March 8
Category:Fictional prison escapees
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Category:Fictional prison escapees
Category:Fictional prisoners and detainees
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Category:Fictional prisoners and detainees
Category:Topical history overviews
Category:Neural circuits
- 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:Neural circuitry.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 13:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: The pages related to computational and biological neural networks have recently been rearranged to clarify the terminology. The articles now use "neural network" and "neural circuit" to mean two different things, and there is now a page for
Neural network (biology). Since this category is a subcategory of "Neural network" and contains pages like
Cultured neuronal network and
Large-scale brain network, it seems logical that its main article should be
Neural network (biology) and not
Neural circuit.
Justin Kunimune (
talk) 14:34, 1 March 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) 23:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, as written above, but I might support some other category rename. I'm the editor who pointed out at
Talk:Neural network (biology) that there are usually multiple neural circuits within a single neural network, so I agree in part that the current category name does not match perfectly with all the pages in the category. The proposed new category name is too kludgy for a good category name, but it also would not match perfectly with all the pages in the category, which include pages about physiology (oscillations), plasticity, types of neurons, and theories about the nervous system, as well as specific circuits and networks. Assuming that a massive project of recategorization of multiple pages across multiple new categories would be more trouble than it's worth, I think a good alternative would be to rename →
Category:Neural circuitry. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 00:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Comment In that case I think
Category:Neural circuitry is the way to go. I don't usually use CfD so I'm not sure how this works; do we need to close and reopen this as a
Category:Neural circuits →
Category:Neural circuitry discussion?
Justin Kunimune (
talk) 12:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I think we can just leave this open, and see whether other editors give opinions. The closer will be able to assess the consensus, given what you have now said, as the nominator. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- For clarity: I'm now saying Rename →
Category:Neural circuitry. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:22, 9 March 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.
Category:Deaths from sequels of suicide attempt
- 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 13:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: The category name is non-intuitive (what are sequels of suicide attempt?) and the inclusion criteria, not being stated on the cat page, are therefore unclear. The category has no sensible parents; it has only one member other than itself.
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, per nom. Perhaps a "sequel" is where the person survives the suicide in the short term, but dies later, but such categorization is not useful, especially for a single entry. (The category page also, strangely, lists the same category as a subcategory of itself, because the category page was put into its own category.) --
Tryptofish (
talk) 00:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, not a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:14, 9 March 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.
Category:Wooden sculptures in Bohemia
- 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:Wooden sculptures in the Czech Republic.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 13:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: There's no category tree for Art in Bohemia
Mason (
talk) 22:06, 8 March 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.
Category:Lutheran cathedrals by country
- 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 13:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: delete, largely overlaps with
Category:Lutheran cathedrals in Europe.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Well there was a category for Greenland, which is in North America, but it was previously
deleted so I guess this is a logical consequence.
Place Clichy (
talk) 07:35, 9 March 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.
Category:Armenian American art collectors
- 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 13:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection
Mason (
talk) 21:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Dual merge, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:57, 8 March 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.
Politicians convicted of war crimes
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Politicians convicted of war crimes
Category:Wikipedians in Kaduna
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Category:Wikipedians in Kaduna
Category:Former penal colonies
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Category:Former penal colonies
Category:Legendary creatures
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Category:Legendary creatures
Category:Catholic people executed by the Soviet Union
- 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
Category:Catholic people executed by the Soviet Union,
Category:Jews executed by the Soviet Union, and
Category:Jews executed by Nazi Germany; no consensus on
Category:Eastern Orthodox people executed by the Soviet Union
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 19:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: This seems to run afoul of egrs at the intersection of religion/ethnicity+manner of death + government regime. It isn't necessarily that the category members were executed because of their religion.
Mason (
talk) 04:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose the 1st, 3rd and 4th because it would remove the articles from a broader topic tree,
Category:Anti-Catholicism in the Soviet Union,
Category:Antisemitism in the Soviet Union and
Category:The Holocaust respectively. Even the second category may be kept as part of
Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union although I would rather purge members of the imperial family.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- But, should the articles be in that tree in the first place?
Mason (
talk) 20:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- They exemplify the persecutions.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Hmmmm, ok. I'm not sure that really fits with my understanding of how categories work. That sounds more like the purpose of a list, rather than a means to help navigation. But, that's a different perspective, that I will think about.
Mason (
talk) 03:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 00:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Support Marco's suggestion on this one.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 11:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:58, 8 March 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.
Category:People executed by Nazi Germany by lethal injection
- 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:People executed by Germany by lethal injection to
Category:People executed by lethal injection.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 19:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. This is a redudant layer with People executed by Germany by lethal injection, and an unhelpfully narrow category.
Mason (
talk) 04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on merge target would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 00:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- So effectively, just delete Category:People executed by Germany by lethal injection? I'm fine with that
Mason (
talk) 01:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just looking for a bit more clarity on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- So the alternative nomination is:
-
- Support alt nom
Mason (
talk) 22:02, 8 March 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.
Category:Murdered CIA agents
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Category:Murdered CIA agents
- 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. A wider discussion would certainly be helpful in this case. If the result of that discussion would call for a merger, there is of course no prejudice against a new proposal.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 03:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory.
Let'srun (
talk) 18:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 20:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep; part of well-defined, highly-structured categorization scheme.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Per Jweiss. Useful for navigation and we need to consider that the category itself is a subcat which helps with navigation. If merged the target is category would not be added to all the categories of the one being merged, which would hinder navigation. Merging would be a net negative to the encyclopedia.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 00:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep part of a well-structured scheme; I don't why merging would make anything better.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 03:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Merging this will not help navigation at all - it will only make it more difficult to navigate articles, something that goes against the purpose of the entire reason we have categories.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 16:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have a hunch that this is heading towards no consensus, but let's try relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See my relisting comment below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, seems a fair Keep has been defined by discussion participants, as well as within the
WP:SHADOWOFKEEP
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge. Navigation between what? The two articles can be connected via links, which is much more sutiable when there are only two members. Futhermore a this is a unnecessary layer with only one member - upmerging will just take away that redundant layer.
Categorisation for categorisation's sake is useless; our goal is to first and foremost serve the readers. I can't follow the reasoning of the !keep arguments. —
Qwerfjkl
talk 21:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I'll also add that we should have a larger discussion on this, because this sort of thing comes up frequently at CfD, and resolving on a case-by-case basis isn't working. Some consistency would be nice. —
Qwerfjkl
talk 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Qwerfjkl, yes, I agree about a larger discussion for consistency and efficiency. I and others have tried to engage
Let'srun, who had made the lion's share of such nominations of late, in such a discussion, but he's been resistant to participate.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I am open to discussions, but not in a WikiProject.
Let'srun (
talk) 00:34, 25 March 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. A wider discussion would certainly be helpful in this case. If the result of that discussion would call for a merger, there is of course no prejudice against a new proposal.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 03:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Only one redirect.
Let'srun (
talk) 18:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep; part of well-defined, highly-structured categorization scheme.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 04:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Per Jweiss. Useful for navigation and we need to consider that the category itself is a subcat which helps with navigation. If merged the target is category would not be added to all the categories of the one being merged, which would hinder navigation. Merging would be a net negative to the encyclopedia.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 00:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Merging this will not help navigation at all - it will only make it more difficult to navigate articles, something that goes against the purpose of the entire reason we have categories.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 16:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Especially in this case that is an odd argument because there are 0 articles about York Panther's football seasons. So we are talking about navigating from which article to which article?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have a hunch that this is heading towards no consensus, but let's try relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that quite a few of the Keep !votes don't make sense. Please try to explain your reasoning fully and reference policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per my comment above, which is generally applicable here. —
Qwerfjkl
talk 21:56, 17 March 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.
Category:Health care in Cyprus
- 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. This needs an
RM.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Opposed at Speedy because page name is
Health care in Cyprus. C2C: Siblings in Category:Health care by country are all "Healthcare in FOO" All the categories have this descrepancy
Mason (
talk) 01:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
Aidan721: opposed speedy, pointing out that
Oppose speedy. The main article is
Health care in Cyprus."–
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:25, 25 February 2024
- I'd be fine with all being called "Health care in FOO", I want the category names to be consistent.
Mason (
talk) 01:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I guess the right process is to have the article moved first, then the category can follow speedily.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:05, 8 March 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.
Category:New Caledonian tennis players
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Category:New Caledonian tennis players
Category:African-American women historians
- 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. There was a consensus to merge the last three categories into
Category:African-American women academics. There was a consensus to merge the first two also, moving articles to either
Category:African-American women academics or
Category:African-American women writers as appropriate depending on their circumstances.
(non-admin closure) —
Compassionate727 (
T·
C) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Triple merge, non-defining triple intersection,
WP:NARROWCAT. Being an african american woman academic is defining, but I don't think diffusion by type of academic is needed yet. The contents of each category have already been added to their non-diffusing parent category for American women FOO and African American-Foo.
Mason (
talk) 05:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as previously discussed, African-American women have been uniquely kept out of each of these professions through discrimination at universities. Sources treat them not as academics but by their profession, see
Black Women Have Written History for over a Century JSTOR daily and
The Pain and Promise of Black Women in Philosophy New York Times. Notable organizations of Black women philosophers exist, see
Collegium of Black Women Philosophers. They do not organize nor are they treated as simply academics.--
User:Namiba 14:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Each of these "professions"(historian, mathematician, etc) are specializations within academia, hence academics. The mechanism is the same: "discrimination at universities". I don't understand what you mean by "They do not organize nor are they treated as simply academics" because your mechanism seems to be the same for all academics. For me the basic test is the following: Is there something unique at the intersection of being a black woman that is specific to their occupation versus the broader parent occupation? Has that intersection been discussed at all in the literature, making the case that this is unique to occupation, rather than merely an example of the broader problem? For example, black women receive lower teaching evaluations in college classrooms (than white women AND black men, if I'm recalling the paper correctly), that's something that effects all black women academics, regardless of the specialization. My impression from the academic literature is that the field isn't at the point of looking at specialization specific mechanisms for history versus philosophy. (FWIW, I did not nominate Black women mathematicians, because there's literature on the the intersection, including about mathematics beliefs, building a math specific pipeline etc. ) I look forward to the day that we can support categories at this intersection. (Also, even though I am nomination the category for merging. I really really appreciate that Nambia is pushing back.)
Mason (
talk) 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I appreciate you explaining your point of view but I think you are misinterpreting the guideline.
WP:EGRS tells us don't create a category unless the "characteristics are relevant to that topic", which I think we would all agree being an African-American woman is relevant to having one of these specializations. The numerous sources which discuss the intersection in detail certainly do. They do not treat all African-American women academics the same. The
American Philosophical Association, for example, has a special report on Black women philosophers.
[1]. EGRS also says "people should only be so categorized if this has significant bearing on their career." Being a member of a professional association of historians, philosophers etc, certain indicates that it has a significant bearing on their career. EGRS also states that intersections should be created if there is a "specific cultural context for the grouping" beyond mere existence. Well, as I said, if their professional associations are talking about the intersection, then that is obvious. Lastly, and most importantly, EGRS says "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?" So, as I showed with
Black women in American law, a preponderance of sources means that "a valid, encyclopedic main article" can be written for such a group. When you looked up whether such sources exist for the above nominations, I am sure you saw that said sources discuss the intersection in great detail and that a valid main article can easily be written. This is encyclopedia and the existence of sources should dictate our behavior. Trying to reduce the visibility of African American women in professions and/or specializations from which they have been systematically excluded despite the preponderance of existing sources is an example of Wikipedia's systematic bias in action.--
User:Namiba 00:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Ok, so first --I disagree with your characterization in your final sentence. I am carefully looking at the literature, and intentionally evaluating it. You may not agree with how I am evaluating the sources, but I am not excluding them. I am reading them and placing them in the context of the literature. Regardless, what I am focusing on is this aspect of EGRS: "such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a
defining topic that has already been established in sources as academically or
culturally significant in its own right." For me, the question is whether the topic is academically significant. You seem to stop at the question of whether there are sources. If that were the benchmark, I'd agree with you, but I think that the bar is higher than the mere existence of sources.
Mason (
talk) 03:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Something is "academically significant" when scholars publish about it. That's the definition of academically significant. If scholars have no interest in an intersection, then it would be deemed academically insignifcant. However, obviously, scholars find the intersection significant because they frequently write about it. Scholars do not write about insignificant topics (usually).--
User:Namiba 15:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Your parenthetical gave me a good chuckle :)
Mason (
talk) 00:33, 1 March 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) 17:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom and per precedent.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 10:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per the nom rationale.
Let'srun (
talk) 00:38, 25 March 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.
Category:Politicians from Norfolk, East Anglia
- 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 21:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category —
RAVENPVFF ·
talk · 17:30, 8 March 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.
Category:Mythological monsters
- 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 21:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Propose merging
Category:Mythological monsters to
Category:Monsters
- Nominator's rationale: These two categories just have a little too much overlap right now, and both of them essentially cover the same scope of "demonic/evil/monstrous/scary creatures in folklore/legends/mythology". I personally think that the "Mythological monsters" subcategory is rather rendundant to the main "Monsters" supercategory.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 22:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- This proposal would remove the content from the tree of
Category:Mythological creatures, so it is not that obvious.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Then we could just make
Category:Monsters a subcategory of
Category:Mythological creatures, that would be no big deal.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 07:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Not quite because
Category:Monsters also contains
Category:Monsters in fiction and
Category:Fictional monsters which are meant to contain non-mythological monsters.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Aside from that,
Category:Monsters is otherwise filled with a bunch of subcategories and articles about various mythical monsters.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The subcategories are equally a mix of mythological and fictional monsters, e.g.
Category:Demons in popular culture. It would not surprise me if the overall distribution is 50/50.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
Marcocapelle: The subcategories for various monsters in fiction and pop culture are already contained under
Category:Fiction about monsters, not directly in
Category:Monsters.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 19:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Not directly indeed, but that is a bit confusing anyway. But to come to the point, in your proposal this category tree which consists for 50% (?) of articles about fictional monsters would be put in its entirety under mythology. I do not think that this helpful. Only the articles about mythological monsters (in contrast to articles about fictional monsters) should be in the mythology tree. It would be more helpful to create e.g.
Category:Demons in mythology in order to make a clearer split.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose This would be reverting the consensus established in
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 25#Category:Monsters where it was split into mythological and fictional. The fact is that monsters in mythology is a separately notable concept that could probably support a broad-concept article, with one example of significant coverage being
here. I don't think they have obvious prominence over fictional monsters either that would necessitate fiction being a subcategory while mythology isn't.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 10:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
Zxcvbnm: The issue is that there's little de-facto difference between
Category:Monsters and
Category:Mythological monsters right now, both categories cover monstrous creatures from myths, legends, and folktales.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 10:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 17:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 17:13, 8 March 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.
Personifications in mythology and religion
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Personifications in mythology and religion
Category:2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries
Category:1996 United States Libertarian presidential primaries by state
- 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:Libertarian Party (United States) presidential primaries.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Contains only a redirect.
User:Namiba 15:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The current number of redirects/articles contained does not inherently mean that more redirects or pages will not be added to this category as Wikipedia grows. Furthermore, it allows for this redirect to be organized in the same manner as similar redirects would for such primaries in other years.
SecretName101 (
talk) 15:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- If a sufficient number (5 or more) of those articles are written, then I have no objection to recreating it. As it stands, having a category with no actual articles in it does not aid navigation.--
User:Namiba 16:50, 8 March 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.
Category:Quantum Leap characters
- 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:Quantum Leap. There might be consensus to keep this category if
Al Calavicci is brought back to being an article, but this is not
WP:DRV.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 19:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Only 2 pages remain after
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Calavicci. The pages are already in appropriate subcats of the other parent categories. –
Fayenatic
London 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Support I noticed this early today and was literally coming to nominate this category for the same reason.
Joseph
2302 (
talk) 16:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and bring back the
Al Calavicci page which was both a very good page and a normal Wikipedia focus on a popular television series.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- This isn't a
WP:DRV, you know.
Cakelot1 ☞️
talk 10:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Of course I know, but removing
Calavicci's full page makes this nomination possible. Likely that a couple of good sources for Calavicci would bring it back.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 10:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Support - A category with so few articles isn't particularly useful.
Cakelot1 ☞️
talk 10:01, 16 March 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.
Category:Allegorical paintings by Austrian artists
- 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) 19:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge these small categories with single paintings in them, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 14:42, 8 March 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.
Category:Paintings on gold backgrounds
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Category:Paintings on gold backgrounds
Category:Paintings in Denmark by region
- 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) 19:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 14:33, 8 March 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.
Category:People from Sulsted
- 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) 19:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one person in this category.
Mason (
talk) 14:32, 8 March 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.
Category:Combined authorities
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Category:Combined authorities
Category:Films based on trading cards
Category:Educational organizations established in 1547
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated.
(non-admin closure)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Clean up following
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_11#Category:Libraries_by_year_of_establishment and
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_26#Category:Art_museums_and_galleries_established_in_1506. Merge up to decade-level. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 20:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Probably alt merge, rather to e.g.
Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1547, as libraries are (mostly) buildings by themselves. Or triple merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I'm fine with alt merge or triple merge. It might even be case by case. My only worry with the alt merge is that it's not exactly clear than new buildings were constructed for these libraries always. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 01:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Decade categories do not help in navigation or in locating articles.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:OCYEAR. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 18:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- They do help because you can navigate much quicker from e.g. a 1662 article to a 1666 article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 18:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 08:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
Smasongarrison: I hope you will also nominate other Organizations established in YEAR categories for merging soon afterwards because otherwise this nomination would leave odd holes in that tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I'll leave that to @
Aidan721
Mason (
talk) 14:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 17:03, 10 March 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.
Category:Jewish Romanian writers banned by the Antonescu regime
- 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... 22:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this category is defining at the intersection of ethnicity+nationality+occupation+specific regime+ banning
Mason (
talk) 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The
Ion Antonescu regime published several lists of authors who were banned as Jews. How is this not historically relevant and not defining?
Dahn (
talk) 20:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not saying that this isn't an important or historical topic, but I don't think it's defining for the individuals in the wikipedia sense. Are these people often described in the opening paragraph as writers banned by the Antonescu regime?
Mason (
talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I wasn't aware that the definition of "defining characteristic" now covers only things mentioned in the opening paragraph. Most opening paragraphs don't mention what town X and Y were born in; would we then move to delete native town categories based on that rationale? Not to mention that the fact is indeed mentioned by article leads, in those cases where the editing stage has reached that far:
A. L. Zissu,
Barbu Lăzăreanu,
Sergiu Dan,
Felix Aderca, all mention it in the opening paragraph;
Emil Dorian is two-paragraphs long in all, and you can see the fact clearly mentioned in the second paragraph. How this is even a controversial issue is beyond me.
Dahn (
talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Dual merge, not a defining characteristic. Some articles do not even bother to mention it. No objection to creating a list with good references.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- It is misleading to say that they don't bother to mention -- some just aren't developed enough. Will you be creating the list to cover the info lost with the deletion?
Dahn (
talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Also, do note that good references are provided in the articles (not all of them -- some are undersourced) and on the category page.
Dahn (
talk) 08:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose (creator's vote) There is absolutely no point to this nom. These writers were specifically banned as Jewish by a (quasi-)fascist regime, under a specific legal definition, and forming a special type of antisemitic persecution during the Holocaust. If this isn't a defining characteristic, what is?
Dahn (
talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose — I think Dahn mostly said it, but these writers form a discrete group, covered as such by reliable sources and extensively commented upon by historians, critics and biographers — eminently defining. —
Biruitorul
Talk 23:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose I do believe it's a notable and defining topic, considering there's 40 such writers
[2]. If we were talking about 4 instead, then maybe I'd be supporting this proposal.
Super
Ψ
Dro 10:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Biruitorul, who convincingly describes how this is defining (see also the sources listed in the category).
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 00:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 07:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Dual merge per nom. I agree that this can be made into a list.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 21:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Omnis Scientia: Between the elimination of categories and the creation of a list (by whom? "can be made" does not mean "will be made"), the info will be lost and irretrievable. In addition, removing the categories also destroys the existing link, through the category tree, between these banned writers and
Category:Romanian people of World War II, leaving some articles entirely out of that relevant tree. Same for the
Category:The Holocaust in Romania and
Category:Censorship in Romania, of which this category is a subcat (and, once removed as a subcat, the articles lose all connection to the two trees -- the writers will no longer appear as near-victims of the near-Holocaust, losing their connection to a very delicate topic, and their status as being censored by a particular Romanian totalitarian regimes, of the several ones which came in succession, will likewise remain untethered). Is anyone even concerned about that aspect of the categorizing work?
Dahn (
talk) 08:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
Dahn: I !voted to keep the category, but I want to clear up a misconception. Listification is processed at
WP:CFDWM: if there is consensus to make a list, the category would continue to exist until a list is ready to replace it.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 19:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
HouseBlaster: Unless it then gets speedily deleted because no one will bother referencing it etc. And in any case, the list would still leave the articles unconnected with the category trees I mentioned.
Dahn (
talk) 23:57, 17 March 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.
Category:African film festivals
- 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:Film festivals about African cinema.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Ambiguity issue. This does have a usage note indicating what makes it different from
Category:Film festivals in Africa — that one's for film festivals that are taking place in Africa geographically, while this one's for film festivals about African and/or African-diasporic cinema taking place anywhere in the world — but as we know, usage notes aren't always effective at solving ambiguity issues because people don't always go to the categories to read them, and an editor associated with the AfroCreatives WikiProject has raised a request to merge it into the in-Africa category at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film on the grounds of the very confusion the usage note was trying to prevent. I've already responded as to why the categories won't and shouldn't be merged, but we should probably still consider a more precise and less ambiguous name here to eliminate any future confusion.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Film festivals about Africa.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- support rename from marco
Mason (
talk) 20:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Probably a good approach, but it should probably be "about African cinema" rather than "about Africa", as Africa isn't necessarily the subject in its own right.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- support rename Glad to see these lines of thoughts. How about "Film festivals about African film and television." Cinema just seems to be about the business and art of filmmaking.
Ceslause (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 08:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
Smasongarrison: do you support Marco's updated proposal?
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Equally fine with me
Mason (
talk) 01:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 18:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 07:47, 8 March 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.
Category:Swiss evangelicals
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Category:Swiss evangelicals
- 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 12:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Only one member is in this category.
Let'srun (
talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Category has several articles now.
~WikiOriginal-9~ (
talk) 21:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep; part of well-defined, highly-structured categorization scheme.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge, a category with only one member is not helpful for navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 18:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom. "part of well-defined, highly-structured categorization scheme." is not a good reason by itself.
Mason (
talk) 20:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Smasongarrison, it if is one values parallelism in the the category tree. Also note that this category now contains four elements.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 22:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Make that five elements.
Jweiss11 (
talk) 23:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Per Jweiss. Useful for navigation and we need to consider that the category itself is a subcat which helps with navigation. If merged the category would not be added to all the categories which would hinder navigation. Merging would be a net negative.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 00:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep nom rationale is no longer valid.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 03:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Merging this will not help navigation at all - it will only make it more difficult to navigate articles, something that goes against the purpose of the entire reason we have categories.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 16:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Four articles and one redirect at the time of relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 22:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkl
talk 07:43, 8 March 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.
Category:Del Vecchio family
- 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 12:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Not helpful for navigation to have a parent and child in a category by themselves
Mason (
talk) 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:18, 8 March 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.
Category:Italian theologians by city
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (
non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's not need to diffuse theologians by city. Diffusing by century would be more useful.
Mason (
talk) 04:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge/delete per nom. All articles are now in century categories too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:58, 8 March 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.
Category:Members of Christian religious orders from Rome
- 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: single merge.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. No other category in Members of Christian religious orders is diffused by city.
Mason (
talk) 04:01, 8 March 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.
Category:16th-century Moroccan physicians
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (
non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one person in each cat.
Mason (
talk) 02:56, 8 March 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.
Category:Moroccan medical doctors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (
non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Should be made into a redirect
Mason (
talk) 02:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Support: Medical doctor redirects to Physician.
Gjs238 (
talk) 03:07, 8 March 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.
Category:15th-century Moroccan judges
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (
non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. only one page in cat. (Already in 15th-century Moroccan historians.)
Mason (
talk) 02:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
Keep, this merge would create an odd hole in the tree by century. I would change to support if all the 13th to 17th century categories would be nominated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Will do. 16th/17th are already nominated
here
Mason (
talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- @
Marcocapelle updated :)
Mason (
talk) 14:17, 8 March 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.
Category:Puerto Rican opera composers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (
non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 02:38, 8 March 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.
Category:Peruvian Baroque composers
- 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 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one person in each category, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 02:03, 8 March 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.
Category:Henry Purcell
- 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 12:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Only one page and a category of people who studied this composer. Unhelpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 01:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep – that's because
Category:Compositions by Henry Purcell was in Purcell Scholars rather than Purcell (probably my fault). I've now moved it to the main Purcell category. I've also created
Category:Family of Henry Purcell for the main Purcell category –
Aza24
(talk) 02:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
User:Aza24
Johnbod (
talk) 04:02, 8 March 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.
Category:French Baroque viol players
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Category:French Baroque viol players
Category:Lists of American Samoan people by occupation
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (
non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to have only one category in here
Mason (
talk) 01:19, 8 March 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.
Category:Singers from Port Said
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (
non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk 12:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary additional layer. Only one article between both cats.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 00:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Support per nom.
Mason (
talk) 02:10, 8 March 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.