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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:SK Pama players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to grow from the single article currently in it, seeing as we don't even have an article on this nondescript football club. Geschichte (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:36, 25 July 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 08:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary - only entries are one academic and Category:English language power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: per nominator. TSventon (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most languages are in fact very old. The one article in the category a bio does not belong here. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 25 July 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: disperse to Category:Photo archives or an appropriate subcategory. MER-C 12:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Photo collections to Category:Photo archives

Nominator's rationale: No obvious distinction. The archive category is much better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disperse among the subcategories of Category:Photo archives, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 19 July 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 08:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1000 in military history to Category:1000
• Propose merging Category:1042 in military history to Category:1042
• Propose merging Category:1063 in military history to Category:1063
• Propose merging Category:1072 in military history to Category:1072
• Propose merging Category:1097 in military history to Category:1097
• Propose merging Category:1111 in military history to Category:1111

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, too little content per year, it will be easier to navigate from the year category straight to the conflicts category without an intermediate military history layer. Note on implementation: the single articles need to be added manually to a century military history category before the above proposal can be merged by a bot. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They can be merged into a decade category, such as Category:1490s in military history, not to an individual year category that is not part of the military history category tree. Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• support The effect is to eliminate the military history layer, so that conflicts in 10xx etc is always a child of 10xx. I do not think merging by decade is useful in this case: the decade targets (where they exist should also be deleted. We might allow a military history by century container. This would have 100 subcategories which is probably not too many. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Century categories for military history is indeed the purpose of this proposal, with a conflicts subcategory that is diffused by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support centuries is best up the the Early Modern Era. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:03, 19 July 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 09:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Farm Security Administration images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Image category that only contains one image. Wikiacc (¶) 21:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:United States government images. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The challenge here is that images should not be placed into Category:United States government images directly; that's what ((PD-USGov)) is for. But the one image, File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, already has a copyright template (in the Commons description) so it doesn't make sense to add another. Wikiacc (¶) 12:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:United States government images: this FSA category may have once been populated on Wikipedia, but assuming it contained public domain images created by employees of the FSA, many may have since been moved to Commons:Category:Farm Security Administration (see also Commons:Category:PD US FSA/OWI) and deleted locally. I don't see any clear benefit to duplicating free media categories better dealt with on Commons. A Move-to-Commons drive in Category:United States government images by knowledgeable editors may be in order (with heavy caution and scrutiny advised: this file for instance was likely not taken by a U.S. Government employee: merely being posted on a gov website does not magically make something PD, contrary to many misinformed people on the internet). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the one image in this category. It's already on Commons, with a local description here to hold ((FeaturedPicture)). I don't see the point in adding Category:United States government images to that one image. Wikiacc (¶) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without upmerging, the one image in this category has very little to do with government and is already in Category:United States history images. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not useful for navigation. I prefer to not include it in Category:United States government images as that category is more of a maintenance category than a content category since it's not useful for navigation with so wide range of subject matters. I would also support changing Category:United States government images to a hidden category. --Trialpears (talk) 21:51, 29 August 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:Video games about cyborgs. MER-C 10:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cyborg video games to Category:Cyborgs in video games

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with the other, similar subcategories. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, "in video games" is not the standard format anyway and other categories with "in video games" should better be renamed in order to get "in" removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Video games about cyborgs, assuming that Marcocapelle's statement is accurate. This is not a standard way of naming this type of category, and a Google search suggests that "cyborg video game" is not a term that is in use. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair possibility. Consistent with films about, books about. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Video games about cyborgs. In video game isn't a common suffix except for people/characters in video games. "About" is also used in other category trees as pointed out by Marco. --Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 29 August 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 per the revised proposal. MER-C 08:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging

Category:British Malayan law by year to Category:Malayan law by year

Category:1935 in British Malayan law to Category:1935 in Malayan law

Category:1936 in British Malayan law to Category:1936 in Malayan law

Nominator's rationale: Malaya was a British colony to 1957 (31 July) so the "law" categories for 1935, 1936, 1948, 1950, & 1952 cover the colonial period. This renames the 1935 & 1936 categories to the same as the 1948, 1950 & 1952 categories so that Category:1935 in Malayan law is in the same parent category as (say) Category:1952 in Malayan law Hugo999 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are about 6-8 such annual categories, most of which have only 1 or 2 articles. Would it not be better to upmerge the whole tree to "19xx in Malaya" and "Malayan law" (or Malayan colonial law). I do not think there was any other Malaya, so that "British" is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative proposal by Peterkingiron, per WP:SMALLCAT. The second merge target in that case is Category:Legal history of British Malaya. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with extension of renaming/merging to include renaming 19XX in British Malaya to 19XX in Malaya etc, though presumably notification on each year is required! From Category:1787 in British Malaya to Category:1957 in British Malaya, about 91 categories (18c=2, 19c=42, 20c=47) plus the establishment/disestablishment subcategories.Hugo999 (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, let us then defer the rename from years in British Malaya to years in Malaya to a next discussion and now only merge the nominated categories to Category:1935 in British Malaya/or 1936 and to Category:Legal history of British Malaya. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hugo999, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle: do you want this to be relisted, adding the categories 1948 to 1957 in Malayan law ? – Fayenatic London 13:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Fayenatic london: yes expanding the SMALLCAT nomination is a good idea anyway. So the alternative proposal becomes as listed below. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1935 in British Malayan law to Category:1935 in British Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya and Category:1935 in law
• Propose merging Category:1936 in British Malayan law to Category:1936 in British Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya and Category:1936 in law
• Propose merging Category:1948 in Malayan law to Category:1948 in Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya and Category:1948 in law
• Propose merging Category:1950 in Malayan law to Category:1950 in Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya and Category:1950 in law
• Propose merging Category:1952 in Malayan law to Category:1952 in Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya and Category:1952 in law
• Propose merging Category:1953 in Malayan law to Category:1953 in Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya and Category:1953 in law
• Propose merging Category:1954 in Malayan law to Category:1954 in Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya and Category:1954 in law
• Propose merging Category:1957 in Malayan law to Category:1957 in Malaya and Category:Legal history of British Malaya
• Propose deleting Category:British Malayan law by year

• Comment Yes, agree except retain Category:1957 in Malayan law as 1957 is the first year of the Federation of Malaya (which replaced British Malaya).Hugo999 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I struck that one. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And add to the article "1954 in law" etc Hugo999 (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are very right, I have added them. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now support revised nom -- Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 25 July 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:Video games about mecha. MER-C 12:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mecha video games to Category:Mecha in video games

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with other, similar subcategories _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, "in video games" is not the standard format anyway and other categories with "in video games" should better be renamed in order to get "in" removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Video games about mecha, "mecha video game" is not a term that is in use. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt rename, about is the right word. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 29 July 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 13:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Erasmus Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, some articles do not even mention the prize at all. Interesting detail: the Wikipedia community was one of the award winners. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- There is a list in the main article, which is all we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 25 July 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 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Late Roman-era tribes in the Balkans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, it is pointless to categorize migrating peoples of the Migration Period by the many regions that they happened to pass. Besides they are not really 'tribes'. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very true. A category is too blunt an instrument to explain the many comings and goings; works best as an article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:07, 19 July 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 Category:People by city in Germany to Category:People by city or town in Germany. MER-C 10:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People by city or town in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Suitable category already exists at Category:People by city in Germany (Created in error). StonyBrook (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge to the more inclusive title, or failing that delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either way. Most subcategories of Category:People by city in Germany do not contain "or town" in the category name either, so it is probably not super important to add. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has already been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to "by city". Towns are unlikely to be large enough to need their own people category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. Establishing whether a settlement in Germany is a city or town is highly subjective (the word "stadt" is used universally), so best to cover both. As to towns being too small to need a separate people category, what utter rot. Many towns around the world are larger than many cities (often the designation has little to do with population) and in any case many even quite small towns have their own people categories which are often pretty heavily populated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 29 July 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.