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:North American runestone hoaxes. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Purported North American runestones to Category:Unconfirmed North American runestones see alternative solution below which I've come to support

Nominator's rationale: Purported is a known expression of doubt which instills bias and disbelief in readers affected by its use. Not surprisingly, this category's member articles are rife in doubtful tone as the mere presence of such a category legitimizes the use of such expression, and confounds efforts to write in neutral prose. On the other hand, Unconfirmed is sufficiently objective to identify category members, and sufficiently neutral to avoid the inculcation of doubt in our readers.--John Cline (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, most of the articles are about hoaxes, which do not belong in an 'unconfirmed' category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an interesting consideration; I agree that "hoaxes" do not belong in a category of unconfirmed members. Do you believe (if I may ask) that "hoaxes" are a proper fit for the category whose members are "purported" to be ...? My inclination is that they are not a good fit; misplaced equally in either of the given choices. I still believe, if not even more so, that a thing "purported to be anything", is an unconfirmed thing (to be sure) and that "unconfirmed" can fully contain the legitimate membership of things "purported to be". I am open to gladly consider other titles, if something is obviously better, I'm less enthusiastic about keeping the status quo intact by doing nothing. Do you not agree with the MoS encouragement to avoid using expressions of doubt, or the given reason for cause?--John Cline (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative renaming solution[edit]

---

• The most straightforward solution is to rename to Category:North American runestone hoaxes (and move articles to the top Category:Runestones if they very clearly do not belong in a hoaxes category). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are right; and:

• I support this alternative over my own nomination. It solves the matter of greatest concern in much better fashion.--John Cline (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Hoax option. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Hoax option. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2018 (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. – Fayenatic London 10:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian Encyclopedia (publishing) to Category:Ukrainian Encyclopedia (publisher)

Nominator's rationale: To conform main article renaming. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - while articles are titled in singular form, categories use the plural form. I don't understand the category's need for a parenthetical stipulation, nor do I believe that encyclopedia is properly capitalized. I would consider Category:Ukrainian encyclopedia publishers to be the appropriate form for a category's title.--John Cline (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category instead, per Marcocapelle.--John Cline (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is about one particular publisher, however with too little content to make this a viable category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2018 (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) 05:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 07:58, 18 April 2018 (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 10:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Occupational diseases to Category:Occupational diseases and injuries

Nominator's rationale: We have both occupational disease and occupational injury, but there's no Category:Occupational injuries which could be categorized there due to WP:OVERLAPCAT. Brandmeister^talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose occupational diseases is a broader term that is more commonly used. Merging should occur in the opposite direction, or by making "-injuries" a subcategory of "-diseases" --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There are already subcats like Category:Overuse injuries‎. The distinction between injuries and disease in this area is not clear cut. Rathfelder (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Better try populating a subCategory:Occupational injuries first. Only if that is really not going to work, we may consider merging diseases and injuries after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per Tom (LT) rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2018 (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. – Fayenatic London 10:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Nizhny Novgorod to Category:Buildings and structures in Nizhny Novgorod

Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary category layer with only one article and one subcategory, in addition add these parent categories to the one article: Category:Railway stations in Russia and Category:Transport in Nizhny Novgorod (they do not need to be added to the subcategory, since the subcategory is already in Category:Rapid transit stations in Russia and Category:Nizhny Novgorod Metro.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2018 (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. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Administrative divisions of Nizhny Novgorod to Category:Government of Nizhny Novgorod and Category:Geography of Nizhny Novgorod

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, unnecessary category layer with one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (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: upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Nizhny Novgorod City Rail to Category:Transport in Nizhny Novgorod

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2018 (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: upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Media in Nizhny Novgorod to Category:Culture in Nizhny Novgorod

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. When I made this category, I figured that a city of 1.2 million people would have more than just one newspaper article. Seems I was wrong. Actually, I think that at the time I made it (and a lot of similar media by city categories) there were far more articles - I usually set a minimum of four articles before I consider making a new category in a tree like this. I'm pretty sure there's been some amalgamation of radio station articles into networks. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 18 April 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Airports in Nizhny Novgorod to Category:Transport in Nizhny Novgorod and Category:Airports in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that User:Grutness suggested this nomination in this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup - support as almost-nominator :) Only one article, unlikely to see much (any?) growth as a category. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 23 April 2018 (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 14:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cossack raids on Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it contained only two articles and I added a third one myself, but chances of further expansion are limited. No need to upmerge, the articles are already in a year category of the Ottoman Empire and in parent Category:17th century in the Zaporozhian Host. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, only 3 articles and limited chances of further expansion ... but these 3 make a neat set, and I think that navigation is helped by having a category for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Cossack raids on the Ottoman Empire per parent. Or to Category:Cossack raids which were many, if not yet with articles. (I came across Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks which is well worth the read.) Oculi (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly interesting to read, but the Cossack raids were actually half a century earlier when the Cossacks were much stronger, some decades before the Ruin (Ukrainian history). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Oculi: better grammar. Yes it is small, but well-defined. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2018 (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.