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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Islamic chemistry to Category:History of chemistry and Category:History of Islamic science Category:Science in the medieval Islamic world

Nominator's rationale: Small category, only one article. Most of the content related to that page is in the sibling Category:Islamic alchemy‎ Category:Alchemy and chemistry in the medieval Islamic world. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The second target has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category: Science in the medieval Islamic world. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I suspect the problem is with the title of the one article. Chemistry is an inappropriate term for periods before the 18th century, when there was so little understanding of the subject. The article should probably be renamed to Alchemy in the medieval Islamic world. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peterkingiron see Talk:Alchemy and chemistry in the medieval Islamic world#Requested move Privybst (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I updated this nomination after the target was speedily renamed. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Privybst (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Same reason as the deletion for Dead By Daylight characters and Heroes of the Storm- according to the standards of their deletion, this is not defining.

In addition, this category contains no original characters while DBD did. It is unfair for one immensely popular crossover game to be represented with a characters category while another doesn't. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, don't think rationale makes sense. Super Smash Bros. may have more coverage in reliable sources. Andre🚐 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unlike Dead by Daylight, several characters are primarily notable for appearing in Smash, such as Falco Lombardi, Min Min (character), Captain Falcon, and Mr. Game & Watch. Alongside several others who Smash is a big part of their notability or reception, including Robin (Fire Emblem), King K. Rool, Villager (Animal Crossing), and Captain Olimar; I would say that this category, unlike Dead by Daylight or Heroes of the Storm categories, is fully defining. Not to mention that Smash Bros is a franchise that has existed for over 20 years and both Dead by Daylight and Heroes of the Storm are less than 10 years old. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is the link to the CFD where this was suggested. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrevan. Steam5 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Welsh male writers‎. Disclosure: I am closing this despite being WP:INVOLVED, because there is no disagreement, and it may be that other editors are preferring not to close it because it looks confusing. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:17th-century British people by occupation to Category:17th-century English people by occupation
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century British male writers to Category:17th-century English male writers

Nominator's rationale: Britain did not exist until 1707 Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, all four articles are about Welsh writers. They were not exactly English, but they were from the kingdom of England in any case. That may be good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt1 Delete both Category:17th-century British people by occupation and Category:17th-century British male writers. We already have Category:17th-century Welsh people by occupation. The 4 members of the nominated category are also members of this category. So this becomes a straight delete decision rather than a merge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support complete deletion -- At the bottom of this are there are 4 Welshmen, 3 divines and a poet. Wales has always been a distinct polity from England, though the legal distinctions at this period were slight. Describing Welsh people as English is highly offensive. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all redundant categories that do not aid navigation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the sub-cat to Category:Welsh male writers‎, which (unlike English and Scottish) is not sub-catted by century. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Miscategorization, reflecting a political union which did not yet exist. Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Fayenatic London. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The four articles should be added to Category:Welsh male writers‎ regardless of the fate of the nominated British categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Privybst (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Privybst are you supporting merging to English, not to Welsh? – Fayenatic London 14:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fayenatic london sorry, I was not clear enough. I support merging to Category:Welsh male writers. Privybst (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cricket organizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Cricket administration is already a child of Category:Cricket so there is no need for it to be here also. Category:Cricket clubs is empty, probably because all relevant articles are in Category:Cricket teams. Category:Cricket leagues is both large enough and significant enough to be promoted to Category:Cricket. BoJó | talk UTC 15:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - part of Category:Sports organizations by sport. Wonder why there are no cricket clubs (a team is not a club). Oculi (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Cricket clubs is a category redirect. However we have Category:Cricket clubs by year of establishment, the vast majority of which are organizatons. Oculi (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. Hello, Oculi. I overlooked the need for this to be part of Sports Organisations so I'll withdraw the request. Thanks also for dealing with the clubs redirect. It puzzles me too that we have a massively populated teams category instead. As you say, a team is one part of a club. BoJó | talk UTC 18:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scientific works of medieval Islam by period to Category:Scientific works of medieval Islam Category:Scientific works of the medieval Islamic world
• Propose merging Category:Musical works of medieval Islam to Category:Music of medieval Islam Category:Music of the medieval Islamic world

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, these are unnecessary layers; each has only one parent and two sub-cats. Note: the target categories have been nominated for speedy renaming from "medieval Islam" to "the medieval Islamic world"; so, if these merges are not approved, the nominated categories should instead be renamed likewise. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The content of the first category isn't even by period anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the target categories have been updated after speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 12 September 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Queen's Plate to Category:King's Plate

• Propose renaming Category:Queen's Plate winners to Category:King's Plate winners
• Propose renaming Category:Owners of Queen's Plate winners to Category:Owners of King's Plate winners

Nominator's rationale: Name of the race has changed from Queen's Plate to King's Plate due to Charles III succeeding Elizabeth II. 199.7.157.97 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They haven't decided to change the name yet.[1] -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- We do not know that the name of the race has been changed. We should not expect all Queen items to be renamed. It might become Queen Elizabeth's Plate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Marathi film scores by Ajay-Atul to Category:Films scored by Ajay-Atul Category:Films scored by Ajay–Atul

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content. There are no sub categories for other composers who have composed in multiple languages. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, language is usually not very relevant for composers. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or rename to Category:Marathi-language films scored by Ajay-Atul (subcat of Category:Marathi-language films). Oculi (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films scored by Ajay-Atul to Category:Films scored by Ajay–Atul

Nominator's rationale: The article is Ajay–Atul. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this is WP:C2D. Oculi (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mosques survived from tsunami ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I find it odd that we have a 2-page category for two buildings of a particular kind, both in Indonesia, that were not destroyed in a tsunami. We don't even have any categories for buildings that were destroyed by tsunamis. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a viable category. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn, made two other proposals: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Category:Militant unionism and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Category:Ulster unionism. Privybst (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ulster loyalism to Category:Ulster unionism

Nominator's rationale: Small category, Ulster loyalism is just a strand of Ulster unionism. Also the parent Category:Religious nationalism seems strange to me. Privybst (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. (1) Ulster loyalism is quite distinct from Ulster unionism; and (2) I have counted 22 sub-cats, so it is by no means under-populated. Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of category size there is no problem in upmerging: Category:Militant unionism is already in the parent category and other than that just two articles would be added in case of a merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't mean that it was too large to upmerge, only that it was not too small to be left as it is.
    • So Militant unionism and Ulster loyalist organisations‎ are subcats of Ulster unionism and also of Ulster loyalism, which is also a subcat of Ulster unionism. Weird! I'd be inclined to take both of them out of the parent category and leave them in this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a proper cleanup per WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is by no means small, has its own article Ulster loyalism and is clearly a distinct sub-strand of Ulster unionism. Oculi (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2022 (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.