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) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Daystar (TV network) affiliates to Category:Daystar Television Network affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 20:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Rename The article was boldly moved 9 months ago but it has been consistent and uses WP:NATURALDIS. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Rename, 9 months should be enough for a speedy rename. But it may not have been enough for WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:3rd-century BC women rulers to Category:3rd-century BC queens regnant and Category:3rd-century BC women regents
  • Queens regnant: Arsinoe II, Arsinoe III of Egypt, Deidamia II of Epirus, Berenice II of Egypt, Etazeta of Bithynia
  • Women regents: Amastris (ruler of Heraclea), Berenice Syra, Etazeta of Bithynia, Laodice III, Teuta, Queen Dowager Xuan
  • Un-parent Berenice I of Egypt (queen consort), and Nicaea of Corinth (tyrant) per the "Ancient Greek rulers" CfR

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support, it is silly to have this category parented to a regents category while quite a few articles are about queens regnant. They are quite different. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 08:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:4th-century BC women rulers to Category:4th-century BC queens regnant and Category:4th-century BC women regents
  • Queens regnant: Ada of Caria, Artemisia II of Caria, Caeria, Cleopatra of Macedon, Onomaris
  • Women regents: Amastris (ruler of Heraclea), Queen Marcia, Olympias, Qin Xiaozhu, Queen Dowager Xuan
  • Un-parent Cratesipolis (tyrant) per the "Ancient Greek rulers" CfR

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support, it is silly to have this category parented to a regents category while quite a few articles are about queens regnant. They are quite different. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename and reparent. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:9th-century BC women rulers to Category:9th-century BC queens regnant;
  • re-parent from Category:9th-century BC rulers to Category:9th-century BC monarchs;
  • re-parent from Category:Ancient women rulers by century and Category:Ancient women regents to Category:Ancient queens regnant
• Propose renaming Category:8th-century BC women rulers to Category:8th-century BC queens regnant;
  • re-parent from Category:8th-century BC rulers to Category:8th-century BC monarchs;
  • re-parent from Category:Ancient women rulers by century and Category:Ancient women regents to Category:Ancient queens regnant
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century BC women rulers to Category:16th-century BC women regents;
  • un-parent Category:16th-century BC rulers and Category:Ancient women rulers by century

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these ancient women. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• If I understand correctly, two of the three articles in the 16th century are about regents. In that case this nomination may well be merged with the one above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle Hatshepsut was both a woman regent and a queen regnant, as her bio shows: Upon the death of her husband and half-brother Thutmose II, she ruled initially as regent to her stepson Thutmose III, who inherited the throne at the age of two. Several years into her regency, Hatshepsut assumed the position of pharaoh and adopted the full royal titulary, making her a co-ruler alongside Thutmose III. She is both in Category:Female pharaohs and Category:Regents of Egypt for this reason. Ahhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari were only women regents, so it makes sense to rename this category from "women rulers" to "women regents", as this is what all three women had in common. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Ok. It appears I overlooked that the target for the 16th century is different from the 8th and 9th. But we should make sure that Hatshepsut also stays in the queens regnant tree, shouldn't we? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

    Yes. And she will, because Category:Female pharaohs is a child of Category:Ancient Egyptian queens regnant. If we rename and un-parent as I suggest, Hatshepsut will still be a "female pharaoh" and thus an "ancient Egyptian queen regnant". Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support (with caveat as just mentioned), it is silly to have this category parented to a regents category while (at least in the 8th and 9th century) none of the articles are about regents. They are quite different. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Utica Pentups players to Category:Utica Pent-Ups players

Nominator's rationale: There are three separate categories for players on the same minor league baseball team with the only difference being formatting. They are Category:Utica Pent Ups players, Category:Utica Pentups players and Category:Utica Pent-Ups players. While it is policy to have different categories for the same team when it changes names (e.g. Category:Washington Commanders players and Category:Washington Redskins players), the distinction here is so minute that I don't think it justifies having three separate categories. It should also be taken into consideration that this team played in an era when team nicknames were far from official and could be formatted differently within the same newspaper article (if the nickname was used at all). The corresponding article name is Utica Pent-Ups and that seems the most reasonable target category to me; it seems to be a happy medium between "Pent Ups" with a space and no hyphen and "Pentups" with no space or hyphen. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 18:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

P.S. I'm sorry for creating two separate nominations but Twinkle didn't give me an option to propose merging more than two categories. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 18:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge Since this is too granular. We can leave a redirect if appropriate. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Utica Pent Ups players to Category:Utica Pent-Ups players

Nominator's rationale: There are three separate categories for players on the same minor league baseball team with the only difference being formatting. They are Category:Utica Pent Ups players, Category:Utica Pentups players and Category:Utica Pent-Ups players. While it is policy to have different categories for the same team when it changes names (e.g. Category:Washington Commanders players and Category:Washington Redskins players), the distinction here is so minute that I don't think it justifies having three separate categories. It should also be taken into consideration that this team played in an era when team nicknames were far from official and could be formatted differently within the same newspaper article (if the nickname was used at all). The corresponding article name is Utica Pent-Ups and that seems the most reasonable target category to me; it seems to be a happy medium between "Pent Ups" with a space and no hyphen and "Pentups" with no space or hyphen. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge Since this is too granular. We can leave a redirect if appropriate. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Defence organisations based in Barbados to Category:Organisations based in Barbados

Nominator's rationale: "Defence/Defense organisations/organizations" is ambigious name. E.g. we have "Civil defence organisations", but not the case here Estopedist1 ( talk) 14:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge if only per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as proposed by BrownHairedGirl ( talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923)
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to the United States to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to the United States
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to New Zealand to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to New Zealand
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Canada to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to Canada
• Propose renaming Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Australia to Category:Emigrants from Ireland (1801–1923) to Australia

Nominator's rationale: To correspond with the parent Category:People from Ireland (1801-1923) which is the period from the end of the absorption of the Kingdom of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until it attained / regained sovereignty as the Irish Free State. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - this conflicts with the open cfd which is proposing to use 'Irish'. Category:People from Ireland (1801-1923) was created 2 days ago. Also it should be 1801–1923 (en-dash) per MOS:DATERANGE. Oculi ( talk) 11:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Defer to outcome of conflicting CfD. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Query What conflict? None of these proposals is the subject of the nomination cited above. A mention of an intention to perform another nomination does not give rise to a conflict. I simply got to the nomination table before anyone else. Plus, lest there be any doubt, I did not create Category:People from Ireland (1801-1923). Everyone is free to discuss the nomination as proposed on its own merits. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support Clearer geographic scope. Dimadick ( talk) 19:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Not so, @ Dimadick: see my comment below. There is precisely zero difference in geographic scope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• I do not think this is a conflicting nomination. It is adding a start date to a period that already has an end date. But nevertheless - consistent with the other discussion - I would propose a completely different alternative, namely to upmerge the country subcats and to disperse the four articles. For emigration, the political status of Ireland does not matter a lot. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Re "For emigration, the political status of Ireland does not matter a lot." If that's true then it's also true for Scotland. But Category:Scottish emigrants had 23 subcats. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

    Have I missed something, @ Laurel Lodged? When did the land boundaries of Scotland change? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The upmerge would presumably be to Category:Irish emigrants (amongst others, perhaps), which is not dissimilar to a rename to Category:Irish emigrants. Oculi ( talk) 10:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle the reason for the break in 1923 is that in December 1922 Ireland was partitioned, so by some views, "Irish" no longer referred unambiguously to the whole island.

  However for nearly all other purposes, en.wp categories simply use a Category:Irish fooers with a subcat for Northern Ireland. So I like your suggestion that we should do the same here. I will make an ALT proposal on that basis. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The only ay in which this nomination serves any purpose is split Irish emigrants before an after the year 1801, which is a thoroughly unhelpful idea. Ireland was a unite political entity before the Act of Union 1801, and it remained so after the Union. "So the term Irish emigrant" in 1799 means exactly the same as it did in 1802. The only change of scope happened with partition. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Reply The same could be said of Austrian people. Yet we have Category:Emigrants from the Austrian Empire (a former country like the Kingdom of Ireland), Category:Emigrants from Austria-Hungary (a successor state) and also Category:Emigrants from Austria after the Anschluss. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Laurel Lodged Not so. n some of those Austrian cases there was a change of geographical scope, which doesn't apply here.

  If there wasn't a change of geographical scope, then the Austrian split is a bad idea which should be reversed, not replicated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• A state changing from the islands of Great Britain and Ireland to just 26 counties is not a change of geographical scope? Interesting view. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Please don't play games, @ Laurel Lodged.

  This nom is about is not about 1922; it is about a proposal to add a break point in 1801. That break point is un-needed because "Irish" had exactly the same geographical scope before the 1801 Act of Union as it did afterwards.

  The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland lorded over exactly the same territory in 1799 as he did in 1802.

  "Irish" referred to exactly the same territory in 1799 as it did in 1802. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Apologies. I should have written a state changing from the island of Ireland to the islands of Great Britain and Ireland is not a change of geographical scope? Interesting view. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Still irrelevant. The word "Irish" had exactly the same geographical scope in 1799 as it did in 1802. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• ALT1 based on a suggetion above by Marcocapelle. For nearly all other purposes, en.wp categories simply use a Category:Irish fooers with a subcat for Category:Fooers from Northern Ireland. So we should do the same here. Instead of adding another breakpoint, just remove the existing breakpoint.

• 'Delete Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923)
• Merge
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to the United States to Category:Irish emigrants to the United States
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to New Zealand to Category:Irish emigrants to New Zealand
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Canada to Category:Irish emigrants to Canada
  • Category:Irish emigrants (before 1923) to Australia to Category:Irish emigrants to Australia

That's simpler. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support alt1 per above remarks. It has the added benefit of combining some emigrant categories. Oculi ( talk) 21:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I am opting out of this ill-tempered discussion. Oculi ( talk) 21:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Clarify Let's not go down BHG rabbit holes. Let's keep things calm. It's just putting a pre-date where there is currently just a post date. It was clearly the intent of the category that such a start date existed. The nomination does no more than make the implicit explicit. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Neither date is needed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• That sounds like an attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure. Ireland is a former country of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"; so is the Kingdom of Great Britain, which is why it has its own category of Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Great Britain. This nom is just a scope clarifiation with a "from" date. If BHG wants a wider nom to de-legitimise an entire tree structure, she should create a new set of noms and quit trying to hijack this nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sigh. No of course it's not any such attempt.

  And please withdraw that absurd allegation of a "hijack". Proposing an alternative action is a routine part of XFD discussions, as you should know very well after your many years at CFD ... and your allegation is just another of your disruptive attempts to add acrimony to a CFD debate and to maliciously allege a non-existent motive.

  This discussion just about Ireland, and in particular about the very very very very simple fact which you seem resolutely determined to ignore: that "Irish people" has throughout history referred to people from the island of Ireland, and that the scope of the term "Irish people" was unchanged by the Act of Union 1801.

  If you want to chop up all the biographical categories for Irish people into the subcats for the various states and regimes which have existed on the island of Ireland, then open a WP:RFC where you can set out your case for why we should divide emigrants, lawyers, clergy, writers, lawyers, nuns, medics, farmer, businesspeople etc in this way. There you can explain why this carve-up would improve navigation, which is the central purpose of categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Clarity 2 (1) It's my anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sigh. Job done. (2) There is no conflict. (3) This is not a delete or merge nom. (4) The nomination is just putting a pre-date where there is currently just a post date. It was clearly the intent of the category that such a start date existed. The nomination does no more than make the implicit explicit. (5) The existence of the dates in the current title points to the political nature of the current category, not the ethno-cultural nature of of it (it has none). In short, the scope is about states not ethno-cultural blocks. (6) Sister categories like Category:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Austrian examples show that this is a valid thing to do. See also Category:History of Ireland (1801–1923). (7) This is not the place to attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure. Such an attempt ought to be the subject of an entirely different set of nominations. (8) Brace yourselves for more sighing and possibly worse. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sigh.

  Laurel Lodged continues to ignore the very very very very simple fact that the scope of the term "Irish people" did not change in 1801 ... so there is no need for a split.

  Th rest of LL's comment is irrelevant hot air maliciously false allegations, and is explicit about their desire to troll me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The latter is an unfair assessment, imho. LL tries to keep some humour in this discussion and you take it far too seriously. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

    @ Marcocapelle: it's fine to be humorous, so long as it's done without trying to denigrate the person to whom you are replying. LL repeatedly personalises their replies, and I am sick of it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

    • I disagree that he "denigrates". The two of you are often in disagreement, but Laurel generally keeps it civil, as he has done now. You'd better do the same. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

      There is nothing at all civil in LL's decade-long practice of attributing to me motives which I have not expressed and do not hold.

      LL's smear tactics are uncivil bullying, and I am sick of it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I kindly ask the involved editors to refrain from commenting on each other's behaviour. Please note that assuming good faith is still the expected behaviour and that accusing other people of being too sensitive is at least uncivil. If there is a need to resolve any long-term harassment, the place is elsewhere. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 06:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• • Seconded. Oculi ( talk)

• Support merger to Category:Irish emigrants tree per BrownHairedGirl above. Year of emigration is not a defining feature, it makes no difference (in reality or in law) to an individual if they left Ireland in 1922 or 1923. ITBF ( talk) 12:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 11:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Articles with example Python (programming language) code to Category:Articles with example Python code

Nominator's rationale: So it is named similarly to the other categories with example code. Frap ( talk) 09:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Python (programming language) - it's well-established precedent that we almost never disambiguate categories less than articles. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - I think using "code" probably is enough of an indicator. But WP:PRECISION, nudges me towards keep. - jc37 07:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Marine reserves of Malta ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Only sibling has already proper categories Estopedist1 ( talk) 08:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per WP:SMALLCAT. The one article is already well-populated. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Irish literature by period to Category:Irish-language literature

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 0 C, 2 P; plus " Irish literature" is in the "by country" tree ( Ireland), while Early Irish literature and modern literature in Irish are in the Category:Literature by language tree ( Irish language). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, and it is also ambiguous: it may be interpreted as including English-language literature by Irish authors. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Exactly. Or medieval Latin literature by Irish writers (of which there is a lot). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) -- Qwerfjkl talk 11:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Irish texts to Category:Irish-language texts; re-parenting from Category:History of literature in Ireland to Category:Irish language; purging all non-Irish-language items and subcategories

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C per parent Category:Texts by language and child Category:Irish-language works (which I just added, so it doesn't really count). Child Category:Texts of medieval Ireland (which I've also CfR'd) is not Irish-language-based, as its grandchild Category:Latin texts of medieval Ireland shows. So child Category:Texts of medieval Ireland must be removed. Finally, parent Category:History of literature in Ireland is inadequate, because Irish-language texts can be written outside Ireland, and literature in Ireland can be written in Latin, English etc., so re-parenting to Category:Irish language is due. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comments - I'm looking at Literature and Text (literary theory). And I'm wondering why we have separate trees for them. Semantically, one could argue that a "text" is the physical object, while the "literature" is what has been written upon the object. But, I think that's where we get manuscript categories. - jc37 08:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, for now, though I oppose the re-targeting of the parents. - jc37 08:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Maltese medallists to Category:Medallists

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 08:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Oculi ( talk) 10:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if 5 articles ever emerge. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Malta in the arts and media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry.

To be noticed that we have three such-named categories yet which probably should be merged/deleted/re-organized:

• Category:Berlin_in_the_arts_and_media
• Category:Lagos_in_the_arts_and_media
• Category:Munich_in_the_arts_and_media Estopedist1 ( talk) 06:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Entrenchments in Malta to Category:Fortifications in Malta

Nominator's rationale: "Entrenchments in" Foo country is unique name. We even don't have the parent Category:Entrenchments Estopedist1 ( talk) 06:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge ( non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Traditional medicine in the Maldives to Category:Health in the Maldives

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 05:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge Getting up to 5 articles seems unlikely. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge Too small. Creation of articles seems unlikely. There is also not any material in the Maldivian Wikipedia to show it is expandable. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 10:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:International baseball competitions hosted by France to Category:Baseball in France, Category:International baseball competitions in Europe and Category:International sports competitions hosted by France

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (3 P). – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Object: With three articles it is not a "small" category and anyway it is part of a category tree for "International baseball competitions hosted by country” which includes 24 countries! Why leave one country out? Team sports like baseball or cricket are more likely to have international competitions competed for by a country team than sports often competed for by individual sports people.like boxing or judo. Hugo999 ( talk) 11:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Lean toward Merge 3 articles is small but no objection to recreating if it gets up to 5 articles. Hugo999 makes a plausible case that this is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme but, since most countries don't have this category, I don't think one more country not having one will hinder navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Further Comment: Being in a category tree (as here) is what the exemption in WP:SMALLCAT covers. If the articles were upmerged it should be upmerged to Category:International sports competitions hosted by France and Category:International baseball competitions as well as Category:Baseball in France. Hence the excemption as many article writers will not put a new article into all three categories. And who is going to check if the potential category reaches five article? Hugo999 ( talk) 11:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 05:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The merge targets Hugo999 identified make sense, if we end up merging this cat. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Belarusian mineralogists‎ (1 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belarusian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Belgian mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belgian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Brazilian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Brazilian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Bulgarian mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Bulgarian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Chinese mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Chinese geologists
• Propose merging Category:Dutch mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Dutch geologists
• Propose merging Category:Estonian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Estonian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Hungarian mineralogists‎ (1 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Hungarian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Indian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Indian geologists
• Propose merging Category:New Zealand mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:New Zealand geologists
• Propose merging Category:Pakistani mineralogists‎ (1 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Pakistani geologists
• Propose merging Category:Polish mineralogists‎ (3 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Polish geologists
• Propose merging Category:Romanian mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Romanian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Slovenian mineralogists‎ (4 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Slovenian geologists
• Propose merging Category:Spanish mineralogists‎ (2 P) to Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Spanish geologists

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. WP:SMALLCAT is for categories with limited or no expectation or possibility of growth (such as Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor). These categories do not fit that criteria. All have potential for growth. I also don't see what the cut off point is: Category:Danish mineralogists has five entries, Category:Finnish mineralogists has four entries. Plus, I personally find it easier to navigate by specific terms. ExRat ( talk) 05:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Obvious delete. We do create categories if we already have members, 5+ members are good, 3+ are acceptable. If 1-2 members, almost alwyays to be deleted. Pinging the keeper user:ExRat-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 05:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. That isn't what WP:SMALLCAT states at all. WP:SMALLCAT is for categories that have no potential for growth. It is for categories that are, by nature, extremely limited and can't possibly ever be enlarged. Examples would be Category:Xhosa-speaking countries or Category:Norwegians who fought in the Second Upper Peru campaign, which are limited in nature and can never be enlarged. All of the nominations have potential to be enlarged and don't fit the SMALLCAT criteria. ExRat ( talk) 06:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Recreate when more Belarusians can be found. Oculi ( talk) 10:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep for Slovenian mineralogists. It has 3 articles and is certainly expandable. In the Slovene Wikipedia, it has 6 at the moment. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 18:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Valentin Vodnik doesn't mention mineralogist at all; Albin Jarić has an unsourced mention. So Category:Slovenian mineralogists‎ has one valid member. Oculi ( talk) 21:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. Thanks for pointing this out. I have added a few words on that in Valentin Vodnik (the source contains: "he had the opportunity to combine his love for the mountains with his interest in mineralogy where he invested a lot of his time"), whereas the other article contains reference No. 3, which explicitly states that he studied "in Ljubljana at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Mineralogy" and then worked as a junior researcher. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 02:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Albin Jarić - being a student of mineralogy does not make one a mineralogist; his research was at "the Metallurgical and Mining Institute" (which does not make him a metallurgist or a miner either). Was he notable as a mineralogist: obviously not. Oculi ( talk) 13:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a discussion about categories. We're not discussing notability but whether mineralogy is defining for him. Obviously he was a mineralogist since he studied at the department of mineralogy and then people employed in mining/metallurgy also frequently research mineralogy. You're trying to split the indivisible here. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 01:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• This is a category (tree) by occupation, not by education. His occupation is student. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't follow your logic. It's clearly stated that he completed hia studies and worked as a junior researcher. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 10:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. I have added another article which is available at Stanko Grafenauer. I can add more. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 03:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge for Now with no objection to recreating cats later if they ever reach 5 articles that belong there. The "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" exception in WP:SMALLCAT does not endorse having whole trees of underpopulated subcatgories. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's exactly what it does - what is the point of it otherwise? Johnbod ( talk) 16:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The point is that an incidental subcategory in an otherwise (nearly) complete tree is omitted. This tree is far from complete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. Different editors see this differently; for example, the number of at least 3 members is mentioned above which seems reasonable to me. In addition, per WP:SMALLCAT, the category must have some potential for growth. -- TadejM ^{my talk} 15:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Obvious Keep WP:SMALLCAT says "... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which is the case here. If this nom were to create a precedent, heaven knows how many thousands of categories would be impacted. It's nice to see new faces here, but merging this would be a terrible precedent, as well as appearing to favour the large and rich countries that have 5+. It's very easy to say "Recreate when more Belarusians can be found", but, Oculi, are you going to keep an eye on the main Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belarusian geologists to see if this has happened? Johnbod ( talk) 16:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Mineralogists by nationality is hardly large. I am not interested in either Mineralogy or Belarusia, but those who are can put Category:Mineralogists‎ and Category:Belarusian geologists on their watchlists and pounce once another 3 or 4 can be found. WP:NARROWCAT might be a better rationale - there is no need to intersect these 2 categories as the combination of Belarusian and Mineralogists‎ is not defining, indeed far from it. ( Belarus wiki has only found the same lone Mineralogist.) Looking deeper into this, the lone Belarusian Ignacy Domeyko (1802-1889) in fact spent 50 years in Chile, and is categorised as Chilean, Belarusian, Lithuanian and Polish, as well as 'from the Russian Empire' and is one of the 3 in Category:Polish mineralogists‎. His mineralogy was nothing whatever to do with Belarus or Poland (or Lithuania): he should only be in Category:Chilean mineralogists‎ (so Category:Chilean geologists should also be watchlisted). Oculi ( talk) 22:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• If a few small categories are needed to complete a set, I'm all for that. But if most of the categories are anemic, that's not an "accepted sub-categorization scheme" and it makes navigation choppier for readers. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep all of these have clear expansion potential. ITBF ( talk) 14:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

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