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:

Dummy section since I erroneously told the bot to process this nomination using the wrong day. The correct discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 5#Category:Actors from London by locality. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Geneseo Knights football to Category:Geneseo Knights

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category for a long defunct program. Let'srun ( talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Part of well-established categorization scheme. Potential for growth. Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Jweiss11. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 20:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Support per nom. There's no need to have a category with a single subcategory. It's unhelpful for navigation. "Potential for growth" has been depreciated. Mason ( talk) 01:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 16:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge for Now It was created in 2019, the potential for growth doesn't seem very imminent but no objection to recreation if a few relevant biographies articles are ever created. . - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Manhattan Athletic Club football seasons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun ( talk) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to merge. I don't see the point in dragging this out another week when it's already been idle for two weeks without any discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Prosecutors general to Category:Attorneys general
• Propose merging Category:Prosecutors general by nationality to Category:Attorneys general by country

Nominator's rationale: My understanding is that these are effectively synonyms for the same general role, per Attorney general Mason ( talk) 22:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• There are a few subcategories, e.g. Category:Directors of Public Prosecutions of Australia that would probably not fit under the target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (I.e. uphold previous closure.) (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Native American people from the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Native American people from California

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Not a defining intersection between part of california and ethnicity. Mason ( talk) 05:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened this per User talk:Qwerfjkl#Please Re-list CFD section that was closed with no real discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It's awfully disappointing to have this Category blithely dismissed as merely a random intersection - with no actual discussion, just the all-too-easy "Merge per nom". In reality, it reflects the fact that Native Americans who live in the San Francisco Bay Area are understood to be part of a regional community.
  The term "Bay Area Native American community" (or some variant) is regularly invoked, as is readily apparent from a wide assortment of online articles and other items that discuss one or another aspect of the SF Bay Area's Native American community. Many of them refer to the "SF Bay Area" right in the headline. I will append a small sampling of these below.
  I should also mention that I listen regularly to a weekly radio program called "Bay Native Circle" - which is produced by and for Native Americans in the SF Bay Area.
  I want to begin with something from right here on Wikipedia:

  Ohlone#Indian_People_Organizing_for_Change

  Indian People Organizing for Change (IPOC) is a community-based organization in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its members, including Ohlone tribal members and conservation activists, work together in order to accomplish social and environmental justice within the Bay Area American Indian community.

• It's also worth noting that we have the Wikipedia Category:Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area - created by another editor - which should serve as an additional, very obvious parent cat for this Category. I think we can safely assume that editor would also weigh in against merging this category.
  Lastly, I just want to remind editors who don't live here to bear in mind that California is a really large state, in terms of both geography (over 1000 miles from top to bottom) and population (40 million people!). It's more like a whole country, with a variegated population - and a full range of landforms and diverse regional cultures, as well. The San Francisco Bay Area stands out as one of the more distinctive in that regard.
• Okay, here's that small sample of items I promised above:

1) American Indian Cultural District of San Francisco - Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AmericanIndianCulturalDistrict
The purpose of the American Indian Cultural District is to honor and celebrate the San Francisco Bay Area Native American Community's culture, history, and contributions.

2) Muwekma Ohlone Tribe
https://www.muwekma.org
The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose.

3) Ohlone women fighting to get back their land, cultural heritage in Bay Area
https://abc7news.com/ohlone-women-te-land-trust-indigenous-peoples-day-native-americans/11109855/

4) Bay Area's indigenous community builds a better future by reconnecting with their past
https://abc7news.com/native-american-indigenous-peoples-what-is-san-francisco-people/11268455/

5) "Bay Area American Indian Two-Spirits (BAAITS) exists to restore and recover the role of Two-Spirit people within the American Indian/First Nations community..."
https://www.baaits.org
(For those who may not be familiar with the term "Two-Spirit", it's a term used in many Native American cultures for individuals who would be referred to as LGBTQ in the mainstream world.)

• There are lots more such examples, but I think these should suffice.
  Anomalous+0 ( talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• That may result in a Category:Ohlone people which would be a far more relevant intersection than a general category by region. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I would be in favor of creating categories by specific groups (is that the right word?) of Native American people instead which region they happen to live near. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I've gone ahead and created Category:Ohlone people. However, that doesn't obviate the need for Category:Native American people from the San Francisco Bay Area, because only about half of the articles that belong in it are for people of Ohlone ancestry. SEE BELOW for further response. ~ Anomalous+0

• Note we already have Category:Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area.-- User:Namiba 12:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, I made note of that above - and pointed out that it should serve as an additional, very obvious parent cat for this Category.

  And as I also said above, I would assume that the editor who created that category would also weigh in against merging this category. I have refrained from contacting him/her about this CFD discussion, but since you brought it up, @ Namiba:, would you like to do so yourself? Anomalous+0 ( talk) 12:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  You might have missed that your above comment is replying to Namiba themself. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I will start my response by saying that living in the SF Bay Area is not mere happenstance, merely an accident of geography - especially for Native Americans. The SF Bay Area comprises 9 counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay - which has always served as a focal point for people in the region, dating back centuries for the Indigenous population. It has developed a socio-cultural milieu of its own that sets it apart from the rest of California.
  That is what is reflected in the many references to the SF Bay Area Native American community that I highlighted in the sample above. It's not just something I dreamed up - so please don't dismiss it just because it doesn't happen to fit neatly into preconceived notions of what constitutes an "acceptable" category. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 00:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. A couple of thoughts here. One, all of the sources presented above give evidence that this is a community, but it does not give evidence that this is a defining community. WP:DEFINING is not a synonym for notable. To be kept, we need evidence that individuals in the community are defined by being in the community. That is a different standard from the existence of the community being well-documented. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

As the original nominator, I want to chime in because I think that @ Anomalous+0 is not understanding what the debate is about. To successfully make the case that the category should be kept, you'd need to demonstrate that people as individuals are regularly being defined as Native American people from the Bay Area. No one is disputing that the community is notable, which is effectively what you're arguing for here. You are making a good case for the page Category:Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area, but that is not the category under discussion. If it were, I'd have voted to keep the category. However, they are different. It isn't a question of whether the category is acceptable, it is a question of whether people as individuals are defined by being native american from a specific area within the state of california. Mason ( talk) 01:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: disperse. There is clear consensus that the category should be deleted, but not where the category members should go. Therefore the members should be recategorised on a case-by-case basis. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Old Cities of Mon people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I kind of feel bad for nominating this category, because it's a perfectly valid concept and it helps make Mon history and culture ever so slightly more visible, but the current title is just so vague. How old is "old", and what makes a city a "Mon city"? It's basically a variation on "Category:Cities historically associated with the Mon people", and "associated with" categories tend to be frowned upon here.

I don't necessarily want to delete this category, but I can't think of any alternative that doesn't have its own problems. "Category:Cities with a majority Mon population that existed before X year" is the best I can come up with, but any cutoff date would be kind of arbitrary. It would also leave out cases like Lamphun and Bago, Myanmar, which are no longer majority-Mon, but were both capitals of important Mon-speaking kingdoms.

Trying to address that with "Category:Capitals of former Mon-speaking kingdoms" would include both Bago and Lamphun, but it would also exclude any historically important cities that were never capitals.

I just don't see a way to keep this category with the same scope, unfortunately. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat ( talk) 07:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Selectively merge to Category:Mon people which appears to be a topic category. Only a few articles need to be recategorized as other articles do not even bother to mention Mon. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Split to "Category:Capitals of former Mon kingdoms" and "Category: Cities of former Mon kingdoms" might work to address an issue you brought up. I think given that Mon (and Category:Mon people) is a culture and historical topic, it would be fine not to describe as specifically Mon-speaking or Mon-majority cities. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: implement the original proposal. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Renaming several related categories:

I propose renaming a substantial group of related categories. I refer to those categories which are subcategories of Category:Underwater diving, but use the word "diving" without "underwater" (or some other disambiguating qualifier, like "professional" or "military", etc) in their names, and are sometimes ambiguous to some degree. The use of the two terms makes it confusing and more difficult to remember the various subcategories. It would be a lot simpler if slightly more tedious to type if they were all renamed to use "underwater diving", and the suggested options from hot cat will be more useful. For example Category:Diving equipment would become Category:Underwater diving equipment and no-one would think it was relevant to springboards. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Request: Can you please identify the specific categories? Twinkle is extremely helpful for nomination formatting. Mason ( talk) 19:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Listed below. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Diving > Underwater diving

• Category:Diving support personnel > Category:Underwater diving support personnel
• Category:Diving engineering
• Category:Diving engineers
• Category:Diving equipment
• Category:Diving equipment components
• Category:Diving equipment configurations
• Category:Diving regulators
• Category:Diving environmental protection equipment
• Category:Diving equipment inventors
• Category:Diving clubs
• Category:Diving equipment manufacturers
• Category:Diving medicine organizations
• Category:Diving medicine
• Category:Diving decompression
• Category:Diving quarries

Diver > Underwater diver

• Category:Diver organizations > Category:Underwater diver organizations
• Category:Diver propulsion equipment

Special cases

• Category:Modes of diving > Category:Underwater diving modes
• Category:Diving qualifications > Category:Underwater diver qualifications

These are what I found. I think I got them all. They include a few cases that are not quite according to the original description, but are similar in concept and could be dealt with at the same time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: None of these are tagged. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged the subcategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

IDK, wouldn't it be more straightforward to disambiguate to diving (sports) and diving (underwater)? Mason ( talk) 02:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't know either. Why would it be more straightforward? Diving (underwater) and underwater diving seem effectively identical. Diving (sports) seems a useful disambiguator for the jumping into the water activity, which may also be the primary topic (never been established, but who knows?) if there is one. There is also an underwater diving activity called Sport diving (sport), and sport diving has historically been used as a synonym for recreational diving, so things are a little confusing at times. My work is in underwater diving, and I have no strong opinions on categorisation of topics for other forms of diving. I can't see any relative advantage to diving (underwater) vs. underwater diving, though underwater diving has become a sort of default on Wikipedia where disambiguation is useful (there are various other modifiers which are unambiguous but only suitable for specific subsets like recreational diving, commercial diving, freediving etc, and imply underwater diving). I assume the workload of converting to diving (underwater) would be significantly larger, so if there is no clear advantage, why do it? I make no claims to being an expert in caregorisation, but probably have the most experience on Wikipedia in underwater diving topics and the writing of our articles on the topic (not my choice, but we do what we can in the absence of anything better), and the proposal is based on gut feel rather than formal research. I am open to persuasion by logical argument and evidence. I would also consider underwater diving and diving (sport) a reasonable set of options. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

It would be more straightforward if you used the standard nomination procedure/formatting. I'm really struggling to envision how this change will look, let alone contrasting it with an alternative proposal. I'm not at the point where I can form an opinion. Mason ( talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Link me to a description and I will reformat if that will help. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support - as the article is Underwater diving and the parent category is Category:Underwater diving, these could all be speedied ( WP:C2C). Perspicax ( talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So far there is support and discussions, and there has been no substantive opposition. The proposed changes are within the scope of guidance, opportunity to oppose has been given, and there is no apparent reason not to close as unopposed. (which I will not do as I consider myself involved) · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:African-American women economists to Category:American women economists and Category:African-American economists

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between race and gender. Mason ( talk) 02:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Dual merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep passing WP:EGRS Uncovering the Contributions of Black Women to Economics, The Two Women Fixing the Pipeline for Black Female Economists, Sadie Alexander: Meet the First Black Woman Economist in the U.S. and so on. Please follow WP:BEFORE. These sources are all easily available. Note: this category went from 1 entry to 28.-- User:Namiba 14:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I did follow WP:BEFORE, however, I don't this warrants an intersection. The problems facing black women social scientists are not specific to economics. Mason ( talk) 20:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

There are a significant number of reliable, independent sources and thus I hope would agree that, if such a head article were written, it would pass WP:GNG. Since such an article could be written, this intersection should be kept.-- User:Namiba 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: There are a number of previous Cfds which have deleted or merged categories by both gender and ethnicity. A few recent ones: this one and this one, and this one. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I count 3 contributors across 3 discussions so that's not exactly setting a precedent. If you disagree with WP:EGRS, make the case and have it changed.-- User:Namiba 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I only gave the ones where I was involved in. I'm sure there are more like these. But these categories are definitely WP:EGRS. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Namiba, Why is it more important that the members of the category are both African-American economists and American women economists combined, than separately? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Because that's how categories work. It is a notable intersection as defined by our guidelines. There are plenty of sources which discuss the intersection in detail.-- User:Namiba 15:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not a helpful (or convincing) answer. What is special about being a black woman economist that isn't covered by being a black woman social scientist? Mason ( talk) 02:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't know how many different ways I have to say this: the sources demonstrate that this is a notable intersection. This is the same reason why the other 16 categories at Category:African-American women by occupation exist. Moreover, your comment misses the mark as your proposal dissolves the intersection. There is no Category:African-American women social scientists category and you have not proposed merging to it.-- User:Namiba 04:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

We do not have to have a category for every notable intersection, and we do not have to not have a category for a notable intersection if there are sufficient members for the category to be useful. I am not convinced that it is useful, but also do not claim that it is not useful. The evidence put forward is not persuasive of usefulness. To whom is it useful and how is it useful. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Presidents of The Uganda Society and purge. There was insufficient discussion on whether an eponymous category containing only the non-people would be useful, so it can be created (and nominated for deletion again) if necessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:The Uganda Society ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: What is "The Uganda Society?" Gjs238 ( talk) 14:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Gjs238, This is an ongoing project and I already explained this to Liz as she had nominated this same category for Deletion because it was empty and now it is not empty. Micheal Kaluba ( talk) 16:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This is an on going big project so many biographies to be documented. So it has not to be deleted! Micheal Kaluba ( talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I think a properly sourced article demonstrating notability of The Uganda Society needs to be created before we can consider a corresponding category. -- wooden superman 16:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Great, Working it! Micheal Kaluba ( talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Lean to delete in absence of a proper main article. If not deleted, rename to Category:Presidents of The Uganda Society per actual content. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Support name change now that an eponymous article has been created. Gjs238 ( talk) 13:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Presidents of The Uganda Society now that article has been created. -- wooden superman 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  The category is more than just about biographies of former presidents but it includes other items like The Uganda Journal, The Uganda Society Library and many others articles of which are being worked on. Micheal Kaluba ( talk) 06:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Please see WP:COPSEP. You shouldn't have biographical articles and non-biographical articles in the same category. If these are valid categories, you'll need both. -- wooden superman 07:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps it was premature to create the category. Gjs238 ( talk) 13:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak rename per Woodensuperman or just delete per WP:OCASSOC. – Aidan721 ( talk) 21:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Presidents of The Uganda Society for now per WP:SEPARATE . No objection to recreating this one later when more content is published. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support as per WP:SEPARATE Gjs238 ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• There is now The Uganda Society, which is not a biographical article. Does that require the non-biographical category? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • And The Uganda Journal Gjs238 ( talk) 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename as nominated. There is a clear cosnensus to rename somewhere, and no real consensus on what name to use so I'm defaulting to the initially-proposed one. This closure does not bar a separate discussion focusing on solely "Skateboarding photographers" vs. "Photographers of skateboarding". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Skate photographers to Category:Skateboarding photographers

Nominator's rationale: Opposed at speedy. Per WP:C2C. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Neither the existing title not the proposed one have particularly obvious scope. Current title appears to be a local usage, which is not ideal. "Photographers of skateboarding" might be clear enough to everyone to be useful. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I would prefer "Skateboarding photographers" over "Photographers of skateboarding". I would say "Skate photographers" is still the most correct and that it is more than a local term. Conversations about photography and skateboarding are most commonly called: skate photography. See skate photography.

  Is "Skateboarding photographers" the more correct category title because it is longer? In this instance, "Skate photographer" is the correct title and not a local usage. Skateboarding photographer is an over-formalized version of it, imho. - Wil540 art ( talk) 06:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Both are correct (per article) but per WP:C2C, it should match the parent category. It is also less confusing, IMO. "Skate photographers" may be confused with other forms of skating. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 16:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Or people who photograph flatfish, for that matter. Some kind of change is clearly needed, and the proposed new title is a little less ambiguous (although it could theoretically refer to photographers who use a skateboard). Grutness... wha? 14:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  And the option Category:Photographers of skateboarding, while summarily rejected, is actually clear, accurate, and unambiguous. Or am I missing something? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:BBC Television Service (TV network) original programming. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:BBC Television Service original programming to Category:BBC Television Service (TV network) original programming

Nominator's rationale: To match the article, currently a redirect. Fuddle ( talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support. This is C2D. Gonnym ( talk) 17:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• No, C2D does not apply to redirects (just a comment, no opinion about the proposed rename). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Fuddle and Gonnym: Why not Category:BBC Television original programming? Since 2020, BBC Television Service redirects to BBC Television. BBC Television Service (TV network) is a new redirect to BBC One, and I don't think the category is intended to be restricted to one channel. I suggest retargeting the new redirect also. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  The intent is to list only one channel, like Category:BBC One original programming, Category:BBC Two original programming, etc. The confusing part is that when there was only one channel, it was called 'BBC Television Service' Fuddle ( talk) 14:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  As Fuddle explains, these categories when set incorrectly are an unhelpful mess. These need to be for the specific network or channel the shows aired for. Gonnym ( talk) 11:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Organic reactions/ Category:Inorganic reactions * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Name organic reactions to Category:Organic name reactions
• Propose renaming Category:Name inorganic reactions to Category:Inorganic name reactions

Nominator's rationale: Per terminology used in major published refs focused on the organic variant, such as:

• Comprehensive Organic Name Reactions and Reagents. Wiley. 2010. doi: 10.1002/9780470638859.
• Handbook of Organic Name Reactions: Reagents, Mechanism and Applications. Elsevier. 2023. doi: 10.1016/C2021-0-02076-9.

The inorganic variant does not seem as widely discussed in the literature, but seems useful to keep these two in sync. DMacks ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: Wikiproject Chemistry notified of this discussion. DMacks ( talk) 22:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Organic reactions and Category:Inorganic reactions in the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Soft support rename. I think being a name reaction could be enough of a defining characteristic that it should be a category. It's not analogous to the example of a category for everyone with the last name Jackson (name). But I will pause recategorizing articles to Category:Name organic reactions and Category:Name inorganic reactions until this is decided Michael7604 ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle: Given name reaction is a notable topic, and that whole compendia of them have been published, it seems a defining characteristic of these certain reactions. It's not "a reaction that has a name", but "a reaction whose name is eponymous". Are you proposing to scrap the Category:Name reactions parent? DMacks ( talk) 21:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  The topic is WP:NOTABLE for an article but I'm not seeing how this is WP:DEFINING for a category. How is one organic reaction different from another based on type of name it's been given? -- RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Definitely an important distinction. My position that it's defining for these articles is based on multiple published compendia that use "name reaction" as their selection criterion and include these articles' reactions. DMacks ( talk) 05:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete the sub-cats. I don't see any value in dividing Category:Name reactions in this way. Having looked at a random selection, I'm left with the strong impression that >90% will end up in Category:Organic name reactions. Name reactions are all unique in their own way and vary between being 'eponymous, because they're important and get used a lot' and 'eponymous, because they're strikingly weird and do things you wouldn't expect'. Trying to sort them into neat piles is a fairly arbitrary process. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 01:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have no doubt that you're right about the "organic" composition here, based on the sizes of commons:Category:Organic name reactions and commons:Category:Name reactions (and how the vast majority of that latter should actually be moved into the former). I'm only weakly in support of having subcategorization of Category:Name reactions--there's a Bonnie & Clyde mess regardless. DMacks ( talk) 02:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Organic reactions and Category:Inorganic reactions, respectively. This seems like a WP:SHAREDNAME issue since we're grouping reactions not by their chemistry but by the type of name we've given them. (If kept, by all means rename per nom.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Could you clarify? Do you mean upmerge Category:Name organic reactions into Category:Organic reactions (and likewise inorganic)? Or side-merge the organic and inorganic with each other? DMacks ( talk) 05:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  The former. Edited my poorly worded iVote above to make my intent clearer. RevelationDirect ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Heads-up: Category:Name reactions is a subcat of a fairly large Category:Eponyms tree full of analogous cats. I have no idea which if any other fields actually choose to highlight the eponymous nature of things in their topic-areas. DMacks ( talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have concerns about most of that tree, and a recent nomination of a different subcategory was closed as "Delete". (For as long as those subcats still exist, Category:Eponyms is needed to hold them though.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 18:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge somehow. Weak preference for Category:Organic reactions and Category:Inorganic reactions as respective merge targets. I agree with Project Osprey that there's not much value in subcategorising this way. Qwerfjkl talk 12:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Alt merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:1965 establishments in the Collectivity of Saint Martin to Category:1965 in the Collectivity of Saint Martin and Category:1965 establishments

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to have this entire category establishments tree for one page. Mason ( talk) 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge but to Category:1965 establishments in North America and Category:1965 establishments in the French colonial empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Marcocapelle. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: until 2007, Saint-Martin (the French part) actually belonged to Guadeloupe, it was not a "Collectivity" (collectvité territoriale) in its own right. Using the name Collectivity of Saint-Martin for this era is anachronistic, in addition to being contrary to common usage, which prefers just Saint-Martin. Place Clichy ( talk) 21:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Happy to have an alternative rename. Mason ( talk) 22:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The naming of Saint-Martin doesn't matter for this nomination. The alt proposal, which is currently supported is to merge to Category:1965 establishments in North America and Category:1965 establishments in the French colonial empire, meaning Category:1965 in the Collectivity of Saint Martin will be deleted as empty (which I'm tagging now). – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support alt merge. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Irish land reform activists to Category:Activists for Irish land reform

Nominator's rationale: in the spirit of categories like Activists for African-American civil rights‎. We should rename it to make it clearer that this category is about the issue, not the activist's nationality. Mason ( talk) 13:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Cannibals. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Female cannibals to Category:Cannibals

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection. It really doesn't matter what gender you are, for cannibalism Mason ( talk) 13:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Manually merge as many articles are already in the tree of Category:Cannibals by nationality. Side note: I wonder whether the tree of Category:Cannibals should be kept since it is largely populated with murderers. It has nothing to do with tribal cannibalism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Fictional engineers by nationality to Category:Fictional engineers
• Propose merging Category:Fictional Serbian people by occupation to Category:Fictional Serbian people
• Propose merging Category:Fictional Yugoslav people by occupation to Category:Fictional Yugoslav people

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one occupation in each category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 13:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Oceanianism to Category:Pacific studies

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a little used term - if used at all. "Oceanianism"-wikipedia returns some 500 ghits, most of which are about the political concept of pan-oceanianism. The term "Pacific studies"-wikipedia, as used by tertiary institutes, returns nearly 2 million ghits. What's more, the key article is at Pacific studies. Grutness... wha? 11:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-Armenianism to Category:Anti-Armenian sentiment
• Propose merging Category:Anti-Armenianism in Asia to Category:Anti-Armenian sentiment
• Propose merging Category:Anti-Armenianism in Europe to Category:Anti-Armenian sentiment
• Propose renaming Category:Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan to Category:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
• Propose renaming Category:Anti-Armenianism in Turkey to Category:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Turkey

Nominator's rationale:The first category can be renamed per main article Anti-Armenian sentiment ( WP:C2D). Then, for Armenia-related topics it is not usefully efficient to split between European and Asian topics, due to the blur and arbitrary nature of the conventional limit between the two: most content ends up being placed in both categories or at the root. There isn't that much content. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename/merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Assistant College football coaches in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:College defensive coordinators in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:College offensive coordinators in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:College quarterbacks coaches in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:College tight ends coaches in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:College running backs coaches in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:College offensive line coaches in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Recently created articles that are non-defining. This is the same author who created the by division category for coaches. There is also Category:College defensive line coaches in the United States which is empty. – Aidan721 ( talk) 05:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete all per nom. Let'srun ( talk) 22:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Television meteorologists to Category:Television weather presenters
• Propose renaming Category:American television meteorologists to Category:American television weather presenters
• Propose renaming Category:Australian television meteorologists to Category:Australian television weather presenters
• Propose renaming Category:British television meteorologists to Category:British television weather presenters
• Propose renaming Category:Canadian television meteorologists to Category:Canadian television weather presenters
• Propose renaming Category:Filipino television meteorologists to Category:Filipino television weather presenters

Nominator's rationale: While there is a distinction between a meteorologist and a weather presenter, it's a technical one that doesn't make a meaningful difference to the television audience, and is hard to effectively maintain as a category.
According to the usage note on this category, it should only be for people who actually have "meteorologist" credentials, while those who don't should just be catted in the generic "weather presenters" without differentiation for nationality or medium -- but the average viewer neither knows nor cares whether their favourite TV weatherperson is a "meteorologist" presenting forecasts they prepared themselves or a "non-meteorologist" presenting forecasts that were prepared by other people, and just wants to know what the weather is going to be.
This is not, for instance, a valid reason why Al Roker should only be in an undifferentiated "presenters" category that fails to sub him out for either "American" or "television" instead of sitting with other American TV weather personalities in a common category for American TV weather personalities -- and given the fact that the average viewer usually doesn't even know whether their weatherperson actually has meteorologist credentials or not, the terms get used far more interchangeably than they should in reality, so non-meteorologists get filed in the meteorologist category and vice versa all the time.
So while there is a technical distinction, this just isn't the best way to go about categorizing for it. Instead of having the category tree separate "television meteorologists" and "television weather presenters who aren't really certified meteorologists" into two separate buckets, we should really just collapse that distinction and treat "television weather presenters without regard to meteorology credentials" and "meteorologists without regard to venue" as two completely distinct things. That is, there should just be one "television weather presenters" category that applies regardless of whether the person is technically a meteorologist or not -- and if the presenter is also a meteorologist, then they should just have the appropriate "meteorologists" category directly applied separately from the category for their TV presenting gig. Bearcat ( talk) 03:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Update: Just to note that sometime after I created this nomination, one new sibling category was created by another user — perhaps because they saw this discussion before doing that (it was a CFD regular who has posted elsewhere to this same daylog), they created it at Category:New Zealand television weather presenters right from the jump. So it doesn't need to be added here, but it warrants mention nonetheless because it probably validates my point. Bearcat ( talk) 23:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

That was me. Apologies if the name I created it at causes problems, but in NZ they're always called weather presenters. BTW, I note that there are by network categories for "weather forecasters" in the UK category, but I presume that's local usage. Grutness... wha? 02:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No, it's not a problem at all. It supports the very point I was trying to make in this nomination. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename, this is a more accurate description of what these people are known for. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Social novels by writer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here. And it is worth pointing out that the only category ( Category:Novels by Khadija Mastoor‎ (1) ) contains a single novel. Delete instead of merge because the lone category is correctly categorized Mason ( talk) 02:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Asian-American women psychologists to Category:American psychologists of Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between race, gender, and occupation. Should be renamed and reparented to the broader race-category. (if kept, it should still be renamed to "American women psychologists of Asian descent") Mason ( talk) 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:American women psychologists per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Merge per Marco. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:American women psychologists of Asian descent. Like so many ethnicity intersections, this is something which passes WP:EGRS. See The invisibilization of Asian American women psychologists in academia: A Call to Action, Asian American Psychological Association and so on.-- User:Namiba 14:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Funnily enough I read that article, before I made the nomination. My take was that the defining aspect wasn't specific to psychology. That being Asian-American and female and a scientist was a notable intersection, but not that the specific kind of science being done was. I could see down the line that we might recreate the category if diffusion is needed, but I don't think we're there now. (For the record, I also think that being Asian-American and a psychologist is notable/defining. But not the three-way intersection). Mason ( talk) 02:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Mountain monuments and memorials ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT User:Namiba 01:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Question: Shouldn't it be upmerged to Category:Monuments and memorials, instead of deleted? Mason ( talk) 02:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Manually merge, most articles are already somewhere else in the tree of Category:Monuments and memorials, but not all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I just went through and added them all to the monuments and memorials tree. More attention appears to be needed toward populating it more broadly though.-- User:Namiba 15:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, in that case the nominated category can be deleted indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:WWE Warrior Award recipients ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD. This an award that the WWE gives its own employees. User:Namiba 00:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete The award actually might be defining to Connor Michalek, or maybe he defines the award. But, otherwise, this is like an employee of the year award and clearly WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:1596 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:16th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1596 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1667 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:17th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1667 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1667 in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:17th century in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1667 in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1713 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1713 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1732 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1732 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1734 in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th century in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1734 in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1742 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1742 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1752 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1752 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1757 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1757 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1780 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1780 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1787 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1787 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1780s in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:18th century in the Kingdom of Naples
• Propose merging Category:1801 in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:19th century in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1801 in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1805 in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:19th century in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1805 in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1811 establishments in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:19th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1811 establishments in Italy
• Propose merging Category:1815 in the Kingdom of Naples to Category:19th century in the Kingdom of Naples and Category:1815 in Italy
• Propose deleting Category:1596 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1590s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1590s in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1660s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1660s in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1713 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1710s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1710s in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1732 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1730s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1730s in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1742 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1740s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1740s in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1752 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1757 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1750s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1750s in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1780 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1787 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1780s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1811 in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1810s establishments in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1810s in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Years of the 16th century in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Years of the 17th century in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Years of the 18th century in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Years of the 19th century in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Naples by year ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Years in the Kingdom of Naples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCYEAR. Not a lot of content or establishments in these categories. Merge up to the century level. – Aidan721 ( talk) 00:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom Mason ( talk) 02:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose Century categories are far too wide to allow the easy location of articles. Dimadick ( talk) 03:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Having a ton of tiny categories doesn't make that easier. Per WP:OCYEAR. "However, avoid creating a category tree of individual by year categories with very few members (see also #NARROW). In that situation, consider grouping them by the next tier up. So for example, instead of grouping by year, group by decade. And then diffuse the by decade categories by year only when necessary. This applies to any time period, like months to years; or years or decades, to centuries." Mason ( talk) 22:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support with regret, the categories are obviously too small and too isolated, but we are merging to Italy as if it were a country while it wasn't yet. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe treating it as a peninsula? - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ RevelationDirect: that is what proponents of the pre-1860 tree for Italy say. But we do not categorize any other peninsulas equally detailed as countries. Besides it would lead to issues about the borders of pre-1860 Italy, i.e. the northern quarter of the current country is not part of the peninsula. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fair point on the northern reaches. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support without Regret These whole trees of tiny categories do not aid navigation per WP:NARROWCAT. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:15, 10 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.