Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 3
January 5 >

January 4[edit]

Category:20th-century Canadian Eastern Catholics[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two people in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:20, 4 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.

Category:Strange Music mixtape albums[edit]

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:Strange Music albums. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After about as thorough a search as I can manage, the two mixtapes listed are the only ones with articles I can find. I don't know if we're still concerned about categories being too small given SMALLCAT's retirement, but this one is very small. Upmerge both to Category:Strange Music albums. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:54, 4 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.

Category:Chapels in Aruba[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category. Do not need dual merge as the lone article is already in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Aruba. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:48, 4 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.

Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao

Empty babel categories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Empty babel categories

Category:Fictional vegan and vegetarian characters[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Fictional vegetarians was deleted several times previously, see the discussion for that category. Creating this one was an end-run around the deletions of the former category by adding vegans for no reason. Continues to violate WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There are a couple of characters that I would say are defining for this, namely Shaggy Rogers and Lisa Simpson. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oinkers' argument AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Shaggy is a vegetarian is only listed as a side note. It's not something that comes up often, if at all in the actual show, which has offered a different explanation for why Shaggy is skinny. If that's one of the most prominent examples, then this category is rather weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 6 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.

Cmn-nem[edit]

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: soft delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates correctly-named subcats of (and forms a category loop with) Category:User cmn-nem * Pppery * it has begun... 19:29, 4 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.

Category:Works by setting[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Setting is inherently an attribute of fiction, so these two categories are redundant. There is a large overlap in the actual contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm worried that nonfiction would get caught up in the merge. Is literally everything in here fiction? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also need to know what exactly the subcategories would be renamed to standardize them. There is an obvious naming disconnect between one and the other. If it is to be moved, the subcategories should be renamed at the same time to avoid a ton of work. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should use "Fiction set in X" if we choose "Fiction by setting" as the target, or "Works set in X" if we choose "Works by setting" as the title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and undoubtedly further cleanup in the category tree will be needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:Fiction by setting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse merge - and once that's done, we can take a look at the sub-cats. A lot of the fiction-related categories were created prior to "Works" becoming a standard. - jc37 19:29, 4 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.

Category:Deprecated[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category can be mistakenly used for deprecated software (example: Special:Diff/1192076725). Similarly to Category:Wikipedia maintenance, Category:Wikipedia administration, etc, add prefix "Wikipedia" to avoid confusion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a grab-bag of unrelated phenomona that happen to use the same term (WP:SHAREDNAME) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Delete I would lean toward renaming as proposed, but also open to deletion if that finds consensus. The most important thing is to not leave this as is. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:08, 4 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.

Category:Chicago Dental Infirmary football[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Chicago Dental Infirmary football

Category:Chicago Dental Infirmary football seasons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Chicago Dental Infirmary football seasons

Category:Women's websites[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename, but consensus to merge the applicable categories.
Nominator's rationale: Suggest rename modeled off of Category:Women's interest channels. I was very confused by the purpose of the category when I first saw it. I thought that this was websites owned by women. Mason (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 4 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.

Ungulates, again[edit]

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 narrower nomination (i.e. just focusing on odd-/even- toed) might be more successful. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_30#Ungulates, where several of these were nearly deleted; they should of course rather be merged back to where the contents were diffused from. – Fayenatic London 18:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no reason to merge anything to a category about generic mammals. Dimadick (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for this reason AHI-3000 (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to make it so much easier to navigate from e.g. horses to pigs. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least the first six; they serve as a useful diffusing of the previously messy category tree. No opinion on moving the subcats to Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla, as in the previous proposal, although I do question the moves of the corresponding pages; those were clearly violations of COMMONNAME, but Artiodactyl could be split from even-toed ungulates. Star Garnet (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "ungulates" categories, but merge the "odd" and "even" ones into them as an unnecessarily "nerdy" distinction that is not necessary in categories talking about fiction where it might be in categories concerning actual animal species. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1st-century Irish poets[edit]

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 for now. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, Adna mac Uthidir, in the entire tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A category before 600 as Peterkingiron proposes seems to have a pretty arbitrary inclusion criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:MFN. This doesn't currently aid navigation but, if enough articles ever get created, no objection to recreating at that point. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 4 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.

Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software

Category:Taxa named by Edward Branson[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: His name was Edwin not Edward. His article has already been moved. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; this could have been speedied under C2D. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wouldn't be for speedy because it was a bold article move. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I just took a look at the article Edwin Branson; it was indeed heavily edited earlier today. So either the name has been wrong for years (a possibility) or someone has changed the article's purpose entirely; looking at the history, it is more likely to be that the name has been wrong since it was originally created in 2016. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 4 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.

Category:Montenegrin Malacologists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Montenegrin Malacologists

Category:Viking Age clergy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: disperse. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining intersection between occupation and "age". Mason (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, per nom, but disperse the content to more specific nationality and/or century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 4 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.

Category:Nations at the Maccabiah[edit]

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) Seawolf35 T--C 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contain only one category each which are all present in Category:Maccabiah Games competitors. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: target categories changed per Marcocapelle's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in principle, per nom. But preferably upmerge to all parent categories, because upmerging is automated while downmerge requires manual re-parenting. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Great Britain at the Maccabiah was not tagged. I have done so now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, can you clarify what you mean exactly? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Omnis Scientia: with an automated merge, the bot is just replacing the occurrance of the nominated category by the targets. For parenting, that works well with upmerge: nothing changes in the parents of the targets and nothing needs to change. But with downmerge, the replacement leads to the target becoming its own parent category, while it should really adopt the nominated category's parents. But that does not happen automatically. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, yeah that would be easier.
    Um, I hope I'm not asking too much when I ask if you can edit this nomination to make the automated upmerge possible? I'm not really sure how to do that in this case. If you do, I can see how to do the same in future similar cases. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would result in, e.g.
:* Propose merging Category:Argentina at the Maccabiah to Category:Argentina at multi-sport events and Category:Jews and Judaism in Argentina
  • How is merging here different than outright deletion? –Aidan721 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aidan721, if you think deletion works best here, I'm fine with that too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aidan721: I would oppose outright deletion. There is no reason to remove the content from the multisports tree or from the Jews and Judaism tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see how your merging would work now and support that. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:24, 11 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.

Category:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall[edit]

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. No prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I do not think this is defining - what about a character who randomly looks at the screen and shrugs as a gag, but is otherwise a normal character who isn't cognizant of the audience? It's simply too vague to distinguish between minor moments of fourth wall breaking and characters who are aware of the audience at all times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category only includes characters who break the fourth wall as a defining characteristic, as defining characteristics are the cornerstone of Wikipedia categories. Therefore, the category does not include characters who have only broken the fourth wall once or twice, but instead lists characters who are known and recognised for doing it. I kept this in mind when I originally created the category and added the characters to it.The Editor 155 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The question's whether "executing a fourth wall break" can even be defining, or if it's a trait of the story itself rather than the character. Perhaps the character has some ability that would let them be aware of the fourth wall, but would belong more in characters who have superhuman powers or the ability to manipulate reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for these reasons given by The Editor. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Zxcvbnm has a fair point that it is a characteristic of the work, not of the character. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as defining. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some character frequently break the fourth wall, and become known for it. The watershed, obviously, is this fact being mentioned in reliable sources. Characters like She-Hulk and Deadpool have a fourth wall awareness ability, and clearly belong in the category. Whether Bugs Bunny belongs, I can't say. That's for the sources to decide. Paradoctor (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Looks at the audience) - So on Wikipedia, when assessing categories, it's often important to determine whether inclusion in the category is self-evident, or if it needs explanation, in type, scale, or importance, amongst many other things, as noted in the guideline WP:CATBEFORE. And when that is determined to be the case, such categories tend to either be Deleted or Listified, and such should be the case here. - jc37 19:50, 4 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.

Category:Fictional nuclear engineers[edit]

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) Seawolf35 T--C 17:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Made by blocked user. No clear need for such a specific category compared to just engineers - many of these characters are not primarily known as having a "nuclear", "mining" or "chemical" specialty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you excluding the other similar subcategories of Category:Fictional engineers? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't found them at that point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not all engineers are the same. I at least think chemical and nuclear engineers could be valid categories, I dunno about mining engineers. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Purge these categories. Many entries are not defining characteristics of these fictional characters. For example, Homer Simpson is a nuclear safety inspector, not a nuclear engineer, and many others do not mention their categorized field in the article. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aidan721: What happens if you purge the unmentioned and misclassified entries? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe purge was the wrong word, but my intention is to remove the misclassified entries before deciding a fate of these categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aidan721: Are you going to remove the misclassified entries? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now removed what I believe to be misclassified non-defining entries. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After the purge of misclassified and non-defining entries, only two articles remain in the nuclear one, one in the mining one, and three articles and one redirect in the chemical one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 4 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.

Comedy actors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategory list
Nominator's rationale: Firstly, this category tree appears to fall under Category:Actors by medium; however, comedy is a genre, not a medium. Secondly, this appears to be a WP:PERFCAT violation; we don't have other instances that I'm aware of where we categorize actors by the genres they have featured in. If nothing else, if the feeling is that these categories have merit, I think the naming schema for male and female actors should be consistent. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add related comedy actor/actress categories that I might have missed! DonIago (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there are 25 (Twenty-five) hidden categories in this nomination, a nomination which seeks to erase 26 categories for comedy acting. These categories, built and maintained by many Wikipedians, are fine for their intended purpose and allowable as categorizations. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining for most people listed. Inclusion seems related to the genre of some project they acted in, appear in one comedy project and get listed as a comedy actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the categories seem to contain a mix of people who consistently played comedy (who are probably better off in the parent Category:Comedians) and people who played a variety of genres (for whom it is not defining). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At best, that would seem to suggest that the categories could be repurposed for strictly actors who played comedy roles...but then they would need to be actively maintained (and updated) to remove actors who played non-comedy roles. I don't really think that's a great solution, and it would seem to create a slippery slope. Are we going to create Category: Horror actors? Category: British dramatic comedy actresses? DonIago (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clicked through a good deal of these and feels pretty WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 4 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.

Art museums and galleries by year of (dis)establishment[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Considering that art museums and galleries are grouped together in Category:Art museums and galleries, it doesn't make sense to categorize (dis)establishments of them separately. The sub-categories can be speedied after discussion (unless someone wants to tag and list them all). –Aidan721 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 21:20, 4 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.

Category:Vegetation of Cyprus[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are not overlapping at all. Vegetation is different and distinct from individual plant species. Hesperian 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flora category should not be limited to individual species. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-categories of Category:Vegetation of Cyprus are as follows:
Thus, in this case, they are overlapping and the vegetation category is not needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 4 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.

Category:Vegetation of Australia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Vegetation of Australia

Category:Vegetation of New Zealand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Vegetation of New Zealand

Category:School buildings in Oregon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:School buildings in Oregon

Category:Maronite Church in South America[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A container category for 3 countries, while the parent has "just" 4 other countries in it. There is no other continent-level Maronite category. Overall, this does not bring much in terms of navigation. Place Clichy (talk) 17:46, 4 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.

Category:Interquel video games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follows the naming convention already set by Category:Video game sequels and Category:Video game prequels ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, given Blaze Wolf is here largely because of my careless assumption that the proposed name was already its name, which led me to introduce a red link to a page's category list. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I saw you add that and after realizing it was a real category, I figured "Why is it not at that name already?" ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I have to question we are confident this category tree doesn't violate WP:NEO. This term seems to have been invented by TVTropes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps at all, there are RSes provided at Sequel#Classifications supporting this term. As I've said elsewhere, many are physical sources and so hard to check on, but one of them is available online. I don't think the term is a TV Tropes invention (the Wiktionary entry for the term predates TV Tropes by about five months, if the founding date on its Wikipedia page is correct). --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:29, 4 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.

Category:Fictional characters with physical and congenital disorders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Fictional characters with physical and congenital disorders

Category:History of Chitral[edit]

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 per nom. Seems to be a WP:1AM situation. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: renominate per WP:IAR, this category was part of a District of Chitral batch nomination, to be split in District in Lower Chitral and District of Upper Chitral, see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 19#Chitral District II]]. However, the split of this particular has not been implemented yet, and can't be implemented. It is not about the history of any district but about the history of a former princely state. This new proposal reflects that. If renamed, it should also be re-parented, see categories in Chitral (princely state) article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 and Qwerfjkl: courtesy ping to nominator and closer of previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on actual contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chitral's status as a historical and cultural area was not affected by its split into two administrative areas in 2018. Its history is wider than the history of the princely state abolished in 1972. From a pragmatic point of view the two districts created in 2018 share so much history that it would not be meaningful to attempt to split articles relating to their history before 2018 between the two districts.--Mhockey (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was no discussion of it (I was not aware of it), and it needed discussion.--Mhockey (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The content largely seems to relate to events before 1972. If we can devise a name, it might be feasible to have a category for everything up to the split in 2018. Perhaps Category:Chitral (state) would deal with that, provided a headnote is added, explaining that anything after the split in 2018 should not be placed in the category, but the two for the successor states. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to consider the range of matters which could potentially be included in the category, not the articles which are currently in the category. Plenty of things happened in Chitral between 1972 and 2018, and you would not expect expect such articles in a category named for an entity abolished in 1972. I suggest it would not be difficult to devise a name of such a category: why not Category:History of Chitral?--Mhockey (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 4 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.

Category:Ancient Greeks by death[edit]

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 1 & 3, rename 2, delete 4.
Nominator's rationale: Cleaning up the acient greeks by death category. We don't intersect cause of death with nationality for many of these category. If Category:Ancient Greeks who died from disease is kept, it should be renamed: Disease-related deaths in Ancient Greece Mason (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, a comment on each of these categories separately below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak oppose on merging Category:Ancient Greeks by death, we do categorize cause of death by country and this seems to be an approximation of that.
  2. Support renaming Category:Ancient Greeks who were murdered per naming convention.
  3. Support renaming Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle per naming convention.
  4. Just delete Category:Ancient Greeks who died from disease, death from disease should be container categories by type of disease.
  • Different proposals require different responses. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose: I'll be guided by Marcocapelle on this one—upmerging would delete useful categorization that's consistent with other extant categories.
  2. Weak support: "murder victims" doesn't sound like an ideal formulation, but looks like an improvement over "who were murdered". Perhaps "homicides" might be an alternative.
  3. Oppose. "military personnel" smacks of hypercorrectness and is a jarringly modern and technical description that simply does not belong in classical antiquity. "Killed in action" is 20th-century military jargon for "killed in battle". Keep it simple, and avoid jargon—the current title is fine, and much better than the proposed alternative.
  4. Oppose. "Disease-related deaths" sounds like a statistical category that would include all mentions of plague or pestilence, not just specific persons who died from various diseases, which is what the current title suggests. Marcocapelle may be correct about specific categories for types of disease, but "disease-related deaths" would make the scope of the category vaguer.
Looking over that category, I see that it includes generals, common soldiers, and military engineers, of whom at least the first two could arguably be called "soldiers", but I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to include "admirals", and not sure whether "women in Greek warfare" might include non-fighters. So it may be that "military personnel" was chosen simply because the category creator could not think of any other phrase that would include all of these subcategories. Not sure I can think of a better one—certainly not off the top of my head. However, there's no need to limit "Ancient Greeks killed in battle" to soldiers, or some category of combatants including admirals, Amazon warriors, centaurs, etc. (maybe "warriors" would work for the parent category?). "Ancient Greeks" includes all of the above, and potentially other categories—the only limitations being that they were Greek and that they were slain in battle. So we don't need to have a perfect term covering everyone's roles in warfare. P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it doesn't look as though anyone else is going to comment on these proposals; further relisting seems futile. There seems to be weak consensus for the second one ("murder victims"), strong consensus against the third ("killed in battle"), and no consensus on the other two, which I believe means they should be kept as they are. P Aculeius (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @P Aculeius, I (almost) never relist CfDs more than twice. Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities into Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible
Nominator's rationale: I'm not totally sure yet, but from my observation of these two categories, there's not much difference between them, and there's significant overlap between both categories. If there's proven to be any real difference between them, then I will withdraw this merging proposal and just leave one of these categories as a subcategory of the other one. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So now that we're left with exactly 9 pages in the density category, I'm wondering what to do next? We have a few possible options:
I'm not really sure yet. If anyone has any other suggestions, please add something below here. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This nomination seems to be equating density with solidity. True, in comics at least this isn't new; the Vision was initially IIRC able to fly and to pass through walls and people by "reducing his density" and become hard and massive by increasing it. However, Phantom Girl became intangible by "phasing"; she did not become less dense or less massive, and did not float away like a balloon, while Light Lass made objects lighter (thus controlling their density) without making them intangible. Marvel's Sandman can become diffuse and thus in one sense less dense, but not intangible, and so on. In many (most?) cases in comicbook physics, the abilities aren't the same and one is not represented as a subset of the other. NebY (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Turning intangible is one form of density manipulation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 4 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.

Category:Ships built by Venetian Arsenal[edit]

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:Ships built by the Venetian Arsenal. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm pretty sure that these are the same category, but if the distinction is meaningful, I'd really like one of the categories renamed. Mason (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nom. The Venetian Arsenal is a notorious enough shipbuilder to have its own category for ships built there, enough that many ships list it as builder in reliable sources. The first line of article Venetian Arsenal calls it responsible for the bulk of the Venetian Republic's naval power from the Late Middle Ages to the early modern period and "one of the earliest large-scale industrial enterprises in history". The corporate structure is probably not comparable to Anglo-American capitalism, but that's not the topic here. Place Clichy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom but keep the distinction. The Venetian Arsenal is a notable entity and the closest to a naval industrial complex in pre-industrial revolution times. Constantine ✍ 20:41, 4 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.

Category:Wasps Netball matches[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article, and no more will exist in the future, since the team is defunct. Therefore, upmerging to the only parent category is sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 4 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.

Category:Vital articles in an unknown topic by quality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Vital articles in an unknown topic by quality

Category:Level-unknown vital articles by quality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Level-unknown vital articles by quality

Category:Unassessed vital articles by level[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:Unassessed vital articles by level

Category:Republic of China Buddhist monks[edit]

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) Seawolf35 T--C 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not a defining intersection of religion with political regime per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_25#Category:People_from_the_Republic_of_China Mason (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Also fyi, I've already added people to the respective 21st-century Buddhist monk/buddhists category) Mason (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should not be merged. Republic of China and People's Republic of China are also seen as two time labels and geographical labels used to differentiate the religious people in China from 1912 to 1949 and Taiwan since 1945 from those religious people in China since 1949. Merging them would cause some unnecessary confusion as many Taiwanese people only accept the tag of Republic of China instead of the tag of China and People's Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronlee90 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make much sense to me – why would we combine Taiwanese monks post-1945 with Chinese monks pre-1949 in one category? If these categories are kept, each category's scope should be based on a single combination of place and time period. For instance, Category:Republic of China Buddhist monks and Category:People's Republic of China Buddhist monks could be subcategories of Category:Chinese Buddhist monks by period, covering 1911-1949 and 1949-present respectively. Post-1945 Taiwanese monks should be in Category:Taiwanese Buddhist monks regardless.
Likewise it may make sense to keep Category:Republic of China Taoists (there are other time-period categories in Category:Chinese Taoists), as well as Category:Republic of China Buddhists and Category:People's Republic of China Buddhists as part of Category:Chinese Buddhists by period.
On the other hand, Category:People's Republic of China Tibetan Buddhists should be merged as there seems to be no corresponding set of categories by period. The same appears to be true of Category:People from the Republic of China by religion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. The common demonym for present-day China (the PRC) is Chinese, as it is for Ming China, Qing China, interwar China etc. It does not bring value to split national categories of people by political regime, unless these people where directly involved in that regime. Taiwanese people are categorized under Taiwanese people. Place Clichy (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Place Clichy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 4 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.

Category:History of Buddhism in Nanjing[edit]

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) HouseBlastertalk 16:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 05:39, 4 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.

Category:Buddhist artifacts of China[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: triple merge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one artifact in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:38, 4 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.

Category:Educators from the Colony of South Australia[edit]

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 all. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need to slice up 19th-century educators by which colony they were in. Regime is not a defining intersection here. Same logic as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_17#Category:Writers_from_the_Colony_of_Western_Australia Mason (talk) 04:51, 4 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.

Category:Professorships at the Imperial Moscow University[edit]

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:Academic staff of Imperial Moscow University. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based on the content. Everyone in here is a professor at Imperial Moscow University. There are no pages for "professorships". Mason (talk) 01:07, 4 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.

Category:Russian institutions supporting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

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) HouseBlastertalk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Mason (talk) 00:56, 4 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.

Category:Graduates of the Academy of Fine Arts in Gdańsk[edit]

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:Academy of Fine Arts in Gdańsk alumni. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Identical categories Mason (talk) 00:56, 4 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.

Category:Poles awarded the Order of the Crown of Italy[edit]

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:Recipients of the Order of the Crown (Italy). (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to diffuse by nationality. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Polish recipients of the Order of the Crown (Italy) Mason (talk) 00:51, 4 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.

Category:Symphonic poems by Jean Sibelius[edit]

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:Tone poems by Jean Sibelius. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is well-established in the Sibelius studies literature that the composer himself preferred the term "tone poem" rather than "symphonic poem"; moreover, Category:Tone poems by Richard Strauss provides a precedent for naming like categories nested under Category:Symphonic poems by composer using "tone poems" as a preferred synonym. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:49, 4 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.

Category:1901–02 NCAA football bowl games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Category:1901–02 NCAA football bowl games

Category:Results of South Australian local elections[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support splitting as creator of said categories (Consider this as a reply to all three of these proposed deletions) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove the pages from the category. (other people need to be able to evaluate the categories) Mason (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, will revert Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:36, 4 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.

Category:Video games set in the New Kingdom of Egypt[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's not need to diffuse by specific kingdom Mason (talk) 00:07, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_4&oldid=1195210501"