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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Alphabetical lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I sympathise with the desire of only having alphabetically ordered lists. Categorizing each list and each article that includes a list by that would create an unnecessary and extreme workload though. Especially that after each and every edit to a page, that page would need to be checked if its lists are still ordered alphabetically. – NJD-DE ( talk) 23:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Many lists aren't and shouldn't be alphabetical, but e.g. chronological. If kept anyway, it should only be added to actual lists which have consensus that they should be alphabetical, not to pages which contain one or more lists somewhere (e.g. a list of notable people in a city article) where it is added now, e.g. Keiser, Arkansas. Fram ( talk) 10:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Articles which contain a list isn't a defining characteristic. I could understand it more if it contained actual List-class articles. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there will also be sortable lists. This particular category appears to be 'articles about places in Arkansas containing an alphabetical list'. Oculi ( talk) 18:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  All of which are lists of notable people. Yawn. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete as articles having a list sorted alphabetically is WP:NONDEFINING. None of the articles listed in the category should be there anyway, as they are articles not lists. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. "Lists" categories are for pages which are lists, not pages which are articles about topics that merely happen to embed a list — for example, if a list of notable people from a city is standing alone as its own separate article at the title List of people from City, then that would be categorized as a list, but a list of notable people that's simply contained as a subsection inside an overview article about the city does not get the city's article categorized as a "list". And even if the contents here were actually lists, which they aren't, it would serve no navigational or maintenance purpose to categorize lists for the matter of whether they were organized alphabetically or non-alphabetically anyway, so there's no pressing need to repurpose this elsewhere. Bearcat ( talk) 15:09, 14 November 2022 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Police departments of On Patrol: Live ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, I can't tell why we need a category for everything related to On Patrol: Live. Everything added into this category so far is not a police department (though I've removed most of what has been added as not being a police department, it generally consists of random cities, not their actual police departments). Among Us for POTUS ( talk) 22:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I think if we actually had articles on most of the police departments featured on the show this would be a more-than-reasonable category, but it doesn't seem like we do and I don't see a need to add this to city/county pages - If the departments aren't notable they shouldn't be categorized. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) ^{Talk to Me!} 18:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete A department's appearance on a television show is not a defining characteristic that needs categorization; if it were, the articles for New York and Los Angeles would be overloaded with thousands of fictional and non-fictional TV/film appearances categories. Nate • ( chatter) 23:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per arguments above. Oculi ( talk) 18:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- fails WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete for all the reasons above showing why it's an overcategorisation. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:10, 14 November 2022 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Transport in North America by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Transportation in North America by country. The "Transportation" category is bigger and contains everything in the "Transport" one. – Anne drew 17:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I believe the reason I created it was because I did not see a North American subcategory under Category:Transport by continent. Is there a rule of any sorts when to use "transportation" vs "transport"? The terms seem to be used in the same sense, with US and Mexico categories using "transportation" and most of the rest of the world using "transport" e.g. Category:Transport by country and Category:Transport-related lists by country. Note also the categories Category:Transport in North America and Category:North America transport-related lists. In other words, I was following the established usage and I do not remember being aware of the existing transportation cat. -- DB1729 ^talk 18:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support, it appears to be a case of WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Marcocapelle: Im afraid I don't understand. If this is a WP:ENGVAR thing, then it suggests oppose the deletion of the transport cat and instead delete the transportation cat. Either that, or several other North America transport categories should then be renamed. Are you saying US and Mexico usage trumps the rest of the North American countries? -- DB1729 ^talk 19:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• That is a fair question. The situation here is quite unusual. Normally the other North American countries use the same wording as the United States. I had not noticed before that this is not the case here. Then it may well become reverse merge instead. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm fine with either solution as long as we end up with one category. I do find it strange, however, that Canada's category is Category:Transport in Canada when the main article for that category is Transportation in Canada. The 2014 move request seems to establish "Transportation" as the preferred variant. – Anne drew 13:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the link. I'm still neutral/unclear about this myself. If transport vs transportation is based on national varieties of English, then is it acceptable to use either term for non-English speaking countries, and for continents that use multiple varieties of English? If so, should we retain the transportation category because it was created first? Or is that exceeding the reach of MOS:RETAIN? DB1729 ^talk 14:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• I don't think it really matters which variant we use because there are arguments supporting both. I'm happy to use "Transport" and move on to bigger issues. – Anne drew 20:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Transport or transportation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support - follow the article which has been Transportation in North America since 2007, and the category Category:Transportation in North America should be restored (it was changed out-of-process to a redirect by this unilateral edit). The Canada category should be renamed to 'Transportation' ( WP:C2D: transportation was chosen by RM in 2014). Oculi ( talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support – Agree with Oculi. Delete the "transport" cat. This makes the most sense. (fwiw, I'm the creator of the category in question) The only other thing that needs to be done is simply include the "transportation" cat in Category:Transport by continent. DB1729 ^talk 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Australia to Sierra Leone to Category:High Commissioners of Australia to Sierra Leone
• Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Australia to Zambia to Category:High Commissioners of Australia to Zambia
• Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Australia to Malawi to Category:High Commissioners of Australia to Malawi

Nominator's rationale: Sierra Leone, Zambia, Malawi, and Australia are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, so the official title of diplomatic representative between them is " High Commissioner" and not " Ambassador". Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 12:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - each of these 3 contains only the same person. Unless Malawi has an Australian High Commission, there will not be a High Commissioner (or an Ambassador). So I expect these should be deleted. Oculi ( talk) 14:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • According to List of Australian High Commissioners to Nigeria, the Australian High Commissioner to Nigeria is also (non-resident) High Commissioner to Benin, Cameroon, Gabon, Niger and The Gambia (Sierra Leone not mentioned) Allan Taylor (diplomat) for instance is not categorised by the other 5. List of Australian High Commissioners to Ghana has further information. Anyway I stick to the view that these 3 should be deleted. Oculi ( talk) 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, for the (potential) subject(s) in these categories this was only one occupation, not three or five. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am currently in the process of updating the relevant pages, for which these non-resident offices were held, so additional pages will be added to these categories, once they are renamed. Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 00:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support nom. The Nigeria High Commissioner will be Ambassador to Benin and Niger, since they are not in the Commonwealth. We should keep these for the moment and see how they develop, reconsidering them in (say) six months. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Rename as demonstrated by the nom, their official titles are "High Commissioner". Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Acorn Archimedes games to Category:RISC OS games

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the other subcategories in Category:RISC OS software, and accounts for RISC OS games that don't support the Archimedes (e.g. Abuse, Descent, Descent II, Frak!, Heretic, Heroes of Might and Magic II, Hexen: Beyond Heretic, Quake). Ccawley2011 ( talk) 19:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - We're talking about the difference between categorizing by software platform or by hardware platform. See parent cats Category:Home computer games and Category:Video games by platform. - jc37 09:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Head Masters of Eton College educated at Eton College to Category:People educated at Eton College and Category:Head Masters of Eton College

Nominator's rationale: Surely I am not alone in thinking this is several intersections too far. (Created by Rathfelder.) Oculi ( talk) 21:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• It perfectly illustrates the self-perpetuating oligarchy in the British ruling class. And there is only one intersection. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Categories are not intended to make political points. Are you going to create 'Prime ministers educated at Roundhay School'? Oculi ( talk) 21:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• De-diffuse or Delete I don't object very strongly to the category as such, but I really object to it being a diffusing one, with members being removed from the main Category:People educated at Eton College. Rathfelder, in his usual fashion, has been setting up large numbers of these, all diffusing. There are currently 16 of these. Many of these will not be at all defining ways of categorizing the individuals. Johnbod ( talk) 21:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I had hoped to nip this in the bud with Rathfelder's first such creation at 2022 August 15#Category:Judges educated at Eton College. Sadly Rathfelder is now encouraged to create 'Headmasters of Winchester College educated at Harrow' etc. Oculi ( talk) 22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I'm afraid I missed that - but it did end as no consensus. Again, my objection to it being a diffusing category is far stronger than my objection to it existing - unfortunately no one raised that issue I think. But if I had to choose between these not existing at all and them being diffusing, I'd go for the former. Huge categories aren't much of a problem, imo, & the obvious way to break the Etonians up is by century. Johnbod ( talk) 00:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge back, I can see that the parent category is too large, but a by-century split would be far more natural than a split by a later occupation that people did not have yet when they were studying at this school. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• When did I encourage anyone to create these evil categories? And why is it a problem if the subcategories, like most, are diffusing? NB nobody is notable just because they went to Eton, or any other school. Its what they did afterwards that makes them notable. They are sent there precisely because it gets them into prestigious posts. Categories are supposed to be defining. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • EXACTLY!!! And Category:Lord Lieutenants educated at Eton College is not defining for the great majority of its members, who were primarily landowners, soldiers or politicians (or some combination). Take William Fitzwilliam, 4th Earl Fitzwilliam - I can't see his long article even mentioning he was LL, though it may do. I've explained this to you before, but you don't listen, just setting up straw men, like "nobody is notable just because they went to Eton...". Who suggested that? Johnbod ( talk) 14:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge and salt these categories There's a strong hint of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in Rathfelder's comments above and these categories are somewhat biased in their choice of what to highlight - e.g. there's no Category:Writers educated at Eton College or Category:Artists educated at Eton College or Category:Cricketers educated at Eton College. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Indeed - nor Category:Actors educated at Eton College, apart from the Prime Ministers the most striking modern one. Johnbod ( talk) 17:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

We do now have Category:Racehorse trainers educated at Eton College, thanks to the inventive mind of Rathfelder (who edits at a prodigious rate, without using any tools except Hotcat). Category:Labour MPs educated at Eton College would be easy to complete (2 of them, Tam Dalyell and Mark Fisher (politician)). Oculi ( talk) 11:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

There are a lot more Category:Labour MPs educated at Eton College than that. Shall we create it? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep The Eton alumni category is so enormous that it needs splitting. We have recently had created "government ministers" educated at and several more. My view is that if a category can be populated as well as this one is we should have it. This is an unusual case, which should be limited to it, with Harrow, Westminster, Winchester and not much more. I suspect that Category:Writers educated at Eton College might well be found capable of being well populated. Let us await the split being completed before we think about merging back. Furthermore a by century split will not work well: it would need to be done by the decade when they left the school; otherwise we will have more overpopulated categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • ??Eh?? The short time they spend at school is precisely why it would work well. Far less overlap & so double-catting needed than for career cats. There's absolutely no need for splitting by decade - why do that? But the main problem is that when these are made diffusing cats, as Rathfelder is doing, people are hidden away in cats that they are not actually known for, as with Category:Lord Lieutenants educated at Eton College. Johnbod ( talk) 16:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• The fact that other categories dont exist is not a very good argument for deleting this one. I've started with categories I know something about. Category:Cricketers educated at Eton College would be enormous and there is no reason why it cant be created. Nobody is notable just because they went to Eton or any other school. Its what they do subsequently which makes them notable. With most schools we cant break people down by occupation because there arent anough of them, but there are more than 5000 articles about Eton. The occupational categories are big enough to break down by century. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• That still does not address my earlier objection. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Breaking down the occupational categories by century would be ridiculous.There is no consensus to create occupational categories in the first place. (Or, so far, consensus to delete them, surprisingly.) Oculi ( talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. If Category:Head Masters of Eton College is notable and Category:People educated at Eton College is notable then the intersection is even more notable. If it were to go it should be merged into Category:Teachers at Eton College educated at Eton College. Bigwig7 ( talk) 18:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • That reasoning does not make sense. It would open the door to an infinite number of trivial intersections. About the second part of the response, merging to Category:Teachers at Eton College educated at Eton College is correct for now, that is a very fair point, but this merge target should be nominated too for the same reason. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    • We already have an infinite number of trivial intersections. This doesnt look trivial - there is a very clear linkage. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply
      • It would then follow (if any valid pair can be intersected) that Category:Alumni of the University of Bristol educated at Eton College is valid ( 14 of them). Rathfelder will need a lifetime to create all these. Also Category:Criminals educated at Eton College; 123 of these, a fascinating list. Oculi ( talk) 11:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Most of the people you list are not categorised as criminals. But the point I am making is that these people were in two categories that relate to the same institution. The categories relate to each other. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
          • They are all in Category:Criminals or subcats thereof so they are exactly categorised as criminals. Whether they should be is another matter; eg Category:Prisoners of war is a sub-sub-cat. Oculi ( talk) 02:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
            • Freddie Ayer was not a criminal, but even if he was, what relevance has it to this discussion? The point is that there is clearly a relationship between being educated at Eton and working there. Bigwig7 ( talk) 16:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No need to delete. Dawkin Verbier ( talk) 02:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• CU note to closer I'm not going to go through striking lots of comments that have been replied to, but please note that I have blocked Rathfelder for socking through the account Bigwig7 (CU-confirmed). I have struck through Bigwig7's !vote; please treat their arguments as having come from one person. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:8th century in Morocco to Category:8th century in Africa
• Propose manually merging Category:8th-century Moroccan people to Category:8th-century African people

Nominator's rationale: merge, arguably the first Moroccan kingdom started in 788 under the Idrisid dynasty, which means that the larger part of the 8th century there wasn't anything that resembled Morocco. Articles that already are in the tree of Category:8th-century rulers in Africa should not be included in the merge (hence manually merge). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. No such country existed in the 8th century. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. Largely an anachronism, then SMALLCAT. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Yugoslavia and Serbia to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Yugoslavia

Nominator's rationale: Category name is dubious, referring to two countries. Besides, it should be "manufacturers of Yugoslavia", as simply contains manufacturers from almost every former republic. ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 12:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Additional comment - Category actually contains articles on defunct and existing manufacturers, two defunct and two existing from Serbia and one defunct from Bosnia. Existing from Serbia should be removed (moved to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Serbia), defunct manufacturers from Serbia and Bosnia should remain in renamed category as proposed Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Yugoslavia.-- ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 12:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support, although don't remove manufacturers that still exist in successor republics but were founded in Yugoslavia. - Vipz ( talk) 03:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom; and move or add Serbian articles to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Serbia dependent on whether they were founded while Yugoslavia still existed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support -- When Yugoslavia existed Serbia was part of it. New it has been dissolved Serbia is a separate country. We need a category for each and any manufacturers of the Yugo-era still operating in Serbia should be in both. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:6th-century Arabic writers to Category:6th-century Arabs

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Child is parented to 6th century writers. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:38, 8 November 2022 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who like Half-Life ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by video game * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support, we do not need a category for every userbox. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support per Marcocapelle. Jontesta ( talk) 21:37, 10 November 2022 (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.