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

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Female professional wrestlers from Mexico City to Category:Professional wrestlers from Mexico City and Category:Mexican female professional wrestlers; likewise Category:Male professional wrestlers from Mexico City to Category:Professional wrestlers from Mexico City and Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers. Keep others. – Fayenatic London 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Footballers from Mexico City to Category:Sportspeople from Mexico City

Nominator's rationale: Also propose merging

• Category:Female professional wrestlers from Mexico City to Category:Sportspeople from Mexico City
• Category:Male professional wrestlers from Mexico City to Category:Sportspeople from Mexico City
• Category:Boxers from Mexico City to Category:Sportspeople from Mexico City
• Category:Baseball players from Mexico City to Category:Sportspeople from Mexico City

As per previous CFDs[1] and this one[2], and here[3],we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 15:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure those precedents apply. Mexico City is at the highest level of the Administrative divisions of Mexico and so is at (above?) the level of a state, despite its name. It is also categorised in this way. Its population is greater than most states of the USA. Would it actually be helpful to lump together the 159 footballers and the 71 boxers? Thincat (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Footballers and boxer categories as this is at first national subdivision level (comparable with Washington DC) and there is significant content to navigate at this level. Neutral on baseball players – this category is quite small so is of less obvious benefit. Upmerge Male/Female professional wrestlers from Mexico City into Category:Professional wrestlers from Mexico City and the national level Category:Mexican female professional wrestlers and Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers – usage of splitting by sport, gender and sub-national area seems a bit like overkill. How is the gender of relevance to the state level? SFB 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per SFB, Mexico City being a shorthand (longhand?) for D.F.- which indeed redirects to Mexico City; however, Category:Baseball players from Monterrey is ripe for upmerge for no such exception applies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- quite big enough to have its own category for each sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2014 (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; merge contents as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Greek people from Istanbul to Category:Turkish people of Greek descent and Category:People from Istanbul

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We do not categorise individual biographies of modern times by intersections of cities and ethnic origin. This is a follow-up to the discussion of a similar category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_23#Category:Greek_people_from_Alexandria. – Fayenatic London 10:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is significant history of Greeks in Istanbul, not least as a centre of Greek culture and the relevance of this characteristic in being subject to the mass population exchange. Also, the proposal to merge the content to Category:Turkish people of Greek descent is problematic as many of the subjects in the target category do/did not identify as Turkish. There are also some bad divisions of this category from Category:People from Constantinople – it advises categorisation of all post 1453 people into Category:People from Istanbul despite the city being broadly referred to as Constantinople into the 20th century. Someone like Konstantinos Psachos actually falls outside of the scope of all the three nominated categories. I think the scope of the Constantinople category should be changed and some of the nominated content be merged there. SFB 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all once again we are confronted and confounded by our policy of grouping unlikes together so we can categorize everyone by every possible ancestry they have and intersect it with whatever country happens to occupy the territory at some point or just today. The requested merge assumes that Greek-speaking people living under in Istanbul (like under Ottoman rule) are "Turkish people" - are they? Were any Greek-speaking people living under Ottoman rule, Turkish? How can we tell? Does that only apply to the parts of the Ottoman Empire now occupied by Turkey, or to all of the Ottoman Empire (like Greece, Lebanon, and the Holy Land) over all periods. And on what basis is that distinction made, other than subjectively? I think it would have been an odd concept to those upon whom we are putting in categories based these post hoc considerations.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Greek people from Istanbul per Carlossuarez46. Category:Turkish people of Greek descent should stay as long as it's confined to the modern state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous CfD and Carlossuarez46. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a case where the Ottoman and post-Ottoman ethnic complications apply. This is not a typcial descent category. There were Greeks there in the Ottoman period, and for that matter when the city was Constantinople. After the Turkish war of independence Greece and Turkey exchanged populations - Greek Orthodox people of Turkey for Muslim Greeks. I am not sure that occured with the population of European Turkey. In that part of the world ethnicity depends on religion, not nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case, don't use ethnicity as a proxy in our category system. If we mean "Greek Orthodox Christians from Istanbul" then the category would be limited to those who can be reliably sourced to be believers which may, just may, be defining, rather than some distant ancestor at some point some where was "Greek" whether in the sense of born in territory now occupied by the country of Greece or in Greek colonies like Byzantion or adopted Greek Orthodoxy as a religion even without a drop of Greek blood (something that Queen Elizabeth's in-laws did, I seem to recall). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 00:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Order Of Kim Il-Sung (North Korea) to Category:Recipients of the Order of Kim Il-sung

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fix caps, and remove parenthetical since I doubt there is a non–North Korean award of the same name. Alternatively, we could delete, since there is not even an article about this award. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. When I have time, I'll try to make an article... (and I added one more article to queue... meh.) — Revi 16:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- as a national award, it is legitimate to have a category. At worst Listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Members of the House of Representatives (Empire of Japan). – Fayenatic London 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Members of the House of Representatives (Japan) 1890–1947 to Category:Members of the House of Representatives (Japan, 1890–1947)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A user has suggested to me that the proposed format "looks better" than the current format. That's subjective, I suppose, and I don't really have an opinion about the suggestion (either way works for me), but I thought I'd bring it here to see if users want to rename it in this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Good Olfactory: How would you feel about using "Empire of Japan"? (No opinion on the placement of the parentheses.)RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be OK with that: Category:Members of the House of Representatives (Empire of Japan). No real preference either, so I'd be fine with any of the three options so far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prefer Alternate I think that would be simpler but no opposition to the date ranges if others think they're needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2014 (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: Triple upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Reservoirs in Carmarthenshire
• Category:Reservoirs in Ceredigion
• Category:Reservoirs in Neath Port Talbot
• Category:Reservoirs in Swansea
• Category:Reservoirs in Wrexham County Borough

• Propose merging to Category:Reservoirs in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are a finite number of reservoirs in any geographical location. These categories never have a chance in the foreseeable future of having more than one item of content, so are a classic case of over-categorisation, per WP:SMALLCAT. Sionk (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Double upmerge also to Buildings and structures in (county/city). – Fayenatic London 10:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Triple upmerge – to 'Buildings and structures in (county/city)' and 'Lakes in (county/city)'. Oculi (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support above upmerges as categorisation is far too narrow. SFB 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A reservoir is a lake or impoundment created by a dam, at least for this subset. The dam is the building or structure and the water is behind it. So these probably should not be categorized in the building and structures tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially of the same opinion, but considering reservoirs are an articifical construct, integrally reliant on a dam or manmade engineering of some kind, I'm beginning to kind of think it is fair to call it a structure. Sionk (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Triple upmerge per occuli. In British usage, reservoirs are arteficial, usually for drinking water supply; occasionally on canal summit levels to supply a canal, but I am not sure if there are any of those in Wales, where canals are (were) usually fed from rivers, rather than going over a watershed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2014 (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.