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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People from Chapeltown, Leeds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This only contained one article (Andrew Watts) and it wasn't clear from the article whether it was correctly in the category (a link was disambiguated to another Chapeltown and the reference doesn't say which). "People from Leeds" would be enough, at least for people born after 1904. Peter James (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The only article seems to have been removed. There is another Chapeltown on the edge of Sheffield, which seems at least as likely, short of evidence of actual right place. Both are in Yorkshire, as is Penistone, so that a Yorkshire category is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2017 (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, merging two pages up to Category:Sheep shearers. – Fayenatic London 23:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Australian sheep shearers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, most people in this category are defined as a trade unionist (especially as an official of the Australian Workers' Union) rather than as a sheep shearer. There are two exceptions: Jackie Howe and William Smith (shearer) who both are indeed clearly notable as a shearer, the best solution is to move these two to Category:Sheep shearers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: Why is this category included as part of Category:Australian sportspeople by sport? Is sheep shearing considered a sport? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't make sense, I've removed it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I removed the equivalent category from the New Zealand category, too. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheep shearing is both a profession and a sporting activity in both Australia and New Zealand. Both of the people mentioned as worthy of inclusion are competitive sports shearers, as are those in the NZ category. I've restored the category links. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reminds me of the old joke. Australian man sees another man in a close "embrace" with a sheep and says to him, "Are you shearing that sheep?". The man replies, "No. It's my sheep and I'm not sharing her with anyone!" (works best with an Australian accent). Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This looks almost exactly like the kindergarten teachers category which was just deleted. One person is notable as a sheep shearer; one was a WW II pilot, and the rest are all either union leaders or politicians. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too often non-defining to be worth categorizing by. We do not need to categorize by every detail in a biography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2017 (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: rename as nominated. ℯxplicit 00:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose re-naming Category:Anglican bishops and archbishops of Armagh to Category:Anglican archbishops of Armagh
• Propose re-naming Category:Anglican Archbishops of Cashel to Category:Anglican archbishops of Cashel
• Propose re-naming Category:Anglican Archbishops of Dublin to Category:Anglican archbishops of Dublin

Nominator's rationale IT's a description, not a title as it's in the usual plural form. There are no bishops of Armagh, only archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dublin and Cashel, which are correctly capitalised: contrary to nom, it IS a title. Rename Armagh to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply "Archbishop of Foo" is a title, the categories "Anglican archbishops of Foo" or "Catholic archbishops of Foo" are not titles. They are also in the correct plural form so cannot be a title for that reason also. See parent category on the catholic side which is well populated with such examples: Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe by diocese. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. The title is "Archbishop of Cashel". The problem is that there are two succession to this title, one from the Church of Ireland and the other Catholic. Look at the first line of Archbishop of Cashel as to the correct capitalisation. Applying standard WP categorisation methods one might have it as Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Anglican) and Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Catholic), but the present format will do the job as well or better. I would not oppose renaming to Category:Anglican Archbishops of Armagh. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title "Archbishop of Cashel" works for an article. It does not work for a category which are usually in the plural form as they often are simply lists, as is the case with the current nominations. In which case, "Archbishops of Cashel" is capitalised because it happens to be the first word. Had the article name been "List of archbishops of Cashel", it would not have been capitalised. Having said that, I would not oppose your alt suggestion of Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Anglican) and Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Catholic). Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Anglican bishops and archbishops of Armagh. The Archbishop of Armagh article says "...the see was elevated to an archbishopric in 1106...", so the prelates before then were bishops, not archbishops. Change the other categories to archbishops. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment was misconceived. There were no Anglicans before the reformation, so the Bishops of Armagh were not Anglican bishops. I favour Category:Archbishops of Armagh (Anglican) etc. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose suggestion - post Reformation the Christian church in Ireland adopted Protestantism and all of its structures organisation and physical wise became part of the Church of Ireland. The Catholic church had to basically start anew with new churches and parochial structure etc. So the bishops and archbishops of the established church in Ireland which had turned Protestant technically are the direct successor but that is a matter of debate. So if you are to change one to have a bracketed distinguishing then the Catholic ones should also and the present page used as a disamb page. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - even if Archbishop is a title, does that mean archbishops is also a title? Seeing as there is only one archbishop for each area at a time there can't be a plural title surely? I think that's the crux of the issue. If archbishops is not a title then use the small a if not then capital A. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the Roman Catholic paralel structure uses lower case, nor caps (e.g. Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Armagh). Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: your counter-proposal, although not rejected by the nominator, was opposed by Mabuska as inconsistent with other categories, such as the Catholic siblings. Given the explanations above, are you able to withdraw your opposition to the nomination? – Fayenatic London 14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Armagh is incorrect, since the title is Arcbbishop of Cashel. I draw analogy with "Duke of Buckingham", not "duke of Buckingham". However, it is time for this discussion to be closed in one direction or the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination, as I find the nominator's arguments persuasive. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Anglican archbishops of X (1st choice), per nom, or to Archbishops of X (Anglican) (2nd choice), but not Anglican Archbishops of X. I think this is ultimately a question of style, since both the descriptive form Anglican archbishops of X and the titular form Archbishops of X (Anglican) are accurate. There is not currently a single convention, with 74 categories that use Anglican (arch)bishops of X (here and here) and 45 categories that use Anglican (Arch)Bishops of X (here and here). There are a few dozen categories named (Arch)Bishops of X (Fooian), but they form a small minority. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:13, 18 November 2017 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kindergarten teachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Of the seven members, maybe one is known for teaching kindergarten, sort of. Two others also are actual educators (and are already categorized, one way or the other, as such); the others are famous for something else, but happened to have taught kindergarten at some point, so for them it is certainly not WP:DEFINING. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I expected to vote keep but, flipping through the articles, this is just a background item in their resumes. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Media companies based in South Africa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap with Category:Media companies of South Africa Rathfelder (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Media companies of South Africa per rationale of nom. I'm not sure why we use "of" for media companies and "based in" for most other types of companies, but let's stick to the standard for media companies for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2017 (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: rename to Category:Texts in the Septuagint and recategorize as proposed by User:Fayenatic london at 11:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Texts only found in the Septuagint

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT because its content is identical to Category:Anagignoskomena (the extra canonical books of the Eastern Orthodox churches) including its subcategory Category:Deuterocanonical books (the extra canonical books of the Catholic Church). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Comment Clearly redundant categories. We also have Category:Deuterocanonical books as a subcategory Category:Anagignoskomena in the category space while, at the article level, Anagignoskomena is a redirect to Deuterocanonical books so more cleanup is needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Marcocapelle and RevelationDirect: it's not exactly the same: "4 Maccabees" is in the Septuagint but not in Category:Anagignoskomena, being allegedly accepted only by the Georgian Orthodox Church. However, according to Septuagint#Table_of_books, 4 Maccabees was only in an appendix to the Septuagint, and not in all copies, so this difference is not enough to justify keeping such a similar category. The category currently also contains "Letter of Aristeas" but that seems to be an error, as the letter was about the LXX rather than in it. I suggest that Category:Anagignoskomena and 4 Maccabees could be placed in Category:Septuagint, in place of this category, along with Letter of Aristeas. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: Thanks for looking into this a little bit further. It occurs to me now also that the original nomination is flawed because it would unjustly remove the extra books of the Septuagint from the Septuagint tree. Your alternative would solve that problem too. Another solution could be to keep the category and instead nominate Category:Anagignoskomena to become a disambiguation page, that might also be more in line with the comment of RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT of Fayenatic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for a number of reasons, among them:

1 the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint are books. It's known what is included in the Hebrew Bible, and the differences between the versions of the Septuagint are uncontested and minimal. It helps to be able to compare two books to each other. (as compared to a religious convention, for there are many differences between the denominational cannons).

2 I couldn't even easily find "Anagignoskomena" in the wiki universe; in Wikipedia it's a sub-sub chapter of Biblical apocrypha. The word doesn't exist in wikidata, so it doesn't exist in other wikis, in any language. In contrast to the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, which both have Wikipedia entries, in many languages.

3 As the purpose of Wikipedia is to be universally accessible, it's important to use the more common phrases. Therefore, if anything must be deleted, it should be: "Category:Anagignoskomena".

4 It should be realized that the Wikipedia in English serves as a basic international Wikipedia, and as a standard for the Wikipedias of other languages. Writers of this Wikipedia should be aware of this. Therefore, comparing the Hebrew Bible to the Septuagint is more appropriate for non-Christian readers.

Besides, I agree about "Letter of Aristeas", that it should be moved, as Fayenatic suggested. Shilonite 16:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שילוני (talk • contribs)

• I agree with these points and would like to stress that ALT2 (defined further up as keeping the category and instead nominating Category:Anagignoskomena to become a disambiguation page) would solve most issues addressed in this discussion. 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've heard "Anagignoskomena" to refer to books in the Eastern or African cannons but not found in the Catholic one. Clearly though, we would need a well sourced article to define this obscure term. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dead Sea Scrolls A few of these documents are also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls including the Letter of Jeremiah, Psalm 151 and Sirach. If kept, should we purge them? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good point, but purging these articles would be a counter intuitive solution. Then better rename this category to a less ambiguous Category:Septuagint texts lacking in the Hebrew Bible. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to comment below I strongly object to this title. gidonb (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If some 2000 years later it still can't be positively defined, we can explain it in the text without needing a category that sounds like a riddle. gidonb (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category, and add Category:Anagignoskomena, 4 Maccabees and Letter of Aristeas to Category:Septuagint in place of this category. (This post changes my previous comment to formal support.) I also agree with the suggestion above to nominate Category:Anagignoskomena for merger, but I don't think that would mean we need to keep this one. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Or ALT 2: @Marcocapelle, RevelationDirect, Laurel Lodged, שילוני, and Gidonb: A further alternative would be to rename this to Category:Texts in the Septuagint and make Category:Books of the Hebrew Bible & Category:Anagignoskomena its sub-categories, keeping only 4 Maccabees as a direct member page. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds like a very reasonable solution. It solves the riddle, instead of keeping the riddle in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Brilliant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• rename and reorg per ALT2 as the cleanest solution. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt 2 Groups things by what they are instead of what they aren't and removes a lot of the ambiguities. (Looking forward, I'm still not sold on keeping Category:Anagignoskomena without a main article but that's outside of this nomination.) This is a good solution! RevelationDirect (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As could already be understood from my comment, this solution would be fine with me, as it meets my requirement. gidonb (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I am formally switching my !vote from "delete" to "rename" and restructure per my ALT2 above. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 7 November 2017 (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. At the moment, this seems to be the, if slightly thin, consensus. If somebody wants to discuss possible diffusion/rediffusion at the WikiProject level, and come to a firm consensus for that, then these can be recreated or alternatively re-diffused at some point, with that consensus as justification, but for now, merge it is. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Alsace executed by guillotine during the French Revolution‎ to Category:French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution
• Propose merging Category:People from Picardy executed by guillotine during the French Revolution‎ to Category:French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution
• Propose merging Category:People from Auvergne executed by guillotine during the French Revolution‎ to Category:French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution
• Propose merging Category:People from Brittany executed by guillotine during the French Revolution‎ to Category:French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution
• Propose merging Category:People from Burgundy executed by guillotine during the French Revolution‎ to Category:French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution

Nominator's rationale: merge on the one hand per WP:SMALLCAT, this scheme leads to many very small categories; on the other hand the scheme is anachronistic, these administrative regions did not exist during the French Revolution. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge most, not all - Ile de France is well enough populated to keep, as is Burgundy. For the rest, I would prefer to be merging to pre-revolutionary provinces, rather than post-revolutionary departments, if that will create a category of at least 5 articles. However there is a quantity of undiffused articles: will any of these make the number up to 5? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see some problems here. Firstly, I have had a look at some of these undiffused articles, and in some cases the reason why they are undiffused is that it is not obvious which location they should be identified with. Secondly, the pre-revolutionary provinces and their exact borders are now rather obscure, even for Wikipedians who know a bit about France, making this task difficult. PatGallacher (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter sounds like an additional good reason to put all French people in one category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge All I clicked through a half dozen articles and was expecting to either see a variety of the execution based on locations (as with US states) or people shipped to these places for execution (like with concentration camps). I saw neither and that's before we get to the small categories or historical accuracy issues. I can't imagine a navigation use for this. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All I agree with the statements above about confusion in how the categories are divided, but I think there is a more serious problem here. People use categories to find collections of related articles, but an arbitrary geographic division renders this meaningless. If you are looking for a collection of articles on people executed during the Terror this is a useless system, since you would have to click through two dozen categories to find the articles you needed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Double upmerge, for example: Category:People from Alsace executed by guillotine during the French Revolution into Category:French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution AND into a new Category:People from Alsace executed during the French Revolution. gidonb (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gidonb: in effect that would be a merge to the guillotine category, along with a rename of the existing small categories. Category:People executed during the French Revolution only has a dozen people executed by other means (who could be added to the categories you propose). Would you settle for double merger to the existing parents, e.g. to Category:Executed people from Alsace rather than the new name you proposed? – Fayenatic London 11:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the proposed new categories suffer from the same problems as the nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As implied in my opinion, my concern was not so much with the population of the categories as it was with the exaggeration in the number of conditions to be included in the categories. In Wikipedian we sometimes speak of reaching a intersection that is no longer defining. So yes, Marco, I set out to solve another problem than the one you raised and no, Fayenatic, I do not think the detail at the level of Category:Executed people from Alsace is sufficient, although some spatial detail would be better than none at all.

Since I do like spatial detail also in combination with the French revolution killings I'm willing to forgo just a few cases of 1 member categories, included for consistency and a few other low population categories. Again not so much my concern, however the population per category and another concern that someone has raised before: that some of these geographies are not so well known anymore could both be resolved by using current geographies. Personally I'm fine also with the old ones, as long as it is one level higher than the current.

And yes, also the categories I suggested would be marginally better populated. Hardly a difference is still a difference. Yet I wasn't after the 1 member or so more per category. I was after organizing this once by execution method and once by region. gidonb (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Anime and manga ships to Category:Fictional ships

Nominator's rationale: Category is too small, per WP:NARROWCAT the ships don't need to be distinguished in their own subcategory as being from Anime/manga. It arguably only has one member, as the Space Battleship Yamato is not generally defined as a "ship" rather than a "spaceship"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per nom, not needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2017 (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: relisted at 2017 October 27 with sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Universal Century to Category:Gundam Universal Century

Nominator's rationale: Title is not appropriate per MOS:INUNIVERSE, and should reflect that Universal Century is a Gundam term. This should also reflect in its subcategories. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Universal Century (Gundam). This title flows a bit better in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would imply that it's disambiguating from another "Universal Century", which it isn't. Starting with Gundam unifies it more with the parent category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as the proposed name follows the format of other articles in the category. That said, I would have felt better about the name change if a Gundam Universal Century article existed. gidonb (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2017 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gundam weapons to Category:Gundam

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT this is an unnecessary category. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Anime and manga weapons to Category:Fictional weapons

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT this is an unnecessary category. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - No need for a separate category here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional Japanese swords

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT the category is unnecessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the merge in principle but I note that neither of the two member articles is really about fictional swords so there may be nothing to merge. Zanbatō is about a real type of sword although there is coverage of its use in fiction. Japanese swords in fiction is an essay article that needs some attention. It seems to be more about real sword types being used in fictional settings than about fictional swords or fictional types of swords. So I agree that the category is unnecessarily narrow, I just question whether any merge is necessary either? Maybe this is a delete instead? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On second examination, I think that even Japanese swords in fiction is an overly narrow article. Japanese weapons in fiction would make more sense, as shuriken are also a common motif. So I'll change it to delete._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:55, 1 October 2017 (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:Catalan building and structure stubs. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging one of the following into the other:
  • Category:Catalan building and structure stubs
  • Category:Catalonian building and structure stubs

Nominator's rationale: Not sure which form is the correct one for Catalonia, but we don;t need both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging Catalonian into Catalan. According to the webpage the official demonym is Catalan. I made the Catalonian category in error. Dawynn (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge certainly preferably to Catalan. We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2017 (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. I will upmerge the Irish and Italian 'mobsters' subcategories to the appropriate American people of [X] descent by occupation category, so they are not completely removed from that category tree. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:American criminals by ethnic or national origin
• Propose Deleting Category:American criminals of Filipino descent
• Propose Deleting Category:American criminals of Irish descent
• Propose Deleting Category:American criminals of Italian descent

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS

There is certainly an ethnic component to criminal gangs and crime families, so we have Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity tree. This category tree is different though: it categories individual biography articles by the intersection of ethnicity and criminal conviction. I'm certainly open to categories grouping sociological/criminology articles about ethnicity and crime but assuming these attributes are automatically linked fore each person is unfounded and prone to abuse. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I notified Dwscomet as the creator for most subcategories and I added this discussion to WikiProject Ethnic groups. I'll also tag all participants (pro/con/other) from the earlier discussions: @Black Falcon, BrownHairedGirl, Carlossuarez46, Cgingold, and Dimadick:, @Good Olfactory, Johnpacklambert, Koavf, Liz, and Malik Shabazz:, @Mitchumch, Philosopher, Prinsgezinde, Prisencolin, and SMcCandlish:, @Y and Zagalejo: – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Background We recently deleted the African American subcategory here that was being used partially to group civil rights protesters. Before that, we deleted a similar category tree here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The generalized grouping of people as criminals mergers too many unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous discussions. We don't really need to rehash in detail why categories like this are a bad idea. Even Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity is iffy, and could be a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issue if nothing else. Just because "something" potentially has a factual basis doesn't mean WP has to write about it much less create likely controversial categories for it. If the topic itself isn't notable, we don't need a category for it, and organized crime's potential correlations with ethnic or national backgrounds doesn't appear to be a notable topic. More of the point of the current nomination, nor does an alleged correlation between being Filipino or Irish and and being convicted of a crime.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I gave the exact same reasoning on the deletion discussion of African-American criminals last month. Keep ethnicity in the organized crime category where it actually (somewhat) matters. Listing any criminal by ethnicity is not only coincidental, it's also discriminating unless we have one for every single ethnicity (which we obviously won't). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good schemes for categorizing criminals are by state, century, and crime. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Filipino. The other two have a very well populated "mobsters" subcat. Mafia-related organised crime will all be Italian-related, and more specifically Sicilian or Neopolitan. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and arguments above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and following arguments. Mitchumch (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question to nominator and other discussants (based on an earlier remark of User:Peterkingiron): shouldn't the two mobster subcategories of Irish and Italian also be nominated? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should follow up with most of Category:American mobsters by ethnic or national origin. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2017 (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 Category:Stanisław Moniuszko (contains only the main article and a "Compositions by" subcategory), no consensus on the rest (contain more than one article and/or multiple subcategories, or opposition to merge target) and recommend separate nominations unless the categories are directly related (e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Karl Jenkins (1 direct article)
• Propose Deleting Category:Clint Mansell (1 direct article)
• Propose Deleting Category:Stanisław Moniuszko (1 direct article)
• Propose Deleting Category:Raveendran (2 direct articles)
• Propose Upmerging Category:Marcus Paus to Category:Paus family (1 direct article)
• Propose Merging Category:W. S. Gilbert to Category:Gilbert and Sullivan (1 direct article, excluding 1 WP:SHAREDNAME)
• Propose Merging Category:Arthur Sullivan to Category:Gilbert and Sullivan (2 direct articles, excluding 1 WP:SHAREDNAME)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON (WP:SMALLCAT)

These categories are all underpopulated and the composers are already linked in every article so this isn't aiding navigation. A lot of these nominations have well populated subcategories for the works they created, but WP:OCEPON discourages us from creating eponymous categories on that basis alone. No objection to recreating any of the categories should we ever get up to 5 or so directly related articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added this discussion to WikiProject Composers. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all They are not aiding in navigation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some -- Karl Jenkins is parenting two categories, which will be orphaned of a composer category. Merging Sullivan to Gilbert and Sullivan does not work because there are a few works by Sullivan beside the G&S operettas. However where there is nothing but a main article on the composer and a compositions category, we do not need an EPON cat, as the bio will be a main article for the compositions category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Arthur Sullivan: he has two separate works categories, one of which has nothing to do with Gilbert. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning keep on Category:Marcus Paus: putting his works category under the family cat is obviously wrong. I could consider outright deletion. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question (from nominator) @Peterkingiron and Mangoe: It looks like my intended merge targets were off base. Does that mean we should keep the Paus, Gilbert and Sullivan categories as is or delete them outright? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a case of a wider issue on eponymous categories. Where possible, it is better to downmerge to one category for their work, with the bio-article becoming the main article for a works, or songs or discography category. This applies to Raveendran and perhaps Karl Jenkins. It will not work for Gilbert & Sullivan, because not all their work was joint, though the most famous works were. For Paus we would end off with a category specific to him in a family category, which will look odd. I support the principle of OCEPON, but we cannot upmerge discs, songs, etc, because they have their own trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, I can't see specific circumstances in any of these categories why WP:OCEPON wouldn't apply. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and nominate one by one, if individually relevant. gidonb (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Underpopulated categories are rarely created one by one. For instance, the Jenkins and Mansell categories were created the same week by the same author while the individual Gilbert and Sullivan categories were created in the exact same minute. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not claim they were made one by one. I claim that there are specific consideration to be addressed for each category hence the discussion should not have been held together. gidonb (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Close Note @Gidonb: My apologies for misunderstanding your point. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2017 (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:Fictional females in the United States Army to Category:Fictional female military personnel and Category:Fictional United States Army personnel and delete Category:Fictional female military personnel by ethnicity or nationality since that one will become empty. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional female military personnel by ethnicity or nationality to Category:Fictional female military personnel

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category layer; the parent category contains three subcats (this is one of them), and this category only contains one subcat. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both this category and its subcategory, Category:Fictional females in the United States Army, as that one is failing WP:NARROWCAT, especially when you take out Wonder Woman due to WP:NONDEF._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with last comment. these are unnecessary category levels. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Fictional females in the United States Army wasn't tagged yet, I have done that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that category will need to be upmerged to both parents, Category:Fictional female military personnel and Category:Fictional United States Army personnel. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:53, 9 October 2017 (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.