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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:July 1785 events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Isolated cat. 1 article. The article is already in 1785 tree so no merging necessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Formerly Azerbaijani-majority districts of Armenia to Category:Districts of Armenia

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and should be merged with Category:Districts of Armenia. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2023 (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:Subfields of sociology. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sociology of food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization: Two year old category with one article Gjs238 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Subfields of sociology per WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1453 natural disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Isolated year cat with only 2 articles (WP:SMALLCAT). The 2 articles are already in Category:15th-century natural disasters and Category:1453 trees so no merging is necessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cemeteries in Charlottesville, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Charlottesville, Virginia

Category:Cemeteries in Williamsburg, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Williamsburg, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Roanoke, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Roanoke, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Staunton, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Staunton, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Portsmouth, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Portsmouth, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Petersburg, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Petersburg, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Norfolk, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Norfolk, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Newport News, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Newport News, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Hopewell, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Hopewell, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Fredericksburg, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Fredericksburg, Virginia
Category:Cemeteries in Hampton, Virginia to Category:Cemeteries in Virginia and Category:Buildings and structures in Hampton, Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (1-2 articles). User:Namiba 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Landmarks in Botswana by city to Category:Landmarks in Botswana and Category:Landmarks by city

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Botswana is a small country and the current category contains only 1 sub-category. User:Namiba 16:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2023 (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: split between Category:Russian emigrants and Category:Soviet emigrants. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 16:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Category:Russian emigrants and Category:Soviet emigrants

Nominator's rationale: “Russian and Soviet” is not a nationality. People of fifteen nationalities may have been formerly Soviet, and there’s no reason to equate the Russian Federation with the Soviet Union. This should lead to the splitting of subcategories. —Michael Z. 18:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, it should become a container category for the Russian Empire, for the Soviet Union and for Russia. When split, a "see also" note should be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with the latter. NLeeuw (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mutual see alsos with all 12 successor states, or with the 3 Baltic states that were occupied too? Certainly not just one, because it isn’t NPOV to broadly associate Soviet identity with one former republic than others, when some significant proportion of individual category members are not defined by that stereotype. —Michael Z. 13:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It would not violate NPOV since the Russian Federation was broadly accepted as the successor of the Soviet Union in the United Nations including its Security Council. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  What’s that got to do with a category for individual people, even if it were exactly true? They are not all employees of the Soviet and Russian governments or something. About 138 million Soviet people in 1991 were not Russians. —Michael Z. 18:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split per nom. No reason why Russian and Soviet should be merged while Ukraine and Kazakhstan are separate -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request by Marcocapelle at WP:CFDWM.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this was relisted because not all subcategories were included. Is there a requirement to CFD each one before this can be closed? Can someone generate a list of them all for discussion here? —Michael Z. 17:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is merely a very practical requirement: the top category just can't be split if the subcategories aren't split. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As subs are subdivisions of this category, I’d have thought that splitting it means splitting all. Can we updated this nomination so that that is clear? Or do I need to post a notice on every one? —Michael Z. 20:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I’ve gone and nominated all of the subcategories for deletion. —Michael Z. 21:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant discussion for 39 subcategories is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 18#Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants to Albania. —Michael Z. 15:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for that discussion to be closed before closing this one. Qwerfjkl talk 12:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split all categories between Soviet snd Russian. Emigrants from the Russian Empire are not the same Russian emigrants too. 2001:1C06:2305:2E00:25CF:9151:5E6D:4678 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:19th-century writers on archaeological subjects to Category:19th-century archaeologists

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection that is small, vague, and overlapping Mason (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, they weren't archaeologists but rather pyramidologists and already categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Judges in British India to Category:British India judges

Nominator's rationale: Could also be renamed to Judges from British India Mason (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:6th-century BCE texts to Category:6th-century BC texts
Category:4th-century BCE texts to Category:4th-century BC texts
Category:3rd-century BCE texts to Category:3rd-century BC texts
Category:2nd-century BCE texts to Category:2nd-century BC texts
Category:1st-century BCE texts to Category:1st-century BC texts
Category:1st-millennium BCE texts to Category:1st-millennium BC texts added later

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C: Category:5th-century BC works etc. By the way, I don't think I would oppose if anyone would propose to move all BC to BCE, but it is not helpful to just have texts in a deviant format. This was opposed for speedy.

copy of speedy discussion
– All C2C per Category:1st-millennium BC works. Brandmeister^talk 10:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Oppose speedy for these five BCE categories. A shift to BC from BCE is not neutral due to the religious connotations of BC, and should be discussed. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)))[reply]

copy of speedy discussion

– All C2C per Category:1st-millennium BC works. Brandmeister^talk 10:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose speedy for these five BCE categories. A shift to BC from BCE is not neutral due to the religious connotations of BC, and should be discussed. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)))[reply]

@Brandmeister and BlackcurrantTea: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While using BCE or CE in some religion-sensitive articles is understandable, there's no reason to have some categories at BCE and others at BC. If BCE is to be used throughout all pages and categories, a wider discussion should take place rather than opposing here. Brandmeister^talk 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency in naming. I don't have strong opinions about whether we use BC or BCE, and would be fine if we had a carve out for religious texts, as long as there's some consistency. Mason (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For consistency in naming, there's also Category:1st-millennium BCE texts, to which these five categories belong. (It has a speedy tag, but I don't see its posting there.) Of course, as Brandmeister notes, BC / BCE is a topic for a much larger discussion. However, considering the importance of neutrality in Wikipedia, it seems strange to shift categories from more-neutral names to less-neutral ones. One could simply leave them alone, with the various texts unrelated to Christianity. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making some categories using BCE while the majority has BC is non-obvious for a casual reader. Categories are not articles where such difference could be evident. In fact, many, if not most, scholar publications use BC, it's no longer considered a Christian point of view, but rather an established common custom. MOS:ERA calls for consistent and uniform application of BC/BCE, as does MOS:STYLEVAR. Brandmeister^talk 16:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Category:1st-millennium BCE texts to this nomination just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the parent categories. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with parent categories. In my observation the usage of CE/BCE is confined to the body of articles denoting a very specific point of view, so the notion that it would be more neutral than BC is a bit strange. Place Clichy (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2023 (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 top level; merge the rest. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 13:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lesbians from Northern Ireland to Category:British lesbians and Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland
Propose merging Category:Lesbians from Northern Ireland by occupation to Category:British lesbians and Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland
Propose merging Category:Lesbian writers from Northern Ireland to Category:British lesbian writers and Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland
Propose merging Category:Lesbian actresses from Northern Ireland to Category:British lesbian actresses and Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCATs. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect much support for merging the top category. If the third and fourth category are merged their merge targets should become Category:British lesbian writers and Category:British lesbian actresses respectively, as well as (if that one is kept) Category:Lesbians from Northern Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fair call on the writers and actresses; I have amended my submission. And I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to an alternate solution of collapsing the lower three all into Category:Lesbians from Northern Ireland; it'd still be a bit small at just four entries, but if that's big enough for everyone else then so be it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me, if the top category is not kept then there is another merge target for all nominated categories, namely Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a good point, also amended. Clearly I was too fast for my own good when I put this proposal up. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now We can upmerge them for now, but I think a keep would also be warranted. I'm not persuaded either way. NLeeuw (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging parent category of Category:Lesbians from Northern Ireland. As smallcat notes an exception: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". British categories are typically split up into the four (wales, england, scotland, NI). However, I do support the rest of the merge, as those cats are really small. Mason (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge Category:Lesbians from Northern Ireland?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the top level, merge the subcats up to it. I'll grant that four is less than five, but it's close enough to five that a category with four articles in it can be defensible — and the fact that British categories are quartered as much as possible into separate subcategories for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a pretty good defense. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the three occupational categories, neutral on the parent category. Place Clichy (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 13:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People educated at Norwood Secondary College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 2 entries. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Oppose. Small cat requires that the category not have the potential for growth. Mason (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, with no prejudice about re-creation at a later date if it can be filled to the usual level (5-6 minimum). I could only find one other article which would currently go into this category. Grutness...wha? 03:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:35, 17 September 2023 (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. I will nominate Category:Male serial killers for deletion as procedural follow up. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 13:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Serial killers by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: First of all, please bare with me, I'm not too sure what action is correct in this instance, so rather than deletion it might actually be merge or split.

We currently have the categories "Female serial killers" and "Male serial killers". The female category has subcategories of female serial killers by country, whereas the "Male serial killers" category, has no subcategories.

I propose to keep consistency and have the "Male serial killers" category have subcategories of each of the countries. Whether this means deleting the "Serial killers by nationality", merging, or splitting, I'm not sure. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 03:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this about Category:Female serial killers and Category:Male serial killers rather than about Category:Serial killers by nationality. I'd say that Category:Male serial killers is rather redundant because so many serial killers were/are male. While the subcategories of Category:Female serial killers could be upmerged because there are too few of them to split by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also previous discussion in 2015, with no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. Serial killers overall seem to be split by nationality, with subcategories for female serial killers by nationality. This makes a lot of sense, given the large proportion of serial killers who are male. If anything, it might be the "male serial killers" category which might not be needed, although an alternative strategy would simply be to make male by nationality categories and keep the "Fooian serial killers" top categories as container-only categories. Grutness...wha? 11:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. per @Grutness Mason (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:35, 17 September 2023 (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 on Near East, redirect Near Easter countries.

No consensus Category:Near East
Redirect Category:Near Eastern countries to Category:Middle Eastern countries
Keep Category:Ancient Near East (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 13:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging REDIRECT Category:Near East to Category:Middle East
Propose merging REDIRECT Category:Near Eastern countries to Category:Middle Eastern countries
Propose keeping Category:Ancient Near East

Nominator's rationale: merge the first two with redirect, per WP:OVERLAPCAT, but keep Category:Ancient Near East since "Near East" is the term that is mostly used for ancient historiography. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & purge Category:Near East per main article Near East. "Near East" was used until the early 20th century, when it was replaced by "Middle East". Although the exact differences between "Near East", "Ancient Near East" and "Middle East" may be unclear, as long as they have three standalone main articles, and Near East has a Template:About at the top explaining these differences, we should not be assuming they mean the same. But articles Gulf airlines and Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies should be moved to Category:Middle East, since their scope is the 20th and 21st centuries, while Ancient Near East and Late antiquity may be WP:DIFFUSEd to child Category:Ancient Near East, since they are evidently "ancient". The rest of the articles are fine where they are; "Anatolia", "Levant" and "Syria (region)" are used for ancient times up to the present, while "Mesopotamia" and Speri (region) are used for ancient and medieval but not modern times. I'm unsure about Category:History of the Caucasus; I think it can be purged, but also kept, depending on one's point of view.

Redirect Category:Near Eastern countries to Category:Middle Eastern countries as nominated. I agree with this, these are all modern states which can be properly called "Middle Eastern countries".

Keep Category:Ancient Near East as nominated. I agree with this per main article Ancient Near East being clearly distinct from Near East, which was the region's common name until the early 20th century. NLeeuw (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, purging one and merging/redirecting the other could be a solution too. I think Category:Near East would then at least need a description on the category page about what kind of articles should be in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom as an unnecessary overlap. Keep Category:Ancient Near East . Place Clichy (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge Category:Near East?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to relisting comment: after reading all the above comments, I am still in favour of completely merging Category:Near East into Category:Middle East, keeping only a redirect. As Marcocapelle pointed out, there is at present no proposal for a scope description of what kind of articles would remain in a rump Category:Near East, should we keep such a category. Place Clichy (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2023 (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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia unreferenced articles improved to Category:Articles improved by WikiProject Unreferenced articles

Nominator's rationale: Proper grammar. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support. grammar is improved Mason (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2023 (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.

September 17

Category:July 1785 events

Category:Latin historians

Category:Formerly Azerbaijani-majority districts of Armenia

Category:Sociology of food

Category:1453 natural disasters

Category:Religious leaders of ancient Rome

Category:Cemeteries in Virginia

Category:Brock Badgers ice hockey players

Category:Landmarks in Botswana by city

Category:Russian and Soviet emigrants

Category:Wattpad writers

Category:19th-century writers on archaeological subjects

Category:Judges in British India

BCE to BC

Category:Burial sites of the House of Mecklenburg

Category:Boran

Category:Civil servants from the Ottoman Empire

Category:Lesbians from Northern Ireland

Category:People educated at Norwood Secondary College

Category:Serial killers by nationality

Near East

Category:Wikipedia unreferenced articles improved