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. MER-C 20:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Battlestar Galactica culture to Category:Battlestar Galactica and Category:Science fiction fandom (or, alternatively, Category:Science fiction culture)

Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content to warrant a distinct subcategory. I am suggesting Category:Science fiction fandom as the second merge target because it also contains the article Fanspeak, of which "Frak" is an example. (Category creator not notified: inactive) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2019 (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 or delete as nominated. MER-C 20:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian month
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian January observances to Category:January observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian February observances to Category:February observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian March observances to Category:March observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian April observances to Category:April observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian May observances to Category:May observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian June observances to Category:June observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian July observances to Category:July observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian August observances to Category:August observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian September observances to Category:September observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian October observances to Category:October observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian November observances to Category:November observances
• Propose merging Category:Non-Gregorian December observances to Category:December observances

Nominator's rationale: delete/merge. This is follow up on this earlier discussion. The result of the discussion has been the creation of the tree of Category:Jewish observances by month but other than that nothing has happened. By far most articles in these categories are about traditional southern Asian or eastern Asian observances which each fit perfectly well in a category of national observances. In English Wikipedia the observances are also dated by Gregorian months, for example Datta Jayanti is in December or January, and the fact that it takes place in a certain non-Gregorian month (an Indian month in this case) is obvious and trivial. This distinction is actually just between western and traditional non-western observances. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors to original discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Where observances occur according to the month of another calendar, it may well be appropriate to have another category for their month according to the appropriate calendar, but I fail to understand what Non-Gregorian January is. Is it Julian January? Some Eastern Orthodox Churches continue to celebrate Christmas according to the Julian calendar, so that it falls in early January. This will be particularly relevant to the Islamic lunar calendar, which results in feasts (and fasts) occurring at all sorts of Gregorian dates. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm beginning to think that to the degree these categories are at all useful, perhaps renaming is a better solution. The intent is to categorize moveable-on-the-Gregorian-calendar observances according to what time of the year they fall into, so an upmerge mixes together observances which always fall in a certain month with those which may fall in the month in some years but not in others. Maybe it would make sense to rename to something like "Observances which may fall in the month of month". Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2019 (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 (Category:Battlestar Galactica planets was merged). MER-C 20:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Battlestar Galactica locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty other than a category with a single article. I have proposed upmerging that category to Category:Battlestar Galactica, so this one should just be deleted. TTN (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This nomination presupposes the outcome of another discussion, so it should either be combined with the one below or withdrawn as premature (if the subcategory is upmerged, then this category would become empty and could be speedily deleted). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (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, also to Category:Fictional planets. MER-C 20:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Battlestar Galactica planets to Category:Battlestar Galactica

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, parent category is otherwise empty. TTN (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Battlestar Galactica and Category:Fictional planets. There is not enough content to warrant a distinct category, but a dual merge is required to avoid removing the article from one of the two current parent category trees. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per Black Falcon. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2019 (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: difuse between Category:Robberies and Category:Individual thefts. MER-C 20:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Heists to Category:Robberies

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, I'm not sure there is a useful distinction between "heist" and a simple "robbery" - the creator appears to have been unaware of Category:Robberies and it's worth noting that Heist is a disambiguation page. Le Deluge (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- In English law, a theft is only robbery if violence is involved (actual or threatened). Heist is an American term not commonly used in England. Would the burglary of an art gallery be a heist, if for example the burglars entered through a window or the roof while the gallery was closed? I would support merger somewhere, but is this the right target? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted to make a distinction, in the law of the U.S. states that I'm familiar with, "robbery" refers to a theft in which the victim is physically dispossessed of the stolen property, i.e. off his/her person or within his/her control, through force, threatened or actual (The Penal Law of New York, where I live, is explicit about this: "Robbery is forcible stealing")

Taking things that don't belong to you from a structure, or even taking things that do when you don't have permission to enter the structure where they're kept, is burglary, usually penalized most severely when the structure in question is in current use as a residence (some states also make it even worse if the residence is occupied at the time, even if the burglar and the resident never saw each other, even if the burglar didn't know it was occupied.

These are crimes relating to how the items were stolen; the mere act of stealing them is separately codified as "larceny" or "theft", depending on the state, with the gravity depending on the value of the items stolen and, in some cases, what those items are (for example, in New York, theft of a functional deadly weapon is always a felony regardless of the value of the weapon).

So, yeah, I think "thefts" is the better category. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this category a "balance" for "Sheist" robberies :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• upmerge to Category:Robberies or Category:Individual thefts as appropriate to each member. "Heist" just means "theft", whether by force or not. it tends to be used for a planned-out crime with a specific target but robberies and burglaries that gain articles tend to involve such planning anyway, and the distinction isn't clear enough for categorization. In any case some of these are robberies and some are not, so a single target will not suffice. A quick check found each sample already categorized in one of the possible parents, so there may not be any actual merging involved before the target is deleted. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment from nom - On reflection a simple upmerge to Category:Individual thefts is probably the easiest option, and then they can be distributed among the subcats at leisure.Le Deluge (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• upmerge to Category:Individual thefts. I consider "heist" to first, be too colloquial for use in an encyclopedia except when it becomes the common name for an article due to the (North American) media's fondness for it, à la Lufthansa heist—and only in that limited use. Second, per Mangoe, it's far too vague a term to use in naming a category. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendnum: There's also a lot of overlap between those cats as it is. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2019 (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. MER-C 20:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cultural depictions of Ancient Roman men to Category:Cultural depictions of Ancient Roman people
• Propose merging Category:Cultural depictions of Byzantine men to Category:Cultural depictions of Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:Cultural depictions of male Roman royals to Category:Cultural depictions of Roman royalty
• Propose merging Category:Male Roman monarchs to Category:Roman monarchs
• Propose merging Category:Male Roman royals to Category:Roman royalty
• Propose merging Category:8th-century BC Roman men to Category:8th-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:7th-century BC Roman men to Category:7th-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:6th-century BC Roman men to Category:6th-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:5th-century BC Roman men to Category:5th-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:4th-century BC Roman men to Category:4th-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:3rd-century BC Roman men to Category:3rd-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:2nd-century BC Roman men to Category:2nd-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:1st-century BC Roman men to Category:1st-century BC Romans
• Propose merging Category:2nd-century Roman men to Category:2nd-century Romans
• Propose merging Category:3rd-century Roman men to Category:3rd-century Romans
• Propose merging Category:4th-century Roman men to Category:4th-century Romans
• Propose merging Category:5th-century Roman men to Category:5th-century Romans
• Propose merging Category:6th-century Roman men to Category:6th-century Romans
• Propose merging Category:Roman men by century to Category:Roman people by century
• Propose merging Category:4th-century Byzantine men to Category:4th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:5th-century Byzantine men to Category:5th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:6th-century Byzantine men to Category:6th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:7th-century Byzantine men to Category:7th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:8th-century Byzantine men to Category:8th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:9th-century Byzantine men to Category:9th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:10th-century Byzantine men to Category:10th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:11th-century Byzantine men to Category:11th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:12th-century Byzantine men to Category:12th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:13th-century Byzantine men to Category:13th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Byzantine men to Category:14th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:15th-century Byzantine men to Category:15th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:Byzantine men by century to Category:Byzantine people by century
• Propose merging Category:Byzantine men to Category:Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:Men of the Roman Kingdom to Category:People of the Roman Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:Men of the Roman Republic to Category:People of the Roman Republic
• Propose merging Category:Men of the Roman Empire to Category:People of the Roman Empire
• Propose merging Category:Ancient Roman men to Category:Ancient Romans
• Propose merging Category:Roman men to Category:Roman people

Nominator's rationale Categories such as "2nd-century BC Roman women" do not need to be "balanced" by the creation of categories such as "2nd-century BC Roman men". Gender-neutral categories such as "2nd-century BC Romans" ought not to be depopulated by replacing that category in biographical articles with the other two. It's fine to have categories for Roman women specifically; there is no point of having separate categories for men in place of general categories including both men and women. The sheer numbers of articles about Roman men (and the relative paucity of Roman women) mean that persons who are studying or researching ancient roman women would need them grouped in a subcategory so that they can be easily located, and not buried under the vast numbers of men in non-gendered categories. The same is not needed for Roman men as a group.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome has been notifed.

User:*Treker who created many of the nominated categories has been notifed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's important, but the only notice on his talk page is for "15th-century Byzantine men". I'm sure he'll find this discussion anyway, and as he said over at CGR he doesn't need "20+ notises" on his talk page, but it might be a good idea to make clear that there are a whole lot of categories under discussion, not just "15th-century Byzantine men". I'd do it myself, but I don't want to antagonize him as I was the one who raised the issue in the first place. P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her. "Everyone is a man by default unless specified otherwise" runs pretty deep in life, even among modern people.★Trekker (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Trekker. I couldn't tell. However, I hold by my stated opinion that creating male-only categories in place of gender-neutral ones simply because there are categories for women specifically undercuts your stated goal by drawing attention away from the presence of women within these categories. If articles about women can be found alongside articles about men, readers are far more likely to investigate them than if they're segregated into their own category. As I've said more than once, nobody objects to women having separate categories; it's depopulating the gender-neutral categories that people are objecting to—and the fact that male-only categories in many instances, including these, don't help anyone. Readers researching women in Roman society benefit from being able to find them together in categories, because there are many more articles about Roman men; but nobody needs help finding articles about Roman men because they get lost among all the articles about Roman women. P Aculeius (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology, it is accepted. And as far as the categories go, I do object to women having separate categories. I think either both should be separated, or neither of them should.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summary of the Golden rule (law) Treker. It's there for a reason. Law books and encyclopedias would be unreadable if every pronoun had to listed as "he/she" or "him/her" in defiance of the plain contextual construction. It's not misogeny, just good sense, good practice and good categorical navigation, which is, after all, the function of categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I care about some dumb English law that has nothing to do with this? This is Wikipedia, not some court case. You're honestly to God just straight up defending the blatant sexism that exists.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. "Roman men" categories are not needed because something like 99% of the people in "Romans" categories are men. It's over-categorisation and non-defining. T8612 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all these merges, per nom and other discussion - the target catories should be non-diffusing. There has been a discussion on this at the Classical Greece and Rome project and the majority view was clear. Having two near-identical categories guarantees things getting in a mess in the long term. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Le Deluge (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Male-only categories are of no benefit to readers, while depopulating the gender-neutral ones is detrimental. P Aculeius (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  How?★Trekker (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Man is not default and woman is not a deviation." Pure enforcement of historical misogyny to have women categories but not men. No one has given any actual reason for why we should treat this any different than any other nationality except "in the past they treated women like lesser beings so we should endorce that because it's easy". I'm willing to bet about 80% of all Wikipedia articles for people of any nationality are about men yet I don't see anyone complaining about Category:18th-century American male actors. If gendered categories for people in the past is bad because of the rampant sexism leading to fewer notable women then we might as well delete all the gendered categories for tons of modern nations as well. I'm also rather perplexed by how people can claim that a persons gender or sex is "non-defining", it's honestly one of the most defining things in a persons existence then, now or future. To claim that its "not helpful to readers" is completly false a well, it's no more detrimental than having womens categories for every single nation. I'm honestly shocked and hurt that so far the other users seem to think this is the way to go.★Trekker (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  A terrible example for your case, if I may say so - there are 12 in Category:18th-century American male actors, just the same as in Category:18th-century American actresses. And there are male & female trees of significance for actors, which is hardly the case here. You are badly misinterpreting the implications of the nom, which are purely practical. But I dare say there's no point in continuing to argue about it. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Your reply is terrible. How does even a single part of it remotly begin to make sense? If there is no point then why did you comment again?★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Because creating a category already covered by another category, minus a few names over several hundreds, is not useful. It's much easier to single out the few women we know about. It's about being practical, not "enforcing historical misogyny"; it would be different if we knew more ancient women. Please do not bring American college identity politics here. Wikipedia is also a collaborative encyclopedia, so please ask around when you intend to make changes involving hundreds of articles. T8612 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You are wrong. It is very useful. And it is mysogyny and you will never be able to convince me otherwise because it's true. It's not "American collage identity politics" and you should be ashamed for claiming that. I'm not America and not a collage student and it's not "identity politics" to bring up that Wikipedia has huge systematic problem with sexism. And we do know tons upon tons of ancient women (many of them lack articles because people clearly havn't been putting any effort into the topic much so far).★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. As I wrote in the Project page, "Categories exist to assist navigation in the encyclopedia, not to advance external political agendas. It is not for Wiki to deplore the cultural norms of a people now or the past; Wiki's role is simply to record and describe. Ideas of "equality" or "balance" are largely irrelevant to categorisation; Wiki does not exist to promote normative behaviour.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  These categories do aid navigation.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: the argument that the category trees for Category:Roman men by century and Category:Byzantine men by century should be treated the same as other nationalities is an argument for deletion: note the non-existence of Category:Men by nationality and century despite the well-established category tree under Category:Women by nationality and century. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Category:Men by nationality and century does not exist because of the blatant and well established Gender bias on Wikipedia. Which so far none of the other editors have ever the capability of admitting or accepting.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Articles about Roman women need special categories because they are rare, rare enough to be subcats of a general Romans category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. They're not that rare and tons more women are notable, it's just that (as usual) Wikipedia has neglected to put any effort into making or improving them.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd recomend anyone who has an actually open mind and wants to understand how this is all an issue should read this, Gender bias on Wikipedia and all the sources cited on them.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ★Trekker, I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but please keep your comments to the topic and not other editors. Stop artificially framing sides in the discussion (e.g., "anyone who has an actually open mind") and taking swipes at those who disagree with you (e.g., "none of the other editors have ever the capability of admitting or accepting"). You have opinions on this topic, and so do others. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Categories are supposed to help readers navigate existing content (and, to a limited degree, content that is likely to be created in the very near future). They are not intended to right purported historical injustices. The obsessive segregation of biographies by sex actively hinders navigation—in general, I would argue, but especially in this case. I would expect (and hope) that most readers searching for 4th-century BC Romans would be more interested in what these Romans did (e.g., politicians/rulers, generals, philosophers, etc.) than their genitals, yet a reader navigating Category:4th-century BC Romans currently is expected to take genitalia into account if they want to reach, for example, the article about Marcus Flavius. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia needs to decide, either someones gender/sex is something we should categorize by, or it's not. We can't decide to segregate of one gender as if it's "special or abnormal" and not the other.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Your disagreement seems to be with WP:CATGENDER, which allows us to determine this on a case-by-case basis and states: "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." I partly agree with you, though, and would prefer to eliminate categorization of biographies by gender altogether. Categories are dichotomous by nature (an article is in a category or it is not) and ill-suited to capturing the nuances of gender's "specific relation" to a topic. I, for one, would much rather see a single article about gender in ancient Rome than dozens of categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The use of categories specifically for women within a larger, male-dominated group isn't a judgment that either men or women are "special" or "abnormal" in the ordinary sense of that word. It's an acknowledgment that people might be studying women in particular as a subset of the whole topic. What's perplexing to some of us, however, is the argument that, "if you make something specifically for women, you have to make one for men too" coming from someone who's arguing vociferously against perpetuating the historical legacy of sexism—or at least gender-roles throughout history. This sounds like the kind of argument men make to oppose the consideration of topics of interest specifically to women—for instance, that colleges shouldn't have "women's studies" programs unless they create "men's studies" programs as well. Of course, that would simply overlap existing programs, except that they intentionally exclude the consideration of women—whereas current programs don't. The effect of strict gender segregation in areas such as these is to enforce, rather than dismantle, the historic hierarchy. Where women form a distinct minority within a particular group, and form a subject of particular study or interest, the creation of a category in addition to, not in place of, existing gender-neutral categories may be warranted. The same would be true for men when they form a distinct minority and topic of interest within a category dominated by women. Specific categories of this type are designed to allow readers to focus on a narrow topic distinct from the subject as a whole. In most instances the same rationale does not apply to justify a category consisting of "the majority of examples in the broader subject, minus this one group". P Aculeius (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The only "special" thing about it is that we have a very low number of articles about women compared to men. By having a separate category we facilitate finding women more easily. We do not need to facilitate finding men more easily because they can be found easily in mixed categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2019 (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. MER-C 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American politicians of Luo descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow and a non-defining characteristic. TM 21:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:politicians of Luo descent, no reason to remove this notable politician from that hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 08:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Fayenatic's remarks. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is in no way how any American would define Barack Obama. How much he was ever aware of his familial ethnic orgins in Kenya is less than fully clear, but they are not defining enough to his political career to overcome ERGS issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- also the South Sudanese sibling. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:South Sudanese politicians of Luo descent has not been tagged. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment: note that User:Johnpacklambert pointed out a decisive reason to delete rather than to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Johnpacklambert. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2019 (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. MER-C 03:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Categories by Imperial Chinese dynasty to Category:Dynasties in Chinese history

Nominator's rationale: There are currently only Culture and People categories that could be put here. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging user:Miraclepine as creator. – Fayenatic London 08:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - its contents comprise Category:Culture by Imperial Chinese dynasty, a subcat scheme for Category:Culture (or, arguably, Category:Chinese culture), which doesn't belong in Category:Dynasties in Chinese history. Oculi (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (or else delete) as an unneccesary category layer. It is not uncommon to have Category:y by x as a subcategory of Category:x, therefore a merge seems to be okay (in fact the people by dynasty category is already a subcat of the dynasties category). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but that is an error. People are not dynasties. I don't think Category:y by x should ever be a subcategory of Category:x. The category tree is littered with errors. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I do not have a strong opinion about this. I bolded "(or else delete)" in my earlier comment though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• English Wikipedia does allow a flexible approach to categorisation, e.g. Category:y by x being a subcategory of Category:x, because this is useful for navigation. If such cases were removed, it would be necessary to add "see also" links in both directions. Every year some editors raise objections, and suggest that we should categorise according to strict logical sub-sets as in German Wikipedia, but that has never been the consensus approach here. – Fayenatic London 23:36, 2 December 2019 (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:WarnerMedia-related lists. MER-C 09:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Warner Bros.-related lists to Category:Warner-related lists

Nominator's rationale: I had originally created the category last year as a way to encompass the entire Warner Brand, not just Warner Bros. I figured like with the change from TimeWarner to WarnerMedia, pretty much no matter what happens the Name Warner will always be used in the title. User:Trivialist moved the page to to the current category which unfortunately isn't adequate to contain the entire Warner brand. I feel the list should be broad similar to Category:Disney-related lists, so as to be useable for all major business segments of Warner Media. Chrisisreed (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if the scope of the category should be expanded, the correct name should become Category:WarnerMedia-related lists per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, but what about when inevitably in the future the name changes again from WarnerMedia. Just like it was Warner/7arts, Warner Communications, TimeWarner, and now WarnerMedia. I still think it would be for the best to have to just be Warner-related lists.Chrisisreed (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the name changes in real life, then the Wikipedia articles and categories also have to be renamed, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:WarnerMedia-related lists - this is now moot as Chrisisreed has created Category:WarnerMedia-related lists and moved everything. Oculi (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it didn't seem as if anyone was going to go for my idea to move everything to a single Warner-related list, so I figured a compromise and a WarnerMedia-related list was the next best thing. Although I still believe my initial idea is superior and the better option.Chrisisreed (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2019 (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. There is consensus to simplify the category tree, but there is no consensus to achieve that specifically by removing the NMD layer. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Devon to Category:Local government districts in Devon
• Propose merging Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Lancashire to Category:Local government districts of Lancashire
• Propose merging Category:Non-metropolitan districts of North Yorkshire to Category:Local government districts of North Yorkshire

Nominator's rationale: The current distinction between this and Category:Local government districts in Devon is only if the districts are unitary authorities, however actually all UAs are also non-metropolitan districts anyway. It would be more appropriate anyway to not make a distinction between UAs and non UAs per WP:OVERLAPCAT and because we don't make a distinction with the articles/categories since Devon/Category:Devon is about both the area covered by Devon County Council and the area covered by the independent Plymouth and Torbay. Alternatively a reverse merge could be preformed if the "Non-metropolitan" title is desired. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• comment For a non-Brit the more signal issue here is that the various county's subunits are not categorized consistently (and possibly there is some article naming inconsistency behind that). My understanding here is that we are talking of the governmental bodies as grouped by ceremonial county, and that in some counties there is a two-level division, and in others there are not. My guess is that in Devon the intent was to split off the UAs of Plymouth and Torbay from the other districts, and it seems to me that this makes sense. But this would tend to imply that there should be a category for the two UA-towns instead of or beside the non-met districts (or category thereof). When I go to one of the counties besides these three, I don't see a comprehensive pattern. For example, moving up to Category:Local government districts of England by county, it doesn't have subcats for every county, and when I move over to Category:Local government in England by county, I do find Category:Local government in Lincolnshire, it has a non-met subcat, but from what I gather it has no UAs. On some larger level it seems that the default categorization is districts in general under the ceremonial counties in which they are located, and then perhaps division below that as to the kind of district. Also, isn't the phrase "local government district" redundant? My impression is that districts are the overarching term of the first level of local government, and that there's no district that doesn't constitute local government. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes its standard (or at least sensible) to have just 1 category for both the ceremonial county and administrative one, see WP:UKCOUNTIES. The UAs of Lincolnshire should be moved to the district category and possibly the category renamed to Category:Local government districts of Lincolnshire. "Local government" isn't redundant since the term "district" can also refer to suburbs, see Talk:Anfield (suburb)#Requested move 10 June 2019[1]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the principle -- The nuances of local government structure should not drive a practical category. Plymouth and Torquay are in the ceremonial county of Devon, but not the administrative one; in the case of Plymouth perhaps only partly so, since parts of it were historically in Cornwall. Some one searching for local government in Devon will find it more useful to have them in the Devon district category, as they may not know that Torquay is a unitary, than have a semantically correct non-unitary category. It might be that a better solution is to merge into Category:Local government in Devon, which can cover county, districts, and unitaries, with a subcat for parishes. This would involve having a more technically correct Category:Non-metropolitan districts in England, covering all counties, though the population of this may be too high for it to be useful. This would need sibling for unitary authorities and shire counties (with county councils). Certainly WP should avoid semantic differences that may not be known to less sophisticated (or knowledgeable) WP users. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would still keep the (1) LG districts category though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crouch, Swale: may I ask why just these three are nominated out of Category:Non-metropolitan districts? Also, even if these two levels could be merged for Devon, wouldn't it be better to have a complete set of county categories both in Non-metropolitan districts and Local government districts of England by county – unless we were merging those two levels for all/most counties? – Fayenatic London 13:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london: because only these have 2 levels of categories, for example there is both Category:Local government districts in Devon and Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Devon for Devon but there is only Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Essex (and no Category:Local government districts in Essex) so Thurrock UA should be added to that, similarly for Cumbria none of Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Cumbria have any special status but UA districts are apparently still non-metropolitan districts hence the duplication with these 3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Well, the NMD Cumbria category is in both those parents, along with Bucks, Cambs and Derbyshire; so should the nominated NMD categories be kept rather than the LG districts? (or should the four NMD categories for Cumbria etc be renamed to NMD? if so, that would be less intuitive, for them to remain in the NMD parent.) – Fayenatic London 14:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know but its worth noting that "local government districts" but include some of the pre-1974 districts such as urban districts and county boroughs but NMDs would only be the post 1974 districts. In other words if we wanted to add the likes of the County Borough of Plymouth (currently a redirect) to the LGDs category and keep the NMDs category for all the post 1974 (including UAs like Torbay and Plymouth) we could maybe do that but as it stands the only distinction in the current contents is the difference between UA and non UA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london: so yes maybe we should keep both categories but not for the reason they were created (the assumption that only two-tier districts are NMDs) but actually for the former ones to be in the LGD category and all the current ones being in the NMD category. Note in September 2018 I removed many redundant categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crouch, Swale: with your last comment ("maybe we should keep both categories"), are you sort of withdrawing your nomination, or do I completely misinterpret it? The reason for asking is because I came here to see if I can close this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: sort of... but as long as we transfer the 2 UAs to the NMD category. I could then add articles like Axminster Rural District and County Borough of Plymouth to the LGDs category. @John Maynard Friedman: from Category talk:Milton Keynes#NMD category. Given that this discussion has been open for over 3 months (there seems little point in relisting) I think we could close it as partly withdrawn but I'd wait for John's oppinion on this since it would also affect MK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale:, @Marcocapelle:. A couple of things need to be (re)stated: Plymouth and Exeter are not districts of Devon; MK is not a district of Buckinghamshire: they are each legally a county in their own right, equal in status to Devon and Bucks respectively. A district, in the LA hierarchy, is one above civil parish so a bit of an insult to a UA, really. I don't know about the UAs in Devonshire but certainly there was a lot of 'full and frank exchange of views' about MK and Bucks (oh no it isn't! oh yes it is!!) a few years ago, which is why the MK article begins 'a large town in (ceremonial) Buckinghamshire - putting 'ceremonial' in parentheses was the only way to settle the dispute. I suggest that this is a case where life is just messy and nice tidy consistency is just not possible. [Compare with Bedfordshire, which no longer exists as an admin county, so the issue doesn't arise for Bedford and Luton, but there is also a Mid-Bedfordshire 'super-district' (my wording) - what do we do there?]. My advice is to withdraw. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are still districts even if they're administative counties, I thought that this had already been settled including at the discussions at User talk:John Maynard Friedman/Archive 3. As noted it doesn't appear desirable to make the distinction that doesn't actually exist anyway with regard to NMDs and UAs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A district subordinate to a county council for local government purposes is a horse of a different colour to a district for Lieutenancy purposes. (I don't see that the 2008 debate in my Archive 3 is really relevant, except to the extent that it displayed the same sort of confusion that arises when a ceremonial county and an administrative county have the same name. The Buckinghamshire article was changed subsequently to describe it as one ceremonial county containing two administrative counties, which resolved the issue. But I still think it is silly to say Everton, Lancashire instead of Everton, Liverpool, but then I'm not a football fan). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2020 (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. MER-C 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rugby union in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only limited articles fit this sub-category, already covered under Rugby union governing bodies in Asia category. UA3 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but merge to Category:Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- Ham105 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and find out who's creating all these Arab Persian Gulf categories. Grutness...wha? 21:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in this case there is also an Arab Persian Gulf article, so the top category Category:Arab states of the Persian Gulf may not be entirely nonsensical and a merge to that category is appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article is for the Persian Gulf, i.e. the body of water. Having a top category which contains (a small number of) items pertaining to countries on the south/west shore of this gulf is marginal when an existing Category:Arabian Peninsula can also cover those countries. Categories are possibly being needlessly created to further a point of view regarding the Persian Gulf naming dispute. -- Ham105 (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Category:Arabian Peninsula also does the job if Saudi Arabia is included (which is the case with the one article in this category). So then it becomes merge to Category:Arabian Peninsula instead of merge to Category:Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Either that, or merge to Category:Rugby union in the Arabian Peninsula -- Ham105 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My point was that we have had numerous new categories for "Foo in the Arab States in the Persian Gulf" come up at CfD in the last week or two, most of which have little point as they are well covered by the equivalent Asian or Arabian Peninsula categories. Grutness...wha? 15:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Rugby union in the Arabian Peninsula -- The one article uses the word Gulf (though not Persian) and relates to Saudi Arabia and other states of the Arabian Penninsula, so that this is an appropriate parent for the one article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Rugby union in the Arabian Peninsula – the article Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union did not include Iraq, so despite its being named "Gulf", the Peninsula category is appropriate. The Peninsula category in Arabic Wikipedia is also more developed, although both are new. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also fine with merging to Category:Rugby union in the Arabian Peninsula. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Rugby union in the Arabian Peninsula per PeterK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Please close - there is clearly a consensus. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator's comment: I have no issue with merging to Category:Rugby union in the Arabian Peninsula. UA3 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2019 (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: diffuse. MER-C 20:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not permutations. The articles in this category are partly variations/modifications of the Rubik's Cube and partly just independent combination puzzles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Combination puzzles since that category contains all puzzles inspired by Rubik's Cube. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recategorize articles into Category:Combination puzzles, Category:Mechanical puzzle cubes or Category:Rubik's Cube, as appropriate. Colin M (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not against diffusing as User:Colin M says. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2019 (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 TFD mentioned below resulted in deletion. MER-C 05:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:User yam to Category:User en-yam, or delete
• Propose merging Category:User yam-N to Category:User yam, or rename to Category:User en-yam-N

Nominator's rationale: "yam" is the ISO 639-3 code for the Yamba language, and these categories should be reserved for future instances of ((#babel:yam)). Frankly, these particular categories seem utterly useless, and I would prefer to delete them altogether. Currently, we have 8 templates and 2 categories for 2 user accounts, one of which has been inactive for over 10 years. If kept, we should at least upmerge the single-member -N (native) subcategory—no other English dialect/variant category (see subs of Category:User en) has X-level subcategories. At a bare minimum, we need to rename the categories to align with the recently renamed templates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose deletion of the categories is only meaningful after the templates are deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The templates could be edited to remove the user category code. That way, the userboxes remain on the 2 user pages, but they no longer auto-populate categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We should not have categories for English dialects. If users want to identify identify as speakers of the dialect, that is innocuous, but does not need a category or a user-category as speaking the dialect is unlikely to facilitate cooperative editing. I had to investigate that this was and found that it was about Black Country English. I live within 200 yards of the Black Country boundary by one definition but have never heard the term "yam". I presume this us derived from the grammatical form "yo[u] am". In theory we might have siblings for scowse, geordy, cockney, etc, but I doubt it is useful. Perhaps someone can nominate the redundant templates on TFD. I do not work on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To what templates are you referring? Do you mean the userboxes? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Presumably ((user en-yam)) and its sub-templates, which are currently within the nominated category. I have now nominated those at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 December 13. – Fayenatic London

• Delete per Peterkingiron. There are sibling categories for national varieties of English, but no others for regional dialects. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 13 December 2019 (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. MER-C 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category with only the main article and two image files which appear in the article. WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now, but noting that the article contains a total of four images of Ferzetti. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Far too few pages to deserve a separate category. JIP | Talk 08:53, 2 December 2019 (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. MER-C 20:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Knights of the Order of the Rajamitrabhorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This Thai order of chivalry is conferred to foreign heads of state (emperors, kings/queens, emirs, sultans, presidents, etc.). For the recipients, it is typically one of many foreign honors they received, and as such is not defining. A list already exists at Order of the Rajamitrabhorn#Recipients, and is more appropriate than a category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator: User:AusTerrapin) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2019 (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.