Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peterkingiron (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 12 January 2024 (→‎Category:Mythological Greek royalty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 4
January 6 >

January 5

Category:Catholic universities and colleges in Honduras

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one university in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge (as creator) in the absence of more content. However I reverted your addition of Category:Universities and colleges in Honduras to the article, which is redundant as the article is already in Category:Universities in Honduras. @Smasongarrison: may I ask why you phrase your nominations as splitting instead of merging to all parents, which can be automated? In my understanding splitting is something else, which is when a category combines two or more different notions, and some articles must be manually moved to target category A, some others to target category B, but not both categories (e.g. splitting a category for queens between queens regnant and queens consorts). Place Clichy (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to answer the splitting question. So the twinkle app doesn't at present give an option to merge into two categories, so I've been using split instead. I've made a request that they include the option as there is a template. My reasoning is that it's better to include the additional category at the expense of the wrong verb. Mason (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see! Place Clichy (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational facilities

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping/non-defining category. These are all school-related things, but it's unclear to me how they really differ. Full disclosure, this category was original just in Category:educational buildings, but it contained lots of non-buildings, so I moved it up a level. Mason (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually originally in Category:Education, though it's been 16 years so I don't remember exactly what pages were put into it at the time. I imagine I intended it to include pages for educational areas or units that were not in themselves buildings.
As such, being moved to Category:Educational buildings was probably not a good idea. I'm also not sure what "Educational environment" designates. Why not just put it up in Category:Education where it was originally?
-- Powers T 00:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and no objection to include the target in the nomination for further upmerge. It is very unclear what these categories are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Airlines Flight 93 victims

Nominator's rationale: Largely redundant, no need to separate the hijackers into their own category. If that is done, then it would make more sense to do it the other way, with Category:United Airlines Flight 93 hijackers, rather than having one category for "deaths" and another for "victims" excluding them. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term victim (which I lothe) is part of a much larger category tree for Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States AND there is a specific category for Category:Victims of the September 11 attacks, which intentionally excludes the hijackers who are in Participants in the September 11 attacks. Both are child categories of Category:People associated with the September 11 attacks Mason (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman: Arkham characters

Nominator's rationale: Feels WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If it were just a list of characters from the Batman: Arkham series (with the articles listed being about the versions from the Batman: Arkham series) that would be fine. This also might be an WP:OVERLAPCAT with other Batman categories. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are not Batman: Arkham characters, they're just Batman characters. This category should be populated by specific versions from those games and original characters created for the games, not by what's filled with now. —El Millo (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames of Jewish origin

Nominator's rationale: Parent categories are Category:Jewish names and Category:Jewish families. Main article is Jewish surnames. There is no such thing as a surname of Jewish origin. These are names adopted by Jewish people via assimilation or which they were forced to adopt in exchange for freedom and, hence, have a VERY diverse origin. The previous form "Jewish surnames" is a better description of the contents of this category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that this was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Surnames of Jewish origin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Qwerfjkl, I don't remember commenting on that one but I have and I completely forgot about it! Is opening a Cfd on a previously discussed category is not allowed/frowned upon? Asking so I can be more careful in the future. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia It depends. In this case the previous discussion was closed as no consensus, so it could be okay, just make sure to avoid a rehash of the previous discussion e.g. by including counterpoints. Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Soviet descent

Nominator's rationale: Only has one category layer which, in turn, has people already listed as descended from constitutent countries within the Soviet Union. Delete both. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people of Soviet descent. Keep Israeli people of Soviet descent. As we've recently said elsewhere regarding Ukraine, regime is not usually defining, while nationality is. However, in the particular case of the Soviet Union and Israel, the intersection was culturally significant and has remained so in the descendents of those who escaped from the USSR to Israel. Jahaza (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:People of Soviet descent to Category:Soviet diaspora, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. But don't delete, there is no reason to remove the subcat from the diaspora tree (if the subcat is kept). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Israeli people of Soviet descent?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, but isn't the "Israeli people of Soviet descent" quite vague? It doesn't tell where they are from or whether they are Jewish or not even. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jewish/Israeli is hardly a major issue here, as there will be few Arabs/Palestinians who would qualify. However there has been a large exodus of Jews from the ex-USSR. Saying they were of Russian descent (or other split) might give us difficulties. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tyla (South African singer)

Nominator's rationale: A total of three related articles (one album and two songs) doesn't seem to be enough to justify an eponymous category yet. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the category has then been significantly improved. dxneo (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, apart from the eponymous article, the songs and albums (which all link to each other anyway) there is only an article about a tour. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the tours and files aren't works, so pruning would be needed. Take those away though and a "works by" parent isn't even necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, it would need pruning, but it would still hold three subcats. --woodensuperman 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of women government ministers by country

Nominator's rationale: Every content uses "female", not "women". —Panamitsu (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The parents all use women. See Category:Women government ministers by country Mason (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Smasongarrison. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of women government ministers by portfolio

Nominator's rationale: Every content uses "female" not "women" —Panamitsu (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The parents all use women. See Category:Women government ministers by country Mason (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But all the contents use "female", such as List of female defence ministers. This is quite similar to WP:C2D. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clearly a conflict between C2D and C2C. To me it would make more sense to rename the articles, since we obviously have no children in these lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after writers

Nominator's rationale: I fail to see how this category isn't 100% redundant to Category:Writers, basically even copying eevery subcategory in its tree. Isn't this just pointless redundance? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 02:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are maintenance categories for eponymous categories. Mason (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's a complete redundant copy of the category tree for Writers, and I can't see any use. What on earth is this maintaining? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 08:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it clearly says this is a maintenance category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the original intention was that biography categories shouldn't contain any eponymous subcategories because these subcategories do not contain biographical articles. But this is not maintained, not even documented as a guideline as far as I know. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prada exclusive models

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between brand and occupation Mason (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Galizien division

Nominator's rationale: WP:COMMONNAME: this is the most common short name for the division,[1][2] capitalized as a proper name. The short name is appropriate as this category includes members both while it was the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) (1943–45) and 1st Galicia Division of the Ukrainian National Army (1945).  —Michael Z. 15:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar results:
 —Michael Z. 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Added more results. —Michael Z. 04:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Galacia" is the English word for this region. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Galicia is English (not Galacia); galizien is German.  —Michael Z. 04:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 28 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, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and manner of death. If kept, should be renamed Murdered businesspeople. Mason (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All members are likely already in another subcategory. Most were murdered for reasons unrelated to their jobs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 17:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep this category, or rename to Category:Murdered businesspeople. Strongly oppose deleting or merging this category. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th-century Arabian Jews

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this specific ethnic group needs to be diffused by century Mason (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, these are Jews who are almost exclusively mentioned in the Quran. This is a distinct group of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I think the category should be renamed to capture that defining feature. Mason (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Category:Arabian Jews that interacted with Muhammad, modeled off of Category:Arabian tribes that interacted with Muhammad? Mason (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few did not interact with Muhammad but with his successor. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok... do you have an alternative suggestion that captures the defining feature? I think that we shouldn't have the "century" element in the same as it isn't a defining feature. Mason (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Massachusetts Bay

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 and build out hierachy. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. It is by no means useful to have navigation for pre-statehood and post-statehood Massachusetts be separated solely due to a difference in name. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Province of Massachusetts Bay is not the same entity as Massachusetts (nor are they same as Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony, or Province of Maine). Each entity as it's own history and combining them into one category is anachronistic and simply creates a mess. They also do not overlap as each entity has its own years and area, so other than sharing a somewhat similar name, how do they overlap? Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, all changes to the categories should be restored to the status quo while this CfD is ongoing. Gonnym (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl can we stop with the relisting? There is no arguments and from reading this, Marcocapelle, Fayenatic London and myself are all in agreement. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym really? I don't see that. Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl Fayenatic said to Keep and build out the hierarchy, which is the current tree with fixes, which I agree with. Marcocapelle said Reverse merge which Fayenatic explained is moving the Province categories from the state tree to their own tree, which is the same as what Fayenatic said. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 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.

Category:Multi-purpose stadiums in the Americas

Nominator's rationale: Not useful. Same rationale of many "Americas" categories that have been deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom as the child categories are already in the correct "by continent" category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the subcategories are already siblings in the by-continent tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vegetarian

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 per WP:CSD#G4. ✗plicit 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:25, 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.

Category:Politicians born in Kocaeli

Nominator's rationale: "Born in" is not defining in this context. When it comes to politicians, the defining geographic intersection is not where they were born, it's where they did politics. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been open and stalled for a few days now so I decided to relist which I hope is the right course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1990s massacres in Algeria

Nominator's rationale: rename per List of massacres during the Algerian Civil War and there is not a set of massacres in Algeria by decade. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@AHI-3000 and Smasongarrison: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. There are numerous countries in Category:Massacres in the 1990s Mason (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, see my reasoning in the speedy discussion. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edo literature

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A very inappropriate nomination. There are several categories that grew from a single member to 10s and 100s. This category is likely going to grow and I see this inappropriate. There are several other things I am going to write about that will fit into this category. Also, the Edoid languages category is not even related to the concept of Edo literature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If articles appear we can always recreate the category. For now it is a matter of a crystal ball whether that is going to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support merge as its unhelpful for navigation in its present state. I see nothing about this nom that is inappropriate. Mason (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This category now contains two members and a subcat and as such my Keep rationale stands. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cemeteries in the District of Columbia

Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A speedy downmerge proposal was opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose Washington, D.C. and the District of Columbia have not always been coterminous. There really needs to be a full discussion of these renamings. Jahaza (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should have it, but the current consensus that it close enough for District of Columbia and Category:District of Columbia to redirect to it. This oppose should be disregarded as it's basically against community consensus and the opposer isn't actually going to start the discussion either. Gonnym (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721, Jahaza, and Gonnym: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subordinators by language

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as this entire category tree is a mess. Mason (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one page in here Mason (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it has two. Brett (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! But that doesn't fix the other problem that the parent category only has this category in it. Mason (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it too has two. Brett (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, two redundant category layers on top of each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has obvious potential to grow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Piotrus says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Brett (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating categories with single items does not solve the problem. @Brett why are you making categories with singles page in them? like, Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators. This entire category scheme is a mess. Can someone (@Piotrus or @Hoary) please explain what the growth potential is? Mason (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many other languages, thus the potential for Romanian interrogative subordinators, Ojibwa interrogative subordinators, etc. Brett (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But they don't exist right now. Potential for growth is not a metric used for evaluating categories (small cat no longer exists as a policy). Mason (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mason, your nomination read(s): Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one page in here. Seems pretty reasonable. But by the time I noticed the existence of this little discussion, the category already had two pages. So your nomination, however reasonable and constructive, seemed obsolete when I first read it. Now you're asking about the creation of single-item categories. The question's reasonable enough, and arguably Brett was a naughty fellow for perpetrating just such a category. (Without thinking too deeply about the matter, I have a mixed opinion.) But I wonder why you're bringing up the matter here and now. If what you're now proposing is (i) that the entire category scheme is a mess plus (ii) some better alternative, then please make this explicit. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining your reasoning, that's helpful. I was asking because I didn't understand how potential for growth was related to the fact that this category is unhelpful for navigation. I think that both Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators, should be deleted and that Category:Subordinators by language should be merged into the parent. I've updated the nomination Mason (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brett@Marcocapelle@Piotrus, I've updated the nomination per @Hoary's request. Mason (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing about the directory tree that clearly is not satisfactory as it stands is that Category:Declarative subordinators currently has but one member, That. The band-aid/elastoplast solution would be to hurriedly add the stub for a second. I'm not offering to do this -- not just because I loathe stubs, but because the article That, for starters, currently lacks a single mention of "subordinator" (even though, yes, it is a prototypical subordinator, for which please see The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, passim). If the article were decent, its terminology could easily be updated. However, its section "Modern usage" is worthless. For me, fixing misinformation is more pressing than adding more information (let alone worrying about categorization). (Oh, and also, that "is not a thing": there are two ⟨that⟩ /ˈðæt/ homonyms, as far apart from each other as Galicia is from Galicia.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support deletion of the two added categories, they are currently not helpful for navigation either. Possibly merge them to Category:English grammar. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Matisoff

Nominator's rationale: Small category where not much in this category is defining or helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Mason (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not helpful for navigation to only have one work in here. Mason (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least delete the students category. Students categories are mainly useful if most of the subjects are only known as someone's student without notable works of their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marine fauna researchers of the Gulf of California

Nominator's rationale: Make it clearer the the research topic is Marine fauna of the Gulf of California Mason (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khanqahs by country

Nominator's rationale: Only two categories in here and there doesn't exist a category called Khanqahs Mason (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sufi tekkes in Albania

Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping categories, see article Khanqah to which Tekkes redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harbourmasters of Australia

Nominator's rationale: rename, we categorize people who went to Australia as Australians, even if they were not born there. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Smasongarrison and Jahaza: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Thanks for making the nom. Mason (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support as long as the spelling remains the same JarrahTree 09:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food Network Star contestants

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't seem to me that this fails PERFCAT because the people who are listed were actively on Food Network Star; they didn't make one-shot apperances. If this category is going to be deleted, then I guess I can look forward to all categories being deleted from its parent category Category:Participants in American reality television series. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you also nominated Category:Top Chef contestants. Is it just a coincidence that you are nominating food reality-based categories for deletion? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic theologians

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent to Category:Catholic religious workers, there is no distinction between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology. If this goes ahead, I will nominate the subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are a number of important distinctions between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology... First and foremost the position of the Holy Spirit within the trinitarian structure, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is Eastern Orthodox, that is something different. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Maronite friend disagrees, he says that you are presenting the Catholic Church's position but many Eastern Catholics don't agree. Of course that is just hearsay, I would love to see a source for the claim that there is no distinction between the theologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no source for Eastern Catholic theology because it does not exist. Of course individual people may not agree with everything that their church teaches, but that it is not what theologians categories are about. Even theologians may not agree with everything that their church teaches. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one exists and the other does not there is a massive distinction between the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom. Old Catholic theologians are very often Catholic theologians or priests who parted from the Catholic Church on topics such as papal infallibility. Ignaz von Döllinger is an example among many. So Catholic doctrine and debates over it are at the heart of what defines an Old Catholic theologian, it is not different. There is ample reason to put them in a parent Category:Catholic theologians. As for Eastern Catholic theologians, while they adhere to the theology of the Catholic Church, they are just not Roman Catholics. Place Clichy (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that it is helpful to make the distinction between types of catholicism for diffusion purposes. Mason (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So does this mean you would agree to make Category:Catholic theologians a parent of Category:Roman Catholic theologians and Category:Old Catholic theologians? Re: Eastern Catholic theologians, I don't think there are enough articles to populate a separate hierarchy (especially with a double century/nationality structure), but they can be placed directly in the parent Catholic theologians category in the absence of a more specific one. Place Clichy (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I think that they'd both be parented by Category:Catholic theologians. My concern is more about ways to diffuse the very large Category:Roman Catholics by century, which this rename would impact. Mason (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top Chef contestants

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:PERFCAT. These people are notable for being chefs. --woodensuperman 09:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpha Phi Omega members

Nominator's rationale: Membership in Alpha Phi Omega is not a determining condition. Naraht (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is empty. Next time, just tag it CSD C1 as an empty category and it will be deleted after a week. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chess gambits

Nominator's rationale: As pointed out in several places on wikipedia, chess opening terminology is inconsistent and not a useful basis for classification. The Queen's Gambit arguably is not a gambit, the Two Knights Defence, which usually involves the sacrifice of a pawn, arguably is. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if some articles do or do not belong in the category then that should be discussed at article talk pages. Generally these openings are described as gambits. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no value in subcategorizing chess openings in this way. Far more useful to have all openings in the same category. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Currently there are both Chess opening and Gambit which means that so far the community has deemed these two topics worth having their own article. This means that having two categories is also fine. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose changing to non-diffusing. Everything that is a gambit should also be an opening. This will enable readers to find an opening without knowing whether it is a gambit, or indeed, without knowing what a gambit is or what the word "gambit" means. With this change, the Gambit category can be useful without also being confusing. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit. If people generally don't accept the c4 pawn in the Queen's Gambit and then hang on to it, it doesn't mean that it's not a gambit, there are lines where White just can't win it back. Also, I think that making it a non-diffusing category, as Bruce leverett pointed out, makes sense. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chess opening nomenclature is a matter of tradition, not systematic classification. It arose haphazardly. The Queen's Gambit is definitely not a "gambit", White can even regain the pawn immediately by 3.Qa4+ (though it's not the best move). Several lines that *do* involve actual sacrifice of material don't have the word "gambit" in their name. This is why names of openings are not a useful guide to their classification, and subdividing chess openings into different classes on wikipedia is a bad idea. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deltaspace42: I had guessed that you had used a syntactic, rather than semantic, classification of openings. I don't think this is necessarily the best classification, but I am glad that we are on the same page w.r.t. making it non-diffusing.
      In pre-Wikipedia chess literature, a gambit was any opening variation that starts with a sacrifice of material. This would include Fried Liver Attack and Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation.
      I have no trouble classifying Queen's Gambit as a gambit. In variations like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6, White has sacrificed a pawn, and it seems to have happened on move 2. But the Catalan opening leads to similar positions with Black hanging onto a pawn on c4.
      I see that Queen's Gambit Declined is classified as a gambit, whereas Slav Defense is not, but they are both defenses to the Queen's Gambit (siblings, so to speak). This is potentially confusing. I am not sure how this can be fixed in a non-confusing way. Should the responses to a gambit be classified as gambits? Then that would include Slav Defense. Or should they not be so classified? Then that would include Queen's Gambit Accepted and Queen's Gambit Declined, not to mention Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bruce leverett: We can also create a subcategory related to Queen's Gambit opening variations and include there Slav Defense and other openings. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What would be the point of that? How would such a category improve the encyclopedia? Quale (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Alternatively if Category:Chess gambits is kept then Category:Chess openings should be non-diffusing as suggested by Bruce leverett. If the parent cat is non-diffusing then I don't care do much what others do with a gambits subcategory, although some of the suggestions here are embarrassing for an effort trying to produce and maintain a serious encyclopedia so I'll explain a bit. The chess openings category has existed for 20 years (since 2004); the chess gambits category for two weeks (since December 26, 2023). The WP:CHESS community could have created a gambits subcategory at any time if it thought it was useful, but tellingly it did not.
The suggestion that a chess gambits category should contain chess opening articles whose titles contain the word "Gambit" is shockingly poor for multiple obvious reasons. 1) Some chess gambits including important lines such as the Marshall Attack do not include the word "Gambit". 2) The names of chess openings are not defining characteristics, and categories are supposed to be defining characteristics. You might just as well create a category Names of US states that end in "ia". 3) Because chess opening names are not defining characteristics there is no main article for chess opening names containing the word "gambit". You can observe that list of chess gambits does not use this definition of gambit which is found nowhere except on this discussion page.
A different suggestion is that editors could have pointless arguments on multiple chess opening article talk pages whether the article belongs in a gambits category. The only people competent to make this determination are experienced chess players and they are telling you right here that they have no interest in doing that. It serves no purpose; the problem is entirely artificial. It was created only because someone decided to change the categorization of chess opening articles in a way that is not helpful and was not desired by the editors who actually do constructive work on these pages. Just the fact that it can be difficult to know whether a page belongs in the category is a sign that it is not helpful. When it's too hard for a reader to know whether a page is in a category then that category might not be good, especially when it serves no purpose.
Finally, although the "chess opening gambit" usage is common even with chess experts, strictly speaking it is chess opening variations that are gambits rather than the openings themselves. In common parlance "chess opening" is often used to mean "chess opening variation" (and similarly "opening" for "opening variation"), but this is the kind of shorthand experts often use in many fields because there is no chance of confusion when speaking to other experts. (Worse still there is no clear division between an opening and a variation. In many cases the distinctions were made centuries ago before chess was studied in a systematic way.) In many cases we have articles on the gambit variations, but in other cases we don't and the gambits are discussed in the parent opening article. You could decide that the parent articles don't go in the gambits subcategory even though they discuss gambits, or you could create redirects for all the gambit variations and put the redirect pages in the gambits category. It would be simpler to go back to December 25 when there was no gambits category. Because it is actually opening variations that are gambits this classification is much better suited to a list, and we already have list of chess gambits. (That list article has other problems and is frustrating to chess editors, but those issues are different than the ones with the gambits category). Quale (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given that for 20+ years of wikipedia history this category didn't exist, the default assumption should be in favour of the status quo, not in favour of the newly intoduced and imprecisely defined category. This new category will lead to pointless arguments about what is or isn't a "gambit", and for what purpose? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaxBrowne2: This category existed before, under the name of "Gambits", but was removed recently. I created this category and only after that I checked the Gambits category, I even posted a question on the Help desk, but didn't get an answer on what to do: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_26#Category:Chess_gambits_(Unanswered_-_please_help,_I_don't_want_to_wait_until_someone_WP:G4's_this_category_;_;) Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurred to me that we should look to our sources, i.e. to chess literature. I have seen quite a few opening books and references that classify the openings as "queen's pawn games", "king's pawn games", or "flank openings", or similar terminology. So I could hardly object to three categories like those. On the other hand, I do not recall any opening reference with a separate section for gambits, and searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess. It looks like by creating a "gambits" category we are breaking new ground, which explains why it is so difficult. I am considering striking my earlier vote in favor of one to support. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bruce leverett: searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess - What about this book "Gambit Chess Openings" by Eric Schiller, 2001 from the Gambit article? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is not the first time this has come up. Experienced chess editors really don't want this category. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21#Category:Gambits MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have a copy of Schiller's book, nor was I able to find a review of it online, although Tony Miles wrote a famous two-word review ("Utter crap") of one of the companion volumes, "Unorthodox Chess Openings". I would reserve judgment, for now. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Quale that the syntactic classification, i.e. categorizing openings by their name, is ridiculous. And, in agreement with MaxBrowne2, I see that it's difficult to impossible to arrive at a good semantic classification. The fact that I disagreed with him over the classification of Queen's Gambit is an illustration of this, but there are many other examples. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean kings

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining use of "king" per category description: "A category of Silla monarchs who used "king" as the regnal title." The category creator has made a lot of these kinds of category, despite warnings. Mason (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological nurses

Nominator's rationale: Extremely small category. In theory upmerge for now, but the only page is already in Characters in Greek mythology Mason (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several (many?) mythological "nurses" i.e. nursemaids, these include:
And there are undoubtedly more. Seems like a plausibly useful category. Paul August ☎ 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nursemaids (which are more like wetnurses) are not the same as nurses, who are medical professionals. Mason (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in an ancient Greek context. Paul August ☎ 01:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this category is broader than Ancient Greece, it says "Category:Mythological nurses", not "Category:Mythological nurses in Ancient Greece". If it stays, it should be renamed to nursemaids or wetnurses or something to that effect. Mason (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of renaming the category to "Nurses in Greek mythology" (or similar), and recategorising it accordingly, but I still think "nurses" is preferable to "nursemaids" or "wet-nurses", per my comment below. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this category then I suppose that would be a better name, although I do think the term "nurse' would probably apply in any ancient context. Paul August ☎ 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect so. I also wouldn't be opposed to retaining the current title and adding mythological figures from other cultures. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are numerous examples of such figures in Greek mythology, and "nurse" seems to be the term sources use most frequently to describe them. For instance, see Gantz's Early Greek Myth, Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology, or Grimal's Dictionary of Classical Mythology, which all use "nurse" much more than they do "wet-nurse" or "nursemaid". – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid category with value to readers. As Paul August and Michael Aurel have already pointed out, these persons are usually referred to simply as "nurses". The modern distinction is not generally applied to mythological occurrences, and there is little reason to suppose there would be confusion over that. P Aculeius (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological Greek royalty

Nominator's rationale: parent is Characters in Greek mythology by occupation Mason (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and also rename all these categories accordingly:
AHI-3000 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the Hindu versus Indian renames. Mason (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I just thought that "Indian" would be more broadly inclusive than just "Hindu". AHI-3000 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that seems well-intentioned, I'm not sure that there's a significant amount of non-Hindu mythology that's distinctly Indian. Most of India's other major religions originated elsewhere, or have little or no mythology associated with them, at least as the term is commonly understood in English. While there's some mythology associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (some adherents might object to the term), none of these are distinctly Indian, or have mythology connected to India. Zoroastrianism is primarily rooted in Persia. Baha'i, also rooted in Persia/Iran, is a modern fusion of Islam and Hinduism. Sikhs and Jains don't really seem to have any mythology in the traditional sense; Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, and to the extent that Indian Buddhists incorporate deities in their practices—and not all do—they are usually Hindu deities. Some of the other religions are variants of Buddhism, often developed elsewhere. I do see a few indigenous or tribal religions, but they seem to have very small numbers of adherents, and it's not clear whether they have distinct mythologies involving royalty. That said, "Hindu mythology" probably would be fine as a title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: on the other hand, is there not Hindu mythology that's not related to India, but to, say, the Khmer Empire or Bali? In India, we do have Meitei mythology and Category:Meitei mythology. That said, I believe that Hindu mythology is a fine title and does not need renaming to Indian mythology. Should Category:Kings in Meitei mythology be placed in Category:Kings in Indian mythology, which should therefore be removed from Category:People in Hindu mythology? Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a valid point. I looked through the religions listed in the table at the top of "Religion in India" to see whether there were distinctly Indian but non-Hindu mythologies, and did not see this one listed, presumably because the number of adherents listed (235,000) would constitute a religious minority of only 0.016% of India's population, given the 2023 estimate. That's relevant, but not necessarily determinative. There could also be others. I'm generally in favour of more categorization, not less; so if there are enough individuals to be worth distinguishing mythological Meitei royalty from mythological Hindu royalty, then the proposed title change from "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mytholdy" makes sense. P Aculeius (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these but merge in subcategories. There is a good deal of content in this tree, but too many layers before one reaches them. This is probably mainly a matter of upmerging monarchs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Halls

Nominator's rationale: Non defining. If kept, it needs to have more parent categories Mason (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of these are buildings instead of rooms. The category is non-def because it contains both rooms and buildings, but as such, cannot be directly merged into Category:Rooms, as there are buildings in the category. It will need to be a selective merge, and some will need to be merged into the buildings category tree instead -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latin panegyrists

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge as there is only one person in here, and there's no need to diffuse by genre. Mason (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Albania by municipality

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Columbidae

Nominator's rationale: There is also Category:Fictional doves and pigeons, which is the same thing. Kk.urban (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Garmen

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is the only category in the People by municipality in Bulgaria tree. And it only has 1 page in it, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gang members by location

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uzbekistani people by occupation and location

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Alternatively this category and its subcategory may be just deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting this as an alternate proposal: –Aidan721 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tajikistani people by occupation and location

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navifation Mason (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Alternatively this category and its subcategory may be just deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting this as an alternate proposal: –Aidan721 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cambodian people by occupation and location

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/rename. this category right now only has one category in it which isn't helpful for navigation. Rename this category as there isn't a Cambodian people by location category Mason (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle with Marcocapelle, but would suggest: –Aidan721 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bulgarian people by occupation and location

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one2 categories in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_5&oldid=1195174972"