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:Fictional monster hunters. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Fictional werewolf hunters to Category:Fictional monster hunters

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this category solely hunts werewolves, suffice it to say it's so tiny as to be an unnecessary WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose AHI-3000 ( talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. There's no reason to distinguish by type of monster hunted given the size of the category. If the population grows, then it can be recreated. Mason ( talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Support per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The world (and this category) needs more werewolf hunters. Keeping us safe from lyncanthropes! Cbl62 ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fictional paranormal investigators. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Fictional occult and psychic detectives to Category:Fictional paranormal investigators

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be a pretty large WP:OVERLAPCAT here. Two separate categories on the same thing isn't necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support AHI-3000 ( talk) 22:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Ion Dragoumis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There's only a page and a template in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 19:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Mason ( talk) 20:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Greek journalists by century to Category:Greek journalists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This only has one category in it, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 19:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Giovanni 0331:. I'm going to close this nomination, now that you've made two other categories. However, please populate them so that they have more than a handful of people in them. Mason ( talk) 20:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:1901 college football season. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:1901–02 NCAA football bowl games to Category:1901 college football season

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in this category. Let'srun ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. It is an accepted consensus that all years with a bowl game should have an individual category for the bowl games. I do not understand why this year should be the only exception out of 100+. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The NCAA wasn't established until 1906 so the name itself is anachronistic and needs to be changed.-- User:Namiba 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• It may be an idea for the future to create decade categories and merge all years to decades until 1939. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I like that idea. Rename Category:College football bowls prior to 1939 and merge the others into it.-- User:Namiba 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Though, what's special about 1939? Why is that the best cutoff? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

That's a fair question. Perhaps we would better off by decade? Category:College football bowls in the 1910s and so on?-- User:Namiba 18:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• That is what I had in mind. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  However, then the category Category:College football bowls in the 1900s, which is what would happen to this category, would still have one entry (i.e. no difference). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • True, that would only help for the 1910s and up. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 ^{T-- C} 17:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Namiba. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Combine into newly created cat for Category:College football bowl games, 1901–1933 or Category:College football bowl games prior to 1934. All of the cats in earlier years have only one (occasionally two or three bowls). The bowl process started to proliferate more in 1934. The combined category will automatically sort by year, and this seems like a substantially more efficient categorization structure rather than having 30 or so cats with minimal entries. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  This would still violate WP:OCMISC in my opinion. – Aidan721 ( talk) 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge Since the NCAA didn't exist yet. Open to broader improvements to this category tree in a later nomination. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Unassessed vital articles by level ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subcategories
• Propose deleting Category:Unassessed vital articles by topic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subcategories

Nominator's rationale: All vital articles should be assessed so it is useful to have Category:Unassessed vital articles to track these. However it is unnecessary and excessive to divide them into levels and topics. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 12:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment, as above, the subcategories are neither listed here nor tagged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have described them exactly above. I will take any required actions if the the result is delete. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 15:17, 12 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, Qwerfjkl talk 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Level-unknown vital articles by quality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subcategories
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles by topic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subcategories

Nominator's rationale: All vital articles should have an assigned level so it is useful to have Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles to track these. However it is unnecessary and excessive to divide them by quality and topic — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 12:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Procedural oppose, some subcategories are not empty, so if the nominated categories aren't kept, they should be merged somewhere rather than deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I intend to change the template so that these categories are not populated anymore. They will still be in Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 18:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the suncategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• My procedural oppose is meanwhile moot. The categories can be deleted if only because they are permanently empty now. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Books of photographs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Photographic history books to Category:Books of photographs

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, having only 2 articles in the category is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Yep. Agree with nom. 21:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 ( talk • contribs)

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) 21:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Vital articles in an unknown topic by quality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subcategories
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic by level ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subcategories

Nominator's rationale: All vital articles should have a topic so it is useful to have Category:Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic to track these. However it is unnecessary and excessive to divide them by quality and topic — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 12:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ MSGJ: do you intend to nominate the subcategories too? If so, you need to list them here and tag the category pages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I wrote "and all subcategories" above. I don't really have time to tag every single page ... — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 18:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ MSGJ: then someone else has to do it, or the discussion will end in a procedural close without action. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

    Well that would be a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy, wouldn't it? If this discussion results in consensust to delete, then I will carry out all needed further actions. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 20:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged all the subcategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Disperse between Category:Fictional characters with disabilities and Category:Fictional characters by physical feature. It's difficult to find any consensus in this fragmented discussion, but this (expressed as "merge") seems to have the most support and there is clearly a consensus the current situation is unideal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters with physical and congenital disorders to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this category. There isn't a need to divide disabilities by physical and mental. Mason ( talk) 16:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Fictional characters with physical disorders instead, to provide a clear and distinct counterpart to Category:Fictional characters with mental disorders. AHI-3000 ( talk) 08:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Quite a few subcategories aren't about disabilities per se. I would rather suggest renaming the category to Category:Fictional characters by medical or psychological condition - similar to Category:People by medical or psychological condition - and downmerge Category:Fictional characters with disabilities into it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  I'd be in support of the rename, but I would not support the downmerge. Disability is not the same as a medical or psychological condition Mason ( talk) 22:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The disorders categories do belong in a medical or psychological condition, but dyslexia not so much so that one should be purged with the downmerge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    Can you walk me through your reasoning for dyslexia not being a medical/psychological condition? Because I consider it to to be one; I'd like to understand. Mason ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

    • I am striking that part of my comment, leaving that discussion to other editors if they want to. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support And purge all that don't fit - we don't need such lengthy and confusingly named categories. This is a textbook WP:ARBITRARYCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Zxcvbnm: but then the subcategories that do not fit should go somewhere else and I still think that Category:Fictional characters by medical or psychological condition would be a good "somewhere else". Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle: I see no real problem with sending those to Category:Fictional characters by physical feature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Ok. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:School buildings in Oregon to Category:Schools in Oregon
• Propose merging Category:School buildings in Idaho to Category:Schools in Idaho
• Propose merging Category:School buildings in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Schools in Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer with one sub-category. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is a whole tree under Category:School buildings that would need to be addressed. Buildings are different than institutions.-- User:Namiba 23:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - So the nominator oringally empties the category, tries to speedy delete it, then now wants to merge it after creating the "University and college buildings in Oregon" category? Which that would be a subcategory of this category. And as the university one demonstrates, not all buildings should be in schools, otherwise the uni/college building category the nominator just created would also be redundant. Aboutmovies ( talk) 01:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Universities and colleges are not schools. They are both educational institutions and would both belong in the educational buildings category. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Universities and colleges are not schools. Spent three years in law school ... they told me it was a school! Should I sue them for fraud? Cbl62 ( talk) 21:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• User:Namiba has a point, i.e. it should become a dual merge also to Category:School buildings in the United States while the school buildings tree still exists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  The only sub-categories of the nominations are members of Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. The entire Category:School buildings in the United States tree is pretty much Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I see, so yeah, then merging to Category:School buildings in the United States is redundant, the content remains in the tree of Category:School buildings anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge Per nom. In practice these are the same things since university buildings are not under schools. (I share Cbl62's confusion as to what that is the case but that broader discussion is for another time.) The NRHP listings generally focus on the building architecture rather than the education that went on there. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Vegetation of New Zealand to Category:Flora of New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason ( talk) 16:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. These are not overlapping at all. Vegetation is different and distinct from individual plant species. Hesperian 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

• Merge. No difference. Gderrin ( talk) 20:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Agree with @ Hesperian:. Strong Keep Flora typically means the plants themselves and should consist of taxon names (& common names for plant taxa). Vegetation typically refers to types of vegetation The distinction should be kept, even though not all contributors understand it. MargaretRDonald ( talk) 05:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If kept it needs to be renamed to make it clearer that these are distinct. The category page includes the following description. "This category is for vegetation communities and types that occur in Australia, such as mallee and mulga. For individual plant taxa, see Category:Flora of Australia" Mason ( talk) 15:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. These are not overlapping at all. Vegetation is different and distinct from individual plant species, as the category page clearly states. It doesn't need renaming either -- the term "vegetation" serves as the name of our article vegetation, and no-one has felt that it needs to be clarified or disambiguated. Hesperian 23:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• The flora category should not be limited to individual species. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That is just a restatement of the proposal: redefining the flora category to encompass both species articles and vegetation articles, is exactly what is proposed. But I don't see a sensible rationale for doing so. The claim that they are overlapping is simply false. They are related but distinct. Hesperian 12:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Flora is all plant life. Vegetation belongs to plant life too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Golly, it sounds like vegetation is a sub-category of flora. Hesperian 10:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep The wording of the nomination itself is a give away by the way it has been created - however, in one point they are separate and not overlapping. There are distinct purposes for the separation. JarrahTree 02:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Flora typically means the plants themselves and should consist of taxon names (& common names for plant taxa). Vegetation typically refers to types of vegetation and as can be seen from the category include mallee lands, vegetation communities and so on which are Australian. The distinction should be kept, even though not all contributors understand it. MargaretRDonald ( talk) 05:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Closing discussion in order to instead propose merge to Category:Malacologists along with other related single-page categories. (non-admin closure) Monster Iestyn ( talk) 01:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Montenegrin Malacologists to Category:Montenegrin malacologists

Nominator's rationale: "malacologists" should not start with a capital letter in this category name. Monster Iestyn ( talk) 03:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy rename per C2A. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ LaundryPizza03 Ah whoops, I forgot about that speedy rename criteria, thanks. Monster Iestyn ( talk) 16:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Alt merge to Category:Montenegrin scientists and Category:Malacologists, there is only one article in the category which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle: On top of that, Vladimir Pešić appears to be the only Montenegrin-nationality biologist and zoologist currently at least on English Wikipedia, let alone malacologist. There aren't even categories for the former two, but this one was created anyway. While I agree with you, I think the reason I didn't suggest this myself was because I saw other single-article malacologists by nationality categories such as Category:Irish malacologists and Category:Norwegian malacologists, and I wasn't prepared to make this a bigger discussion (maybe I was tired). Monster Iestyn ( talk) 17:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:History of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by period to Category:History of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
• Propose merging Category:Years of the 20th century in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to Category:Years in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
• Propose deleting Category:20th century in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
• Propose merging Category:20th-century establishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to Category:Establishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by decade
• Propose merging Category:20th-century disestablishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to Category:Disestablishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by decade
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by century
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by century

Nominator's rationale: Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands only existed within one century. Merge/delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#Category:Establishments in Gran Colombia by century. Manually merge parent categories for C20 onto target cats. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support extra layers not needed for a former jurisdiction that only existed in one century. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Years of the 20th century in the Trucial States to Category:Years in the Trucial States
• Propose deleting Category:20th century in the Trucial States
• Propose merging Category:20th-century establishments in the Trucial States to Category:Establishments in the Trucial States by decade
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Trucial States by century
• Propose deleting Category:Centuries in the Trucial States

Nominator's rationale: Trucial States only existed within one century. Merge/delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#Category:Establishments in Gran Colombia by century. Manually merge parent categories for C20 onto target cats. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom Mason ( talk) 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus on Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software programmed in Java (with no prejudice against speedy renomination); dual merge the others as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software programmed in Java to Category:Java platform software and Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software for Linux
• Propose merging Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software that uses GTK to Category:Software that uses GTK and Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software for Linux
• Propose merging Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software that uses Qt to Category:Software that uses Qt and Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software for Linux

• Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Unhelpful for navigation. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support GTK and Qt/Neutral on Java GTK and Qt are clearly NARROWCAT. The Java one is well populated but I defer to others whether that intersection is defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge GTK and Qt, very poorly populated categories, that is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Chicago Dental Infirmary football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun ( talk) 12:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Upmerge. This should be upmerged to Loyola Ramblers football Mason ( talk) 15:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep? - see below argument. We always have categories for different college teams - this seems to have been different than Loyola? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete for now. Neutral on the seasons subcat nomination but this layer doesn't aid navigation regardless. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Merging is not needed because the subcategory is already in Category:Loyola Ramblers football seasons. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete without administering novocaine. Per the article on the Chicago Dental Infirmary, it only operated as such from March 12, 1883, until June 30, 1884. It was thereafter rechartered and became the "Chicago College of Dental Surgery". So this category is premised on a misnomer, and it appears there was never any such thing as "Chicago Dental Infirmary football". The sources listed at 1897 Chicago Dental Infirmary football team confirm that the school was then known as the "Chicago College of Dental Surgery" (e.g., here and here), and not the "Chicago Dental Infirmary". Pull the lone tooth from this category and it becomes an empty and useless dental alveolus. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Chicago Dental Infirmary football seasons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category Let'srun ( talk) 12:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Upmerge. This should be upmerged to Loyola Ramblers football seasons Mason ( talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep? - generally we keep all categories for different college football seasons, even when there is just one article. Chicago Dental Infirmary seems to have been a different team than Loyola? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

• Delete, there is only a redirect and a subcategory. (I am not sure about merging to Loyola Ramblers football seasons.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. As far as I can tell. This team was not a precursor to the Loyola Ramblers team, but rather the only association is that Chicago Dental Infirmary was merged into the dental school at Loyola Chicago in 1926. At the time they were separate institutions with no relation. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and once again sans novocaine. See my rationale on the master category. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting:

• Category:User_iu-N

Nomiantor's rationale: These are not the sort of categories that should be kept despite being empty. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Not sure why these categories exist. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete all as empty per WP:CSD#C1. The usage of Template:possibly empty category is inappropriate for these categories and I'm not sure why that would have been added. That template is reserved for cleanup categories that often get emptied and then repopulated, these categories don't fit into that mold. VegaDark ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I agree with you in theory that these should be speedyable, but I generally prefer to get explicit consensus before undertaking mass actions, so here we are. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment do the language user boxes autocategorize into "CAT:User ISO639" base category if the "-X" skill level subcategory is missing? -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  It depends. If they are done by #babel: then it will cause Babel AutoCreate to recreate the category; If they are done by a template then it will most likely populate the category despite being red, and someone on WantedCategories patrol will recreate it. But most of these have been empty for years or longer, so that's unlikely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Category:Actresses by city or town in France to Category:French actresses by populated place
• Category:Actresses by city or town in China to Category:Chinese actresses by populated place
• Category:Actresses by city or town in Canada to Category:Canadese actresses by populated place Category:Canadian actresses by populated place
• Category:Actresses by city or town in Brazil to Category:Brazilian actresses by populated place
• Category:Sportspeople by city or town in Portugal to Category:Portuguese sportspeople by populated place

Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_1#People_by_populated_place_in_the_United_States: 1) using denonym per WP:C2C; 2) using "populated place" instead of "city or town" per recent discussions; 3) having the splitter at the end of the category name, per convention.

@ Aidan721, Smasongarrison, and Paul 012: pinging contributors to speedy discussions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom Mason ( talk) 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom except "Canadese" should be "Canadian". Also tagging sibling categories in Category:Actresses by country and populated place and Category:Sportspeople by country and populated place for consistency.

• Oppose as proposed. As I mentioned at CFDS, it should be Category:Actresses from France by populated place to be in line with the results of the previous CfD in October. If a change is desired from that format, all the previously moved categories should also be tagged for renaming. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  That discussion involved moving the splitter from the middle to the end. This discussion is about changing "Actresses from Foo" to "Fooite actresses" following the tree Category:People by occupation and nationality and city. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Okay, I just saw the December CfD. The problem here is that we now have conflicting precedents: The October one was for People from Foo by place, while the December one was for Fooian people by place. I've struck my oppose here, but a follow-up nom is needed to reconcile the whole tree one way or the other. (And for that matter, I still think the People from Foo format is preferable as the one that properly reflects the member categories. Being considered to be "from" a place does not imply one must have that place's nationality.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 00:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:American rock music genres to Category:Rock music genres
• Propose merging Category:British rock music genres to Category:Rock music genres
• Propose merging Category:American hip hop genres to Category:Hip hop genres
• Propose merging Category:British hip hop genres to Category:Hip hop genres

Nominator's rationale:

Such division by country of origin is of no practical use, and it only creates difficulties with categorisation, which will never be correct in this environment.

Firstly, most of the genres are duplicated in two categories, because many genres have both US and UK country of origin in their infoboxes at the same time. The practical sense of this division is lost in 60% of cases for rock categories, and in some cases for hip-hop. I personally don't see any practical convenience in constantly switching between these two categories in an attempt to figure out which genres are truly exclusively British.

Secondly, genres often have roots in other countries besides the US and UK, but there are no categories for this and will not be, but they will be placed in these two categories rather than in the general category (e.g. Reggae rock). And it's unclear whether or not such genres should be placed in those categories and such situations.

Thirdly, in a situation when there are major genres with their own sub-genres and globalisation is a thing, such a hierarchy cannot be correctly arranged by country of origin. You put a major genre in one category, and it has its own nested categories for subgenres that were created all over the world. For example, Category:Heavy metal genres is now located only in "American rock music genres" and "British rock music genres", while it has a huge number of sub-genres created in individual European countries. And it turns out that the categorisation tells you that Celtic metal is an American and British genre.

So I suggest remove the categories and move their content to Category:Hip hop genres and Category:Rock music genres respectively. Solidest ( talk) 07:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

P.S. For American hip hop I created Category:American hip hop scenes a few years ago, which is both much more specific and would avoid all the problems described above. Solidest ( talk) 08:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom and WP:OVERLAPCAT. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:16th-century Franco-Flemish composers. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:17th-century Franco-Flemish composers to Category:16th-century Franco-Flemish composers

Nominator's rationale: merge, the Franco-Flemish School flourished from about 1430 to 1620 so very little in the 17th century, and all articles of this category belong in the 16th century too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Death in Italy. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Death in Italy by place to Category:Death in Italy

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. It's unhelpful for navigation to have two cities tucked away from the parent category. If kept, it should be renamed to "by location" or "by city" Mason ( talk) 05:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Deaths by explosive device. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:People executed by explosive device to Category:Deaths by explosive device

Nominator's rationale: Extremely small category. Upmerge for now. Mason ( talk) 05:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Read the story of Eugenio Calò. How did the Nazis even come up with such sick shit? Nonetheless, the upmerge makes sense. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:History institutes. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 00:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Historical research institutes to Category:History institutes

Nominator's rationale: These appear to refer to the same type of research institutes. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, or if there is any difference between the two categories then it should be clarified much better. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support merge They are almost same. killer bee  15:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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