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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television series about snipers to Category:Military television series

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. JDDJS (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Only one of the articles in the category is truly a "series about snipers"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:54, 28 September 2017 (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. A broader discussion may be needed to form a wider consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Carpenters members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A category that can only ever possibly have two members, and will never have any more. Given we have Category:The Carpenters anyway, what's the point of this one? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It allows it to live in Category:Musicians by band with all other members of other bands.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – part of the subcat scheme Category:Musicians by band, as so pertinently pointed out above by Mike Selinker, whose contributions to cfd have been sorely missed for some time. Oculi (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. I'm struggling to imagine the band member to band member navigation path: so I'm on the Category:Bay City Rollers members and then I go up to Category:Musicians by band and then back down to Category:The Carpenters members? Maybe I guess, but I don't think that we should make the same exception TO WP:SMALLCAT for this that we have for for Category:Songs by artist. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Besides, to elaborate on the previous comment, the most obvious purpose for which this type of categories may be used is going from one member via the category page to another member. But in fact it's easier to go from one member via The Carpenters article to another member. And in this particular case the members even directly link to each other in their own articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on procedural grounds. There are various groups that consist only of a duo, and will likely remain that way (like Category:Fly to the Sky members, Category:W (group) members, Category:The Black Keys members, and so on). Whichever the result, this should be done across the board, and not simply targeting this one category. ℯxplicit 00:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually that is a very fair reason to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2017 (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. The central deletion rationale, that "exotic revival" is just a catch-all for several other revival styles (which are organized within Category:Revival architecture in the United States) and that these articles are suitably categorized elsewhere, was not refuted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Exotic Revival architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Exotic Revival architecture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These two are another NHRP style category phantom. If you go to the definition of Exotic Revival architecture you will simply end up in the list of NRHP style categories and be told that it subsumes various "exotic" revival styles, all of which have their own names (e.g. Moorish Revival); and all of the member building articles (with one exception which isn't so much a revival as it is the sort of mongrel thing Frank Furness might have come up with if he were told he wasn't allowed to do anything Gothic) are also categorized under some other, specific revival style. In other words, there isn't really any "exotic revival" style of its own right for these to be examples of. In any case, there's no need for two categories (since it's US-only anyway), so if these be kept, they should be merged. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean Toward Delete Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I might be open to some revival parent category here but I'm not seeing a point in categorizing individual articles. I'll tag the NRHP WikiProject to get more viewpoints though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this isn't a real architectural style or a real group of styles. I'll withdraw my vote (and switch to keep) if someone can show me something from an academic or highly-regarded-non-academic architectural source that discusses such a style in depth (so I know it's not just a passing mention), but I doubt we're going to find that. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit unclear without digging into each hit (and a lot of them are for NRHP submissions), but my impression is that they tend to talk about exoticism as a general trend which spurred a bunch of specific revival styles; thus they talk about small-letter "exotic revival architecture" meaning the trend as a whole rather than a style per se. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I've encountered too. We shouldn't be categorising merely because a building has one of several styles, unless those styles form a standard and well-defined group, which as far as I can tell, these ones don't. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing broken, nothing to fix. If someone would do the research on all of the member items to establish fully that each of them is better categorized in some other way, and would establish with academic references that this category is NOT meaningful, then it could be appropriate to revisit this and perhaps delete the category. However, as for another NRHP style category put up in CFD recently (and deleted), I don't see the benefit of eliminating this category from Wikipedia. Some NRHP listed places were given that category by the National Park Service and have articles now. Probably some others designated by the NPS don't yet have articles. They would all come in here and could be researched as a group in the future.

For the record now, members of "Exotic Revival architecture" currently are:

• Foster House (Union Springs, Alabama)
• Tennessee Club-Overall Goodbar Building

And members of "Exotic Revival architecture in the United States" currently are:

• Adams Street Double House
• Nelson F. Beckwith House
• Constant Riley W. Bixby House
• Captain Nathan Hale Monument
• First Congregational Church (Beloit, Wisconsin)
• First Lutheran Church (Middleton, Wisconsin)
• Fort Smith Masonic Temple
• Helena Civic Center
• Odd Fellows Rest Cemetery
• Palestine Lodge
• Polly Rosenbaum Building

No offense to individuals intended, but I hate that editors at CFD are interfering with sensible development of the NRHP article system in Wikipedia. :) --doncram 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To share just one objection to what I view as poor process on architectural styles here, I have noticed that there must have been a CFD about Category:Moderne architecture in the United States (currently a redirect) which led to a bot changing any old and new members to Category:Streamline Moderne architecture in the United States instead. Which is wrong. Streamline moderne architecture is a subtype with curves, reminiscent of ocean liners. I suppose it will take some huge effort to recruit informed editors and have huge battles or something, to fix category structure, but there's no easy way to fix all the bad changes or deletions of categories in the former member articles. It seems any temporary lack of good knowledge about architecture leads to destruction. --doncram 02:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out to my esteemed colleague that I did look at each such article, and with the exception of the one case, I could not find a justification for the classification (Romanesque is exotic?) or there was already another style (typically Moorish or Egyptian Revival) which is classed as an exotic style. The one exception I would rather describe as "eclectic".

There are two points in this. The first, which my colleague has not addressed in any way, is that we do not in any case need two categories, because everything belongs in the "in the United States" version, assuming it be kept. The second point is that we should not be creating a style solely on the basis of a blank on a form. Everything I have found says that some "revival" styles are exotic, typically because they adopt elements of "oriental" architecture; but there's no Exotic Revival because there's no Exotic style for it to be a revival of. I feel no more compunction to repeat, uncritically, the oddities of NRHP forms than I do the information from the USCG lighthouse pages. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely delete the parent Category:Exotic Revival architecture, it is obvious that this is a US-only issue. No opinion about Category:Exotic Revival architecture in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2017 (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/merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bimaristan to Category:Bimaristans
• Propose merging Category:Bimaristans in Syria to Category:Bimaristans, Category:Hospitals in Syria and Category:Medieval Syria

Nominator's rationale: The top category is for hospitals of the medieval Islamic world, and should use the plural form. The Syria category should be merged per WP:SMALLCAT as it currently only contains one member; the linked commons category only has three. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious rename for the parent; that side of things could have been speedied. Plus, renaming fixes a source of confusion — when I saw this entry in the CFD log's table of contents, I figured "Bimaristan" was some subnational region in Central Asia. We probably don't get many new articles on mediaeval Syrian hospitals, so I doubt we're going to get a second article any time soon (let alone several), so yes merging is correct. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2017 (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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Space police officers to Category:Fictional police officers

Nominator's rationale: This falls under WP:NARROWCAT as its contents can be sorted into Category:Fictional police officers, and Category:Fictional astronauts with no real issues. Fictional astronauts already covers the science fiction part. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:17, 27 September 2017 (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:Soldiers in science fiction. – Fayenatic London 05:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Science fiction soldiers to Category:Fictional soldiers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, there is little reason for this category's existence, and no similar categories in other character archetypes. A lot of the articles in it make it fail WP:NONDEF as they are not defined by being soldiers (as opposed to, say, heroes or villains). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I actually think that this is a good idea because the genre that soldiers appear in can be quiet defining. If this category survives this merge proposal, I'm going to create Category:Fantasy soldiers. JDDJS (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JDDJS:Is there evidence that there are many sci-fi soldiers that pass WP:NONDEF (e.g. they are referred to as soldiers first, before anything else?) For example, Jango Fett is described as a mercenary who is highly independent, meaning nobody would call him a "soldier". The Terminator series are best described as assassins, not soldiers. Luke Skywalker is best described as a Jedi, not a soldier. Etc. I think very few are first-and-foremost soldiers - the vast majority of fictional sci-fi soldier articles are best described as superheroes rather than actual soldiers._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If not deleted or merged, rename to Category:Soldiers in science fiction. "Science fiction soldiers" are not a kind of soldier (this isn't "Machine gun soldiers" or "Mounted soldiers", for example); the category's merely for soldiers who appear in works of science fiction. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend:Wouldn't that title be more like categorizing sci-fi works that prominently feature soldiers, similar to Category:Robots in fiction? Honestly, there is not any sort of precedent for this type of "classify a not inherently sci-fi character type by genre", nor should there exist any categories of the sort, as it's obvious overcategorization. If you want to call attention to the fact that they're from sci-fi, categorize them in both Category:Fictional soldiers and Category:Science fiction characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so; I'd expect "Robots in fiction" to hold articles about robots (e.g. if we had an article about the main character of "Little Lost Robot"), not robotics as it appears right now. And once again, no opinion on keeping or merging or deleting outright; your idea that this is overcategorization is something with which I neither agree nor disagree. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... I would expect the opposite, actually: articles about fictional robots should be in Category:Fictional robots, whereas Category:Robots in fiction should contain articles about the treatment of robotics in fiction or works of fiction related to robots. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Zxcvbnm: I don't really understand the merge target - if you're saying soldiers is not a defining characteristic then presumably the articles don't belong in Category:Fictional soldiers, do they? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Soldiers in science fiction as per above suggestion --Samantha Ireland (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2017 (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 merge, so rename. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Southwest Conference Women's Soccer Tournament to Category:Southwestern Athletic Conference Women's Soccer Tournament

Nominator's rationale: I created this today, but accidentally gave it the wrong title (SWC vs SWAC). I created the category (and a few others) to try and standardize DI women's soccer articles. Apologies for the screwup! Cleancutkid (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cleancutkid: Do you expect to be able to populate this category with a substantial number of articles? If not it better be merged to its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Well, eventually it could/would have an article for each year the tournament has/will run, plus one for the tournament as a whole (see the slightly-more-populated Category:ACC Women's Soccer Tournament). I created a number of these last week because about half (or more) the DI conferences had one already for women's soccer tourneys, and half didn't. Also, it matched the style from other sports (see Category:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament or Category:Southwestern Athletic Conference Baseball Tournament). I'm very new to working with categories, so I would defer to others' judgement on whether the category is too narrow (I know I get annoyed when I have to take 5 steps up/down a category tree to get anywhere). I know that "it exists somewhere else" is not sufficient justification, but in this case, it seems to be a pretty broad pattern in NCAA sports? I'm not vitally attached to this scheme, but if the category does stick around, it needs a new name, because right now it is referring to a defunct conference. Also, if you do think it should be killed, ideas on (re)organizing the NCAA women's soccer category tree would be welcome - I feel like it is less standardized/more complicated than it should be. Cleancutkid (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT without objection to recreation if a substantial number of articles becomes available. If kept, rename according to nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hmlarson (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2017 (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:1707 establishments in Great Britain, etc. Note that "delete" is not the same as "merge", since it would remove the member pages from the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 06:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1707 establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:1708 establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:1709 establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is a copy of Category:1708 establishments in Great Britain. --Nevé–selbert 22:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a copy. One entity refers to an island, the other to a short-lived state. Islands don't establish things; states establish things. If anything, it is Category:1708 establishments in Great Britain that ought to be deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  They are virtually the same thing and serve the same purpose. Besides, just "Great Britain" was the official name of the Kingdom of Great Britain.--Nevé–selbert 14:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (not plain delete) to Category:1708 establishments in Great Britain, as the content may not quite be the same, or is the rest in the target's subcats? In theory, Great Britain is the island and might exclude offshore islands, but that is splitting hairs. The creation of a separate "Kingdom of..." category tree has been a disruptive move. Annual categories tend to be very small and splitting them infinitely does not aid navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not splitting hairs, it is adding precision. That's a good thing to do. Having a few more letters in the cat name is a small price to pay for precision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT What about a reverse merge? Islands don't establish things; states establish things. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge things are categorized by where established, not by what organization established them. This is an establishment by place schema, not an establishment by sponsor schema. Many things so categorized were not established by a state at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment every entity in the "XXXX establishments in Foo" is a state. Please name one entity in the tree structure that is not now or was not at one time a state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - Category:1708 establishments in Great Britain into Category:1708 establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain per Laurel Lodged.GreyShark (dibra) 10:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: Preceding and succeeding categories added to the CfD.--Nevé–selbert 16:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, these are disruptive duplicates created by Laurel Lodged in defiance of previous CFD nominations. Tim! (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• False The categories that I created are non disruptive as they are the more correct form. It is the GB variant that is anomalous as only states establish, not islands. It is also false because they were created before the CFD, not after. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof of your false claim: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_4#Great_Britain_the_island_vs_GB_the_state dated 4 March and closed on 27 April, these categories were created 16 May which is after not before- blatant. Tim! (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal The CFD cited above is not the CFD that I had in mind. I was thinking of the epic CFD of July 8. This date is after the date that the 3 categories of this nomination were created. In that epic nom, Tim participated, and started the myth which he has again attempted to feed. I called it out then in these terms: "Tim neglects to mention that the closing Admin of the nomination that he cited said "Perhaps the Events (including Trials, Disestablishments and Establishments) should be renamed with "Kingdom of..."". As I wrote at the time, I believe that it showed bad faith on Tim's part not to have cited that ref by the closing admin. Clearly, he has not learnt his lesson. Tim then went on to attempt to blacken my reputation by digging up old dirt, contrary to Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds which he dismissed as a mere essay. Had more dispassionate editors from outside the UK participated in all these discussions, it is likely that KoGB would have primacy for state events and not GB (the island). But we are where we are. But not of this is an excuse for on-going mud-slinging and the making of blatently false accusations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge (or merge) because we shouldn't keep two near-duplicate categories. A reverse merge for this category in conjunction with a rename of all year establishment categories in Great Britain would be the better option, per WP:C2D, because they all refer to the Kingdom of Great Britain. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subversion alert, shortly after this nom was relisted, a very pointed note dropped into my talk page from editor Tim!. It reads, "If you continue to disrupt wikipedia with nonsense edits such as [1] you will be blocked from editing and face further sanctions.".

Admitedly, the edit was probably an error as it did in fact have more to do withe geographic island than the poticical entity. But you'd need a long hard look at the title to come to that conclusion. Anyway, in my view this note was "a shot across the bow" to prevent me from contributing to this debate and others touching GB. If so, it is nothing less than reprehensible bullying. I would be grateful for any advice as to how best to deal with it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (voted above) It is Laurel Lodged, who started trying to distinguish GB and kingdom of GB, which is not helpful as they are essentially the same place. On the issue complained of UK (1801-1922) contained 3 jurisdictions, each with their own laws, England (and Wales), Scotland, and Ireland; and since 1922 England (and Wales), Scotland and NI. Because the law was (and is) different, the UK Parliament, even before devolution passed Acts relating separately to England (and Wales), Scotland, and Ireland. It is possible that there have been some UK Acts relating to England and Scotland only, and not to Ireland. UK Acts relating to GB is not nonsense, but it is also not very useful; it would be better to classify them as both relating to England and Wales and relating to Scotland. In fact most Acts of UK Parliament relating to matters devolved to the NI Parliament 1922-1970s, relating to GB, though often they empowered the NI Parliament to pass a similar Act. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The only reason to have separate categories is if you're trying to exclude establishments in the Isle of Wight, establishments in Scilly, the 1795 Longships Lighthouse on an islet near Lands End, etc. Doing such is quite pointless; just have a category for the country, and if there's some need to have separate establishments categorise for this kingdom's islands that are separated by ocean from Great Britain, just make them subcategories of "YEAR establishments in Great Britain". Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, see Amlwch Lighthouse, which via Category:1743 establishments in Wales is a member of Category:1743 establishments in Great Britain, although it's located on Anglesey, not Great Britain. This is an ideal situation, which should be replicated with the 1707-1709 establishments; it would be absurd to take Amlwch out of the Great Britain tree merely because Anglesey's not naturally attached to the rest of Wales.

Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Is it my reverse merge alternative suggestion that you're supporting? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, there's no difference between the nominator's proposal and your proposal save the final title of the category. Is that correct? If so, I don't care. If you disagree with the nominator, I oppose your suggestion and support the nominator's. Basically, I don't care whether it's "GB" or "KoGB". Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference @Nyttend:. The nomination is for a straight delete. Mine is for a reverse merge (i.e KoGB is the new target). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you keep the gotten-rid-of title as a redirect to the kept title, there's no real difference between merging two categories and deleting one, since all the contents are ending up in the target either way. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2017 (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.