Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 9

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 15:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Clergy from Ipswich

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is effectively is the same. Mason (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose capitalisation: move Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Ipswich Town Preachers. When this category entered the jigsaw world of signs, known as wikipedia, it was unclear whether the category should use uppercase letters to initialise not merely Ipswich, but also "Town Preacher". The Oxford Academic use lower case, but local historian John Blatchly goes for uppercase. I think the advantage of this that it is clear that this refers to people who held a formal role, rather than a simply being a wikipedia category that lists Clergy from Ipswich. Often Ipswich Corporation appointed people from elsewhere. Bearing in mind the significance of some of those who occupied this role such as Samuel Ward (minister) or Cave Beck, it would seem appropriate to have such a category. I feel that capitalisation will indicate the category is more formal/historical. Leutha (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I've reverted your unexplained removal of this category from the proposed merge target. How is this category not Clergy from Ipswich? And why is the current category parented by 17th-century clergy. Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from the discussion above, the category is quite formal. Many people filing this role were not from Ipswich: Samuel Ward (minister) was from Haverhill, Matthew Lawrence (preacher) was from North Lincolnshire, Cave Beck was from London. The references for the Town Preachers are largely consistent from 1604, G. R.Clarke gives a list of 7 before 1604 in his 1830 The history and description of the town and borough of Ipswich . However only one appears in Blatchly's list in his book on The Town Library of Ipswich (1989). Any suggestions as regards how to handle the earlier individuals such as Roger Kelke, the Marian exile who returned to become Ipswich Town Preacher from 1560 until 1575, according to Blatchly? ibid . Leutha (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... so it sounds like this information would be better served as a list. Categories are supposed to be there to help people navigate between pages. I would *strongly* encourage you to look at how other categories handle clergy from a region.

It seems like you are under the impression that People from a city is only for people who were born from the city. That's too narrow of a definition, as Bishops of CITY/ diocese are placed within the clergy from CITY/REGION etc category. And, so if I am understanding your very long comment, you're added the parent because there's only one example of of a precher from before the 17th century, but you don't speak to what about after the 17th century. Mason (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, clergy is usually a formal role, that is not a good reason for a split. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's now clear that Ipswich Town Preacher was a formal appointment by the Corporation. As for the current lowercase category name format, this is correct per MOS:JOBTITLE. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging...
  • Category:Battles in Asturias‎ (4 P) to Category:History of Asturias
  • Category:Battles in Cantabria‎ (3 P) to Category:History of Cantabria
  • Category:Battles in La Rioja (Spain)‎ (3 P) to Category:History of La Rioja (Spain)
  • Category:Battles in the Region of Murcia‎ (3 P) to Category:History of Murcia (region)
• Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See Germany, Italy etc. NLeeuw (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2024 (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 and rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Battles by location in Greece to Category:Military history of Greece by location
• Propose renaming Category:Battles in Central Greece to Category:Military history of Central Greece‎
• Propose renaming Category:Battles in the Peloponnese to Category:Military history of the Peloponnese‎
• Propose renaming Category:Battles in Macedonia (Greece)‎ to Category:Military history of Macedonia (Greece)
  • Propose upmerging Category:Battles in medieval Macedonia (3 P) to Category:Military history of Macedonia (Greece)

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See Italy, Germany and other recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2024 (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:Activists from Detroit. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Housing rights activists from Detroit to Category:People from Detroit

Nominator's rationale: Category with only 1 entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Activists from Detroit instead. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Activists from Detroit as a more specific target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2024 (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: withdrawn. Will reopen in the event the original Cfd goes through. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Acquired citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens

Nominator's rationale: Remove redirect from "Naturalized citizens" and merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this Cfd is related to this Cfd below. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• These are topic articles instead of biographies. I think Category:Change of nationality is a better merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I would agree to this alternative merge. Merge with Category:Change of nationality per Marco. Leave the rest as is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2024 (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 but create Category:Songs involved in the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud as a subcategory and diffuse the songs. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud to Category:Songs involved in the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

Nominator's rationale: Specifies what's in the category The Midnite Wolf (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not sure this is a good idea. because some things might not be a song for example the New Ho King restaurant which got very famous because of the feud. there was also a pizzeria, and if more things comes up "songs" would not make sense Freedun (yippity yap) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that Freedun has been blocked as a sock (in other words, I consider this unopposed as of now). Given that there is a potential objection, I will relist, but in a week if there are no further comments I would close this as soft rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial merge as a possible compromise, by creating Category:Songs involved in the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud as a subcategory of Category:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud which would allow New Ho King to remain in the main category while moving all the songs to the new category. This would also allow any future non-song pages/categories to be added under the main category. Relinus (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this decision. As long as there are articles about the feud that are not about songs, having the parent category will be pretty handy. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I also support a partial merge per Relinus, considering there are multiple articles in this category that aren't songs, a full rename wouldn't be appropriate. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:39, 25 June 2024 (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: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Internet technology companies by Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Typo for Internet technology companies of Bangladesh Greatder (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2024 (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:18th-century American politicians. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:18th-century African-American politicians to Category:African-American politicians and Category:18th-century African-American people and Category:18th-century American politicians

Nominator's rationale: 3x Upmerge. Per African-American officeholders in the United States, 1789–1866. There is only one person Wentworth Cheswell who will ever be in this category. Mason (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Single merge to Category:18th-century American politicians because the article is already in other subcategories of the proposed targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2024 (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 as per nom. There is consensus that "bombers" is too vague a term to be useful in categorisation. No consensus on Category:Hamas members by role; WP:NPASR for that category. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas members

Nominator's rationale: "bomber" is not an occupation. User:Namiba 01:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but Populate Bombing and especially suicide bombing is not necessarily like a paid "job", no, but it is a "role" in a military, paramilitary or terrorist organisation, even if it is literally the last thing they'll ever do. For the record, I understand "bombers" to include "bomb-makers". Therefore, Category:Hamas members by role is appropriate. (There is a whole Category:Hamas suicide bombings and List of Palestinian suicide attacks, which shows this is a common role within the organisation). Currently, Category:Bombers (people) is in the Category:Criminals by crime, while Category:Suicide bombing is inter alia in Category:Military tactics.

Although the category had only 2 members when nominated, it could easily be populated with more. I just added Mohiyedine Sharif, Yahya Ayyash, Samar Sabih, and Nidal Farahat. Most of these were already in Category:Hamas military members. It might be worth re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members, although that would leave Category:Hamas members by role pretty much empty. I think it is quite a redundant layer anyway; we could Upmerge it to Category:Hamas members instead. NLeeuw (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a redundant layer and we do not have this kind of intersection for other groups.--User:Namiba 00:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba So you agree with Upmerging Category:Hamas members by role to Category:Hamas members, and Re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members? If so, could you please tag Category:Hamas members by role accordingly, and change your proposal, or add it as an Alt proposal? Thanks in advance!

If you mean something else, please clarify, so we can discuss it. NLeeuw (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, rather to Category:Hamas military members. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but I would rather populate and re-parent Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members, and upmerge Category:Hamas members by role to Category:Hamas members; see my explanation above. NLeeuw (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that works for me.--User:Namiba 14:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great! NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tagged that category to make it part of this CfM. NLeeuw (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Category:Hamas members by role has not been tagged for a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. Bomber isn't defining. Mason (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: "Bomber" and "military wing membership" aren't specific roles – they are attributions or in some cases here allegations or associations. Leadership is also a vague concept in the context and can refer to individuals at all different levels up and down the hierarchy, so "leader" is also not a specific role here. There's no reason why these sub-categories wouldn't simply be more usefully listed under the main category anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iskandar323: please revert your removal of the category from various members. It defeats the purpose of CfD if you do so. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The category wasn't populated with any "bombers", which are aircraft. It contained five military engineers and bomb markers and one suicide bomber, which is a precise term. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have restored the six members.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iskandar323, @Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, what is your preference regarding the nom's proposal and the alternative proposal by Nederlandse Leeuw above? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be merged to Category:Hamas military members, but that would only prequel a further discussion on renaming/deletion. At the moment, it is imprecise and could be readily deleted as vapid and meaningless. Alternatively, five members are "bomb markers", not "bombers", so it could be renamed to that; however, the last is a suicide bomber, which would need removing in case of renaming. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ancient villages in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in appropriate parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2024 (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/rename and redirect. I will implement this in stages to avoid circular parenting. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People with acquired citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens by country
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Azerbaijani citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Azerbaijan
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Austrian citizenship to Category:Naturalised citizens of Austria
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Armenian citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Armenia
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Australian citizenship to Category:Naturalised citizens of Australia
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Argentine citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Argentina
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Angolan citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Angola
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Andorran citizenship to Category:Naturalised citizens of Andorra
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Algerian citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Algeria
• Propose merging Category:People with acquired Albanian citizenship to Category:Naturalized citizens of Albania

Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename per recent Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose People can acquire citizenship through other means than naturalization. Many jus sanguinis countries allow people to register as citizens without going through the naturalization process if they have family ties to the country. The discussion was poorly attended and flat out wrong because most people with acquired Israeli citizenship got it via a different process than naturalization. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: so if merged it should be a reverse merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would lean towards opposing merge because heritage citizenship acquisition is very different from naturalization, and could be a defining difference. Besides naturalization is a more common term, because most countries with a lot of new citizens get them via naturalization primarily or exclusively. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Buidhe, so would you suggest the other way around? "Acquired" being the more broader term. @Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison I think merging as is would be better, don't you? I would also open to reverse merge too since "aquired" is a more broader term covering types of citizenships. I just don't think splitting hairs between types of methods is advisable here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is also true, so I am not wedded to a particular merge direction. I do think that these categories should be merged somehow since the difference between the two is pretty trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support a merge. I'm of the same opinion as Macro. A merge would be good, either direction is fine with me.Mason (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pppery and Ymblanter: please do not process the previous nomination pending discussion about this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it was already processed two days ago, but the categories can be retagged and included here, if there is consensus to revert we can revert. Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 1: If a merge does go ahead, the parent categories will need to be edited manually. Note 2: I only found this after merging Wikidata on some of the former set. I am willing to undo that work if there is consensus to revert. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename per nom and precedent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:25, 29 June 2024 (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 as per Marco. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:13th-century Bavandid rulers to Category:Bavand dynasty and Category:13th-century Iranian rulers
• Propose merging Category:13th-century Baduspanid rulers to Category:Baduspanids and Category:13th-century Iranian rulers
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century Bavandid rulers to Category:Bavand dynasty and Category:14th-century Iranian rulers
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Baduspanid rulers to Category:Baduspanids and Category:14th-century Iranian rulers

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse Bavand or Baduspanid dynasty by century. Instead I think we should repurpose it to be a nationality category. Mason (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, better merge them to existing categories rather than establishing a new tree with only two subcategories. The merge targets (next to the dynasty) would be Category:13th-century monarchs in the Middle East and Category:13th-century Iranian people and likewise for the 14th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But why? Both dynasties almost lasted 1000 years and had many rulers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the category only contains two centuries... and we don't typically have categories at the intersection of occupation+century+family dynasty. And we don't have parent categories for several of the two way intersections, which makes it hard for me to see a case for why this narrow intersection is defining. Mason (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of differing options; any compromise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to merge it into the existing categories. Mason (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The reigns of monarchs are often long enough that century categories aren't needed for the rulers of a specific monarchy. But we would need to merge Category:13th-century Bavandid rulers to Category:13th-century monarchs in the Middle East and Category:13th-century Iranian people and likewise for the others. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (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 18:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gnangarra 09:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnangarra The category description can be changed. If articles can use past tense words like "were" and "was" in reference to a tribe, I'm not seeing why the word "extinct" is out of question. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the issue of using the "tribes" to decsribe Indigenous Countries, Cultures and People in Australia is inaccurate at best racist at worst. The term itself implies a lot of colonial misinformation and a distinct lack of understanding of Indigenous Cutlures in Australia. The use of past tense in words like were or was is also not an indicator of the Indigenous Countries, cultures, languages or peoples continuation. Very specifically by calling a Country extinct that frees the restriction of cultural protocols applying when working on with Indugenous Cultural materials. All countries are still in existance and are represented through Land Councils who manage everything from protocols on entering a country, to land rights. My reasoning is not playing words games its saying that the assumption of being extinct is a misnomer, even in languages and cultures where a recent Language conference in Queensland a professor was luaghed off stage when he stated that a language was extinct yet multiple people stood up and spoke the language. Without rocksolid gold plate sources published within the last 4 years the label of extinct is a false narrative derived from the recent history wars, and anti landrights campaigners. The other issue we have is the Australian Bureau of Statistics problematic collection of reliable data as it records just one language spoken not all In the context of the Census, 'Indigenous' or 'First Nations' results are defined by respondents who have answered that they are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There are over 230 Australian Indigenous Languages that the Census records which is less than the actual number of Indigenous languages.[1]. Gnangarra 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the use of "tribe" isn't my decision. It is used for many articles about Aboriginal Australian groups, so that seems to perhaps be a wider issue worth fixing. What is the continuation of a group like the Toogee? What is the relevant land council? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe is not used in Australia, the poor use of terms in Wikipedia articles is one of the many barriers people working with Indigenous cultures struggle to address as shows Wikipedia in a bad light and not respectful of the culture. Basically ticks all the racists, Inforwar, challenge faced out on the street its up to us to lift our standards. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle Aren't we talking about cultural extinction? Are you defining extinction as the literal death of all group members without any descendants? That seems like an unorthodox interpretation. The Susquehannock people are extinct as a tribe, despite having some descendants in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. I don't see any contradiction here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Frustratingly, the term "extinct" seems to be used somewhat inconsistently for both cultural extinction and the death of all group members (at least, from a google search). Is there a better term we could use to distinguish the two? Category:Extinct ethnic groups is currently a subcategory under Category:Human extinction which implies the latter, so perhaps it should be renamed and/or categorized differently if most of the members are groups that are only culturally extinct. Psychastes (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seneca-Cayuga Nation is not an Indigenous Country in Australia, you are making comparisons that are not like for like. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And? I'm addressing Marcocapelle's statement about the broader category tree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If not an outright deletion then certainly a renaming to be more clear would seem to be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What would you propose and why? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Genocide happens. Wishful thinking doesn't change that. "Extinct" is a harsh and ugly word to apply to people; it's natural to recoil in disgust at the idea. It may be very appealing to think that a group "didn't really go extinct" because some of their descendants blended into other groups. But if the group no longer exists as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language, the group really is extinct. Perhaps something like Category:Former Indigenous peoples would be less noxious to the moral sense of the reader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Genocide happens — In particular Genocide of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mitch Ames That leads to two questions. Is there even one example in all of Australian history of an entire group being murdered without any known descendants? Are there any examples of groups who, through genocidal violence and assimilation, ceased to exist as distinct cultural groups? In both cases, there would have to be terminology to describe a group that once was and now is no longer. If not "extinct", there would still have to be some other description. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, we need to be careful not to conflate "genocide" and "extinction". Genocide does not require killing all of the people - it is defined as "intentional destruction ... in whole or in part". Extinction requires that they all die, but doesn't require intent. There may be an overlap, but they are not the same thing, and neither implies the other. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  agree genocide doesnt equate to extinction. @Bohemian Baltimore perhaps you should start with List of massacres of Indigenous Australians to understand the extent of Geonicidal acts in Australia. Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gnangarra Since my meaning apparently wasn't clear; there are genocidal acts of violence which lead to the literal or cultural destruction of peoples. What terminology would you use to refer to groups that have been physically annihilated in entirety through genocidal violence, disease, etc? What terminology would you use to refer to historical groups that may have living descendants but that are no longer culturally distinct due to genocidal violence, etc? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the issue the assumptions here are made based on the use of past tense language in the article, none of them have any reliable sources to support being included in this category. Given that the category itself should be deleted. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gnangarra There are a small number of articles. I do not have a strong opinion on the category, whether it should be renamed or deleted. But I reiterate my question; are there any historical Indigenous Australian groups that can be said to have once existed but that no longer do? What terminology should be used to refer to those historical groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont have any reliable sources to answer that question, all I know is the articles in this category dont have reliable sources to even be included in the category. The whole purpose of raising it here is exatcly the category itself not some wider theoretical discussion on meanings or what ifs. I gather I can remove them all from this category for lack of sourcing that clearly supports the claim. Gnangarra 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gnangarra How would you feel about a category such as Category:Historical Indigenous peoples in Australia, Category:Historical Indigenous peoples, etc. or would that involve the same quandaries? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  to quotes The articles are fine in Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland anyway. Marcocapelle Gnangarra 05:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mitch Ames I'm not conflating genocide and extinction; I myself belong to a group whose history includes the former but not the latter. But I would question why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies. I don't think a term like "cultural extinction" implies that. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies — Because when we are talking about people, that's what the word means "Extinction is the termination ... by the death of its last member." Admittedly if we are talking about culture we could say that the group is extinct if nobody belongs to it. (If we all gave up editing and WMF deleted Wikipedia, Wikipedians could be said to be "extinct", but most us would still be alive.)

  My main point here is that we should probably not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, because it is neither necessary nor sufficient for "extinction", and is unnecessarily emotive. Yes genocide happened, but that does not determine whether a particular people is extinct or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mitch Ames Okay. So what terminology should we use for "cultural extinction"? What terminology should we use to refer to historical groups that no longer exist as distinct cultures? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term "cultural extinction" is not helpful at all. Even if there is no tangible remainders of a culture you never know how much of customs and oral literature have been exchanged with and integrated in other cultures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but that doesn't mean that the group still exists. So what terminology would you use for a group that once existed and does not now? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd prefer using no terminology at all over inaccurate terminology. The articles are fine in Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: having now been through every article not one defines the culture, people, or country as extinct, sadly Tindale works from 1974 is the primary source in every article and the most recent. The issue there their inclusion is based on whoever started the article using a generic type sentence like according to tindale they (some past tense word) from this area in Queensland. Ironically the only article with recent sourcing is about the current issue of domestic violance in Australia which makes no sense as its in this category. Gnangarra 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Presumably you could solve the problem by changing "The Xxxx were ..." to "The Xxxx are ..." (other verb tense changes as appropriate), and providing a reliable source to support the statement of their continued existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I could change the wording, but as all the articles are basically say Tindale described these countries on his map as being xxxx, their inclusion in the category isnt based on reliable sources or hints of a reference to Extinct. I suggest the category becomes extinct. Gnangarra 14:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Possible alternatives to "extinct", for the purposes of renaming the category (tree):
  * Historical: we already have Category:Historical ethnic groups of Australia - which possibly should be merged (one way or the other) with Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia. Note that Category:Extinct ethnic groups is a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups, so probably Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (if it remains) should be a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups by continent
  * nonextant
  Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for the record I had created this category in response to seeing a universal category being created for Extinct Indigenous groups, including Australian people, it seemed at the time better to identify the Australian component of an apparent claim. Note that by creating the category, I did not necessarily agree with either the category title or its assumptions, which is why I placed in bold comments as to the very specific event/issue raised in articles. I am intrigued by the discussion to date, as it seems either concentrating upon category trees and related subjects, or the issues of how to name groups of people who have been affected by reduction or severe loss of population. As the process in this particular part of wikipedia is relative to categories, there is a problem as to whether the actual subject is best ventured as to the veracity of terminology. It could be for everyones advantage to delete the original parent category, and find somewhere other than this CFD to explore the issues that are raised here. A collaborative approach to the wider wikipedian understanding of how to 'frame' the larger world wide issue of how and when ethnic groups have decimation of population is something well beyond the bounds of this cfd, and to simply arrive at a decision here on one small perspective does the larger project some significant disservice. Definitely not a 'free for all' RFC or similar, it needs a very specific guideline and process that works through the issues raised here, for the larger project. But then this is wikipedia, anything could happen. JarrahTree 02:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion, but no concrete proposals (which is not inherently a bad thing!). What should happen to the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I hadn't formally voted yet, but as noticed the category is problematic, and one can also navigate between the articles via Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People on the autism spectrum to Category:Autistic people or People with autism

Nominator's rationale:

See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 1 § Category:People on the autistic spectrum

The main article was moved and also based on this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current name strikes an acceptable compromise between person-first or identity first language that neither of proposed renames addresses.[2][3][4][5] Furthermore, the main article was moved to Autism, which doesn't solve the problem for people on the spectrum. Mason (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant are the two CFDs for this category. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 22#Category:People with Asperger syndrome/on the autism spectrum and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 31#Category:People on the autism spectrum Mason (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Autism has been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this is really a WP:COMMONNAME type of discussion. I think "people on the autism spectrum" has become the common name by now but I would welcome if someone would come up with relevant statistics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose:"on the autism spectrum" is terminology that has significant support amongst autistic people themselves [6] and is at the very least terminology that few people hate.[7] The preference for identity-first language is not as uniform as it's made out to be, and "on the autism spectrum" represents a fairly non-controversial compromise. Its only drawback is that it's not as popular. In academic research, I'm assuming it's because they tend to use the full name "autism spectrum disorder". Google Scholar search results of the past 10 years yields this: "people with autism" -> 29.300 results, "autistic people" -> 16.900 results, "people on the autism spectrum" -> 5.590 results, "people with autism spectrum disorder" -> 12.200 results, "people with ASD" -> 17.000 results. On Google Trends, "autistic people" has overtaken "people with autism", and "people on the autism spectrum" ranks far beneath both of them.[8]

Based on popularity (academic and common) and the fact that there is support among autistic people, I'm not completely opposed to changing it to "autistic people", but said support is far from uniform so I'm hesitant about a hard line stance. TheZoodles (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (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: soft merge/rename as nominated; unopposed for over three weeks. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Dharwad to Category:Hospitals in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Hindu temples in Dharwad to Category:Hindu temples in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Dharwad to Category:Buildings and structures in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Engineering colleges in Dharwad to Category:Engineering colleges in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Medical colleges in Dharwad to Category:Medical colleges in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Universities and colleges in Dharwad to Category:Universities and colleges in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Education in Dharwad to Category:Education in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Neighbourhoods in Dharwad to Category:Neighbourhoods in Hubli–Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Dharwad to Category:Hubli–Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Government of Dharwad to Category:Local government in Karnataka
• Propose deleting Category:Geography of Dharwad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Roads in Dharwad to Category:Roads in Dharwad district
• Propose renaming Category:Road transport in Dharwad to Category:Road transport in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose renaming Category:Rail transport in Dharwad to Category:Rail transport in Hubli-Dharwad
• Propose merging Category:Transport in Dharwad to Category:Transport in Hubli-Dharwad

Nominator's rationale: These categories are one half of a twin city Hubli-Dharwad. The cities have a single municipal corporation called Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. (It's like the Twin-Cities Minnesota). Almost all of these categories were made by now blocked sock puppet. Mason (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is will impact a lot of categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former Jewish agricultural colonies of Podolia Governorate to Category:Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire and Category:Historic Jewish communities in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only one article in the category is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States religion navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete; duplicate category for Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes. The only template in it is already in Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States navigational boxes. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Category for the Template:Synagogues in the United States has been moved from Category:United States religion navigational boxes to Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes.; enagling deletion of the religion category in favour of the religion and beliefs category. Rangasyd (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, although Template:Synagogues in the United States wouldn't need to be put into Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes‎ since it's already in Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States navigational boxes, which is a subcategory of Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes. Relinus (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz, I believe Rangasyd, acting in good faith, removed the only content of the category. I've added it back. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Spanish-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Czech-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Portuguese-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Arabic-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Video games using Mohawk dialogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this whole thing video game language category is just a big mess. These categories are tied to three previous Cfd - here, here, and here - where the nominator is behaving oddly. They nominated it but the began to oppose it the moment people voted delete, saying they would withdraw it but never did and instead created more categories. I don't know what is going on. These are the rest of the categories which weren't nominated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely overlapping with country(countries) of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." These are diffing and categorize video games in a certain way. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Portuguese- and Arabic-language-only categories have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Arabic has been emptied since i couldn't find anything that actually work (and I don't want to anyway). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy close. I'm impatient. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  CFD discussions can take a while to close. They are not on as much of a schedule as AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and others. To QuantumFoam, please familiarize yourself with category policy or it may lead to a block. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 20 June 2024 (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: Alt merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Farmers practicing sustainable agriculture to Category:Farmers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection with occupation. Mason (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, then to Category:Organic farmers instead, and perhaps also to Category:Sustainability advocates. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changed merge targets sound good to me. Mason (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2024 (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. All articles are already in subcategories of both merge targets. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Former atheist critics of atheism to Category:Former atheists and agnostics and Category:Critics of atheism

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this narrow intersection. Also, it's unclear from the name if this is supposed to be former critics of atheism or former atheists. Mason (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Single merge to Category:Critics of atheism because all articles are already in a subcategory of Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, except Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the articles are already in Category:American critics of atheism and Category:British critics of atheism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you also going to merge Category:Former Muslim critics of Islam into Category:Former Muslims and Category:Critics of Islam? It seems like the same logic would apply to both, so the decision should be made together. Relinus (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I'm not sure yet whether we should split, but if we do, then both categories. NLeeuw (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (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.