Category:20th-century Canadian Eastern Catholics[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 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: After about as thorough a search as I can manage, the two mixtapes listed are the only ones with articles I can find. I don't know if we're still concerned about categories being too small given SMALLCAT's retirement, but this one is very small. Upmerge both to Category:Strange Music albums. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:54, 4 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:Fictional vegan and vegetarian characters[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:Category:Fictional vegetarians was deleted several times previously, see the discussion for that category. Creating this one was an end-run around the deletions of the former category by adding vegans for no reason. Continues to violate WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Shaggy is a vegetarian is only listed as a side note. It's not something that comes up often, if at all in the actual show, which has offered a different explanation for why Shaggy is skinny. If that's one of the most prominent examples, then this category is rather weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 6 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.
I'd also need to know what exactly the subcategories would be renamed to standardize them. There is an obvious naming disconnect between one and the other. If it is to be moved, the subcategories should be renamed at the same time to avoid a ton of work. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should use "Fiction set in X" if we choose "Fiction by setting" as the target, or "Works set in X" if we choose "Works by setting" as the title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - and once that's done, we can take a look at the sub-cats. A lot of the fiction-related categories were created prior to "Works" becoming a standard. - jc3719:29, 4 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.
Rename or Delete I would lean toward renaming as proposed, but also open to deletion if that finds consensus. The most important thing is to not leave this as is. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to rename, but consensus to merge the applicable categories.
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 at least the first six; they serve as a useful diffusing of the previously messy category tree. No opinion on moving the subcats to Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla, as in the previous proposal, although I do question the moves of the corresponding pages; those were clearly violations of COMMONNAME, but Artiodactyl could be split from even-toed ungulates. Star Garnet (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "ungulates" categories, but merge the "odd" and "even" ones into them as an unnecessarily "nerdy" distinction that is not necessary in categories talking about fiction where it might be in categories concerning actual animal species. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:02, 20 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.
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.
@Marcocapelle, I just took a look at the article Edwin Branson; it was indeed heavily edited earlier today. So either the name has been wrong for years (a possibility) or someone has changed the article's purpose entirely; looking at the history, it is more likely to be that the name has been wrong since it was originally created in 2016. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:39, 27 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.
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.
Merge in principle, per nom. But preferably upmerge to all parent categories, because upmerging is automated while downmerge requires manual re-parenting. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: with an automated merge, the bot is just replacing the occurrance of the nominated category by the targets. For parenting, that works well with upmerge: nothing changes in the parents of the targets and nothing needs to change. But with downmerge, the replacement leads to the target becoming its own parent category, while it should really adopt the nominated category's parents. But that does not happen automatically. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I hope I'm not asking too much when I ask if you can edit this nomination to make the automated upmerge possible? I'm not really sure how to do that in this case. If you do, I can see how to do the same in future similar cases. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 27 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:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall[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: I do not think this is defining - what about a character who randomly looks at the screen and shrugs as a gag, but is otherwise a normal character who isn't cognizant of the audience? It's simply too vague to distinguish between minor moments of fourth wall breaking and characters who are aware of the audience at all times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category only includes characters who break the fourth wall as a defining characteristic, as defining characteristics are the cornerstone of Wikipedia categories. Therefore, the category does not include characters who have only broken the fourth wall once or twice, but instead lists characters who are known and recognised for doing it. I kept this in mind when I originally created the category and added the characters to it.The Editor 155 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question's whether "executing a fourth wall break" can even be defining, or if it's a trait of the story itself rather than the character. Perhaps the character has some ability that would let them be aware of the fourth wall, but would belong more in characters who have superhuman powers or the ability to manipulate reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some character frequently break the fourth wall, and become known for it. The watershed, obviously, is this fact being mentioned in reliable sources. Characters like She-Hulk and Deadpool have a fourth wall awareness ability, and clearly belong in the category. Whether Bugs Bunny belongs, I can't say. That's for the sources to decide. Paradoctor (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Looks at the audience) - So on Wikipedia, when assessing categories, it's often important to determine whether inclusion in the category is self-evident, or if it needs explanation, in type, scale, or importance, amongst many other things, as noted in the guideline WP:CATBEFORE. And when that is determined to be the case, such categories tend to either be DeletedorListified, and such should be the case here. - jc3719:50, 4 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: Made by blocked user. No clear need for such a specific category compared to just engineers - many of these characters are not primarily known as having a "nuclear", "mining" or "chemical" specialty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not all engineers are the same. I at least think chemical and nuclear engineers could be valid categories, I dunno about mining engineers. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Purge these categories. Many entries are not defining characteristics of these fictional characters. For example, Homer Simpson is a nuclear safety inspector, not a nuclear engineer, and many others do not mention their categorized field in the article. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe purge was the wrong word, but my intention is to remove the misclassified entries before deciding a fate of these categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After the purge of misclassified and non-defining entries, only two articles remain in the nuclear one, one in the mining one, and three articles and one redirect in the chemical one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:28, 31 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.
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: Firstly, this category tree appears to fall under Category:Actors by medium; however, comedy is a genre, not a medium. Secondly, this appears to be a WP:PERFCAT violation; we don't have other instances that I'm aware of where we categorize actors by the genres they have featured in. If nothing else, if the feeling is that these categories have merit, I think the naming schema for male and female actors should be consistent. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there are 25 (Twenty-five) hidden categories in this nomination, a nomination which seeks to erase 26 categories for comedy acting. These categories, built and maintained by many Wikipedians, are fine for their intended purpose and allowable as categorizations. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining for most people listed. Inclusion seems related to the genre of some project they acted in, appear in one comedy project and get listed as a comedy actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the categories seem to contain a mix of people who consistently played comedy (who are probably better off in the parent Category:Comedians) and people who played a variety of genres (for whom it is not defining). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At best, that would seem to suggest that the categories could be repurposed for strictly actors who played comedy roles...but then they would need to be actively maintained (and updated) to remove actors who played non-comedy roles. I don't really think that's a great solution, and it would seem to create a slippery slope. Are we going to create Category: Horror actors?Category: British dramatic comedy actresses?DonIago (talk) 18:31, 27 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.
Art museums and galleries by year of (dis)establishment[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: Considering that art museums and galleries are grouped together in Category:Art museums and galleries, it doesn't make sense to categorize (dis)establishments of them separately. The sub-categories can be speedied after discussion (unless someone wants to tag and list them all). –Aidan721 (talk) 18:36, 4 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: A container category for 3 countries, while the parent has "just" 4 other countries in it. There is no other continent-level Maronite category. Overall, this does not bring much in terms of navigation. Place Clichy (talk) 17:46, 4 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.
Strong support, given Blaze Wolf is here largely because of my careless assumption that the proposed name was already its name, which led me to introduce a red link to a page's category list. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I saw you add that and after realizing it was a real category, I figured "Why is it not at that name already?" ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I have to question we are confident this category tree doesn't violate WP:NEO. This term seems to have been invented by TVTropes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:21, 4 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:Fictional characters with physical and congenital disorders[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:renominate per WP:IAR, this category was part of a District of Chitral batch nomination, to be split in District in Lower Chitral and District of Upper Chitral, see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 19#Chitral District II]]. However, the split of this particular has not been implemented yet, and can't be implemented. It is not about the history of any district but about the history of a former princely state. This new proposal reflects that. If renamed, it should also be re-parented, see categories in Chitral (princely state) article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chitral's status as a historical and cultural area was not affected by its split into two administrative areas in 2018. Its history is wider than the history of the princely state abolished in 1972. From a pragmatic point of view the two districts created in 2018 share so much history that it would not be meaningful to attempt to split articles relating to their history before 2018 between the two districts.--Mhockey (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The content largely seems to relate to events before 1972. If we can devise a name, it might be feasible to have a category for everything up to the split in 2018. Perhaps Category:Chitral (state) would deal with that, provided a headnote is added, explaining that anything after the split in 2018 should not be placed in the category, but the two for the successor states. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have to consider the range of matters which could potentially be included in the category, not the articles which are currently in the category. Plenty of things happened in Chitral between 1972 and 2018, and you would not expect expect such articles in a category named for an entity abolished in 1972. I suggest it would not be difficult to devise a name of such a category: why not Category:History of Chitral?--Mhockey (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean Category:Chitral (former district). But if you did that, you would need to consider how the category tree would work. You would want two categories dealing with different periods of history of one geographic area to be sub-categories of a category dealing with that geographic area, and the obvious name of that parent category is Category:History of Chitral. WP has plenty of examples of categories dealing with the history of an area which is no longer an administrative unit, and I do not see what the problem is with the existing category.--Mhockey (talk) 22:21, 30 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.
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 1 & 3, rename 2, delete 4.
Oppose: I'll be guided by Marcocapelle on this one—upmerging would delete useful categorization that's consistent with other extant categories.
Weak support: "murder victims" doesn't sound like an ideal formulation, but looks like an improvement over "who were murdered". Perhaps "homicides" might be an alternative.
Oppose. "military personnel" smacks of hypercorrectness and is a jarringly modern and technical description that simply does not belong in classical antiquity. "Killed in action" is 20th-century military jargon for "killed in battle". Keep it simple, and avoid jargon—the current title is fine, and much better than the proposed alternative.
Oppose. "Disease-related deaths" sounds like a statistical category that would include all mentions of plague or pestilence, not just specific persons who died from various diseases, which is what the current title suggests. Marcocapelle may be correct about specific categories for types of disease, but "disease-related deaths" would make the scope of the category vaguer.
Looking over that category, I see that it includes generals, common soldiers, and military engineers, of whom at least the first two could arguably be called "soldiers", but I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to include "admirals", and not sure whether "women in Greek warfare" might include non-fighters. So it may be that "military personnel" was chosen simply because the category creator could not think of any other phrase that would include all of these subcategories. Not sure I can think of a better one—certainly not off the top of my head. However, there's no need to limit "Ancient Greeks killed in battle" to soldiers, or some category of combatants including admirals, Amazon warriors, centaurs, etc. (maybe "warriors" would work for the parent category?). "Ancient Greeks" includes all of the above, and potentially other categories—the only limitations being that they were Greek and that they were slain in battle. So we don't need to have a perfect term covering everyone's roles in warfare. P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it doesn't look as though anyone else is going to comment on these proposals; further relisting seems futile. There seems to be weak consensus for the second one ("murder victims"), strong consensus against the third ("killed in battle"), and no consensus on the other two, which I believe means they should be kept as they are. P Aculeius (talk) 11:36, 12 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:Fictional characters with density control abilities[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: I'm not totally sure yet, but from my observation of these two categories, there's not much difference between them, and there's significant overlap between both categories. If there's proven to be any real difference between them, then I will withdraw this merging proposal and just leave one of these categories as a subcategory of the other one. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, turning intangible is a very distinct power on its own, plus the shapeshifters category is already divided into multiple subcats for different types of morphing. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Now that I look at both categories, there still seems to be significant overlap between the "density control" and "intangible" categories. How many characters in the former category are also not in the latter category simultaneously? AHI-3000 (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: I decided to take an additional whack at purging these categories myself. We are currently left with 9 articles in the "density control" category that were not also present in the "intangible" category; I moved anything that was in both categories to just "intangible" only.
So now that we're left with exactly 9 pages in the density category, I'm wondering what to do next? We have a few possible options:
Or maybe there's another option? Merge both categories into a new category with a new name? We could call it something along the lines of "Category:Fictional characters who can turn intangible or control/manipulate density"?
Oppose. This nomination seems to be equating density with solidity. True, in comics at least this isn't new; the Vision was initially IIRC able to fly and to pass through walls and people by "reducing his density" and become hard and massive by increasing it. However, Phantom Girl became intangible by "phasing"; she did not become less dense or less massive, and did not float away like a balloon, while Light Lass made objects lighter (thus controlling their density) without making them intangible. Marvel's Sandman can become diffuse and thus in one sense less dense, but not intangible, and so on. In many (most?) cases in comicbook physics, the abilities aren't the same and one is not represented as a subset of the other. NebY (talk) 15:08, 21 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.
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: I'm pretty sure that these are the same category, but if the distinction is meaningful, I'd really like one of the categories renamed. Mason (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. The Venetian Arsenal is a notorious enough shipbuilder to have its own category for ships built there, enough that many ships list it as builder in reliable sources. The first line of article Venetian Arsenal calls it responsible for the bulk of the Venetian Republic's naval power from the Late Middle Ages to the early modern period and "one of the earliest large-scale industrial enterprises in history". The corporate structure is probably not comparable to Anglo-American capitalism, but that's not the topic here. Place Clichy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom but keep the distinction. The Venetian Arsenal is a notable entity and the closest to a naval industrial complex in pre-industrial revolution times. Constantine ✍ 20:41, 4 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:WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article, and no more will exist in the future, since the team is defunct. Therefore, upmerging to the only parent category is sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 4 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:Vital articles in an unknown topic by quality[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.
They should not be merged. Republic of China and People's Republic of China are also seen as two time labels and geographical labels used to differentiate the religious people in China from 1912 to 1949 and Taiwan since 1945 from those religious people in China since 1949. Merging them would cause some unnecessary confusion as many Taiwanese people only accept the tag of Republic of China instead of the tag of China and People's Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronlee90 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. The common demonym for present-day China (the PRC) is Chinese, as it is for Ming China, Qing China, interwar China etc. It does not bring value to split national categories of people by political regime, unless these people where directly involved in that regime. Taiwanese people are categorized under Taiwanese people. Place Clichy (talk) 18:09, 4 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.
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:Educators from the Colony of South Australia[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 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:Professorships at the Imperial Moscow University[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: Based on the content. Everyone in here is a professor at Imperial Moscow University. There are no pages for "professorships". Mason (talk) 01:07, 4 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:Russian institutions supporting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[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 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:Graduates of the Academy of Fine Arts in Gdańsk[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 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:Poles awarded the Order of the Crown of Italy[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 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:Results of South Australian local elections[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 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:Video games set in the New Kingdom of Egypt[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 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 12#Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao
