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 21:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Fictional commercial aviators to Category:Fictional aviators

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary vague cross-categorization made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose, this parallels well with the real-life Category:Commercial aviators. AHI-3000 ( talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge Garry Halliday seems like the only one defined by being a commercial aviator. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:09, 15 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) 00:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per Revelation Mason ( talk) 02:38, 19 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) 02:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Novels set in 20th-century Russia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. The subcategory is already in Category:Novels set in Russia so there is no reason to merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom Mason ( talk) 02:54, 19 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 21:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Criminals by sex to Category:Criminals

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Unhelpful for navigation to isolate these two categories. If kept, it should be renamed to Criminals by gender, per Category:People by gender Mason ( talk) 22:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Why not rename to category:Criminals by gender? Apokrif ( talk) 10:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. This is not worth keeping. – Aidan721 ( talk) 12:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_28#Category:People_by_gender. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 11:06, 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) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:2019 crimes in Northern Ireland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2019 crimes in the United Kingdom, Category:2019 crimes in Ireland, Category:2019 in Northern Ireland, and Category:2010s crimes in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. The current tree is for crimes by decade in Northern Ireland. – Aidan721 ( talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:53, 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: rename to Category:15th-century Aztec nobility. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:15th-century Mexican nobility to Category:15th-century nobility

Nominator's rationale: Small category that should either be upmerged or renamed to 15th-century Aztec nobility per content. Mason ( talk) 05:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename, reparent and populate to Category:15th-century Aztec nobility. Biographies should be moved from Category:15th century in the Aztec civilization to here when appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fine with me Mason ( talk) 22:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:50, 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: dual merge to Category:People of Alta California and Category:People from pre-statehood Arizona. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:People of colonial Arizona to Category:People of Alta California and Category:People from pre-statehood Arizona

Nominator's rationale: Merge per previous Cfds on "People of colonial Maine" and "People of colonial West Viriginia". Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 11:17, 19 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:Toponymy. There is agreement from most participants that this is an outcome they would be happy with. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Place names to Category:Place naming

Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed rename."Place names" is a highly confusing name for category, because all place names can pe put there, and I have already removed a couple. As I undertand it is a subcat of toponymics. Therefore "Place naming" is correct category name, so that individual place names will not land into it. - Altenmann >talk 20:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak oppose, "place naming" doesn't sound as common language. I do agree that it is potentially confusing. Alternatives are renaming to Category:Toponymy of populated places or merging to Category:Toponymy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerging to Category:Toponymy sounds good. It already sontains plenty of entries like List of modern names for biblical place names, Place names in Azerbaijan, List of Mormon place names, etc. - Altenmann >talk 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• While we are here it looks like some subcategories need some beating as well . For example, the whole Category:Hokkien place names is not about place names, but about places, i.e., it must be renamed into Category:Hokkien places. Can someone take a general look? I.e., many articles in this category tree are about places, not about names. - Altenmann >talk 21:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I don't think that a "general look" is required. Categories that need to be renamed should simply be nominated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I was taking about "general look" because there are many of them and there must be some consistency if renaming will be needed. At the first glance the whole enchilada of "*place names*" categories must be renamed, because vast majority of articles are about places, not about names, and articles/categories about place names should be narrowed in scope to topomymy. - Altenmann >talk 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Category:Hokkien place names consists of places with a Hokkien-language name. I don't think that Category:Hokkien places as a category name would describe the content more clearly than the current category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  The articles in category are about places, not about names. At best, it must be Category:Places with Hokkien names, if this distinction is important. Anyway, thanks for clarification. - Altenmann >talk 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'm seeing some of the subcategories as being WP:SHAREDNAME because they're being grouped by the name rather than by anything defining. But that can be for another nom. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:05, 15 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} 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Toponymy. – Aidan721 ( talk) 20:32, 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Paralympic Sport Awards — Best Female winners and Category:Paralympic Sport Awards — Best Male winners to Category:Recipients of the PARA SPORT Award (or something to that effect.)

Nominator's rationale: Merge and rename. This award is now called "PARA SPORT Awards" per [1] Mason ( talk) 02:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Substantively I can't say anything meaningful here, neither pro nor con. I wonder however if PARA SPORT really needs to be capitalized, it seems merely a style issue. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  That's a good question. I don't know if its stylistic. I'll see if I can find some articles describing the award. Mason ( talk) 20:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Ok... so IPC consistently refers to it as "PARA SPORT" [2] [3]. But the rest of the media isn't consistent... NO [4], YES [5] I think that the point of the styling is to make it clear that it is a specific award from the International Paralympic Committee, as opposed to a genre of awards for parasports. An alternative might be model the category name after subcategories of Category:Edward R. Murrow Awards, like Category:Edward R. Murrow Award (CPB) winners. So it could say Category:Recipients of the Para Sport Award (IPC) Mason ( talk) 21:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:Paralympic Sport Awards — Best Male winners.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:13, 10 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} 16:07, 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: keep. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Public image by individuals to Category:Criticism of individuals

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason ( talk) 02:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per WP:C2D. The articles, especially in the politicians subcategory, are consistently named "Public image of ...". If something needs to be changed here (which I do not expect) then it should at least apply to the subcategories simultaneously. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  How would you feel about a reverse merge? Mason ( talk) 20:57, 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 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge has the same problem, the articles in Category:Criticism of individuals are called "Criticism of", so I am opposed to that too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:32, 10 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} 16:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Public image is not the same as Criticism. Criticism can be a part of Public Image and vice versa. Moreover, Public Image articles of people outside politicians exist and are emerging.

ℛonherry ☘ 14:55, 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. (Noting for the record that the only keep !voter changed their vote in the relist period.) (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:International Organisation of Good Templars people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC and we do not categorize people by fraternity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

* Keep. We do categorize people by fraternity, e.g., Category:Members of fraternal orders. In the case of the I.O.G.T., it is a "fraternal organization" whose scope is that of a "temperance organization". Its members are always temperance advocates/activists. For example, see Martha B. O'Donnell whose article, coincidentally, I started yesterday before being notified about the proposed category deletion. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• The naming convention of subcats in Category:Members of fraternal orders appears to be "Members of [foo]", ergo, renaming this to Category:Members of International Organisation of Good Templars or Category:Members of the International Organisation of Good Templars should be considered. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I've added the names of all the people in this category into the article itself in a Notable people section. Retaining the category isn't significant to me, so I don't want to hold up the deletion of something that others think should happen. Signing off as the cat creator, -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Categories for Lions and Odd Fellows were deleted by consensus at CFD here and here, so them being recreated (in good faith I'm sure) under a different name doesn't really show a consensus for this category. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:27, 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 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-defining textbook WP:OCASSOC. No objection to more narrow category for leadership in the organization though. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:27, 15 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} 16:06, 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Secret millionaire philanthropists to Category:American philanthropists

Nominator's rationale: Ummm, what? This is clearly not defining Mason ( talk) 02:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Propose keep. I've added WP:CATDESC. As to WP:CATDEF, when reliable sources talk about individuals in this category, they invariably talk about BOTH secretly accumulated wealth AND about unexpectedly ( =secretly) made donation. Many sources combine these two themes right into the articles titles e.g. 6 Secret Millionaires Who Left It All to Charity, ...Quietly Amasses Fortune, Then Donates $8.2 Million, Secret millionaire...donates $7 million, ...died with a big secret, leaving his town millions, ...man dies a secret multimillionaire, leaves $3.8M to his small town, Ex-Janitor Bequeaths Secret Millions to Library. - Yamfri /ˈjæm.friː/ ^{( talk)} 00:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• The fact that they were secret millionnaires is defining, it is the sole reason for their notability. I have more doubts about the philanthropists part, because donations from one's will are fairly common. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure if secret millionaires is defining. There are a "lot" of millionaires out there. If it stays, it needs really clear criteria because we don't have any other secret occupations like this. Mason ( talk) 23:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  heh, the problem of English language :-). I thought the defining part is "secret philantropists" (although the proper term would be anonymous philantropists).... Or not.. Sylvia Bloom was a secret millionaire. Do we have category:Secret millionaires? I have a couple fictional secret millionaries: some plots revolve around them. - Altenmann >talk 23:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Both secret wealth and (secret) giving are defining, in my opinion. A secret millionarie who leaves all to children is too routine, not interesting to news media. A secret millionarie who, surprizing all, leaves most or all wealth to charities that gets media coverage and becomes notable. Yamfri /ˈjæm.friː/ ^{( talk)} 03:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think that at best, this should be listified instead as it's too vague without a TON of context. Mason ( talk) 22:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Just delete per all targets already being in the parent target cat. This one feels like a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT issue. Respublik ( talk) 15:10, 16 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} 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Respublik. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:12, 20 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Educators by nationality and city to Category:Educators by nationality and populated place
• Propose renaming Category:New Zealand educators by city to Category:New Zealand educators by populated place

Nominator's rationale: In the same spirit as /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_4#Category:American_people_by_city_and_occupation, I think we should broaden this category to populated place. Mason ( talk) 14:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Rename per ample recent precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:45, 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: merge to Category:Religious films by religion. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Films about the Abrahamic religions to Category:Religious films by religion

Nominator's rationale: This has another parent Category:Abrahamic religions, but IMHO is is not a useful addition to that hierarchy. Maybe Dimadick intended to build an expanded hierarchy around this intersection when he created this last May, but it is not currently helpful. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Currently, this is the only category linking the film depictions with Category:Abrahamic religions. Dimadick ( talk) 13:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support, Abrahamic religions is a useful term in the study of religions, but it is not as if the three religions have so much in common that it justifies a common category tree for all sorts of topics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. This may have been a useful intersection if there were films that specifically were about all Abrahamic religions. That does not appear as each film is specific to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:31, 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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters with volcanic abilities to Category:Fictional characters with fire or heat abilities

Nominator's rationale: Clear WP:NARROWCAT with a very small focus. There is not much importance to whether a fire ability is, specifically, volcano-based. While the obvious merge target is fire, it can also be merged to others if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose merging, lava/magma manipulation is a distinct and separate power from just manipulating fire and flames. Also I don't know why you suggested Category:Fictional characters with fire or heat abilities rather than Category:Fictional characters with earth or stone abilities, the latter is more directly relevant to lava/magma. AHI-3000 ( talk) 18:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

When someone says volcanic it implies heat/lava, that's just a common sense thing to me. Volcanism is, specifically, the eruption of molten rock. However, for the record I support adding the character to both categories if needed. This is still a NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge Manually to parents per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. The only 1 of the 4 characters who seems to routinely use this capability is Magma (comics) while the other 3 don't seem defined by the capability. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support alt merge per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support alt merge per RevelationDirect. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:06, 27 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) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Nonexistent things ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is just confusing and vague. Seems like a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT if there ever was one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The subcats help explain what this is about: objects in fiction, imagination, or supposition that, you know, don't actually exist. St Anselm ( talk) 07:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I don't believe they do. For example, is an unbuilt structure really a "nonexistent thing", or does that only encompass things that cannot exist, like a circular square? Can a nonexistent thing be a concept or does it have to be an object? Does it have to have previously existed or can it just be something that could exist? Nonexistent objects is about a particular philosophical theory and has nothing to do with this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Leaning to support, the fact that the only parent is Category:Fiction while the category also contains very different things than fiction illustrates that this category does not really belong somewhere. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Should have its scope enforced very strictly against editors adding random stuff into it, but if that's done, it seems well-defined enough. SnowFire ( talk) 01:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• There is no enforcement in individual categories. Categories should be self-explanatory or should not exist. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per SnowFire AHI-3000 ( talk) 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ SnowFire: I am not sure who will do this "strict enforcement", many times when I tried to fix a category I was reverted, making it impossible to enforce anything. Problems with specific categories are bad enough without there being incredibly vague ones. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:09, 20 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) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sikh organizations in Canada to Category:Sikh organisations and Category:Religious organizations based in Canada and Category:Sikhism in Canada

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article in the category. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I found a parent category. Category:Sikhism in Canada, so this might be large enough. Mason ( talk) 05:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Lean merge. I was able to add two more pages, so if this is merged, it should also be merged to Category:Sikhism in Canada. If it gets to 5, I'd vote keep. Mason ( talk) 05:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge for now. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• I added a 4th and a 5th and I suspect there are more so keep.-- User:Namiba 15:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:31, 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: reverse merge and rename. In other words, delete Category:People who were enslaved by George Washington and rename Category:Mount Vernon slaves to the newly-vacated Category:People who were enslaved by George Washington. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Mount Vernon slaves to Category:People who were enslaved by George Washington

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. (Probably good to do a reverse merge and then rename given this page has a much longer history) slaves from this location are only defining because Mount Vernon is associated with george washington Mason ( talk) 05:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Reverse merge and rename the older category to Category:People who were enslaved by George Washington as it would be consistant with Category:People who were enslaved by Presidents of the United States. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge per nom, to the older page, and possibly rename back to the newer name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge and use People who were enslaved by George Washington.-- User:Namiba 14:21, 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: merge to Category:People who were enslaved by Thomas Jefferson. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Slaves at Monticello to Category:People who were enslaved by Thomas Jefferson

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category, slaves from this location are only defining because monticello is associated with thomas jefferson Mason ( talk) 05:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:35, 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. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Uzbekistani secularists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Only member of the category is politicians from a political group Justice Social Democratic Party, secularism isn't mentioned on the page of the group or on the single member of the page. Mason ( talk) 03:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Also, more fundamentally, I wonder what a secularist is. Based on a quick scan of some articles it seems that it more or less coincides with Category:Critics of religions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, I couldn't really figure it out either (but to be honest, I didn't try very hard) Mason ( talk) 05:28, 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: merge to Category:Sikh organisations. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sikh organisations by country to Category:Sikh organisations

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only two categories in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 02:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 11:17, 19 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.