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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Alternate timeline films to Category:Alternate history films

Nominator's rationale: Alternate timeline redirects to Alternate history Gjs238 ( talk) 23:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose - in this case, they are talking about different subject matter. Maybe rename to Category:Films about alternate timelines to avoid confusion. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 21:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• This seems a too specific plot element to categorize by. There is already Category:Films about time travel, that should suffice. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, redundant to Category:Films about time travel and Category:Films about parallel universes. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:02, 22 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters who awoke from a coma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This would seem to fail WP:NONDEF. Unlike in real life, waking from a coma is a common plot device in fiction. It may or may not result in any effects to the person who was in the coma. If it did cause any defining negative effects, the character would probably belong in the "disabilities" category instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Cursory browse of the articles seems to confirm that most of these characters are not defined by the effects of their coma. ― novov (t c) 02:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Seems akin to WP:PERFCAT, albeit for fictional characters. Likely a plot device that is never mentioned again. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose/keep – I understand the rationale, but comas are regularly discussed and reported about in reliable independent sources, such as in the following sourcs: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Additionally, I disagree that these are non defining – the comas really affect the development of the character, which is also affects the plot, the characterisation, the casting and because of it the reception. Additionally, whilst the comas do not often affect the characters greatly physically, they often do mentally; for example, Nina Reeves was in a coma for 20+ years in her universe and this greatly changed the characterisation of the character, and also created many storylines, such as the introduction of her children and finding out who tried to kill her. Another example is Marlena Evans; her coma was used to explain the actress' 4 year gap from the soap, and was then used to create further storylines (source: [6]). The actress was actually unhappy about the character being put into a coma due to thinking that it was stupid. Overall, it is not non-defining as it really affects the character both through in universe and real world perspective. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 01:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  The character waking from a coma affects the plot of the show, but the character themselves is not affected by it. (If they were, there'd be better categories for it, such as Category:Fictional characters with mental disorders). To be defining, something has to have a non-transitory effect on a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:00, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sex workers by cause of death to Category:Sex workers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now, as there's only one category in here. (And yes, I know that I also made the category...) Mason ( talk) 21:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. As the creator, you could also manually merge the sub-category and request deletion via WP:G7. – Aidan721 ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I wasn't sure if it qualified for g7, because another editor has made changes to the category [7]. Mason ( talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  It doesn't look like their edit was substantial, so might pass. – Aidan721 ( talk) 04:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:43, 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Syriac-language writers by century to Category:Syriac writers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. No need to isolate this lone category from Syriac writers Mason ( talk) 20:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:44, 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Women Irish-language singers to Category:Irish-language singers

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that the intersection of language and gender and occupation is defining. (Single merge because all three women are also in the irish women singers categories) Mason ( talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge The intersection does not seem defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:55, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Irish-language singers by century to Category:Irish-language singers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to isolate two underpopulated categories. It's unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge Doesn't aid navigation with the current articles. If this topic are grows substantially, we can revisit. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:56, 22 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Beechcraft Baron ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The subject aircraft carries less than 10 passengers and is primarily used in general aviation, not airline service. Crashes of this aircraft are generally non-prominent per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:ROTM, and the few notable exceptions can be adequately covered in the article about the aircraft type or articles about Wikinotable victims. The category has never received more than 10 daily pageviews. Carguychris ( talk) 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now, only 2021 Palmas FR plane crash properly fits here. No objection to recreate the category when more appropriate articles are available. Also, when deleting the category, 2021 Palmas FR plane crash should be added to Category:Beechcraft Baron Category:Beechcraft aircraft. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle: most light aircraft types don't have their own categories. The aircraft article itself is typically considered adequate to encapsulate any notable accidents or other relevant information. Carguychris ( talk) 00:49, 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: merge to Category:Cessna aircraft. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Cessna 206 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The subject aircraft carries less than 10 passengers and is primarily used in general aviation, not airline service. Crashes of this aircraft are generally non-prominent per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:ROTM, and the few notable crashes can be adequately covered in the article about the aircraft type or articles about any Wikinotable victims. Carguychris ( talk) 18:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge for now to Category:Cessna aircraft, as there is only one article in the category. No objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Merge per Marco. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:05, 23 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 19:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Brazil by religious affiliation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religious universities and colleges in Brazil
• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in India by religious affiliation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religious universities and colleges in India
• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Mexico by religious affiliation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religious universities and colleges in Mexico
• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in the Philippines by religious affiliation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religious universities and colleges in the Philippines
• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in the United Kingdom by religious affiliation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religious universities and colleges in the United Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by religious affiliation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religious universities and colleges in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Currently, the name of this category scheme forces it to be a container category for "Christian universities and colleges in ...", "Islamic universities and colleges in ...", etc. Renaming allows this category to be de-containerized and articles can begin populating these categories where either a small sub-cat would have to be created or the article would be missing from the tree entirely. This rename would align the naming convention with the sub-categories in Category:Religious schools by country. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:20, 21 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 and rename, no consensus to delete, without prejudice against a new CfD focusing solely on deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Anarchists from Austria-Hungary to Category:Austro-Hungarian anarchists

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. "Austro-Hungarian anarchists" has been the default category for three years, this new category was created seemingly without awareness of the existence of the other. No reason for them to remain separated. Grnrchst ( talk) 10:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge but the other way around - i.e. merge "Austro-Hungarian anarchists" to "Anarchists from Austria-Hungary" - since the parent category is Category:People from Austria-Hungary. It is likely also why the creator was not aware of its existance since all the category names are formatted the same way except for "Austro-Hungarian anarchists". Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom, to the older page, and possibly rename that one to Category:Anarchists from Austria-Hungary thereafter. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge and rename as above comment. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but "Austro-Hungarian anarchists" seems less useful as a category (are there many people in this category who are more commonly described as "Austro-Hungarian" than "Austrian" or "Hungarian"?). -- asilvering ( talk) 07:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Asilvering: Honestly, I doubt the usefulness of the category entirely. Each of the entries in either category could just as easily be fit under Category:Austrian anarchists or Category:Czech anarchists. In fact, most of them already are. But deletion is a separate discussion. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Grnrchst agreed, though I suppose I don't really see the harm if those entries are in Austrian and Czech and so on as well. This isn't a problem just with this category; there's some really bizarre stuff going on with "... from the Russian Empire" too. I assume they were all created at some point when things changed from "American people" to "people from the United States" basically across the board. I'd just as soon see this and similar categories deleted. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Both are redundant to existing categories. czar 15:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough. I've struck my merge - should we also list Category:Austro-Hungarian anarchists? -- asilvering ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I would also supported deleting both. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged Category:Austro-Hungarian anarchists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strongly oppose deletion. They were in fact citizens of Austria-Hungary. Austrian and Czech are anachronisms, or ethnicities at best. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Oppose deletion for the same reason. Being an anarachist in Austria Hungary specifically is what makes these people defining. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  It isn't defining in any meaningful way. Two of them (Kácha and Landová-Štychová) were in self-defined Czech organisations before and after the fall of Austria-Hungary, and the other two (Peukert and Havel) spent most of their lives outside of Austria-Hungary in London and the United States, where they did most of their notable work. Nothing in their biographies gives the impression that "being an anarchist in Austria-Hungary specifically" was a defining characteristic. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 18:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Josef Peukert wasn't even of Czech ethnicity. If they were active as anarchists in other countries than Austria-Hungary then they should be categorized by that country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

    I never said Peukert was of Czech ethnicity... -- Grnrchst ( talk) 19:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle: It is utterly appallingly inaccurate to claim the demonym of "Czech" is an anachronism. Luisa Landová-Štychová and Michael Kácha were both members of specifically (and self-defined) Czech anarchist and socialist organisations when the Austria-Hungary existed, and continued to be active in Czech organisations after the formation of Czechoslovakia. Explain to me how "Czech" can possibly be an anachronism when they literally described themselves as such? Grnrchst ( talk) 18:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Grnrchst, I think you're taking this a bit too personally. The point is that there is no point in deleting the categories because they were citizens of Austria-Hungary which had a diverse group of people within it with many identities. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge as clearly redundant. If there's a broader issue with how we categorize ethnicities from this empire, we can sort that out in a larger nom. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Clarifying my !vote above. I don't think that the arguments of Marcocappelle and Omnis Scientia make any sense from a historical perspective, and I'm really shocked by the assertion that "Czech" is an anachronism. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Austria-Hungary was a proper country until 1918 so I am unsure what you mean when you say that the arguments do not make sense from a historical perspective. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you mean here. Austria-Hungary was a real country and people living there were Austro-Hungarian. Hence anarachists living there are also Austro-Hungarian. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:06, 23 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) 11:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters without a name ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague category that probably falls under WP:TRIVIALCAT. For example, The Outsider from Dishonored is more known for the fact that he's a godlike supernatural being, than the fact that he has no name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 17:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, vague and non-defining, and I could imagine pointless edit wars breaking out over whether a certain character is truly nameless. Carguychris ( talk) 01:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 03:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is an unremarkable characteristic for a secondary fictional character. brides of Dracula is an example. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:33, 21 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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Social groups of Afghanistan to Category:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan
• Propose merging Category:Social groups of India to Category:Ethnic groups in India
• Propose merging Category:Social groups of Nepal to Category:Ethnic groups in Nepal
• Propose merging Category:Social groups of Oman to Category:Ethnic groups in Oman
• Propose merging Category:Social groups of Pakistan to Category:Ethnic groups in Pakistan
• Propose merging Category:Social groups of Russia to Category:Ethnic groups in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Social groups of Syria‎ to Category:Ethnic groups in Syria‎
• Propose merging Category:Social groups of the United Arab Emirates to Category:Ethnic groups in the United Arab Emirates

Nominator's rationale: merge, "ethnic groups" and "social groups" are overlapping concepts. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Please provide a more detailed rationale. The Russia category, for example, includes Russian serfs, kulaks, new Russians, podkulachnik, and Russian oligarch which are categorically not ethnic groups. The only solutions I see are to either create a new, broader umbrella category with an encompassing name, or keep the status quo, perhaps with some articles in both categories.  — Michael  Z. 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment. Probably with the exception of oligarchs and podkulachnik these groups fit the definition. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  No, the others are external descriptions imposed on people. Russian serfs were people of any ethnicity, and no more an ethnic group than slaves, including slaves in Russia. Kulak was supposedly an economic class early on, but it and podkulachnik (“kulak henchman”) became slurs used to dehumanize Ukrainians during the Holodomor genocide.

  None of the articles are in Category:ethnic groups for a reason: they don’t belong there.  — Michael  Z. 19:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose; not all of these are ethnic groups so it is best to keep them seperate. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:45, 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 20:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Turkoman tribes to Category:Oghuz tribes

Nominator's rationale: merge, Turkomans is an outdated term for Oghuz Turks. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment Merge, but one concern I have is that there are also the 22/24 Oghuz tribes mentioned in medieval works. Category:Oghuz tribes currently contains those tribes, while those that were excluded from that traditional division and appeared later in history are part of Category:Turkoman tribes. I believe after the merge a new sub-category should be created to encapsulate those 22/24 tribes. I agree that per Turkoman (ethnonym), the names of these categories refer to the same topic. Aintabli ( talk) 02:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• As the article describes it, the list of 22/24 is not a definitive classification, it is rather a grey area. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It is a historical classification, not something that can be "definitive". They are separate from tribes such as "Rumlu", "Shamlu", etc. which appeared much later.

On a different note, "Turkoman" (or "Turkmen," "Turkman", etc.) is a term that dates back to the medieval ages but is certainly not something "outdated," because modern sources use it very frequently, even more than "Oghuz". If the merge proposal is solely based on that assumption, I would not exactly support it. I am kind of unsure now and have struck my vote. I agree that the distinction between "Turkoman tribes" and "Oghuz tribes" is unclear, because the first refers to the latter, but "Turkoman" is very common (even more, if we take other forms into account) and per sources, could be more appropriate to categorize some tribes as. Aintabli ( talk) 21:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, due to the terms being overlapping. If there is an official or semi-official classification with a fixed list, then that belongs in a list article, as a category cannot be expected to have constant content over time and technicalities of category inclusion are inefficient in regards to sourcing, as opposed to a list. See guideline WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:32, 21 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:New Zealand translators by century to Category:New Zealand translators
• Propose merging Category:Dutch translators by century to Category:Dutch translators
• Propose merging Category:Norwegian translators by century to Category:Norwegian translators

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one century in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason ( talk) 17:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: This is no longer necessary as I have taken the liberty of adding an extra century to each of the nominations, such as Category:21st-century Dutch translators. Giovanni 0331 ( talk) 11:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  If you're going to do that, please populate the categories. Having a single page in the category is not helpful. Mason ( talk) 17:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• When there are only two categories, the intermediate category layer is still not meaningful. So still merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• So make more! Now they each have three. Keep all. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Fayenatic london. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 members in each category currently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak keap for now. Although, Category:19th-century New Zealand translators could be upmerged. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:05, 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Anthropomorphic carnivorans to Category:Anthropomorphic mammals
• Propose merging Category:Anthropomorphic caniforms to Category:Anthropomorphic mammals

Nominator's rationale: Same deal, different category. Using such a specifically scientific term for fictional characters is random and unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 03:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. No need to diffuse by scientific terms. Mason ( talk) 03:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose It's not random or unnecessary, but great for difusion. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Neither random, nor unnecessary. Dimadick ( talk) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Oppose for the same reasons. AHI-3000 ( talk) 09:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories each. Merging will allow easier navigation between the subcategories lower in the tree, e.g. between antropomorphic bears and cats. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge I don't think adding the tree of life scientific terminology is likely to aid navigation for readers interested in non-biological fictional topics. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Support or oppose
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Question: Can one of the opposers (@ StarTrekker@ AHI-3000@ Dimadick) explain how this distinction is helpful and meaningful. Because I am not understanding why we'd need to diffuse this way. I don't see how this isn't random, and I don't see why this is even needed. Mason ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• • Reply Carnivora includes most of the predatory mammals, including the felids, the hyenas, the canines, the bears, the raccoons, the skunks, and the pinnipeds. They tend to play larger roles in fiction than most other mammals. How often have you seen fictional lions, tigers, leopards, etc? Dimadick ( talk) 08:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

    Without any evidence that anthropomorphic carnivorans (as in, the scientific classification) play an outsized role in fiction, this is pure speculation. The sources would have to actually mention carnivorans as opposed to just lions and tigers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I do not understand User:Dimadick's argument. If there are hardly any anthropomorphic lions and tigers then there is certainly no need to leave anthropomorphic cats isolated from anthropomorphic dogs and bears. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I don't either. I really really would need to see some external citations making this case as a defining intersection. Mason ( talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge I don't understand Dimadick's point either - unless readers know what a carnivoran is, which many don't, this division impedes navigation and is not necessary for size management. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 23 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) 11:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Bennett Medical football seasons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun ( talk) 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:24, 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) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The use of the term "victim" to describe these categories is not accurate. Dead characters are not necessarily victims of a crime, while captives or survivors are not necessarily victims of anything either. Given how totally incorrect the usage is, this category should be outright deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose, I think this is an appropriate fictional counterpart to Category:Victims. AHI-3000 ( talk) 05:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, except Category:Fictional victims of crime none of the subcategories fits well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A vague concept, to which none of the content really applies. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Really only the crime victims subcategory belongs. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:09, 22 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.. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Companies based in La Paz, Baja California Sur ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:La Paz, Baja California Sur, and Category:Companies based in Baja California Sur

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 article. Merge for now. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge for now, per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge for Now per WP:MFN and WP:NARROWCAT. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:11, 22 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) 11:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Video games by game mechanic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These still just seem to be genres, not game mechanics. I would otherwise suggest a merge to Category:Video games by gameplay element, but it doesn't seem necessary at all anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 17:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Redundant with incorrect contents. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 11:59, 22 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. @ Marcocapelle, you may want to nominate the subcat. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Environment of Baja California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. The sub-category is already in Category:History of Baja California so no merging is necessary. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete with caveat, it is a redundant layer indeed but the subcategory does not contain history. In fact "environment" describes the content of the subcategory much better. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:34, 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:California women architects to Category:Architects from California and Category:American women architects

Nominator's rationale: per WP:EGRS. User:Namiba 16:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 19:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. If kept, rename to Category:Women's architects from California. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom, not a meaningful intersection. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:13, 22 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) 11:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Dioceses of the Anglican Church of Mexico ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation as all 5 articles redirect to Anglican Church of Mexico. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:36, 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Food Network Star contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:PERFCAT -- wooden superman 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. It doesn't seem to me that this fails PERFCAT because the people who are listed were actively on Food Network Star; they didn't make one-shot apperances. If this category is going to be deleted, then I guess I can look forward to all categories being deleted from its parent category Category:Participants in American reality television series. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I just noticed that you also nominated Category:Top Chef contestants. Is it just a coincidence that you are nominating food reality-based categories for deletion? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:24, 6 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} 15:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. It is not very different from actors by television series. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:05, 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic churches in Taxco ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Buildings and structures in Taxco
• Propose deleting Category:Churches in Taxco ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Merge and delete. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:07, 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic churches in San Andrés Cholula ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:San Andrés Cholula, and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Puebla
• Propose deleting Category:Churches in San Andrés Cholula ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in San Andrés Cholula ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization of one article. Upmerge as below and delete resulting empty categories. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:10th-century Japanese novelists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:10th-century novelists
• Propose merging Category:11th-century Japanese novelists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:11th-century novelists

Nominator's rationale: This tree is not well established until later. These categories only contain 1 article (the same article). The lone article is already in Category:10th-century Japanese poets, Category:11th-century Japanese poets, and Category:Japanese novelists so no additional merging is needed. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:18, 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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Spaceflight before 1951 to Category:20th century in spaceflight

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCMISC. Manually merge as some articles are/should be in Category:1940s in spaceflight and Category:1950s in spaceflight. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom Mason ( talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Manually merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Manually Merge Seems pretty WP:ARBITRARYCAT. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:18, 22 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Iron Chef contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT -- wooden superman 09:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Similar to discussion above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:38, 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Order of Ľudovít Štúr to Category:Recipients of the Order of Ľudovít Štúr

Nominator's rationale: Consistency, clarity Newklear007 ( talk) 09:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:OCAWARD. This is a third level award and the biography articles for recipients don't treat it as defining, generally listing it with other honours. (If kept, by all means rename as nominated.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:23, 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Louis Vuitton exclusive models ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_5#Category:Prada_exclusive_models -- wooden superman 09:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom Mason ( talk) 20:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support, in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:48, 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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Paintings in Haarlem ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already in the right targets. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not aid navigation with current contents. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:21, 22 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: triple merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Spacecraft launched in 1944 to Category:1940s in spaceflight
• Propose merging Category:1949 in spaceflight to Category:1940s in spaceflight

Nominator's rationale: Small category that isn't helpful for navigation. There seems to be a clear cutoff for the category in 1951 ( Category:Spaceflight before 1951 Mason ( talk) 03:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, category:1949 in spaceflight now has two entries. The 1944 category, which could be renamed "1944 in spaceflight", as well as the 1949 category, should be kept for historical importance, as MW 18014 was the first artificial object in space and Albert II was the first mammal and first primate in space. Even Viking (rocket) should be in its own category, "1950 in spaceflight". If single-entry or two-entry categories are allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, and there are many, then these seem applicable. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom per below comment. Not enough content per year in the 1940s to warrant a by year tree. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC) (edited 17:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)) reply
• Additional comment, perhaps it should be a dual merge, also to Category:1944 in science and Category:1949 in science respectively. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• @ Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: I have updated the parenting of some of these cats and would propose this structure for merging: – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Spacecraft launched in 1944 to Category:1940s in spaceflight, Category:1944 in space, and Category:1944 in transport
• Propose merging Category:1949 in spaceflight to Category:1940s in spaceflight, Category:1949 in space, and Category:1949 in transport

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Dual Merge per above. Too narrow to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:35, 22 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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose Merging Category:Railways authorised but not built in the United Kingdom to Category:Abandoned light rail projects in the United Kingdom

• Propose Selectively Recategorizing Leeds and York Railway and Ouse Valley Railway to Category:Abandoned rail transport projects in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and WP:C2C

We have a Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in the United Kingdom tree for projects that may still happen and Category:Abandoned rail transport projects in the United Kingdom for those that won't. This category is currently in the former but the articles should be in the latter since the proposals are all 100 years or so old. The current name is wordy, doesn't follow the naming format of either tree, and I don't think the permitting status is defining. (7 of the 9 articles are light rail, hence the split nomination.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:37, 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) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose Deleting Category:Restaurants in Hillsboro, Oregon

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NOTDIRECTORY
The two articles in this category are both restaurant chains that started in nearby Portland, Oregon and eventually added a location in suburban Hillsboro. WP:NARROWCAT is not an issue though since Yelp shows locations in Hillsboro for Portland-based Little Big Burger, Seattle-based MOD Pizza and Orlando-based Olive Garden. I can see the original location of chain restaurants being defining since it may reflect local culture but there are web sites other than Wikipedia more suited for finding local dining options. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Not useful to categorize chains in that way. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-defining. And don't get me started on the "web sites other than Wikipedia more suited for finding local dining options" and WP:NOTTRAVEL thing when we have a whole host of non-notable WP:ROTM articles at Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon! -- wooden superman 15:48, 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) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:3rd-millennium BC Hindus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't diffuse people by millennia and religion. Only member is already in the grandparent category. Mason ( talk) 03:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:3rd-millennium BC Indian people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only member of the category is incorrectly classified. Not all hindus are indian Mason ( talk) 03:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I have added the article Agastya to Category:3rd-millennium BC Indian people so the category is no longer empty. But, more likely, the article should be removed from all 3rd-millennium BC categories. At least I cannot find confirmation of that in the article text. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 7 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) 02:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• As nobody else replied, I have removed the 3rd-millennium category tags from Agastya and support the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment Yes, Category:3rd-millennium BC Hindus is empty now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

And as Category:3rd-millennium BC Indian people only contains Category:3rd-millennium BC Hindus, it's empty, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 18 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Red cattle ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial characteristic. Besides based on the pictures I'd say some are brown, so it is subjective too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Er, no, nonsense. Coat colour is a defining characteristic in cattle breeds, exactly as it is not in (most) horse breeds. Major works of reference such as this and this classify cattle breeds into groups based on coat colour, as did the now-defunct breed website of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover and as do others who actually know what they're talking about – see for example this Scholar search. Oh, and 'brown' cattle look like this. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• The articles are clear about the color red, but they aren't clear at all about whether these breeds belong together as an official red group. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Marcocapelle, I don't know what you think you mean by 'official' in this context – as I understand it, we don't categorise topics based on the rules or instructions of officials, but on what is reported in independent reliable sources. Cattle are commonly classified by colour, as in the sources I linked for you above. The TiHo example I gave was for a grey breed (I'll create that category soon); here is one for a red breed, the Angeln – NB "Group of similar breeds: Main group Red group; Subgroup Central European Red". The same breed is classified by Felius (page 69) in her subgroup 2A, West European Red Lowland breeds; Porter et al (page 108) also classify it in Subgroup 2A, but call that grouping 'West and Northeast European Lowland red breeds'. The Angeln is one of the dozen or so red breeds that together constitute the European Red Dairy Breed (yes, no article on that as yet). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose This is clearly meant to be a breed, which is not a trivial characteristic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• No, the category contains breeds, red cattle is not 'a' breed in itself. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: in case of deletion, I have checked that all members are otherwise held within Category:Cattle breeds. – Fayenatic London 15:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Human hair color is a continuum, and it is similar to the kinds of hair found in other mammals. Also, color can vary in some cattle breeds, such as the Texas Longhorn. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 23:29, 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 20:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• OK, one more comment, with an actual oppose this time. Aberdeen Angus cattle in most countries of the world may be either black or red. In the United States the American Angus may only be black; red Angus cattle can not be registered under that name, but can be registered in a separate herd-book as Red Angus. The two colours are genetically indistinguishable; if colour is not a defining characteristic, on what basis are these breeds defined? LaundryPizza03, you are right that not all cattle breeds have been selectively bred to display one specific colour or colour pattern, but many have; humans have not (I hope and trust) ever been selectively bred for hair colour or any other characteristic, so appear to be quite irrelevant here. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:20, 10 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) 01:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete as subjective. The makers of this category have apparently never heard of Limousin cattle, Salers cattle or Abondance cattle, showing how this cherry-picking is random valueless information. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete without a main article on Red cattle to set inclusion criteria, this is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I have the same concern with Category:Grey cattle. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:13, 23 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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Human–animal hybrids ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Human hybrids - what could humans hybridize with that isn't an animal? All of the content here is better categorized elsewhere (usually in Category:Lists of fictional humanoid species) so there's no need to merge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep For the main reason that it has an article associated with it, Human-animal hybrid. Also, it's clear that humans can be hybrids with other species, such as Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans (in real life, before everything that wasn't a modern human went extinct) and fictional examples like demigods and half-elves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  I did remove some of the confusing and unnecessary parent categories of it. But I don't necessarily think the creation of this category was unwarranted, as it is a legitimate encyclopedic subtopic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, this is also a necessary supercategory for both Category:Fictional human–animal hybrids and Category:Mythological human–animal hybrids. AHI-3000 ( talk) 01:02, 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 20:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Heading towards no consensus, but additional participation would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Actually I kind of misunderstood the purpose of this category. I figured it was for fictional characters, but there's already a Category:Fictional human–animal hybrids. Given that there is, so far, nothing of this nature in real life, its existence is not necessary as a container category and can just lead to confusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 17:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• The two articles are partially or wholly about non-fiction though. If the category is not kept it is recommendable to create a cross-reference between the two subcats and mention Human–animal hybrid in a see-also note on both category pages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  In that case, I'd support humanzee going to Category:Human hybrids. We don't need 2 separate container categories here, it's repetitive. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:46, 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Kyrgyzstani men by occupation to Category:Kyrgyzstani men

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are no other categories in the parent, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 02:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak oppose, the nominated category is sufficiently populated in itself and this would leave a random gap in the tree of Category:Men by nationality and occupation. I probably would support merging all 212 categories in this tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:56, 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 20:40, 7 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) 01:45, 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional Holocaust survivors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. We deleted fictional characters by descent before (like "Fictional American people of Chinese descent" and etc.) Maybe we could make a List of fictional Holocaust survivors like the Lists of fictional presidents of the United States and the List of fictional countries on the Earth.] - 2A01:36D:1200:4638:552E:44EC:5740:4CD3 ( talk) 12:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose deletion. Either keep this category, or at least merge into Category:Fictional genocide survivors. AHI-3000 ( talk) 05:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Category:Fictional American characters of Chinese descent exists (again?). Can you provide a link to the deletion discussion? Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Same person as before - I do remember there being a mass deletion discussion for the "Fictional American people of Fooian descent" categories... - 94.44.241.101 ( talk) 14:28, 7 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) 00:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong oppose. I don't understand the rationale here by the nominator. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• To be honest, I do not understand the rationale. Genocide survivors have nothing to do with descent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:47, 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 to Category:7th-century Indian books. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:7th-century Indian novels to Category:7th century in India

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to have a category with a single page in it. (The lone page is already in 7th-century novels) Mason ( talk) 00:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Dual merge also to Category:7th-century Indian books. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge only to Category:7th-century Indian books. A merge to Category:7th century in India would be redundant. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• You are right. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 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. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:10th-century novelists by nationality to Category:10th-century novelists
• Propose merging Category:11th-century novelists by nationality to Category:11th-century novelists

Nominator's rationale: Only one nationality in each of these categories, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 00:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. It is rather the subcategories that should have been nominated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:51, 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. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:12th-century Irish-language poets to Category:12th-century poets and Category:12th-century Irish-language writers and Category:Irish-language poets
• Propose merging Category:11th-century Irish-language poets to Category:11th-century poets and Category:11th-century Irish-language writers and Category:Irish-language poets

Nominator's rationale: Multimerge for now. There's only one person in these two categories which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 00:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:52, 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 Category:11th-century French troubadours to Category:French troubadours and delete Category:11th-century troubadours. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:11th-century French troubadours to Category:French troubadours and Category:11th-century troubadours

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one person in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason ( talk) 00:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. The third target Category:11th-century troubadours is equally poorly populated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:French troubadours and delete Category:11th-century troubadours. – Aidan721 ( talk) 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:French troubadours per nom and delete Category:11th-century troubadours per Marcapelle. Exterme case of WP:NARROWCAT. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:45, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:11th-century Venetian writers to Category:11th-century Venetian people and Category:11th-century Italian writers

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's only one person in this category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 00:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 20:03, 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. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:Lists of painters by religion to Category:Lists of painters and Category:Lists of people by religion

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. Small category that is unhelpful for navigation. Mason ( talk) 00:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:59, 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. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Artists by culture to Category:Artists

Nominator's rationale: It is extremely unclear to me how to diffuse artists by culture. Some of these are religion, region, and ethnicity. We don't have a People by culture category. Mason ( talk) 00:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom but purge subcategories that belong in Category:Artists by ethnicity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge selectively per Marcocapelle, trimming what is already in e.g. Category:Religious artists. Category:Afrofuturists are related to an art movement, not a culture. In fact, Category:Underground artists is the only content that I think deserves being moved to the target. Place Clichy ( talk) 18:10, 21 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.