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 HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American women artists of Chinese descent to Category:American artists of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:American women artists of Indian descent to Category:American artists of Indian descent
• Propose merging Category:American male artists of Indian descent to Category:American artists of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: I don't see why we need to have an intersection with gender*occupation*Indian/Chinese descent. Male and women artists are non-diffusiong. Mason (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to the first two targets; further discussion of the categorization of Alexander Leslie of Auchintoul can take place at Talk:Alexander Leslie of Auchintoul. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scottish emigrants to the Tsardom of Russia to Category:Immigrants to the Tsardom of Russia and Category:Scottish emigrants and Category:British emigrants to Russia

Nominator's rationale: 3x merge for now, this is a very narrow intersection that's not needed for diffusion Mason (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to the first two merge targets, a one-article category is not helpful for navigation. I am in doubt about the third merge target because there wasn't a Great Britain or United Kkngdom yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:City founders from the Tsardom of Russia to Category:Russian city founders
• Propose merging Category:Explorers from the Tsardom of Russia to Category:Russian explorers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories are underpopulated, and don't help navigation with the same individual person in them. Mason (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose after I populated these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison: populated enough? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, populated enough now. Thanks! Mason (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indonesian women religious leaders to Category:Indonesian women by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer merge for now. (And nuns are religious works, not leaders) Mason (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, agree with both of nominator's points. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Funeral and burial of Abraham Lincoln (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These are venues associated with the funeral of Lincoln. Other than the article, the only ones related to Lincoln's funeral are his burial ground and the catafalque which should be moved to Category:Abraham Lincoln. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:2023 disestablishments in New Brunswick. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Populated places disestablished in New Brunswick in 2023 to Category:Populated places disestablished due to the 2023 New Brunswick local governance reform

Nominator's rationale: All of these relate to a single government reform in this year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bit odd. The places haven't been disestablished but the local governments have. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My first thought was to merge to Category:2023 disestablishments in New Brunswick, and remove them from the "Populated places disestablished" hierarchy. Compare Category:1974 disestablishments in New Brunswick which includes a raft of former electoral districts. However, the similar cases that arose from the 2015 Manitoba municipal amalgamations are directly within Category:Populated places disestablished in 2015, and disincorporated French communes are in the 2016 sibling, etc, so we should either purge all such cases of disincorporation, or keep/rename the category in some way. Would "disincorporated" be more helpful than "disestablished"? Perhaps all of Category:Populated places by year of disestablishment should be split between places that have been destroyed and those that were merely disincorporated. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with your first thought the most. Splitting seems unnecessarily complex. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that would also entail merging to Category:Populated places disestablished in 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • @LaundryPizza03: my original point was that the place hasn't been disestablished. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 17 July 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 to delete , so rename instead, No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter to Category:Registers of the Order of the Garter
• Nominator's rationale: In the Order of the Garter, there is no, and has seemingly never been an, office of 'Registrar'; it appears always to have been 'Register', and this is explained in the article with a citation link. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete per WP:NONDEF. Its notable to be a Knight or Lady of the Garter but not a register or registrar. I can't even find out if its even a position. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American Mideast Conference football templates to Category:Mid-Ohio Conference football templates
• Propose renaming Category:American Mideast Conference football standings templates to Category:Mid-Ohio Conference football standings templates

Nominator's rationale: The American Mideast Conference last sponsored football in 1970 when the conference was known as the Mid-Ohio Conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Shang dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Shang dynasty‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Han dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Han dynasty‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Jin dynasty (266–420) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Jin dynasty (266–420)‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Tang dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Tang dynasty‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Song dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Song dynasty‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Jin dynasty (1115–1234)‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Yuan dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Yuan dynasty‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Ming dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Ming dynasty‎
• Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Qing dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Qing dynasty‎

Nominator's rationale: The rationale given by Marcocapelle for the previous CFD back in May:

"in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense.

This is usually the case, but as regards China X dynasty is the most common and natural form in English for the name of the state itself. Per the standard for analogous categories, e.g. Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire, I think reassuming the previous pattern would be ideal. Remsense诉 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire is not an analogous category because Byzantine does not refer to a dynasty. A good analogous example is Category:People under the Almoravid dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The state is what is being referred to here, wholly in line with the language used in English-language literature about China. Remsense诉 04:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A dynasty is something else than a state. If anything, the state is China. With the other example, the Almoravid dynasty, there is no commonly used state name at all, and that is also fine. State names may be derived from the dynasty name, e.g. Sassanid Empire and Sassanid dynasty but that is not the case here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't mean to be rude, but I feel this is being overly deliberate about universal boundaries between interwoven concepts in a way that, I stress, ignores actual usage. In part, these lexical differences can be ascribed to the distinct paradigms of dynasties in China compared to elsewhere. Byzantium was not really dynastic at its core at all, with the legitimacy of the state always clearly surpassing that of lineages. China was not the opposite per se, it's just that there was a totally different, more consubstantial relationship between the Chinese state and its ruling dynasty.

    Putting an even finer point on the "actual usage" argument: in a fulltext search of my library of China-related books, "under the Han dynasty" appears verbatim at some point in 14 books, while "in the Han dynasty" appears in 91! This ratio is 1:27 for the Shang, 11:21 for the Jin (both represented), 8:67 for the Tang, 6:54 for the Song, 11:42 for the Yuan, 16:52 for the Ming, and 7:51 for the Qing. This must reflect some conventional usage of "dynasty" in the name of a state, right? Remsense诉 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle, not to hound, but do you have any thoughts about this? To be clear, there's no lexical weirdness about the dataset above: "X dynasty" is being used as the name of the state in all the results I manually checked. Remsense诉 06:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Remsense诉 23:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't make much sense unless there is a consistent translation issue in these books. I can understand the misunderstanding if Chinese language uses the same word for "dynasty" and "empire" while in English we have two words for it with different meaning. I'm not saying this is the case but it is the only hypothesis I can come up with. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a "translation issue": most are native English books. Like I've said multiple times, it is the way the states are often referred to in English. I haven't been lying or misspeaking when I've repeatedly said that. I really didn't want to say something this blunt, but this is rather obvious and non-controversial to anyone who's read a little in English about Chinese history, or even China in general. What else would I have to do to demonstrate this fact to you? Remsense诉 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here, to make it more concrete:

Is this helpful at all? If not, I would start being concerned that there's no possible thing I could do to demonstrate that commonplace usage happens to lie outside your personal intuitions in this case. Remsense诉 03:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• English-language historians of China may have adopted the Chinese way of equating dynasties and empires, but that is not how we normally use English language. This is a global encyclopedia, not a Chinese one. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed versions do not feel right grammatically. What I would expect to read under that sort of construction would be something like, eg., "Religion in Shang dynasty‎ China". CMD (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do the excerpts directly quoted above make you feel similarly? To address your notion head-on: those would not be the COMMONNAMES for these states. The COMMONNAMES for these states are, instead, Shang dynasty, Zhou dynasty, et al. I cannot make this clear enough. Remsense诉 04:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As an ancillary but hopefully illustrative point: I prefer in to during here because there were often multiple dynastic states at a given time throughout Chinese history, so it would be potentially somewhat ambiguous if one were to speak of matters during the Song and during the Jin in a context where they were both around but did not begin or end around the same time. I have to reiterate, this is pretty much equivalent to one writing in the Byzantine Empire. Remsense诉 04:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The excerpts above seem to mostly use "in" in a temporal sense, whereas reading the category "in" reads as being used geographically. It is not grammatically equivalent to write about a dynasty as compared to an Empire. CMD (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The COMMONNAMES for the states are exactly as above: that is why the articles for the states are named as such, after much historical deliberation onsite. However, your nuance is well-taken, but I'm not really sure how to cleanly demonstrate usage that can't be characterized as partially temporal, given that these are states that overlap in geographical area and are (mostly) consecutive temporally. Here's one, though:

  • Thomas Mullaney, The Chinese Computer (2024): Chinese telegraphy dates back to 1871, when a newly laid telegraphic cable between Shanghai and Hong Kong linked the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) to a rapidly expanding international network dominated by the British Empire.

  Remsense诉 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The common name for the state in all of these cases is "China". Dynasty names are useful tools both as disambiguation and as a simple way to vary the text with a bit of metonymy, but that does not mean the grammar transfers exactly. The example you gave reads fine to me, but it's not the same as what is proposed. Grammar considerations are why I assume all the proposed titles maintain "the", rather than what would be an unusual "Religion in Ming dynasty". Formulations like I noted above or a shorter "Ming China" would keep the same grammar though. CMD (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is more common to say that something happened "in the Ming dynasty" or "during the Ming dynasty" than "under the Ming dynasty", because the phrase "Ming dynasty" most often refers to a state and a time period rather than a set of rulers. I realize this usage may be unfamiliar for people who haven't spent much time reading about Chinese history, but it is what's most common in reliable English-language sources about the subject. It's also not true that The common name for the state in all of these cases is "China" – for instance, the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) constituted only part of China by any reasonable definition, as it coexisted with the Song dynasty among other states. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to add that the phrase "(specific religion) during the X dynasty" is also used in articles like Islam during the Song dynasty, Islam during the Ming dynasty, Islam during the Qing dynasty, and Shamanism during the Qing dynasty. On the other hand, the phrase "Religion in the X dynasty" is used in the article Religion in the Song dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As that article states, the Jin Dynasty "was an imperial dynasty of China". That "during" is the same as "in" seems more evidence that the usage of "in" in such cases is temporal? If the proposal was Category:Religion during the Ming dynasty‎ this would be a different discussion. CMD (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Consistent with the article Religion in the Song dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Thai television series debuts by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an umbrella category for a whole slew of subcategories, which each have a slew of subcategories. However, each is sparsely populated. This is a logical area for a navigation template, something that there may be a bot already to populate. I am suggesting we discuss this template with a view to incorporating the whole hierarchy of content into a navigation template. If that discussion reaches that conclusion, then processes should be put in hand to populate the template and depopulate the sub and sub-sub categories, which may then be deleted as empty. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What? Why would we create a template for unrelated entries that users will likely not ever use? This category system is exactly how this should be handled and how it is handled for other countries - see Category:Television series debuts by country and decade. This is a very strange deletion nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The question should perhaps be what to do with the sparsely-populated early year subcats of Category:Thai television series debuts by year. A nomination to merge 1965, 1980, 1990, 1991 and 1999 to their decade parents would probably gain support. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I would support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, some of the currently-empty subcats were created by วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ and later emptied by the same editor, having been used temporarily for some series that started and finished within one year. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems they've created a tree that I don't think exists in other countries. Category:1990 Thai television dramas instead of Category:1990 Thai television series debuts and Category:1990s Thai drama television series (see Category:2010s American drama television series). Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 17 July 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: procedural redirect. Close has already been implemented as a result of the other discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:18th century in Mozambique to Category:18th century in Portuguese Mozambique

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and reverse merge instead. What a mess Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique is currently – half of the year subcats up to 1975 use "Portuguese" in the name, half don't. I prefer the solution at e.g. Category:20th century in Angola where everything is simply named "in Angola", but all years/decades/centuries up to 1975 are parented by Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised to see that Marcocapelle removed some content from Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g. Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I think I understand how you distinguish between those parents now. But I am not persuaded by the India hierarchy as a model rather than Angola. India also has sub-hierarchies for French, Dutch and Portuguese India. There is no such ambiguity between colonial powers for Mozambique.
      • I saw that you put Category:1924 in Mozambique into Portuguese Mozambique parent categories, and nominated it at Speedy. If these two layers are the way to go then presumably we should do likewise for all the Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique not currently called "Portuguese". I suggest leaving redirects.
      • Ah. I've just found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#Category:20th_century_in_Mozambique and 19th century just below it, which ended with consensus NOT to use "Portuguese". In those discussions you didn't !vote but questioned whether the "Portuguese" disambiguator was needed. Why should we go against that previous consensus and use "Portuguese" now? – Fayenatic London 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique, Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it would be (barely) justifiable to retain Category:18th century in Mozambique to hold 18th-century Mozambican people (2 P), 18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Mozambique (1 P) and Old Cathedral of Quelimane. I would likewise keep 19th century in Mozambique.
          • But the rest of your proposal sounds right, as the other C16–C19 hierarchy contents are Fort São Miguel de Chicova, Fort São Caetano, Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique, Diocese of Lebombo, and redirects Captaincy of Sofala, Captaincy of Mozambique and Sofala, Captaincy-General of Mozambique and Rivers of Sofala, Province of Mozambique. The only other potential contents I found are Portuguese expedition to Sofala (1505), Siege of Mozambique (1607), Siege of Mozambique (1608).
          • Please can we start by undoing your recent parameterising of years in Mozambique into "Portuguese"? [2] – Fayenatic London 09:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I see that my request and this whole discussion becomes moot because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. I suggest that that CFD should be closed before this one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still pending
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly all the contents were merged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_11#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. Redirect to Category:Portuguese Mozambique for the benefit of category navigation from C19 etc. I already did this when implementing that close, forgetting that this CFD was still open. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Xth century in Roman Africa. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:4th century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:5th century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to ?? century in Roman Africa I populated these categories somewhat. However, in Diocletian's administrative reforms (sometime between 284–305 CE), Africa (Roman province) was split into Africa Zeugitana, Africa Byzacena, and Africa Tripolitania. In 314 CE, these provinces were grouped together along with almost all Roman provinces on the African continent in the Diocese of Africa. Thus there essentially was no Roman province named just "Africa" in the 3rd-5th centuries. With my rename proposal, I suggest the new category scope includes all Roman and Byzantine-controlled areas on the African continent. The people categories need to be renamed as well. Daask (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still only 5 unique articles in 3 categories, then we'd better move the articles back and carry on with deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Daask; do not delete: Smallcat is best employed when there is no potential for expansion, but these categories have considerable potential for expansion, though they would be better renamed. While merging them is a possibility, that would risk reducing their utility as navigational aids. This may be an area of study that has been neglected on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of potential topics under these headings. As far as I know, Roman Africa flourished at least until the time of the Vandal invasion, which would be worthy of multiple topics itself; I believe Belisarius attempted to reclaim Africa from the Vandals, which would seem to merit a topic; and of course it was still inhabited at the time the Muslims swept across it on the way to Spain, and that is a topic or two as well. There may be some articles on Roman governors, petty kings, bishops and religious writers from the region. It makes little sense to delete these categories now only to recreate them under substantially identical names once more articles have been written or added, justifying splitting a bigger category again. P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SMALLCAT is deprecated and should not be referencecs as an argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Daask. There is considerable scope for expansion here. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 19 July 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: procedural keep. @Marcocapelle, feel free to start a new discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:National military histories by war to Category:Military history by war and country

Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, agree with current name being confusing. The proposed target does not exactly describe what the category contains either. What about Category:Military history by country during wars? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename because of the confusion, but unsure about the proposed targets. Perhaps Category:Military history by country by war? This would introduce two specific criteria, enabling inclusion of subcategories like Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II, and Category:Military history of Japan during World War II. But see additional comments below. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See also this nomination. I think that ultimately we do not need this tree at all, at most we need a Category:Military history of the United States by war. But it will take a few iterations to achieve that. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with eventually getting rid of the category, so any rename is an improvement in the meantime. Mason (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: For clarity, are you supporting a rename to Category:Military history of the United States by war? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No that is just the ultimate goal, but we can't do it all it once. I just mean that it does not matter too much how the category is being renamed when it is ultimately going to disappear. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next steps: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:Korean_War_national_military_histories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:World_War_II_national_military_histories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I've supported the proposed next steps and I agree the goal should be deletion of this category. Thanks for the ping, btw. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we close this discussion and start a fresh deletion nomination, or should we discuss deletion now? Meanwhile there are only two subcategories left now and they are quite unrelated, it is highly unlikely that someone would want to navigate from one subcategory to the other. By the way, by deleting the category all content still remains part of the tree of Category:Military history by war. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention to Category:WikiProject assessment categories with incorrect names

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Some categories were added manually, while others are tagged by Template:Category class — based on the template's source code, this happens if and only if the name is incorrect.

((#ifeq:((PAGENAME))((subst:!))((PAGENAME:(({class))}((#ifeq:((lc:(({class((subst:!))))))}((subst:!))unassessed((subst:!))((subst:!))-Class)) (({topic))} articles))((subst:!))
   ((subst:!))[[Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention]]
  ))

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WP:AWBREQ to auto-tag all of the categories here that are manually added, almost all of which have only the category listing in their source code. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, Category:Template Category class with class parameter not matching title exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can ((Category class)) handle pages like Category:Disambig-Class Bihar articles of Low-importance‎? It has both class and importance. Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there is an existing template that covers cateegory navigation for the quality–importance intersection. I'm also seeking to standardize category names fo this type with a recent WP:CFDS for the intersectional ones of WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you going to tag all 333 categories in Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: This nomination is only about the parent, not its subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "manually tagged" ones were added because while this has now faded somewhat, last year in particular there was an absolute epidemic of people making hasty, half-baked "standardization" edits to wikiproject templates that had the side-effect of spewing out new redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories (sometimes even for wikiprojects that don't even do importance-rating at all) at an absolutely alarming rate — meaning that as a person who works to clean up categorization errors at Special:WantedCategories, for several weeks I was getting slapped in the face with dozens of those at a time on every new generation of that report.
  They can't just stay red, which means they have to be either created or removed before the next generation of the report 72 hours later — but removing a template-generated category is impossible without either editing the template in ways that surpass my understanding of template-coding infrastructure, and thus likely breaking stuff, or totally reverting the changes that caused the redlinked category to exist in the first place, and thus being disruptive, so my only option was to create all of those categories myself. But creating a class or importance rating category is a more complex process than creating a mainspace category, especially in the cases where I would have had to create the entire importance-rating infrastructure from scratch (which I don't even know how to do), so it would have taken me weeks to do all the work myself — so especially given the sheer amount of crap I was having to deal with, my only realistic option was "do the absolute bare minimum necessary to make the category blue instead of red, and leave it in a place where the experts in wikiproject-rating categorization can fix it": namely, create a virtually blank category that doesn't contain all of the category-making code that a wikiproject assessment category should really contain, and then leave it in a "wikiproject categories that need to be fixed by people who actually know what they're doing" queue.
  There's absolutely nothing on this category that says it's only for naming errors, and there are other kinds of attention that a wikiproject assessment category can need besides naming problems alone — so it makes sense to create the proposed category as a subcategory of this if desired, but it doesn't make sense to move the existing category to this since there can be other legitimate reasons for its use besides naming problems alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would have to be done by somebody who knows how to do that, wouldn't it? Said somebody would not be me, so while those should be automated I'm not the one who can do that. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with splitting the incorrect names subcategory with the template-categorized system through Template:Category class and Template:Category importance, and leaving this category here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People by era in Rivers State to Category:People from Rivers State

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a redundant category layer Mason (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The subcategory may be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User talk archives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unknowing recreation, in 2016, of a category created in 2006 which was deleted at CfD in 2008. Same rationale applies now as in the nomination back then - it's not useful for navigation or collaboration to group disparate user talk archives.  — Scott • talk 12:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Russian Orthodox Church, Baku diocese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Churches under the Baku diocese to Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Azerbaijan

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Category:Russian Orthodox churches by country. Note that the territory of the Diocese of Baku and Azerbaijan coincides with the country of Azerbaijan. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fajemirokun family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two people in this family, which could be interlinked if it was clear how they were related. Mason (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nintendo controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is terrible, for several reasons:

- Contains a bunch of loosely unrelated content, only defined by "being related to Nintendo", even some that Nintendo, the video game company, was not even in involved in, such as the Burger King one, as well as the other Pokémon ones, especially the ones about the anime.

- The category already overlaps with other Controversies categories.

- We could start a new category to divide the Pokémon controversies, but we cannot, we currently do not have any categories for controversies over a specific media franchise, and in turn never should.

If we delete this category, we will need undo some of Blakegripling_ph's edits for which he changed.

Also, if you insist on retaining this category by making a similar category like "Works taken down by Nintendo", we don't, because information on this topic should better be located in the article "Intellectual property protection by Nintendo". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and merge, after purging games and characters there are three articles and a subcategory left that are truly about a controversy. These may be manually merged to Category:Video game controversies and Category:Nintendo insofar the articles aren't already in these trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point, bad news though: the parent categories "Video game controversies" and "Nintedo" would not fit in that article about Burger King Toys. Nintendo, the video game company, was not involved in it, neither is it a controversy over a video game, or a controversy at all. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok that is also fine. Thanks for the notification. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and merge per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:46, 17 July 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.