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 and re-categorize single article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Terrorist incidents in Hīt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Unlikely to be any more. Rathfelder (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but the one article needs to have a Category:Hīt or something related to Al Anwar Governorate added as a category. Therefore Merge? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Al Anbar Governorate per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2016 (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: procedural close. This is the wrong place to get articles renamed; see instead the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raktavija

Not sure how to go ahead with this(First time doing this).

But it isn't "Raktavija", but "Raktabija" as clearly stated in para one, in the same link. "Rakta" stands for blood, and "Bija" stands for seed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenninGod (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Patrons of Population Matters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining characteristic of these people. Many notable people are patrons of charities but are not characterized by their patronage. This is the only 'patrons of charity' category that exists. Tassedethe (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. People are quite frequently "patrons" of numerous charities or foundations or organizations, leading to extreme category bloat if we allowed every organization to have one of these. We categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics, not every individual piece of information that exists at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. No dual merge needed, all articles are already in the tree of Category:Lithuanian basketball players. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople from Kėdainiai to Category:People from Kėdainiai

Also propose merging-

Category:Sportspeople from Kuršėnai to Category:People from Kuršėnai

Category:Sportspeople from Molėtai to Category:People from Molėtai

Category:Sportspeople from Nida, Lithuania to Category:People from Nida, Lithuania

Category:Sportspeople from Plungė to Category:People from Plungė

Category:Sportspeople from Utena to Category:People from Utena

Category:Sportspeople from Šventoji to Category:People from Šventoji

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have just 1 or 2 entries. If AFD outcome is merge, category entries must be upmerged also to 'Lithuanian sportspeople'. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. In my opinion, "Category:Sportspeople from Lithuania" would be the most appropriate. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual upmerge -- also to Category:Sportspeople from Lithuania. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2016 (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: The outcome of this discussion is upmerge. Having said that, I would like to explain, that the argument "no clear distinction between the two categories" is incorrect, since Engineering units and formations are distinct from other units in any army, as was correctly mentioned in the discussion. The more convincing argument that was made was, that at least a few of the articles in this category (NKVD labor columns, Egyptian Labour Corps, and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps) show no connection to engineering as far as I can see, others (Chinese Labour Corps and Reichsarbeitsdienst) show that those units had only partial engineering tasks, while regarding the Solomon Islands Labour Corps the article is not specific enough in this regards. As a result, this category would remain with only 3 articles, which per WP:SMALLCAT is reason for an upmerge. I also considered the argument that this category seems to bundle unfree and free labor, but that distinction should not affect the categorization of those people. One "keep" vote was cast without bringing any argument, which was not helpful. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Labour corps to Category:Non-combatant military personnel

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, no clear distinction between the two categories. Labour Corps is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, retain as subcategory of Category:Non-combatant military personnel if deemed appropriate.--KTo288 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is a specific type of non-combatant military personnel, and has sufficient similarity between countries to merit retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current category seems to conflate labor for non-combatant military personnel, and organized slave (or unfree) labor. While both contain the word "labour" or "labor", it's apples and oranges and seems to be an artificial grouping based on the WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Criticism and refusal of work to Category:Employment

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this is a container category with two relatively unrelated topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- It is wholly appropriate to have material on non-employment in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (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.