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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:ULEB navigational boxes to Category:Seasons in European basketball templates

Nominator's rationale: Basically the same. Just the old ULEB cat is from 2006–07 to 2013–14 and the other is from 2014–15 to 2022–23. Some of the ULEB templates should be renamed and expanded, but I'm gonna start RM there. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 20:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2022 (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 moving original page over new target page. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Photographers of the Russian Empire to Category:Photographers from the Russian Empire
• Nominator's rationale The target is a much clearer one, maming it clear there are meant to be articles on people who were subjects of nationals of the Russian Empire. The "of" formation makes it unclear if this is about nationality, or subject. We do not intend this to include people who came to the Russian Empire for a short time to take photos, but did not gain some sort of permanent residence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, removing ambiguity, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Philatelists of the Russian Empire to Category:Philatelists from the Russian Empire
• Nominator's rationale as with the category Category:Historians from the Russian Empire and a few others, I think the target name will make it clear that this is for people who were Philatelists who were subjects or nationals of the Russian Empire. The current name is ambiguous enough that some might think this is for people who studied the stamps of the Russian Empire regardless of where or when they lived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, removing ambiguity, per nom. Meanwhile I also wonder if we should have "from" as the overall standard, rather than "of". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the increasing number and variety of occupations that are perceived as ambiguous constructions, I have some sympathy with Marcocapelle's suggestion. Category:People by former country has a clear predominance in using "of" at the moment, e.g. Category:People of the Roman Empire. I had forgotten that in 2017 there was a nomination to rename six that currently use "from", see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 6#"People from former country" versus "People of former country", but those "from" cases were Kept. How about nominating, say, a dozen major "people of former countries" categories? If that was carried, IMHO that would be sufficient precedent to speedily rename their subcats and all the siblings. – Fayenatic London 09:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel my actual point about title ambiguity is not addressed at all. For example, there is no example given of why this should not follow the Historians model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO the ambiguity is minor. Historians often specialise in a particular country, see Category:Historians by country. I am not convinced that philatelists very often do likewise, although I can find a few examples in the sub-cats of Category:Philately by country. But now that Marcocapelle has raised the wider question, that is more worth pursuing, as it would avoid the need for these case-by-case discussions. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 29 July 2022 (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 09:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Cartographers of the Russian Empire to Category:Cartographers from the Russian Empire
• Nominator's rationale I think that in this case it would be fairly easy for people to think this is meant to be a category for people who made maps of the Russian Empire, as opposed to the intended meaning of meaning people who made maps who were resident in, subjects of or nationals of the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of its parent categories Category:Geographers from the Russian Empire already uses the from form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, removing ambiguity, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Shirvan-Absheron Architecture School to Category:Buildings and structures of the Shirvan-Absheron architectural school

Nominator's rationale: Option 1, rename and reparent per actual content, these are all buildings and structures. In addition mind the decapitalization of architectural school. Option 2, delete as it does not seem a defining characteristic (at least the articles make no mention of it). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 per nom, as well as per a lack of WP:RS actually defining the term in Google scholar, JSTOR, Google books, etc. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential keep (if not merge). See architectural school discussed yesterday. No objection to option 1. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 I would be surprised if someone was able to find any reliable source about this ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 23 July 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Architectural schools of Azerbaijan to Category:Architecture of Azerbaijan

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, contains only two subcategories, and we do not have a tree based on Category:Architectural schools. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Two items is not enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video games designed by Markus Persson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Characters created by Markus Persson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. 3 and 2 pages do not warrant a category. Newly-created Category:Markus Persson by OsloKristianiaKøbenhavn should be sufficient. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 15:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:SMALLCAT and delete Category:Markus Persson as well per WP:NONDEF. There are not enough defining things about Notch to merit a category existing, most things there are about Minecraft rather than Notch specifically and are better off in Category:Minecraft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at that, but I think with upmerging above two, we have defining characteristics for: Minecraft‎ (creator), Steve (Minecraft) (creator), Creeper (Minecraft) (creator), Mojang Studios (founder), Minecraft: The Story of Mojang (documentary), Minecraft: The Story of Mojang (documentary), 0x10c (creator), Minicraft (creator), Code Club AB (co-fonder). All of these are strongly if not completely based on Persson's work. I would say being a creator of something is defining per "sources commonly and consistently define [..] the subject as having". (The Minecraft (franchise) (was not major contributor beyond base Minecraft) and Wurm Online (contributor) aren't really defining.) The problem to me is the dilution into smaller cats. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:SMALLCAT has a specific exception here: Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page. Merging related articles into Category:Markus Persson seems to significantly contradict WP:Overcategorization § Eponymous categories for people. After thinking about it for few days, the set category scoping seems appropriate here. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of these specifics. There are just so many category rules! It just seemed silly to have such tiny cats when there is a parent category. But I guess previous discussions have found this to be a better way, so I suppose we should keep it consistent here too. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:37, 25 July 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Open-source computing hardware to Category:Open-source hardware

Nominator's rationale: The specificity of 'computing hardware' seems unnecessary. Currently, mainspace does not make such a distinction.

Note: Open-source computing hardware was previously moved to List of open-source hardware; I just now retargeted this to Open-source hardware. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have recently noticed that this might meet WP:C2D (I only recently re-read the speedy deletion criteria for categories). Retro (talk | contribs) 21:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The article was moved half a year ago, that should be long enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Psychopathy in fiction
• Propose deleting Category:Novels about psychopathy
• Propose deleting Category:Television episodes about psychopathy

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, this is fiction with evil characters for sure, but that is really all. (Note that I am not suggesting to touch any of the serial killers subcategories.) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: psychopathy is documented for at least some cases, e.g. Tom_Ripley#Psychopathy. – Fayenatic London 13:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Even here, the section really is about the many different terms to describe this evil character, psychopath being just one of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes but there are absolutely types of villain that are not psychopathic. Such as: Green Goblin, smeagol, Tony Soprano, Omar Little. Stringer Bell. The list goes on. I do think that the psychopath as an archetype (both as protagonist and as villain, as you can see in my list, the lines are quite blurred)... is a notable topic worthy of inclusion. It has a great deal of coverage in scholarship: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Depictions of psychopathy in fiction may be an interesting topic for a stand-alone article. I would be more concerned with whether psychopathy's definition in real life has any scientific basis. The main article quotes a 2017 source in pointing that a wide variety of people have been misdiagnosed as psychopaths, while their symptoms actually indicate bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, seizures, dissociative identity disorder, parasomnia, and brain damage. I am somewhat uncomfortable with Wikipedia labeling anyone as a psychopath. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It should only include characters who have scholarship related to their psychopathy, but other than that, keep. I would support cleanup. It's clearly an independently notable idea with a great deal of scholarship backing it up. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not convinced that psychopathy is a scientifically sound diagnosis for anyone. The suggested traits in the main article could characterize numerous people: arrogance, deceitfulness, lack of remorse or empathy, impulsive behavior, and a tendency towards risk-taking. Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Per nom and others. It will be very difficult to keep this category full of actually relevant examples. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but who's to decide if the diagnostic treshold is met? Also, the category equates psychopathy with aspd, which is inappropriate. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tuvan independence activists to Category:Independence activists

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category. Dual merge to the other parent category is not needed, the article is already in Category:Tuvan Buddhists. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Indepdence activists are advocating for a specific unit to be indepdendent, not for indepdence broadly. So it makes sense to split them based on the national entity they favor being indepedent. So this is a reasonable exception to small cat rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 20 July 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Military history of the Buyid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete and move the two articles to Category:Buyid dynasty, apart from the two articles there are only two people subcats which are already part of Category:People under the Buyid dynasty, so too little content to be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Like Category:Buyid-period poets which was also nominated for deletion, this too has a lot potential. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested by nom: not enough content for a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:08, 20 July 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:A24 (company) drafts to Category:A24 drafts
• Propose renaming Category:A24 (company) films to Category:A24 films

Nominator's rationale: A24 (company) was moved to A24 as the primary topic. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as a WP:C2D per closed RM. -2pou (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • C2D does not apply as A24 (disambiguation) exists. A24 in the UK is the main road from London to Worthing and has been for many decades. 'A24 films' sounds ambiguous to me. Oculi (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate split proposal: split Category:A24 (company) films into Category:Films distributed by A24 and Category:Films produced by A24

This proposed category name structure helps clarify what an "A24 film" actually means by distinguishing between film production and distribution.

I briefly perused several of the films in the category, assuming that A24 had been involved in making the films, but instead many are merely films A24 acquired the distribution rights to. I am admittedly not well-versed in the film production process, but the distinction seems relevant to me in clarifying A24's extent of involvement. This distinction also seems supported by the contents of List of A24 films.

Based on some quick automated searches I performed, at least 54 out of 122 pages in the category have A24 listed as the distributor (automatically identifying each film's production company was more complex). Some have A24 listed as both the production company and distributor, so these categories can be overlapping.

Additional note: there is precedent for "Films distributed by" categories: one example is Category:Films distributed by Disney and there are a few others I found by using the search bar suggestions. As for "Films produced by" category naming, most of those appear to group by individual people producing the films.

Pinging previous participants in case they want to comment on the new proposal: 2pou, Oculi, Marcocapelle. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is part of Category:American films by studio, by default this is about production only. Distribution by Disney is probably an exceptional case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, this appears to be a correct assessment of the current category hierarchy.

I've done some more thinking, and I guess I could see how "Films distributed by X" could be overcategorization because of WP:NONDEF: I have no strong opinion whether the distributor of a film is a defining characteristic. If it isn't, then by implication films solely distributed by A24 (i.e. not produced by A24) don't need to be categorized in an A24-related category. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak preserve Category:A24 (company) drafts: Since draft categories are maintenance categories that are used primarily by people composing drafts (probably?), I see no strong reason to overturn the existing structure when potentially ambiguous. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Pitched percussion instruments. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: A melodic percussion instrument isn't actually defined as such (as something separate from pitched percussion), and I recently merged the pages. With Category:Pitched percussion instruments, this page really isn't necessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (or reverse merge) to Category:Pitched percussion instruments, as overlapping topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A reverse merge wouldn't make sense, as melodic percussion is currently a "subcategory" of pitched percussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I will strike reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Why? I Ask, would you support a merge? ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd just put all the pages in melodic percussion under pitched percussion and delete the former category. I can sort out the subcategories (such as keyboard percussion) later. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2022 (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.