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 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.
Category:Wabash Athletic Association football seasons
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category.
Let'srun (
talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between version of latin language
Mason (
talk) 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Hi there, this is a stylistic rather than periodic distinction. Most writers in C14th wrote in what is called "Medieval Latin", but a handful of pioneers wrote in a classicising style that we now call
Neo-Latin. The most famous of these is
Petrarch. by c. 1500, the distinction reduces and disappears, and categories of Latin writers are all grouped under
Category:Neo-Latin writers. However, in the transition centuries, this is not possible.
Jim Killock(talk) 20:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the context. I still don't know if that intersection is defining, like are these people typically described as "
14th-century Neo-Latin writers"? Because for this tranistion period, it would make more sense to me to just add them directly to the parent category instead.
Mason (
talk) 20:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
They are typically described as either "
Renaissance Latin" or "
Neo-Latin" writers, but never as "medieval Latin" writers (excepting early works perhaps). Their defining feature is that they were pioneers who used the revived, standardised, classical standard we now call either Renaissance or Neo-Latin. I don't know what the right approach is, exactly, because they are after all also "14th century Latin writers", but the parent category claims that all 14th century Latin writers are also writers of Medieval Latin, which is plainly incorrect. What should happen is that the category is split out, and also for the
Category:15th-century writers in Latin, which even more ridiculously claims that all 15th century Latin writers are both Renaissance Latin and Medieval Latin writers. I had a strategy for this which is to list all Neo-Latin writers on a list page, which is currently in
draft, and split them out.
Jim Killock(talk) 21:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, so from what you have written here, your problem is more with the parent categories, rather than the 14th-century category. I'd encourage you to look over how categories and their nesting structure work, as it sounds like a better solution would be to remove some of the parent categories rather than create a duplicate category.
Mason (
talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, I didn't do any of this, except create the 14th-century Neo-Latin writers category. I don't really see how it can be addressed except the way I've suggested, because the people designing the category have assumed that rigid differentiations can be applied through the whole Latin period. So
Category:Medieval Latin-language writers includes
Category:6th-century writers in Latin up to
Category:15th-century writers in Latin; which is probably in opposition to what many scholars of
Late Latin would say. The boundaries imposed are by century and therefore arbtitrary and need serious fixing, but my own ambition is limited to addressing the issues with Neo-Latin writers, which I hope you'll appreciate is where I've got some knowledge I can apply.
Jim Killock(talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying you created any of the "by century" categories; what I was suggesting is that there is an alternative solution that would not involve duplication of the the 14th-century. You've brought up the concerns you have with the parent categories, such as medieval latin-language writers including the 6th century, as well as 15th-century being included in medieval. How are either of those relevant to the current category under discussion? Those boundary categories could easily be removed if you were to add a clear description of the range, but this category doesn't solve that problem.
Mason (
talk) 01:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevance is that whoever designed the Latin category system knew that "style" in Latin matters more than "century" and wanted a way to short cut the classification work of thousands of writers. How do I find all the medieval Latin writers? I look through a set of century categories at
Category:Medieval Latin-language writers.
Thus, each century is assigned a "style", which in several cases in problematic. This ought to be fixed, but is some amount of work.
For the 14th century, it is broadly correct, with a small number of exceptions, which I separated out into this category.
For the 15th century, the solution is to seperate a larger number of medieval style writers, and label others as Neo-Latinists of that century. In other words, the solution to the innaccurate classification is for someone to go through the boundary centuries and separate out the classifications.
The alternative is to delete the classification system matching styles to century, but this leads to much greater data loss and more pain, I would suggest.
Jim Killock(talk) 08:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I don't see this being a useful distinction at the moment. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 23:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A solution could be to place all of these into
Category:Neo-Latin writers, as well as their century, if that is preferred, but that would be inconsisent with the practice in other Latin periods.
Jim Killock(talk) 16:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I am confused about my own response above but I note that there is also broader confusion. Can we just assume that all later Latin writers wrote in Neo Latin? If we can, the later century subcategories can be renamed to Neo-Latin. If we can't we can still create Neo-Latin subcategories per century.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think from 1500, across the century as a whole, once printing starts, you can assume that 80-90% were writing in Neo-Latin, and from 1600, 100%. I understand tho, that people would expect a century by century classification of Latin authors, so the sensible thing would be to copy members of
Category:17th-century writers in Latin and onwards into
Category:Neo-Latin writers.
I don't know how sophisticated the category moving tools are tho, they would need to be able to copy to multiple categories, and / or exclude some of the entries that belonged to a specific category.
I also can't help with the earlier classifications, tho, eg the prior centuries and prior latin styles (Old, Classical, Late, rest of Medieval) 400 BC to 1300 AD, which would then be treated differently; and even for just Neo-Latin, this is also a big job, which may take some time to prepare. It does feel like it needs more consultation than just the few of us considering the "bridging" category I made initially.
Jim Killock(talk) 22:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Jim Killock.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Killock has suggested an alternative structure. Are you opposing that alternative as well?
Mason (
talk) 05:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional toymakers and toy inventors
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.
Nominator's rationale: A rather narrow and unnecessary category, it can easily be dual merged into these two categories depending on the character. (Though, Geppetto is already in the subcategory of carpenters).
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 23:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - there seems to be enough characters here to warrant a split.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 21:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but there's no option for selecting 2 merge targets so...
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm, yes the lack of dual merge option is quite frustrating!
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep No explanation of why this is "narrow", but
artisan supposedly has a wider scope.
Dimadick (
talk) 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Toymakers is very narrow. What if they make other objects?
Mason (
talk) 05:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American women health professionals of Indian descent
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 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.
Category:American film people by ethnic or national origin
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is unhelpful for navigation with only one category in it
Mason (
talk) 14:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American film actors of Asian descent
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 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.
Category:Geochronologically significant locations
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Vaguely defined
Mason (
talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge or delete, it is questionable whether the articles belong in the target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fuels infrastructure phase-out
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 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.
Category:Natural gas phase-out
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 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.
Category:Fossil fuel vehicle phase-out
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 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.
Category:Expulsions of Jews
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 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.
Category:Wine culture by country
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 01:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:LPSA
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.
fine with me. I just though it was a long name, but LPSA is opaque so it's probably better to spell it out. –
ishwar(speak) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Professional shogi players
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.
Disagree. Professional shogi players are a distinct group of shogi players in that they are members of the
日本将棋連盟 (Nihon Shōgi Renmei). Only Japanese people are professional players. There are other non-Japanese shogi players who have wikipedia pages, but they aren't professional. It's not like chess where anyone who is a good player can participate in a shogi tournament. Amateur shogi players generally can't participate in professional tournaments. It's rather restrictive. The reason for making the distinction is because the distinction is made in the shogi world (which is a part of Japanese culture). Perhaps no other board has this rigid hierarchical structure of players. It's a similar situation with female shogi players, who are technically not professional players (since none has passed the stringent prerequisites), where they have label of female professional shogi player (女流棋士 joryū kishi) that is distinct from an amateur player. Again, although the chess world has women's chess tournaments, but there's not a distinct between a professional and an amateur. This is unlike Japanese culture where there is a distinction. The categorization represents the distinction. –
ishwar(speak) 03:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, as there are professional players, it will be very difficult for any amateur to achieve notability so the distinction here on Wikipedia is moot.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Syrian clothing
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 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.
Category:16th-century anthropologists
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.
Nominator's rationale: Neither of these people are anthropologists. Anthropology doesn't really become a field until the 19th century
Mason (
talk) 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Category:Wabash Athletic Association football seasons
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category.
Let'srun (
talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between version of latin language
Mason (
talk) 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Hi there, this is a stylistic rather than periodic distinction. Most writers in C14th wrote in what is called "Medieval Latin", but a handful of pioneers wrote in a classicising style that we now call
Neo-Latin. The most famous of these is
Petrarch. by c. 1500, the distinction reduces and disappears, and categories of Latin writers are all grouped under
Category:Neo-Latin writers. However, in the transition centuries, this is not possible.
Jim Killock(talk) 20:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the context. I still don't know if that intersection is defining, like are these people typically described as "
14th-century Neo-Latin writers"? Because for this tranistion period, it would make more sense to me to just add them directly to the parent category instead.
Mason (
talk) 20:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
They are typically described as either "
Renaissance Latin" or "
Neo-Latin" writers, but never as "medieval Latin" writers (excepting early works perhaps). Their defining feature is that they were pioneers who used the revived, standardised, classical standard we now call either Renaissance or Neo-Latin. I don't know what the right approach is, exactly, because they are after all also "14th century Latin writers", but the parent category claims that all 14th century Latin writers are also writers of Medieval Latin, which is plainly incorrect. What should happen is that the category is split out, and also for the
Category:15th-century writers in Latin, which even more ridiculously claims that all 15th century Latin writers are both Renaissance Latin and Medieval Latin writers. I had a strategy for this which is to list all Neo-Latin writers on a list page, which is currently in
draft, and split them out.
Jim Killock(talk) 21:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, so from what you have written here, your problem is more with the parent categories, rather than the 14th-century category. I'd encourage you to look over how categories and their nesting structure work, as it sounds like a better solution would be to remove some of the parent categories rather than create a duplicate category.
Mason (
talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, I didn't do any of this, except create the 14th-century Neo-Latin writers category. I don't really see how it can be addressed except the way I've suggested, because the people designing the category have assumed that rigid differentiations can be applied through the whole Latin period. So
Category:Medieval Latin-language writers includes
Category:6th-century writers in Latin up to
Category:15th-century writers in Latin; which is probably in opposition to what many scholars of
Late Latin would say. The boundaries imposed are by century and therefore arbtitrary and need serious fixing, but my own ambition is limited to addressing the issues with Neo-Latin writers, which I hope you'll appreciate is where I've got some knowledge I can apply.
Jim Killock(talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying you created any of the "by century" categories; what I was suggesting is that there is an alternative solution that would not involve duplication of the the 14th-century. You've brought up the concerns you have with the parent categories, such as medieval latin-language writers including the 6th century, as well as 15th-century being included in medieval. How are either of those relevant to the current category under discussion? Those boundary categories could easily be removed if you were to add a clear description of the range, but this category doesn't solve that problem.
Mason (
talk) 01:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevance is that whoever designed the Latin category system knew that "style" in Latin matters more than "century" and wanted a way to short cut the classification work of thousands of writers. How do I find all the medieval Latin writers? I look through a set of century categories at
Category:Medieval Latin-language writers.
Thus, each century is assigned a "style", which in several cases in problematic. This ought to be fixed, but is some amount of work.
For the 14th century, it is broadly correct, with a small number of exceptions, which I separated out into this category.
For the 15th century, the solution is to seperate a larger number of medieval style writers, and label others as Neo-Latinists of that century. In other words, the solution to the innaccurate classification is for someone to go through the boundary centuries and separate out the classifications.
The alternative is to delete the classification system matching styles to century, but this leads to much greater data loss and more pain, I would suggest.
Jim Killock(talk) 08:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I don't see this being a useful distinction at the moment. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 23:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A solution could be to place all of these into
Category:Neo-Latin writers, as well as their century, if that is preferred, but that would be inconsisent with the practice in other Latin periods.
Jim Killock(talk) 16:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I am confused about my own response above but I note that there is also broader confusion. Can we just assume that all later Latin writers wrote in Neo Latin? If we can, the later century subcategories can be renamed to Neo-Latin. If we can't we can still create Neo-Latin subcategories per century.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think from 1500, across the century as a whole, once printing starts, you can assume that 80-90% were writing in Neo-Latin, and from 1600, 100%. I understand tho, that people would expect a century by century classification of Latin authors, so the sensible thing would be to copy members of
Category:17th-century writers in Latin and onwards into
Category:Neo-Latin writers.
I don't know how sophisticated the category moving tools are tho, they would need to be able to copy to multiple categories, and / or exclude some of the entries that belonged to a specific category.
I also can't help with the earlier classifications, tho, eg the prior centuries and prior latin styles (Old, Classical, Late, rest of Medieval) 400 BC to 1300 AD, which would then be treated differently; and even for just Neo-Latin, this is also a big job, which may take some time to prepare. It does feel like it needs more consultation than just the few of us considering the "bridging" category I made initially.
Jim Killock(talk) 22:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Jim Killock.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Killock has suggested an alternative structure. Are you opposing that alternative as well?
Mason (
talk) 05:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional toymakers and toy inventors
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.
Nominator's rationale: A rather narrow and unnecessary category, it can easily be dual merged into these two categories depending on the character. (Though, Geppetto is already in the subcategory of carpenters).
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 23:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - there seems to be enough characters here to warrant a split.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 21:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but there's no option for selecting 2 merge targets so...
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm, yes the lack of dual merge option is quite frustrating!
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep No explanation of why this is "narrow", but
artisan supposedly has a wider scope.
Dimadick (
talk) 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Toymakers is very narrow. What if they make other objects?
Mason (
talk) 05:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American women health professionals of Indian descent
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 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.
Category:American film people by ethnic or national origin
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is unhelpful for navigation with only one category in it
Mason (
talk) 14:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American film actors of Asian descent
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 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.
Category:Geochronologically significant locations
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Vaguely defined
Mason (
talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge or delete, it is questionable whether the articles belong in the target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fuels infrastructure phase-out
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 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.
Category:Natural gas phase-out
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 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.
Category:Fossil fuel vehicle phase-out
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 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.
Category:Expulsions of Jews
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 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.
Category:Wine culture by country
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 01:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:LPSA
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.
fine with me. I just though it was a long name, but LPSA is opaque so it's probably better to spell it out. –
ishwar(speak) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Professional shogi players
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.
Disagree. Professional shogi players are a distinct group of shogi players in that they are members of the
日本将棋連盟 (Nihon Shōgi Renmei). Only Japanese people are professional players. There are other non-Japanese shogi players who have wikipedia pages, but they aren't professional. It's not like chess where anyone who is a good player can participate in a shogi tournament. Amateur shogi players generally can't participate in professional tournaments. It's rather restrictive. The reason for making the distinction is because the distinction is made in the shogi world (which is a part of Japanese culture). Perhaps no other board has this rigid hierarchical structure of players. It's a similar situation with female shogi players, who are technically not professional players (since none has passed the stringent prerequisites), where they have label of female professional shogi player (女流棋士 joryū kishi) that is distinct from an amateur player. Again, although the chess world has women's chess tournaments, but there's not a distinct between a professional and an amateur. This is unlike Japanese culture where there is a distinction. The categorization represents the distinction. –
ishwar(speak) 03:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, as there are professional players, it will be very difficult for any amateur to achieve notability so the distinction here on Wikipedia is moot.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Syrian clothing
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 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.
Category:16th-century anthropologists
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.
Nominator's rationale: Neither of these people are anthropologists. Anthropology doesn't really become a field until the 19th century
Mason (
talk) 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.