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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Interstellar messages to Category:Interstellar communication

Nominator's rationale: The main article is named Interstellar communication. Content is also related to "communication" in general, not only "messages". 178.95.188.79 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Interstellar Messages (IMs) already exist -- on board of Pioneer and Voyager spacecrafts, or already were transmitted from Earth to several nearby Sun-like stars. In short, IMs represent the REALIZED projects. But Interstellar Communications (ICs) not exists as yet, and nobody can predict when it will take place. In short, IC is the "paper" project. Therefore, I do not see the reason to substitute for the title of Category:Interstellar messages. 80.77.162.99 (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest the Active SETI as the main article for this category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_SETI) 80.77.162.99 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy WP:C2D rename per nom. @80.77.162.99: "communication" can include one-way transmissions in some contexts. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 08:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you know, initially SETI (Search for ETI) was named CETI (Communication with ETI), but gradually scientists arrived at a conclusion it is prematurely to speak about communication, so CETI was renamed into SETI. I think in our case also prematurely to speak about communication. 80.77.162.99 (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See also List of interstellar radio messages 80.77.162.99 (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace the main article (Active SETI instead of Interstellar communication) to match majority content of Category:Interstellar messages. 80.77.163.171 (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to conform to article name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the proposed title may suggest that two-way communication is taking place. The current title is clearer in this regard. Praemonitus (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dauphins of France and Category:Heirs presumptive to the French throne

Nominator's rationale: up- or downmerge two categories that presumably have the same scope (see Dauphin of France). I've tagged both categories, being neutral on the direction of merge. On the side I wonder, should the scope of these categories not better be narrowed down to dauphins who did not actually became king? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- There is a difference. the Dauphin was the heir apparent from the creation of the title in 1350. The brother of a king with no son will be heir presumptive, his son (when born) will become heir apparent and dauphin. On the other hand, I am not sure that it is useful to have people in either category, if they subsequently became king. An "heirs who did not inherit" might be worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite right, I had overseen that. It means that Category:Dauphins of France should become a child category of Category:Heirs presumptive to the French throne. I'll change that and then withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2015 (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 and populate as nominated (no objections). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming and populating Category:Aragonese Crusade to Category:War of the Sicilian Vespers
• Propose renaming Category:Christians of the Aragonese Crusade to Category:People of the War of the Sicilian Vespers

Nominator's rationale: rename and populate per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT, the Aragonese Crusade was only a small episode of the War of the Sicilian Vespers. The category is likely to be populated better when we extend it to the whole war. (Note on the side, the Aragonese Crusade wasn't a crusade against the Muslims, but an internal European war with the papacy involved.) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2015 (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: relist to Dec 14 as the additional categories were not tagged. – Fayenatic London 23:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dog breeds originating in Israel to Category:Dog breeds originating in Asia

Nominator's rationale: This category has only one page, and I do not know of any other dog breed originating from Israel. So no more pages will be added. Corsican Warrah (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the Philippine & Taiwan categories only have 1, are they a problem too? What about the ones with 2? What is the line? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. So are the ones with 2. Merge them, please. --Corsican Warrah (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Other Categories to Merge:

--Corsican Warrah (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have no preference about this either way, but if the nominated categories are deleted, the contents also need to be merged into the appropriate "Animal breeds originating in FOO" category: Category:Animal breeds originating in Israel, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. These are very small categories and I don't see much scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge too small of categories to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: One-article category (with no parents) - pointless. DexDor ^(talk) 06:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. It's a tiny river somewhere in Scandinavia. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The river is already in the appropriate Norway category, so no need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Luxembourgian people to Category:Luxembourgish people and all similar categories.

Nominator's rationale: Sorry if I missed something. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Luxembourg#Spelling_and_usage: “'Luxembourg' is to be used for the adjective of Luxembourg (e.g. Luxembourg elections, Luxembourg government). 'Luxembourgian' has unfortunately become widely used on Wikipedia, however this is incorrect and should be changed when encountered. 'Luxembourgish' is the name of the language, whilst 'Luxembourger' is the demonym.” Either “people of Luxembourg” or “Luxembourg people” (less preferred) would also be fine. It is good to distinguish citizenship and ethnicity, but that does not justify making up the new word ‘Luxembourgian’. Kaihsu (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that things have moved on since I last checked Project Luxembourg. – Kaihsu (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous discussion on same proposal was in 2012 and resulted in no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Good background info with stats on usage is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though inelegant, Luxembourgian is not a Wikipedia novelty. It serves the purpose of allowing us to have separate categories for the nationality and the ethnicity (known as Luxembourgish people or Luxembourgers, but never Luxembourgians). The distinction has been drawn on this exact basis (see pg. 49) by Luxembourgians themselves. On that basis, it does not seem like a foreign imposition, but rather a distinction used by at least some of the population which serves Wikipedia's purposes quite well. SFB 22:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• With so many possible variations, it may be better to use Category:People from Luxembourg. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's currently a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see so that's no good solution either. This is difficult. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is Luxembourgers: could be not have Category:Luxembourgers. The problem is that the name applies to an independent Grand Duchy, its main city, and an adjacent district of Belgium. The dab-category Category:People from Luxembourg leads to four cats. One difficulty is that this is close to the French/German linguistic boundary, so that multiple alternatives are all feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Luxembourgers" is not a good solution, because although it resolves the name of this category, it wouldn't work for the subcategories, since "Luxembourger" is a noun and not an adjective—we'd still be searching for an appropriate adjective to use for all the other categories! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There's not much participation in this discussion, so I thought I would take a crack here. There are several options, and I think I come to conclusion that "Luxembourgian", though slightly inelegant, is just the "least bad" option in this case
  • (1) Category:People from Luxembourg – definitely not. This is currently a DAB category and probably too ambiguous. And anyway, a person of with the nationality of Luxembourg is not necessarily from the country of Luxembourg—they are just a national of it, which is one reason we generally use a "FOOian people" format (and why Category:People from Georgia (country) is an abomination of formatting that should be snuffed out—there are thousands of nationals of Georgia who have never set foot in the country!);
  • (2) Category:Luxembourgers –  seems to have the same ambiguity problems as (1) and would be odd because nationality categories are almost always in the format of "XXXX people", with a preference for some sort of "XXXXian people" name; it also wouldn't work for the subcategories, since "Luxembourger" is a noun and not an adjective—we'd still be searching for an appropriate adjective to use for all the other categories;
  • (3) Category:Luxembourgish people – probably not, because that is commonly used in English-language sources to also refer to the ethnic group, so again, so again we have an ambiguity issue;
  • (4) Category:Luxembourg people – I am slightly tempted by this one, but it's probably again too ambiguous. It does conform to the general format better than (1) would, though, and we do use this format for some nationalities with difficult or ambiguous FOOian forms (Category:Dominica people, Category:Antigua and Barbuda people, etc.)
  • (5) Category:Luxembourgeois people – the OED references this one, but it is otherwise not in as common usage as the other options in English-language sources;
  • (6) Category:Luxembourgian people – this is not a Wikipedia neologism—it is used outside of the encyclopedia in many sources to make it clear that the reference is to the national, not the ethnic or language, group. Of course, one could argue that the same ambiguity issues arise with this option, but I think since it is the option that was essentially created to deal with the ambiguity issue, it is the one we should use to be as least ambiguous as we can.
    • If there is a consensus that option (6) really is awful and should not be used anymore, my next preference would be option (4), Category:Luxembourg people. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• While re-reading this discussion it seems that option 2, 4 and 6 are all three acceptable for this people category (but I understand that option 2 doesn't solve the problem for other categories so would be the least preferred of the three). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think (2) is most questionable of those three because of the reason you state and for its unusual format. I would be pretty OK with (4) or (6), but I'm not sure if there is a strong preference being exhibited here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People of Luxembourg to avoid the failure to settle on a consistent form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that less ambiguous than Category:People from Luxembourg? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also does not follow the category format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It may not be the best possible format, but it's the least-worst, as well explained above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 20 December 2015 (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) 01:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina under-17 international footballers to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina youth international footballers
• Propose merging Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina under-19 international footballers to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina youth international footballers

Nominator's rationale: Only the top (major) youth national teams from each country should be given it's own category and the lower youth levels grouped together. – Michael (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - we have categories at under-21 youth level (and under-23 for the Olympics) but anything younger than that should be grouped together, see prior consensus. GiantSnowman 17:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- as for Albania on an earlier day. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2015 (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.