The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Cleveland metropolitan area. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio to Category:Municipalities of the Cleveland metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In a US context, "Suburbs" can have a range of connotations, but "Municipalities" is well-defined, especially for a metropolitan area located in just one county and therefore not subject to different states' definitions of municipal status. The latter name works well with Category:Municipalities of the Cincinnati–Northern Kentucky metropolitan area, despite its location in three states, so I don't see why it wouldn't work well for Cleveland. Note that the parent category should be Category:Greater Cleveland; I've proposed "Cleveland metropolitan area" because it has clear boundaries (just Cuyahoga County and the four adjacent counties with the same color on this map), unlike Greater Cleveland, which can refer to just the metropolitan area or also several associated areas such as Akron and Sandusky (different colors on the map). Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative Rename to Category:Cleveland metropolitan area per the clear naming format in Category:Metropolitan areas of Ohio. (Note that this rename allows for counties and unincorporated communities.) If my proposed name fails, I support the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either proposal. Both can work and I don't have a preference. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 07:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Cleveland metropolitan area. A municipalities sub-cat might be useful, but first we should create a parent cat grouping articles on the various places in the area, some of which may be non-municipalities but instead unincorporated areas or neighborhoods, and also other articles related to the area, and then see if the category needs to be divided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We shouldn't create Category:Cleveland metropolitan area, because it would be entirely redundant to Category:Greater Cleveland. It probably would be best to delete the nominated category, since all of the articles are in subcategories of Category:Greater Cleveland. - Eureka Lott 15:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greater Cleveland category contains streams, area codes, newspapers, railroads and grocery stores. The metropolitan categories only contain populated places. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's no longer the case, now that Nyttend has removed almost all the articles from the category. I remain unconvinced that the nominated category is necessary, but if the consensus is to keep it, it should be renamed to Category:Populated places in Greater Cleveland to align with categories like Category:Populated places in Miami metropolitan area and Category:Populated places in the New York metropolitan area. - Eureka Lott 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure that you're looking at the right category? It currently has 91 articles in it, and I've edited few or none of them since bringing it here. I removed some articles from the category, but that's because they weren't in the Cleveland metropolitan area in the first place, i.e. they never should have been here. I'm not going to remove articles from this category if they're in its scope. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies for being unclear. I meant that you'd purged Category:Greater Cleveland of its articles, not the nominated category. - Eureka Lott 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename per amended proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merge of Category:History of technology‎Category:History of technology by region‎ to Category:History of science and discoveries by region‎ (corrected 14 september)
• Propose rename of Category:History of science and discoveries by region‎ to Category:History of science and technology by region‎

Nominator's rationale: merge the (now split) categories for science and for technology and rename them, nearly C2C to Category:History of science and technology by country, except these categories are by region instead of by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment science is not the same as technology. Are you suggesting that it is too hard for the editors of Wikipedia to distinguish the difference? (Yes, I do know that the popular press does not seem to know the difference) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sort of. What I'm saying is that within the tree of Category:History by topic and country the topic here has been defined as "science and technology". For consistency reasons, if it's combined for all countries, it should also be combined for the few regions that we have in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category structure is certainly confusing. Category:History of technology contains Category:History of science and technology, which contains Category:Science and technology by country, which contains Category:History of science and technology by country, which contains Category:History of science and discoveries by region and Category:History of technology by region. Note the non-history cat in the middle. And "region" includes entities like Islam and Mesoamerica. Clearly, "X by country" should be a subclass of "X by region", not the other way round. A more logical structure is needed. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made the appropriate corrections as suggested. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not the changes I had in mind, so I made a few of my own. In particular, Category:History of technology by region was a subcat of Category:History of science and technology by country; by changing the supercat to Category:History of science and discoveries by region, I ordered the geographical part of the name correctly. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Although there is an issue here, it makes no sense to merge a category with 46 subcats into a subcat that is four levels down. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies, I made a mistake in the nomination, the intention was to merge Category:History of technology by region‎ instead of Category:History of technology‎, so to merge history of science and history of technology categories at a regional level, similar to as they are already merged at a country level. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. With the above changes, the proposed moves would involve upmerging Category:History of technology‎, which has very little in it, and renaming the parent category to Category:History of science and technology by region, which would be consistent with Category:History of science and technology by country. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; this is a mess and needs restructuring. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 07:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While science and technology are distinct topics, they overlap a lot and the study of them in place and time tends to at timesw not even be distinguished.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2015 (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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland presidents to Category:Fourth Federal Reserve Bank presidents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although Cleveland is the main branch; it has branches in 2 other cities; Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Georgia guy (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Rename/Support Dual Upmerge The main article is Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and that name is official per the clevelandfed.org web site. Since it only has 2 articles, I would upmerge it to both parents though. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I created this category and several other subcategories of Category:Federal Reserve Bank presidents because that category would otherwise be a hodgepodge of semi-related articles. Having said that, I would support the creation of additional subcategories for the branch bank presidents if articles exist for people who would qualify for inclusion.--TommyBoy (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the others, as Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are sub-branches. Cleveland definitely isn't just the primus inter pares; it's the parent of the other two. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Whether the current or target name is better I do not know. However, we should match the name to the article. If someone thinks the article should be renamed they should try to do that. This is advised because article renaming attempts tend to attract more people familiar with the subject, while category discussions get more attention from people who have thought on and considered the principals of how to organize articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 14:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed deletion: Category:Lebanese fascists

Nominator's rationale: This category is practically empty and it seems unlikely that it will include more content in future. Charles Essie (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The whole tree has one short article. The next level is for a party and is adequately categorised. "Fascist" is potentially a term of abuse and we should avoid applying the term without clear evidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article we have on the one subject does not use the term Facist, so we have no reliable source evidence to call him a fascist. There is no reason to keep this for just one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete of Category:Royal houses of the States of the Seventeen Provinces
• Propose delete of Category:Nobility of the Seventeen Provinces
• Propose delete of Category:Dukes of the Seventeen Provinces

Nominator's rationale: delete as anachronistic container categories. The Seventeen Provinces emerged by absorbing 17 duchies/counties, so the royal houses of those duchies/counties were no longer in place. The same applies to the nobility and dukes categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Netherlands has been notified of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete Royal houses, because the rulers were not kings, at least not there. Merge Dukes to nobility, as there is not need to split dukes from counts. The 17 provinces were the remains of the realm of Burgundy, after the French conquered what we now call Burgundy, so that they have territorial integrity. I wonder whether something like Category:Rulers in Lower Burgundy might be appropriate; or have I got my history wrong? I am not sure how some of the provinces became part of the 15th century Duchy of Burgundy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: Please have a look at the contents, that's all medieval, while the Seventeen Provinces is post-medieval. There weren't any dukes or counts of the Seventeen Provinces. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These articles primarily deal with items before the 17-provinces existed per se. So it is anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2015 (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: Upmerge both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerge of Category:Dutch artists (before 1830)‎ to Category:Dutch artists
• Propose upmerge of Category:Dutch painters (before 1830)‎ to Category:Dutch painters

Nominator's rationale: upmerge because 1830 is an arbitrary break in Dutch art. The year is a break of moderate importance in Dutch political history, but that's not relevant for these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. I would not be opposed to a subcategorization by centuries, but I fail to see the importance of the Belgian Revolution in art. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Politics are relevant because the scope of the category changes significantly in that year. For example, Nicaise de Keyser (born 1813) is a member of Category:19th-century Belgian painters. Had he become prominent as a painter in his early teens (imagine a wunderkind, a visual-arts Mozart), he would also go in Category:Dutch painters (before 1830)‎. Or for another example, Marcellin Jobard was an internationally prominent lithographer by the late 1820s. He belongs in Category:Dutch artists (before 1830)‎, even though he's also in Category:Belgian lithographers. We need to provide a category for pre-1830 artists (and perhaps painters, depending on how many articles will go there) so that articles such as Jobard can be in the Dutch tree, so that they don't get removed because Belgians nowadays isn't Dutch. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt if we need to classify Belgian artists and painters (or any Belgian people, for that matter) in a Dutch category while Belgium has been united with the Netherlands for only 15 years, that's a much shorter period than the lifetime of an artist or painter. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and subcategorize by centuries if liked Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge all. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerge of Category:People from Kalisz Governorate‎ to Category:People from Congress Poland‎
• Propose upmerge of Category:People from Kielce Governorate‎ to Category:People from Congress Poland‎
• Propose upmerge of Category:People from Radom Governorate‎ to Category:People from Congress Poland‎

Nominator's rationale per this discussion and earlier discussions we do not categorize people by subdivisions that are defunct for almost a century. In addition I would propose to purge these categories and remove people who weren't notable in Congress Poland but just born in Congress Poland and became notable in the Republic of Poland. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all except Warsaw -- Warsaw has 58 articles which is enough to warrant it being kept. Certainly purge of people who were not notable before 1918. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge all. If we don't categorize people for being from defunct territorial subdivisions, I can't see the rationale of deleting them all except the one from Warsaw. Size of the category should be irrelevant in this context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: split, delete, and rename as nominated. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Religious views ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Views by religion ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose renaming Category:Jewish views on society ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose renaming Category:Shia views ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose renaming Category:Sunni views ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Split/Delete parents, rename sub-cats by religion. If Category:Muslim views is split between doctrines and society categories as suggested below, Category:Views by religion will become unnecessary, as the other categories in it obviously fit better into either Category:Religious belief and doctrine by religion or Category:Religion and society, where they are already categorised. The parent Category:Religious views should be split the same way. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_29#Category:Jewish_views for a previous discussion on the Jewish category. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all; this is semantically clearer. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to both Category:Islamic belief and doctrine‎‎‎‎ and Category:Islam and society. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Muslim views‎ to Category:Islamic belief and doctrine‎‎‎‎

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the scope of this category does not seem any more specific than the scope of its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wouldn't "views" be interpretation based on a viewpoint? Which is different from doctrine and belief -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarity, the proposal does not suggest that Category:Sunni views or Category:Shia views would be redundant. If there are views only applicable to certain groups of Muslims or certain Muslim individuals, I'd be happy to keep or subcategorize that. But the category as is seems to contain articles that are applicable to Islam in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The category as it stands includes articles on views of Muslims on anything from Alexander the Great and Jesus to slavery. Who or what defines "doctrine" here? A doctrine has to be a central belief of a group, religious or otherwise. I doubt these are defining doctrines of the entire religion and its diverse followers. Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right there are a few articles here, e.g. about slavery, that definitely do not belong in "belief and doctrine" but rather in Category:Islam and society (in which category these few articles already are). So that would require a bit of purging. In general, however, I find it difficult to distinguish between "views" and "belief" if it comes to the more religious subjects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but split as needed between Category:Islamic belief and doctrine‎‎‎‎ and Category:Islam and society. A generic "views" category is not particularly helpful, I don't think—it should be divided into categories for religious beliefs and a looser category for general Islamic attitudes towards things in society or history. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/split per Good Ol’factory. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nominator I would be perfectly happy with Good Olfactory's suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I like Good Ol'factory's proposal; it makes sense. However, in the purging and splitting, make sure that which belongs in Islamic belief and doctrine applies to all Islam and put matters as to which debate inside Islam continues elsewhere, akin to not putting David Koresh's views into a top-level Christian belief and doctrine category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Good, as well as the above discussion. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:03, 19 September 2015 (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. The discussion has identified that there are some issues regarding the names of these categories and their function, but it was not wholly determined how to rectify said issues. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Date-computing templates and Category:Date mathematics templates to Category:Mathematical time and date function templates

Nominator's rationale: The following Categories carry very similar names, and are subcats of the parent template above each of them.

• Category:Mathematical time and date function templates
  • Category:Date mathematics templates‎
    • Category:Date-computing templates

Such over-categorization does not seem helpful to users in seaching templates. I would suggest merging them to the top one. --Quest for Truth (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would also go for a rename to Category:Date and time function templates, with a category redirect from Category:Time and date function templates. If I were looking for them I would not be looking under 'M'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Twiceuponatime's suggestion. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The top-level category is currently for display functions only. I would support merging Category:Date mathematics templates‎ into Category:Date-computing templates and then setting the hierarchy as

• Category:Mathematical time and date function templates
  • Category:Date-computing templates

—Safety Cap (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would accept that, but the two categories will need a headnote to explain their functions - it is not obvious from their names. I still consider 'mathematical' to be redundant and a rename would be better. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So I looked over the templates. first, I think dumping them all together into one cat would be a hindrance, not a help to navigation. it looks like these are subcats of (at least) 2 hierarchies: Category:Mathematical function templates and Category:Time, date and calendar templates. These templates use the time or date function. #time: for example. And Category:Date-computing templates (see also m:Category:Date computing template) looks like an obvious keep. (Though if it wasn't also called that on meta, I might have suggested renaming to Category:Date calculation templates.) Category:Date mathematics templates‎ looks like the one confusing things. It appears to be for templates which do mathematical conversions of a date to another date, for display or presentation purposes. So perhaps rename that one to Category:Date conversion templates‎. - jc37 16:49, 4 October 2015 (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: consensus seems to generally oppose the creation of Category:Academics of Māori descent, but to generally support the creation of Category:Linguists of Māori and Category:Māori studies academics. Perhaps once the split is done we can see what's left and which articles are simply being categorized as academics of Māori descent. Despite general opposition, User:Stuartyeates does present a good argument for having a category for academics of Māori descent (and as a person living in NZ, I can substantiate that it is an intersection of actual significance under the law and in society generally). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:New Zealand Māori academics to Category:Academics of Māori descent, Category: Linguists of Māori and Category:Māori studes academics

Nominator's rationale: I'd like to split the ambiguous category Category:New Zealand Māori academics. My plan is to split it into one category of academics of Māori descent (a child of Category:New Zealand Māori people by occupation), one for academics who study the Māori language (a child of Category:Linguists by language group of study and one for academics who study the Māori culture and history (a child of Category:Cultural academics). My difficulty is in what to call them. Category:Academics of Māori descent, Category: Linguists of Māori and Category:Māori studies academics? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose academics with a drop of some ethnicity's blood is trivial. As we have seen: race/ethnicity are either skin deep or social constructs which don't merit slavish adherence to categorization. If someone thinks Maori DNA in an academic's DNA has the academic do his/her job differently, please inform us of how and support that assertion with reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: This is in a context where 'Māori' is defined by legislation, as per these acts of parliament. At WP:WPNZ we only classify people who self identify (directly or indirectly). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the intersection between Maori defined by law and academics, which is just a profession? My guess is that felon is defined by law in NZ as well, does that justify felon academics category? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The intersection between Maori defined by law and academics would start with Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga / http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/ the central government funded (or may formerly funded, they're having political issues getting refunded by the Fifth National Government of New Zealand) Maori research grouping. See also https://www.careers.govt.nz/education-and-training/scholarships-grants-and-awards/scholarships-grants-and-awards-for-maori-students/ which lists racially-directed academic scholarships. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose creation of more "of <ethnicity> descent" categories. No objection to creation of Category:Linguists of Māori and Category:Māori studies academics (if there are articles to go in such categories and such categories fit the pattern of existing categories). DexDor ^(talk) 21:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. The current name is better, we should identify only those who self-identify as Maori, not those who hid their ancestry or those who did not know about it until they were 51, or those who never knew of it but it was discovered by a geneaologist 20 years after they died. Support creation of Category:Māori studies academics since these do not need to be people of Māori descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. All the members of the present category are of Māori descent, so there will be no split in the sense of the members being separated into different categories. The subcategories of Category:Academics by ethnicity are mostly "xxx academics", so "Academics of xxx descent" would be a divergence from the existing pattern. The other two new categories might be ok - how many extant articles would go into each of them? Nurg (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Wikipedia events and off-line initiatives‎ into Category:Wikipedia events. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia events ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Wikipedia events and off-line initiatives‎ (which, strangely, has been placed as a child of this category rather than a parent) so this category is unnecessary. It is pretty fundamental to Wikipedia categorization that we separate enyclopedia content (including articles about Wikipedia as a notable website) from Wikipedia administration, but this category (both in its parent categories and the pages in it) mixes up those two types of pages. Some subcats/pages may need to be restored to their previous location in the category tree. DexDor ^(talk) 07:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - Merge the clumsy and blurry Category:Wikipedia events and off-line initiatives‎ into the crystal clear Category:Wikipedia events. Stefanomione (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia events is far from crystal clear; (as I've already stated above) it has been placed under both article categories and administration categories - which is it intended to be? DexDor ^(talk) 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per Stefanomione. Just remove the administration categories and add a note to the top of the category saying basically "this is just for encyclopedia articles; for project pages about events, see [insert name here]". Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. We should not be highly ambiguous here, as in this being outtages, DDOS attacks, group vandalism events on Wikipedia. Events have occurred that pertain to Wikipedia which are encyclopedic content, and "Wikipedia events" does not clarify matters in that regard, that this is for non-article-contnet. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per nyttend. Though I think we could use something to make it clear tat the events are not virtual or "online", but involving people "in person". How about a rename/merge to Category:Wikipedian events? (Note the -n.) - jc37 18:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters who can mimic the characteristics of others to Category:Fictional shapeshifters

Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge. It is irrelevant, unnecessary and a complicated name for a category. NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is a defining trait for most shapeshifters. It does not make sense as a subcategory. Dimadick (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first one with placement into the second category where it applies. The first one sounds like it could include skilled make-up artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed merging: Category:Pan-Arabists to Category:Arab nationalists

Nominator's rationale: The difference is so negligible that it's really not worth having separate categories for them. Charles Essie (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:OVERLAPCAT, Category:Pan-Arabists consists of subcategories of politicians of certain political parties while these same subcategories are also in Category:Arab nationalists. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2015 (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 all. — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME.

This tree groups bars, restaurants and historic inns together if they have "tavern" in their name or at least are described as a "tavern" in their introduction. Unlike many problem categories, this one does have a main article--Tavern--but it doesn't provide a clear criteria for inclusion. Further complicating the term, different U.S. states have different legal definitions of "taverns" and even businesses with the word in their name may not be licensed as such (source). The parent category, Category:Taverns redirects to Category:Drinking establishments which is the right approach.

• Propose Upmerging all sub-categories of Category:Taverns in the United States to drinking establishments by state - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Hugo999 as the primary category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Inclined to agree. If approved, will propose that Category:Pubs in the United States be upmerged also (one member), with Gastropubs in California/United States parented directly on Drinking establishments in .... . Hugo999 (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: While many contemporary bars and drinking establishments may not provide accomadation (though they may serve "pub food”) the proposal is for a separate "tavern" category with the taverns meeting criteria for both age (pre-prohibition ie pre-1920) and for provision of accomodation and food as well as drink. But perhaps not straightforward to say what a historic building was being used for 100+ years ago. And some famous city hotels might qualify. Re the NRHP, there is already a category Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places by state, and I do not think that another NRHP category by state for taverns is warranted. Larzelere Tavern in New York was "built originally as an inn and tavern" and is in the categories for both NRHP "drinking establishments" and "hotels". Hugo999 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The problem here is that the term "tavern" has a colloquial use that's developed rather recently, "tavern" = "bar". A historic tavern, such as Lawler's Tavern in Ohio (1830), is a restaurant and (normally) hotel for pre-motor-traffic road travellers as well as a restaurant for local residents. Yes, it serves alcoholic beverages, but that's just part of the business; it's radically different from the typical "corner tavern" today, which despite Connecticut's legal definition, isn't particularly different from the local bar for practical purposes. As the New York Times article notes, "Taverns, after Prohibition, became basic drinking establishments, unadorned neighborhood bars where locals stopped after work for conversation and beer." This category tree should hold articles about places that were pre-Prohibition taverns, such as the Eighteen Mile House and the Harrison-Landers House. Alternate proposal Instead of deleting it, rename to something like "historic taverns in [place]", and add a hatnote explaining basically that this is for institutions that meet the historic concept of a tavern, not taverns that somebody called historc. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I don't disagree with the multiple definitions you mentioned but I'm trying to think how to group the historic ones non-subjectively. Would Category:Taverns on the National Register of Historic Places come close to accomplishing what you're looking for?RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No: it would mean that we'd have to exclude non-NR historic taverns such as Black Horse Tavern (Canonsburg, Pennsylvania), and it would retain the ambiguity of today's name with the old name, so any random NR-listed building, including houses, libraries, etc., could end up in this category if Joe's Corner Tavern opened in the building. Again, by "historic" I don't mean tavern buildings that are historic: I mean places that meet the definition of what was historically considered a tavern. This could be made clear by one or two sentences at the top of the category. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think hatnotes are useful because they don't appear in Hotcat. Looks like we just disagree on this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of hotcat is an editor behavioural problem, not a categorisation problem. - jc37 17:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, but also support creating a mostly-independent category for historic taverns per Nyttend. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 08:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tavern is a term with a specific meaning. The contents may need to be tweaked to focus more on what taverns were historically and include places that did not use the term while excluding some that use the term but are not really such, but merging is not appropriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per nyttend. As these are no more merely Category:Drinking establishments any more than than they are Category:Hotels. I started to suggest a rename to Category:Pre-prohibition era taverns by US state, with subcats [[:Category:Pre-prohibition era taverns in <state>]] - but, I think that this may be a broader issue. The definition difference between an historic inn, tavern, and pub, isn't a large one, and has changed and blurred over time and by location. Mostly whether public or private and whether there was also lodging and/or a market also associated with the establishment. Quoting articles:

• A tavern is a place of business where people gather to drink alcoholic beverages and be served food, and in most cases, where travelers receive lodging.
• An inn is a tavern which has a license to put up guests as lodgers. Inns tend to be older and grander establishments: historically they provided not only food and lodging, but also stabling and fodder for the traveller's horse(s) and on some roads fresh horses for the mail coach.
• In Europe, from approximately the mid-17th century for a period of about 200 years, the coaching inn, sometimes called a coaching house or staging inn, was a vital part of the inland transport infrastructure, as an inn serving coach travellers. Just as with roadhouses in other countries, although many survive, and some still offer overnight accommodation, in general they have lost their original function and now fulfil much the same function as ordinary pubs.

That, and because in the UK category tree, there doesn't appear to be such a distinction, save apparently for nightclubs and pubs. And see Silver Cross Tavern, for example. So, in general, a pub (under various names) was a place to imbibe, for locals and travellers. A tavern may be private or public and includes meals and may also include lodging OR an establishment calling itself a tavern may actually be a pub. An inn is lodging and meals which may include pub fare OR an establishment calling itself an inn may actually be a tavern.

It seems the definitions are tiered. But such a distinction can't really be done in the category structure, so I think it's better to group all 3 named types together, merging some category trees by a more inclusive rename.

So with all that said, Create Category:Historic inns, taverns, and pubs as parent (and as a subcat of Category:Drinking establishments). And subcat in that way, So by region, for example, Category:Historic inns, taverns, and pubs in the United States.

Yes, this will involve cleanup, and some other rename/merge nominations. But clarity and navigation would be the goal here. - jc37 17:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support jc37's suggestion as the new category in conjunction with my previous statement. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I always get nervous about "historic" being too subjective and favor using official heritage registers. (See my suggestion above for Category:Taverns on the National Register of Historic Places). Maybe that suggestion could be broadened to include all 3? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2015 (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.