4 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 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Video games set in the New Kingdom of Egypt to Category:Video games set in ancient Egypt
• Propose merging Category:Video games set in the Old Kingdom of Egypt to Category:Video games set in ancient Egypt

Nominator's rationale: There's not need to diffuse by specific kingdom Mason (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, but Category:Video games set in the Old Kingdom of Egypt should also be merged to Category:Fiction set in the Old Kingdom of Egypt while that still exists. A dual merge for Category:Video games set in the New Kingdom of Egypt is not needed because the content is already in a subcategory by dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 4 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.