Category:21st-century Kurdish people by occupation[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one occupation in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:53, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the reason not to keep a separate street gangs subcat for Latino? If not kept, at least also merge to Category:Street gangs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Gangs are a topic in which ethnicity is often actually defining, but as demonstrated above the content is already categorized as such through other, better, means. Place Clichy (talk) 10:08, 5 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Only has one (or two) pages in them, which isn't very helpful for navigation. I'm on the fence about whether these categories are defining or not... Mason (talk) 22:31, 1 January 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 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.
Category:Wars involving the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Both the DPR and the LPR were created during a single conflict: the Russo-Ukrainian War. Therefore, all these categories are meaningless. Yorkporter (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These have never been sovereign state parties, they have always been de-facto controlled by Russia, and their militias have always been staffed by Russian officers and under Russian command. And these militias have only been involved in one war, the Russo-Ukrainian War, as Russian proxies and alongside Russian forces. The categories are meaningless and misleading. —MichaelZ. 04:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These entities were defined by that war, not the other way around. Place Clichy (talk) 10:08, 5 January 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Apart from the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand subcategories I've nominated below, the only other contents remaining here are four US-specific lists (one omnibus list and three sublists for cabinet members, state governors and senators). Even those lists are still of questionable necessity — I'll grant the "natural born citizen" restriction on the presidency as a US-specific factor, but (a) that isn't applicable to cabinet members, state governors or senators at all, and (b) being physically born on foreign soil does not automatically make one not a "natural born citizen" as the citizenship status of the parents comes into play as well, so those lists are not across the board synonymous with "holders of lower offices who were ineligible to run for president" — but I'm not listing them for deletion here and now, and incidentally Category:Foreign-born American politicians has been previously brought to CFD and deleted. But it's highly doubtful that they would need a dedicated category for them, as they're all already somewhere in the Category:Lists of political office-holders in the United States tree as it is, and even if a category is warranted it would have to be US-specific since there's no legitimately defining basis for categorizing people this way in any other country. So this needs to be either deleted, or renamed to something exclusively American. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. (fwiw, I created this parent category to gather all the child categories together.) I don't have an investment in the concept and agree that it isn't really defining. Mason (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List articles appropriately cover the topic, when and where it is a topic. Placing this category on individual people's articles is an inappropriate WP:LABEL. Place Clichy (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just a comment as I'm too unfamiliar with the policies discussed, but, for example, the European Parliament allows someone foreign born to be elected, Carles Puigdemont comes to mind, some local elections in Europe does too, simply based on a place of residence. Respublik (talk) 22:55, 8 January 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.
Category:Foreign born Australian politicians[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Categories for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. I'm bundling these separately from the Canadian sibling I've nominated below, as Australia does have a rule that a foreign-born Australian citizen has to renounce any foreign citizenships before they're allowed to hold some Australian political offices -- however, that's such a minor, easily-attainable process that can typically be completed within a matter of days, so the question of whether they were born in Australia or outside of it is basically just a minor speed bump rather than a permanently defining characteristic of a politician's entire career. New Zealand also doesn't have any rule barring foreign-born citizens from holding political office in Aotearoa, either, although I don't know whether they handle it more like Australia or Canada -- but it's still unlikely to define a Kiwi's entire political career. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial intersection, country of birth does not pre-determine one's political views. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List articles appropriately cover the topic, when and where it is a topic. Placing this category on individual people's articles is an inappropriate WP:LABEL. Place Clichy (talk) 10:12, 5 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: OTA network is going away 12/31; becoming a FAST service Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be renamed then? Mason (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as I understand it, please ping me if I got something wrong). The service does not appear to have been renamed, it appears to have ended without a replacement. However, that is not a reason this category should be deleted. We categorize based on past characterizations all the time; as just one example, Category:Trump administration cabinet members.HouseBlastertalk 23:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcg66b3r: we probably need more explanation from your side (see above). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the network is now a FAST service and no longer has any OTA affiliates (many of them have switched to The365orOutlaw. So this category should be deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is primarily a response to HouseBlaster. We have precedent in this field that suggests categorizing stations by former network affiliation is not useful: see this CfD from 2020. If main-channel networks like ABC and CBS had no leg to stand on, then Circle—a digital multicast television network slotted into subchannels of stations—has even less of an argument. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that precedent. Delete per Sammi (and thank you!). HouseBlastertalk 00:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And because I realize that the original argument is also full of unfamiliar acronyms to non-topic editors, a quick roundup. Circle, until 12/31, was a diginet. It's now a streaming-only free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) online channel not offered by TV stations and thus has no affiliates. For further precedent, see Category:Twist (TV network) affiliates, for a diginet that just folded. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:17, 3 January 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.
Cultural depictions by nationality and gender[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEGRS, a split of cultural depictions by gender is rather trivial and cultural depictions of men of any nationality or of women of any nationality are not a notable topic in themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) (signed a day later)[reply]
Merge per nom. Also, @Mason, I think you forgot to sign the Cfd. I don't know whether it is important/required but I thought I should let you know either way. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Actually this isn't me. It's too nicely organized 🤣 Mason (talk) 18:43, 24 December 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.
Category:Cultural depictions of female monarchs[edit]
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 whether gender is defining in this case. (non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manually merge per nom, per WP:OCEGRS. Most content is already in a country subcategory of the target, hence manual. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spliting by gender is the most logical spliting there is, especially historically, almost nothing defines a monarchs life as much.★Trekker (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Country defines a monarch much more, I would rather argue that monarchs of the same gender of different countries have nothing in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable division of the content. BD2412T 15:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as defining. This is not a list of Monarchs, but of cultural depictions. Respublik (talk) 23:03, 8 January 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.
People by populated place in the United States[edit]
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 , using the alt rename targets where applicable.There is weak consensus to use the alt rename targets, with no prejudice against another nomination focusing soley on those. (non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 17:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I completely missed that. Thank you! I wasn't aware of this. But I would say that the other categories should also be named with such a format. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I agree in principle but did you name the two "Sportspeople" categories (the third and fourth ones) correctly? I'm rather confused by those renamings. Omnis Scientia (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for paying attention, I have corrected them. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason we should leave out Washington D.C., historic territories and insular areas. Agree with using American people. Place Clichy (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, your opinion on these ones. I'm rather torn because they specifically point to populated places in states.
I am aware that many categories are currently being renamed from "by state" to "by state or territory". I do not have a particular opinion about it, apart from preferring to maintain consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl, support alt rename as well as the original nom. Per an objection to the "state or territory" renames in speedy, I support the original renames but NOT the alt renames until there is a further discussion on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(after relisting) @Omnis Scientia: do you actually oppose the use of by state or territory, or do you just acknowledge that one user opposed some of your own speedy renamings of other such categories not listed in this discussion? There seem to be strong arguments for the inclusion of places like Washington D.C. and the Alaska Territory in American categories diffused by geography, and unfortunately some pernikety users keep removing them from such categories when they just use by state because they are not states. CfD is "stronger" than speedy discussion, if I may say, so of course we are not prevented to agree on a new name for these categories because of the speedy objection. We had that discussion before several times (example). Place Clichy (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I don't oppose the rename personally because I think it makes sense but a few users did strongly oppose all speedy renames to "state or territory" (I did a handful but most were done by @Aidan721 and @Smasongarrison) regardless of what the subject was a while back and it was suggested that this go back to full discussion with the WikiProjects of insular areas involved this time.
The conversation is in "Opposed requests" here if you want to see for yourself. They feel quite strongly about it and the Cfd which decided on "state or territory". Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename and think that this rename should intentionally include "Washington D.C., historic territories and insular areas" as there's really no reason to exclude them Mason (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt suggestion to replace American peopletoAmericans (in the context of people of United States) in any final suggestion per main page Americans. Respublik (talk) 23:10, 8 January 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.
No objection, as category creator. Upon reviewing the history of the matter, Kentucky was admitted as a new state very shortly after splitting from Virginia (which was already a state), and therefore had a very short time as a territory. It appears that the lone subject of this category was the only person who was officially the territorial judge of this territory. BD2412T 15:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. Canada does not place any limitations on the eligibility of foreign-born citizens to hold political office, so the question of whether they were born in Canada or outside of it is not relevant to these people's political careers at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial intersection, country of birth does not pre-determine one's political views. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 22:09, 1 January 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.
Category:1190s establishments in the Ayyubid Sultanate[edit]
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.
Oppose obviously a redundant cleaning work for a category which could be expanded and populalated. Just added another entry and more establishments in 12th century Ayyubid Sultanate. Those maintanance deletions of cateogories which can be populated (easily) is not helpful for Wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 18:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Still not enough to justify diffusion beyond the century level. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question - how many categories in this tree can I add and how many articles to abort this proposal? 3 are not enough?GreyShark (dibra) 11:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Usual solution for small categories. The normal minimum is five. I have occasionally argued for less where there is no obvious merge target, but usually there is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both now have enough articles (each).GreyShark (dibra) 18:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this nomination is meanwhile moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 1 January 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.
Category:Australian mid-20th century modern painters[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. I don't think that the intersection between century, nationality, and artistic movement is defining. If kept, it should be renamed Australian modern painters Mason (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge target(s)? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's merge to both, for now, but I think that Category:Modern painters needs to be containerized because painters in the root category aren't typically characterized as a modern painter or a painter of modern art. @Johnbod: what is your opinion? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking! This is always going to be super-messy. Category:Modern painters "Painters who have played a role in the history of modern art, dating from the late 19th century until (approximately) the 1970s", which I think is ok. I looked at a few random entries (there are approaching 2,000 in the head-cat and sub-cats) and they all met that definition, though none actually used "modern painter or a painter of modern art" in the lead, but more specific terms (or no term at all). Many could no doubt be moved to more specific categories, although of course a category like say Category:Abstract expressionist artists very often won't match an artist's whole career. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just so it's said: There really is not that much of a difference between performer by performance, and artist by style, or writer by genre. All three concepts should probably be listified/deleted. That said, I suppose I can see an argument for categorizing artist by Art movement. Which, I think is what we're talking about here. So Split/Merge per the others above. - jc37 05:42, 10 January 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.
Category:Free and open-source software programmed in C[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Not a helpful distinction. When I made it, I didn't really think through the fact that every other page (than the single child category) was called military leader Mason (talk) 05:06, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale:Mason (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 1 January 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.
Category:Austro-Hungarian military personnel by war[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Mason (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one war in here, which isn't very helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. This is a category with only two pages in it, the subject and a shrine dedicated to them. Mason (talk) 04:50, 1 January 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.
Category:Lieutenant field marshals of the Austrian Empire[edit]
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.
Delete per Marcocapelle. Respublik (talk) 12:03, 9 January 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.
Apolling place is school, firehouse, other public building, or private location that temporarily place to vote on eleciton day then returns to it's normal function the next day. This category was never populated but WP:NARROWCAT is not a problem: in the 2018 elections there were more than 230,000 polling places in the United States (sourcel). - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's definitely not defining. Mason (talk) 22:10, 1 January 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.
Category:State land commissioners of the United States[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two pages total in the Frisian handball category tree. Mason (talk) 01:18, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining Mason (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, only one article and a redirect, without prejudice to recreation of the category when it can be better populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify, Please explain what non-defining is intended to mean in this context. There are several articles and possibly other redirects in "Category:diving equipment which would reasonably be considered diving accessory equipment, but it is not a big deal either way. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean not a defining characteristic. Debatable, but lets just go with Marcocapelle to avoid the debate. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 10:19, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. Do we really need to tents by who developed them? Mason (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, only one article, without prejudice to recreation of the category when it can be better populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 1 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Empty Category associated with a now deleted page Team Handball League. The deletion note explains that "While there were several hits for the generic term, team handball league, I couldn't find a single reference for this particular league" Mason (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom, although I am skeptical of the usefulness of the templates in the merge candidates - It is likely those should similarly be deleted if the article in question about the league has been deleted, but I suppose that can be a decision for TfD. VegaDark (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also nominated the templates. I agree that the templates aren't useful, but the merge allows them to not be orphaned in case someone else disagrees. Mason (talk) 22:12, 1 January 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.
Oppose. Many rescues do not involve a search, and many searches do not involve a rescue, Intersecting categories, but not at all fully overlapping either way. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 09:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is kept, I think it would be helpful if the category creator added some parent categories. I initially found it with just Human activities. Mason (talk) 22:15, 1 January 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.
Category:Austrian Empire military personnel of the French Revolutionary Wars[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, the current name is anachronistic since the Austrian Empire started in 1804. The subcategory may also be renamed to "officers" instead of "military leaders". Marcocapelle (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 00:38, 1 January 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 9#Category:Proposed National parks in Wales
! Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
